Hello,
I have quite a few games now and no doubts the cylon wins...
Are we doign wrong things? From you subject on this topic I think not. Are there any ways to have a more equitable game? We fought of giving +2 to Quarom cards for moral and food for example... and all ressources being at +2...
Any ideas?
thanks!
The game is supposed to be tough for the humns so that they will have motivation to keep trying harder and play more games. If it was too easy for them to win, they would never want to play it again.
But FFG has put up variant rules that can make things easier for the humans, including a no sleeper agent (if you play with 4 or 6) and a fully cooperative game. Those rules are here: new.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Battlestar_Galactica/BSG_optional_rules.pdf
Otherwise, you can tweak the toughness by adjusting the resources as outlined on page 28 of the rulebook.
Yeah, the game is just supposed to be tough on the humans, mainly to keep with the 'hopelessness/overwhelmed' feel that the show gives off. I can see how that may be frustrating for some, in which case I suggest the adding a few resources variant that ColtsFan mentioned. Personally I love it the way it is, and yeah it definitely does keep me coming back.
You will find more human tricks as you keep playing that give you a better shot at winning though. Right now after a ton of games, our group has had about 1 third human wins/2 thirds cylon wins.
Regardless it's still probably my all-time favorite board game.
So far, humans win as much as Cylons during our games. Sometimes it's all about luck (or badluck considering harsh crisis-combos), but we keep trying new strategies every time (like exhausting tactical, political and leadership cards to ruin humans skill tests when playing Cylons). But as Matt said, the game is supposed to be tough on humans so... Carry on
ps : Et la trad' qui va bien tant qu'à faire : Pour le moment nos stats de jeu sont à 50/50. Des fois c'est du gros coup de bol (ou pas de bol quand on tire des crises de l'enfer à la chaine :s), mais on essaye quand même de développer de nouvelles stratégies à chaque partie (genre vider les decks de compétences cruciales aux crises en tant que Cylons révélés). Comme l'a dit Matt, le jeu est prévu pour être difficile pour les humains donc... Accrochez-vous
so far, my group's victory count is 3 Cylon wins, 1 human win.
2 of the Cylon Wins came near the end of the game on distance travelled as 7 or 8 and the humans still had a fighting chance.
The one human win came as the FTL was pulled just before the 2 Cylons got their turns, which would have been end-game.
1 of the Cylon wins came at a distance of 5, but by distance of 3, the humans almost gave up knowing they couldn't go another 5 distance with the morale and population in the red already. Everyone agreed that yes, as a human player, the last hour of play sucked cause they knew they would lose... but it was a learning experience at least.
Like what was said by others above, if the game was too easy for humans, no one would want to play anymore. I'll guarentee you that our 5th game, the humans will be out for blood because of the disaster from the last game. The only gripe I'm getting from my group is that the one guy has yet to be a Cylon and really wants to be one, but theres not much you can do besides pick Baltar or Boomer, which really only increases your chances of pulling a Cylon a little bit.
Thank you all!
Do you have any advice on playing the humans then?
Play the game a few times more so people get a feel for when crisis cards are unbeatable and how to conserve cards for when they are needed. A lot of times new players are afraid of letting any losses happen and waste cards trying and failing to win skill checks. One difficulty with novice players is distinguishing someone playing sub-optimally because they are either new to the game or because they are a cylon.
Understand how powerful an effect putting a player into the brig has upon the game. Again I find newer player will try and throw someone into the brig just in case. Fine when they get it right - bad when they do not.
The cylons won a lot more when the groups I play with started playing the game, as players learnt how the game worked it became a lot more balanced. I think that this is because Cylons can tend to win by default if the humans simply do not cooperate.
Learn to take risks on whether someone is on your side, if you are not sure of that pilot exec order them and if they feel they are in a corner then even if they are a cylon they may act for the human side to keep their cover. If they act less than optimally it tells you something about them. If they decide that this forces their hand and reveal because of it at least you have forced the reveal at a time slightly more suitable for you rather than at the time they have set up for (you hope).
grouik said:
Thank you all!
Do you have any advice on playing the humans then?
Just remember to work together. Investigative Committee is your best friend early on in the game especially. I have noticed in my group, this card is barely ever used, and there's no reason not to. Keep in mind that some Cylons will go along with the humans early on and wait out that huge crisis card that will break morale or population and then go nuts with the sabotage.
Keep an eye on resources. In my experience, Morale is you most precious resource. Fuel can be managed if you have a smart Admiral. I have never had a problem with Food ever being too low, even towards the end of the game. Population is probably your second most precious. The only reason I say it isn't the first is because you start out with more and you have a way of preventing it's loss (e.g. moving civi ships during Cylon attacks). The dropping of Morale seems to come up more often than not with pretty hard skill checks.
Thirdly, make sure each player knows and completes their role. If the President isn't using Quorum Cards, they better be issuing Executive Orders. If the Admiral keeps going to 1 distance locations, or non-refueling locations repeatedly, Brig him! If anyone is Chief, he should be repairing, end of story. Keep an eye on Pilots and how many Red cards they are drawing and how many are being played in skill checks. Just make sure each player is doing what they are supposed to.
Most of the time, the humans will lose because of a resource depleted. NEVER NEVER NEVER take an early loss on a resource with the excuse that "it should be able to hold out." Late in the game, at distance 7 or 8... that's when you should start determining what resources you can take a hit on.
spirit_machine said:
Most of the time, the humans will lose because of a resource depleted. NEVER NEVER NEVER take an early loss on a resource with the excuse that "it should be able to hold out." Late in the game, at distance 7 or 8... that's when you should start determining what resources you can take a hit on.
There are two to three major problems with this
1) In the first round losing a resource can be much less of a hit than losing already scarce cards. We had one player adamantly resistant to losing resources and vocal enough to persuade the others to try every skill check and by the end of player turn 3 there were next to no cards in hands and we lost 3 resources on the trot. THe player was not a cylon.
2) If you do not do this and become a cylon you have made things much worse for yourself. Since you cannot predict this you must play as if it were a possibility.
3) In games with the sympathiser you need to do this on one resource or you make the sympathiser a cylon. Since you cannot forsee the future of crisis cards you have to take a blind pick.
myrm said:
There are two to three major problems with this
1) In the first round losing a resource can be much less of a hit than losing already scarce cards. We had one player adamantly resistant to losing resources and vocal enough to persuade the others to try every skill check and by the end of player turn 3 there were next to no cards in hands and we lost 3 resources on the trot. THe player was not a cylon.
2) If you do not do this and become a cylon you have made things much worse for yourself. Since you cannot predict this you must play as if it were a possibility.
3) In games with the sympathiser you need to do this on one resource or you make the sympathiser a cylon. Since you cannot forsee the future of crisis cards you have to take a blind pick.
1. Again, like I said above, losing Fuel or Food I can understand. Losing Morale especially, never a good idea. It just seems that Crisis Cards will lose Morale so much more easily than the other resources. Maybe I should just rephrase and say never take an early loss on Morale and to a lesser extent, population.
2. Understandable. Yet... chances are better that you are human. I would still take the chance thinking I'm a human because in the end, a human win is much more rewarding than a Cylon win, IMO.
3. This is the problem with the sympathizer, and I think this subject is found on a majority of posts. The sympathizer encourages meta-gaming to the highest extent. Going with my statement above, if you tank morale or population in order to make a resource RED, chances of humans winning is very low, even with that human sympathizer. I understand the reason for the sympathizer, but it really annoys me when the group is borderline on a resource and everyone wants to sacrifice a civi ship or fail a Crisis on purpose. Goes against the nature of the game. (This is why 5 player games are the best, or with 6 players, play the non-sympathizer variant)
Seriously, when did you ever hear Adama say to the rest of the crew: "Hey, we are almost halfway to Kobol... we need to sacrifice one of our food storage ships to the next Cylon attack so that one of those 'skinjobs' will feel bad and join OUR side."
I understand this is a game and not the actual show, but half the fun is being in the shoes of those characters on the show. I think its okay if you decide not to help the human cause as much as you could thinking you may end up being a sleeper agent, but that is an individual thinking for themself... but the sympathizer rule just irratates me because it forces the humans as a group to work against themselves.
Weirdness in quoting...SPirits text in bold, mine in normal
Spirit
1. Again, like I said above, losing Fuel or Food I can understand. Losing Morale especially, never a good idea. It just seems that Crisis Cards will lose Morale so much more easily than the other resources. Maybe I should just rephrase and say never take an early loss on Morale and to a lesser extent, population.
I cannot understand losing fuel early on - most common card result is 2 distance for 2 fuel. That means that without an above average jump you will lose on average. Fuel goes. Population is incredibly vulnerable in big attacks as its stacked on the civilian ships. Food is also lost as much as anything - often from player choices rather than skill failures - food is actually a common loss point for our group. OK there are some obvious moral losses like the Cylon reveal that does it but I do not see any resource as being less of an issue than morale.
2. Understandable. Yet... chances are better that you are human. I would still take the chance thinking I'm a human because in the end, a human win is much more rewarding than a Cylon win, IMO.
Choosing like that steps outside of the 'who really is a cylon' theme of the game and the series and shrugs it off as 'meh, I'll lose this time and win more as human'....thats metagaming by the purist definition as it introduces data outside of the run of one game into that one game. It also skews the game balance point away from the cylon
3. This is the problem with the sympathizer, and I think this subject is found on a majority of posts. The sympathizer encourages meta-gaming to the highest extent. Going with my statement above, if you tank morale or population in order to make a resource RED, chances of humans winning is very low, even with that human sympathizer. I understand the reason for the sympathizer, but it really annoys me when the group is borderline on a resource and everyone wants to sacrifice a civi ship or fail a Crisis on purpose. Goes against the nature of the game. (This is why 5 player games are the best, or with 6 players, play the non-sympathizer variant)
Seriously, when did you ever hear Adama say to the rest of the crew: "Hey, we are almost halfway to Kobol... we need to sacrifice one of our food storage ships to the next Cylon attack so that one of those 'skinjobs' will feel bad and join OUR side."
First off - see my comments above about how I think morale and pop are no different to the other resources....our losses through resources are spread evenly between the wheels and its more whwre the game goes that determines which is the wheel of doom.
Hmm, while I can understand that people don't like the sympathiser concept (I prefer the game as a 5 player exercise myself) its not metagaming in the slightest as all the choices are purely within the game framework. Jarring for immersion perhaps, a disconnect sure, a gamebalance mechanism that loses theme for some OK, metagaming no. The problem I have with the sympathiser is that its a very careful balance of power game around the card, distance jumped etc and when playing with new players who don't follow that depth of the game it can easy flip dramatically one way or the other providing an unbalanced game - that in itself tends to make the game less fun and reinforces an idea of sympathiser games aint as good fun view. I really didn;t like the card for quite some time then we went back to it with an experienced set of players and it was VERY different.
It forces them to play a very balanced game in determining what they choose to lose and when they choose to hang onto cards. It allows for a delicate mechanistic interplay of humans trying to detect cylon by plays as the time for sleepers comes closer and given there is one more human the base of a 6 player is weighted to the humans...so the cylons need something to keep the pressure - humans have to drop a wheel and then attempt to recover it - can you ttrust the Pres to get and play Speeches and Rationing - we cannot afford to go more than one into the red but that allows a possible recovery by one player. And those choices are actually identical to the balancing act played already over do we win skill checks or accept the losses...those choices are very thematic (IMO....YMMV).
Hmmm, I did something very wrong in the editting there....so the quotes havent worked....hope the answer is followable.
myrm said:
Hmm, while I can understand that people don't like the sympathiser concept (I prefer the game as a 5 player exercise myself) its not metagaming in the slightest as all the choices are purely within the game framework. Jarring for immersion perhaps, a disconnect sure, a gamebalance mechanism that loses theme for some OK, metagaming no. The problem I have with the sympathiser is that its a very careful balance of power game around the card, distance jumped etc and when playing with new players who don't follow that depth of the game it can easy flip dramatically one way or the other providing an unbalanced game - that in itself tends to make the game less fun and reinforces an idea of sympathiser games aint as good fun view. I really didn;t like the card for quite some time then we went back to it with an experienced set of players and it was VERY different.
It forces them to play a very balanced game in determining what they choose to lose and when they choose to hang onto cards. It allows for a delicate mechanistic interplay of humans trying to detect cylon by plays as the time for sleepers comes closer and given there is one more human the base of a 6 player is weighted to the humans...so the cylons need something to keep the pressure - humans have to drop a wheel and then attempt to recover it - can you ttrust the Pres to get and play Speeches and Rationing - we cannot afford to go more than one into the red but that allows a possible recovery by one player. And those choices are actually identical to the balancing act played already over do we win skill checks or accept the losses...those choices are very thematic (IMO....YMMV).
I don't know, I still see it as meta-gaming. Or maybe my definition of meta-gaming is what is wrong, LOL. The whole sleeper phase is supposed to be there so that individual players can either work with the rest of the group and prosper, or hold back selfishly thinking they might be a Cylon, a lot like Boomer from Season 1.
Like I said in my earlier post, the sympathizer IMO, encourages the group to sabotage themselves so they can ensure themselves another ally. Like my earlier example, its like the a character from the show is tactically sacrificing a civilian ship to a cylon attack so that a Cylon will feel bad and sympathize with the humans. No character would do that in their right mind, especially after consulting their fellow crew. Yes, Baltar might do this, but not if he consulted with a group of others, he'd be thrown into the Brig for suggesting it. In the game, if the group has the mentality to tank a resource, they arent going to throw anyone in the Brig for doing it.
I have no problem with a single player using this strategy, but when your group goes into the game saying, "let's tank this resource so we have an extra human player," it feels like hardcore meta-gaming.
I think my other problem with the sympathizer is that it feels like the Human Sympathizer is far and beyond better for the humans than a Cylon Sympathizer is for the Cylons (it downright sucks to by a Cylon Sympathizer). Maybe if the Sympathizer had +2 to the skill check to get out of the Brig? Or make it so that player could never be Admiral or President?