I absolutely hated how I got stuck playing this game. Couldn’t draw many cards, stuck with crap cards, getting pounded by my opponent with weird attack cards and really getting unlucky with the draws when I did draw. Also, some cards seem impossibly good with no discernible downside compared to others. Watching my opponent luck into two of those whilst pounding was a miserable time.
I always concur with Milla and Chris. So Milla says 7.5 ok, I'm not gonna get it, glad to try it. Then comes Chirs with a 9!! say whaaat!!! why is not in amazon already!! what's wrong with you amazon!!!
I'm interested in others thoughts on this, but to me there seems to be a trend lately where games are best at 2 or 3 players because 4 and 5 are too long or don't add anything to the game. When I got into the hobby 7+ years ago, I remember the average "best at" player count being 4 players. I wonder what has contributed to this? Is it a combination of the pandemic and also the trend towards multiplayer solitaire games? I personally don't mind the shift towards lower player counts as I have always had a smaller group, but I thought it was an interesting observation. I could be wrong though...
I think it's a trend towards multiplayer solitaire. I love engine building but when the interaction is minimal and it's turn based, you end up with this. Probably why a lot of my favorites have a big chunk of simultaneous play (e.g. Furnace, Living Forest, Quacks)
What kills it for me is the waiting. In 4+ player games you spend more time waiting than actually playing the game (gets worse the heavier the game is). This is why I mostly only get games with simultaneous turns.
@@cursivecursesthat seems like it would have the opposite effect -- multiple solitaire usually means everyone can act fairly independently and don't have to go one at a time.
@@SapientStrudel most games described as multiplayer solitaire rarely actually involve simultaneous play. your typical worker placement/action selection game cannot be played simultaneously but plenty of them would be described as MPS to some degree if the interaction is limited to slightly changing which spot a player needs to go to.
I prefer 4 still. I think the low player count preference is twofold: 1. Many games today are multiplayer solitaire so more players just adds more time and downtime. 2. A lot of reviewers play games a lot so (a) they can justify splitting game groups into smaller groups unlike me who can maybe get everyone together once a month so why would I split up my friends i never get to see and (b) they want to get through as many plays to get an accurate rating and on to the next game.
Curious what everyone thinks about the end game and a person's last turn or two. It seemed anti-climatic for me on BGA where you knew end game was going to get triggered next turn and you are just trying to find technology cards that work for you to get some more points. Combine that with the low player interaction and downtime between turns, I know it is one that won't be in my collection but will play it if someone requests it.
Looks like it would be nice to try out before buying. I really like the engine building, but if it is a crumbling engine I don't know how that would feel... This might have a nice balance with the static engine and the crumbling engine playing off of each other. Certainly peaked my interest.
Tom says that after a while you're just seeing colors - that's basically 7 wonders duel - which is still thematic and the best 2 player game. Also, Camilla not liking it means it might actually be a good game!
All these years and I still haven't found a Race for the Galaxy killer. The game is strategic, but still needs the ability to tactically pivot to adapt to the cards, there are several viable strategies, all in a small package and manageable time and table space. No other game comes close for me
I created this game when RFTG was m'y top 1 game (500 games). AT first, there was thé same action sélection :) RFTG was a Big inspiration. But i'm agree, hard to beat this purity in game design :) Hope you will enjoy this one :)
@@mizzy_chiara a deux joueurs on est quand même pas sur les 15 minutes d'un RFTG mais je pense que tu vas aimer : une seule ressource, installation en 5 minutes et pareil que RFTG: tu dois t'adapter a ta pioche en continu :) Fin septembre ❤️❤️❤️
Thematically, are there any cards that reward you for the amount of active knowledge you have out? Or is having lot's of knowledge on a card just the risk/reward cost where better cards have more potential risk to balance out the power of the card? If it's just the latter, it would be nice to somehow mechanically reward a player directly for keeping a relatively high knowledge count going. I mean, having cool cards does that, but it would be neat to have a card or something do it directly. Otherwise, knowlege is almost a purely negative thing in the game. It's actually the potential *cost* of success rather than a driver. Sorry for the overthink, but I'm a theme guy, so I habitually squeeze as much as I can get out of marginally thematic games. Great review, as per usual!
I think it’s more that the points printed on the cards themselves count as the actual knowledge, and the knowledge that gets lost is a penalty against it. It’s a little backwards in that the presence of a token is the absence of a thing, and the absence of a token is the presence of a thing, but this way seems to have smoother upkeep. Not having seen the card pool, I do like your idea of temporary bonuses contingent on the amount of knowledge you have in the moment, but I think that mechanically that’s still reflected in the bonuses the cards themselves give you while on your track. I haven’t played the game so I can’t comment on how the theme feels in practice.
There is indeed some card that say for exemple: "if you have 11 knowledge or more on your timeline = discard 2 of them at the end of your turn" with this card in play, you be rewarded to have a lot, and put more knowledge the turns after. There is also technology cards you can take if you got a lot on your timeline. There is also 8 "push your "luck" " cards that say: if you didn't archive the knowledge on it at the end of the timeline, you discard the monument. So it really depend. A lot a different strategy out there :)
There is an unintuitive disconnect here where "lost knowledge" is collected and is then negative points. I think it would have been more intuitive that you "collect" knowledge rather than discarding it before it is lost and is then positive points.
I disagree with the stagnation at two. There are times when you should take a tech card even when you're not getting the full effect (e.g. "X and draw a card" and you can't do X so you just draw a card) because other cards want you to have taken the tech card. It's very rare, in my experience, for the techs to just be completely dead.
@@cursivecurses totally agree, AT two, you got thé whole control of thé board, you even know what your opponent will take... I agree with zee, 2 is the best player count.
Oh hey welcome to board games :) euros tend to be like that, it's for people who want to compete on efficiency and puzzle solving. I hope you find something you like as you just start your journey into games!
@@BigYoshi826I think you started the “discussion” off on an inflammatory note by saying the game belonged in the garbage. You could just say, “I don’t like games like that, so it’s not for me”.
@BigYoshi826 Wow. You must be fun at parties. Can't wait to see what snide holier-than-thou response you have for me. Seek therapy; you obviously need it.
@@12345678abracadabra "modern" euros tend to be like that. "classic" euros have plenty of player interaction: catan, puerto rico, ra, hansa, concordia, power grid, etc... even card games like race for the galaxy or glory to rome use neat systems to add player interaction
Between this, World Wonders and Mosaic finally coming out locally, I can't wait to play all these ancient civilization themed games!
Highest score from Chris, high scores from Zee and Tom, and lowest score from Camilla -- sounds like the perfect game for me! 😄
Instantly liked this one demoed at UKGE. The card shifting and art bring home the theme.
I am super excited for this game. Haven't been this excited for a while. Thanks for the quality review with the pros and cons.
Helpful rules explanation. Going to try to get this on the table tonight
Cards falling off the line was my favorite part of Viscounts of the West Kingdom, this looks like it might have some of that same feel
Btw what a great imitation of Zee at 11:38 spot on 😁😁
I sometimes think it's Zee speaking when it is actually Chris, which has surprised me in several videos Zee isn't even in.
I absolutely hated how I got stuck playing this game. Couldn’t draw many cards, stuck with crap cards, getting pounded by my opponent with weird attack cards and really getting unlucky with the draws when I did draw. Also, some cards seem impossibly good with no discernible downside compared to others. Watching my opponent luck into two of those whilst pounding was a miserable time.
Thank you all for the review!
I always concur with Milla and Chris. So Milla says 7.5 ok, I'm not gonna get it, glad to try it. Then comes Chirs with a 9!! say whaaat!!! why is not in amazon already!! what's wrong with you amazon!!!
That's an interesting combination of people at the studio, since I think Milla and Chris have very different tastes. Probably worth trying either way!
I'm interested in others thoughts on this, but to me there seems to be a trend lately where games are best at 2 or 3 players because 4 and 5 are too long or don't add anything to the game. When I got into the hobby 7+ years ago, I remember the average "best at" player count being 4 players. I wonder what has contributed to this? Is it a combination of the pandemic and also the trend towards multiplayer solitaire games?
I personally don't mind the shift towards lower player counts as I have always had a smaller group, but I thought it was an interesting observation. I could be wrong though...
I think it's a trend towards multiplayer solitaire. I love engine building but when the interaction is minimal and it's turn based, you end up with this. Probably why a lot of my favorites have a big chunk of simultaneous play (e.g. Furnace, Living Forest, Quacks)
What kills it for me is the waiting. In 4+ player games you spend more time waiting than actually playing the game (gets worse the heavier the game is). This is why I mostly only get games with simultaneous turns.
@@cursivecursesthat seems like it would have the opposite effect -- multiple solitaire usually means everyone can act fairly independently and don't have to go one at a time.
@@SapientStrudel most games described as multiplayer solitaire rarely actually involve simultaneous play. your typical worker placement/action selection game cannot be played simultaneously but plenty of them would be described as MPS to some degree if the interaction is limited to slightly changing which spot a player needs to go to.
I prefer 4 still. I think the low player count preference is twofold: 1. Many games today are multiplayer solitaire so more players just adds more time and downtime. 2. A lot of reviewers play games a lot so (a) they can justify splitting game groups into smaller groups unlike me who can maybe get everyone together once a month so why would I split up my friends i never get to see and (b) they want to get through as many plays to get an accurate rating and on to the next game.
Curious what everyone thinks about the end game and a person's last turn or two. It seemed anti-climatic for me on BGA where you knew end game was going to get triggered next turn and you are just trying to find technology cards that work for you to get some more points. Combine that with the low player interaction and downtime between turns, I know it is one that won't be in my collection but will play it if someone requests it.
Looks like it would be nice to try out before buying. I really like the engine building, but if it is a crumbling engine I don't know how that would feel... This might have a nice balance with the static engine and the crumbling engine playing off of each other. Certainly peaked my interest.
This game is fantastic.
It's way too sloggy out today to now the lawn. Guess I'll have to watch more DT videos.
Funnily Mila says for 'want of a better word' and then instantly uses a better word: 'bogged down' over 'sloggy'.
Zees comment about aging reminds me of Corrosion.
Tom says that after a while you're just seeing colors - that's basically 7 wonders duel - which is still thematic and the best 2 player game.
Also, Camilla not liking it means it might actually be a good game!
In what world is 7.5 "not liking it"?
It'd be nice if you guys added some recommendations for other games similar to this one at the end of your videos, just a suggestion :)
Great idea. Like if you want a faster game play this, or more interaction play this.
All these years and I still haven't found a Race for the Galaxy killer. The game is strategic, but still needs the ability to tactically pivot to adapt to the cards, there are several viable strategies, all in a small package and manageable time and table space. No other game comes close for me
I created this game when RFTG was m'y top 1 game (500 games). AT first, there was thé same action sélection :) RFTG was a Big inspiration. But i'm agree, hard to beat this purity in game design :) Hope you will enjoy this one :)
@@MsBonobobo j'attends la sortie en France pour l'acheter. Mon groupe adore cet type de jeux 😃
@@mizzy_chiara a deux joueurs on est quand même pas sur les 15 minutes d'un RFTG mais je pense que tu vas aimer : une seule ressource, installation en 5 minutes et pareil que RFTG: tu dois t'adapter a ta pioche en continu :)
Fin septembre ❤️❤️❤️
Looks pretty and I think it looks thematic.
Sounds very much like Corrosion. How would you compare the two?
So other than those 11 cards how does everyone's cards or actions interact with other players??
Racing for the technology cards, and racing to end the game
Thematically, are there any cards that reward you for the amount of active knowledge you have out? Or is having lot's of knowledge on a card just the risk/reward cost where better cards have more potential risk to balance out the power of the card?
If it's just the latter, it would be nice to somehow mechanically reward a player directly for keeping a relatively high knowledge count going. I mean, having cool cards does that, but it would be neat to have a card or something do it directly.
Otherwise, knowlege is almost a purely negative thing in the game. It's actually the potential *cost* of success rather than a driver.
Sorry for the overthink, but I'm a theme guy, so I habitually squeeze as much as I can get out of marginally thematic games.
Great review, as per usual!
I think it’s more that the points printed on the cards themselves count as the actual knowledge, and the knowledge that gets lost is a penalty against it. It’s a little backwards in that the presence of a token is the absence of a thing, and the absence of a token is the presence of a thing, but this way seems to have smoother upkeep. Not having seen the card pool, I do like your idea of temporary bonuses contingent on the amount of knowledge you have in the moment, but I think that mechanically that’s still reflected in the bonuses the cards themselves give you while on your track. I haven’t played the game so I can’t comment on how the theme feels in practice.
There is indeed some card that say for exemple: "if you have 11 knowledge or more on your timeline = discard 2 of them at the end of your turn" with this card in play, you be rewarded to have a lot, and put more knowledge the turns after. There is also technology cards you can take if you got a lot on your timeline. There is also 8 "push your "luck" " cards that say: if you didn't archive the knowledge on it at the end of the timeline, you discard the monument. So it really depend. A lot a different strategy out there :)
@@MsBonobobo ,
Thanks. I like that tech aspect you mentioned.
This game is on BGA
There is an unintuitive disconnect here where "lost knowledge" is collected and is then negative points. I think it would have been more intuitive that you "collect" knowledge rather than discarding it before it is lost and is then positive points.
Good to know that it gets stagnant at two. That’s a nonstarter for me, but it looks like a good game otherwise.
After 900 games, i agree with zee, thé best player count is 2 players 😊 give it a try :)
I disagree with the stagnation at two. There are times when you should take a tech card even when you're not getting the full effect (e.g. "X and draw a card" and you can't do X so you just draw a card) because other cards want you to have taken the tech card. It's very rare, in my experience, for the techs to just be completely dead.
@@cursivecurses totally agree, AT two, you got thé whole control of thé board, you even know what your opponent will take... I agree with zee, 2 is the best player count.
Woohoo! 633rd viewer and first comment!! I win!
I actually commented 3 turns earlier, but that knowledge faded into obscurity.
Soooooo, another completely solitary experience? Into the garbage it goes
Oh hey welcome to board games :) euros tend to be like that, it's for people who want to compete on efficiency and puzzle solving. I hope you find something you like as you just start your journey into games!
@@BigYoshi826I think you started the “discussion” off on an inflammatory note by saying the game belonged in the garbage. You could just say, “I don’t like games like that, so it’s not for me”.
@BigYoshi826 Wow. You must be fun at parties. Can't wait to see what snide holier-than-thou response you have for me. Seek therapy; you obviously need it.
@@BigYoshi826 I actually don't like wingspan, or euros tbh. Im just someone who express disagreement with courtesy. My parents raised me well :)
@@12345678abracadabra "modern" euros tend to be like that.
"classic" euros have plenty of player interaction:
catan, puerto rico, ra, hansa, concordia, power grid, etc...
even card games like race for the galaxy or glory to rome use neat systems to add player interaction