A friend and I tried out the Vinhos style action selection (shared one mat). We quickly realized that since only a couple actions are actually playable in the first few rounds it generates an bit of an unbalance. So we decided to allow for any two bonus actions to be selected, not just the row/column you are on. That helped, though there would need to be a rework to really make that function well. It was fun to play the game that way still and did make it more competitive.
I think the 'not enough tension' thing might have been a group dynamic factor. It's true that the game pretty much allows players to play it however they want. If you play care bear style, the game is going to lack tension but also score lower. If you play it aggressively as a race game, there is quite a bit of tension. Added to that, the solo game pushes back.
tension is a big part of competitive games. if the game doesn't provide that with tight or punishing play, then it should allow your opponent the space to do so.
Actually, from what I read in BGG forums, the solo campaing should be played so that you only need to accomplish ONE mission card per 16 turns. After that you get a reward and start from the beginning once again. I played it wrong at first, and managed to do all 4 objectives in one game. That was intense and fun. Starting the game with 0 resources was really interesting.
Timestamp: th-cam.com/video/GxG088sXBSQ/w-d-xo.html Here's a link to Mario Sacchi's (publisher) reply about how the solo missions work: boardgamegeek.com/thread/1665648/solo-campaing-rounds
If you play the game with more players, like 4 players, it will be more tension and competitive to get to the planets you want first. Think this game works best with higher numbers if you want the tension. I like it with 2 players aswell.
good point. i liked it there because it was driven by deckbuilding, which is a mechanism i LOVE (it's like in my top 2 or 3 mechanisms). if clank weren't a deckbuilder driving the action, and instead was some simple action selection game, i wouldn't like it all that much...
5:10 in....my favorite Rahdo moment. Glad you liked this game! I was wondering if it was better than Terraforming Mars or Solaris, wasn't sure if I should buy it or not. Is it one you would want to keep for yourself?
Is there a (4-1)x game you have as a keeper? As for "not enough tension", on my end, watching the runthrough, I more get a feel that there is not enough "magic" or "adventure" - the game is very physically grounded, like you said, and there's not the story telling of "the captain is dead", there's not the fluff of varied cards powers of terraforming mars (even if that one wasn't a keeper for you). Isn't this something you miss too?
hmm, closest i've got to a 3x i can think of might be eminent domain, though that's a stretch. myrmes? colonists? i dunno... nothing that really fits the bill on my shelf, i think. the dryness you're talking about is there, but it's not a big bother for me. we don't mind dry euros :)
So Rahdo, How would you rate Kepler 3042 vs. Solarius Mission on gameplay alone (and on a scale from 1-10)? In Kepler, you said it was the best of the epic space exploration games you have played, but felt it was lacking the tension you enjoy, which to me seems like it would be a pretty big deal. In S.M., you raved about the gameplay and everything else, but simply didn't care for the "traversing space" aspect.
i rank solarius resource wheel cooler than kepler's action grid, definitely. but i think the traversal of space is much better in kepler and the science behind the theme is stronger too
![[UNCUT] เก็บ "สจ.โต้ง" เอี่ยวมาเฟีย รู้ตัวคนบงการ ก่อนสั่งลั่นไก I คนดังนั่งเคลียร์ I 13 ธ.ค.67](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/o-J_p62D40w/mqdefault.jpg)
A friend and I tried out the Vinhos style action selection (shared one mat). We quickly realized that since only a couple actions are actually playable in the first few rounds it generates an bit of an unbalance. So we decided to allow for any two bonus actions to be selected, not just the row/column you are on. That helped, though there would need to be a rework to really make that function well. It was fun to play the game that way still and did make it more competitive.
I think the 'not enough tension' thing might have been a group dynamic factor. It's true that the game pretty much allows players to play it however they want. If you play care bear style, the game is going to lack tension but also score lower. If you play it aggressively as a race game, there is quite a bit of tension. Added to that, the solo game pushes back.
tension is a big part of competitive games. if the game doesn't provide that with tight or punishing play, then it should allow your opponent the space to do so.
Actually, from what I read in BGG forums, the solo campaing should be played so that you only need to accomplish ONE mission card per 16 turns. After that you get a reward and start from the beginning once again. I played it wrong at first, and managed to do all 4 objectives in one game. That was intense and fun. Starting the game with 0 resources was really interesting.
timestamp please
Timestamp: th-cam.com/video/GxG088sXBSQ/w-d-xo.html Here's a link to Mario Sacchi's (publisher) reply about how the solo missions work: boardgamegeek.com/thread/1665648/solo-campaing-rounds
noted... thanks
If you play the game with more players, like 4 players, it will be more tension and competitive to get to the planets you want first. Think this game works best with higher numbers if you want the tension. I like it with 2 players aswell.
But wasn't board traversal one of your favorite things about Clank? Because having a 1 to 1 avatar made the theme come alive.
good point. i liked it there because it was driven by deckbuilding, which is a mechanism i LOVE (it's like in my top 2 or 3 mechanisms). if clank weren't a deckbuilder driving the action, and instead was some simple action selection game, i wouldn't like it all that much...
5:10 in....my favorite Rahdo moment.
Glad you liked this game! I was wondering if it was better than Terraforming Mars or Solaris, wasn't sure if I should buy it or not. Is it one you would want to keep for yourself?
none were keepers for us for different reasons
Could you play a game sharing one of the player mats and share your thoughts in a follow up talk through video?
sorry my copy of the game is already gone
Is there a (4-1)x game you have as a keeper?
As for "not enough tension", on my end, watching the runthrough, I more get a feel that there is not enough "magic" or "adventure" - the game is very physically grounded, like you said, and there's not the story telling of "the captain is dead", there's not the fluff of varied cards powers of terraforming mars (even if that one wasn't a keeper for you).
Isn't this something you miss too?
hmm, closest i've got to a 3x i can think of might be eminent domain, though that's a stretch. myrmes? colonists? i dunno... nothing that really fits the bill on my shelf, i think.
the dryness you're talking about is there, but it's not a big bother for me. we don't mind dry euros :)
So Rahdo,
How would you rate Kepler 3042 vs. Solarius Mission on gameplay alone (and on a scale from 1-10)?
In Kepler, you said it was the best of the epic space exploration games you have played, but felt it was lacking the tension you enjoy, which to me seems like it would be a pretty big deal.
In S.M., you raved about the gameplay and everything else, but simply didn't care for the "traversing space" aspect.
i rank solarius resource wheel cooler than kepler's action grid, definitely. but i think the traversal of space is much better in kepler and the science behind the theme is stronger too
So... K over S.M.? By how much?
I had a really hard time figuring out how to play Solarius Mission because of the manual. Fortunately Rahdo's video helped us out with his video.
Why not try to add the house rule of completing 2 objetive cards in order to be able to win the game?
because i don't have time to experiment with variants. i've always got new games i need to play and film...