I received my upgrade kit for Through the Ages earlier this year, so it went back into the bag, so I've played three more times this last half-year. Looking back on the various strategy comments, I think they hold up well, although looking at BGG's strategy forum, I'm shocked to see even more emphasis on military. (Ten Military by the end of Age I? Vhojha Moi!)
In short, TtA's second wind has strengthened. My most recent game (a four player game with new players) took 6 hours, but didn't overstay its welcome. As I approach the ten game mark, I don't think my copy will be jettisoned anytime soon.
I'm in the camp that would like to see an expansion that didn't just add cards, but also removed an equal number each game (to add variability). For example, instead of having the same four leaders in each age, have four "Leader/Wonder" cards, and then randomly pick them out. So one game might not have Napoleon, etc. [For planning purposes, you could randomly deal out the leaders/wonders used before the game, or not, depending on how you feel about adding chaos to a long game]. Adding a few new events (and enough tactics/agressions to balance) would also be nice.
Is anyone else still playing this, or has it's time come and gone?
Related Posts (on one page):
- Back Through the Ages Again
- Back Through the Ages
- Through the Ages
I think it would make sense to either make the military cards multipurpose or more closely balance the number in the deck to actual usage.
Right now I'm unhappy with cards that are a useless (or traps). It may be groupthink, but there are some leaders/wonders and tactics that aren't good. Perhaps trimming military deck 1 by removing 1 of each of the tactics is a pretty reasonable idea.
I'd probably also make the Age I/II works of art provide double VPs...
There was an interesting thread on the Geek recently where folks were talking up their most/least favorite leaders. There was a little bit of consensus, but overall there was quite a spread of opinion. So I think that groupthink and style of play has a lot to do with how leaders are perceived. I still feel that under the right circumstances, just about every leader in the game can be useful.
I certainly think that the military strategy (in Eugene's article) is required (if anyone starts on it); I'm mainly shocked in that your group is even more ruthless about it. I'll post my comment/question in that article...
All the while most of the tactics cards you draw are useless, except for the few that you use during the game. I don't like drawing a bunch of cards, knowing that a high percentage of them are going to be discarded at the first opportunity. I like having difficult decisions on what to keep.
If the intent of having a lot of tactics cards in the deck are to give everyone a shot at them, I'd prefer that they were removed from the deck. In a given age you can take any age appropriate tactic by spending 2 military actions. It would reduce the chaff in the military deck, allow anyone to get the tactics that they want and reduce the luck of the one person who got the perfect tactic with the perfect military techs.
I'd like to see an expansion that does what Brian suggests, keeping the ratios about the same but adding more variability. There are some "critical" cards, but I think that could be factored in. I'd also be interested in padding out Antiquity some (maybe another 20 cards or so), to create more divergence when the game hits Age I.
I'm much more sympathetic to frunk's views of the tactics cards. I think the military deck would be more interesting if there were more territories and events, and with a wider variety of effects (there are a lot of unused hooks to hang effects on here). But tactics? They need to expire faster to be more interesting in their current ratio.
Some flaws that I see are:
Many wonders and leaders are worthless, while others are super strong. For example, Age A has 2 awesome wonders and 2 worthless ones, 3 great leaders, 2 weak ones nad 1 worthless. In Age I the strongest wonder is the cheapest AND quickest to build, and the others are ok at best.
Military is too impotant, especially with more players, since falling behind means multiple people destroy you. But in addition to being too important, it is also too variable and luck based. Napoleon/Air forces can be broken with a good tactic card, and the tactics are widely variable in power. For age I, Medieval Army and Phalanx are awesome, the horse only ones suck (because you have a warrior to start!). For Age 2, Classic Army is VERY broken (9 is way too much for the effort involved in it, AND its the best to combine with Napoleon). Napoleonic Army is too good, the non-warrior ones are pretty bad AND have low values.
There are just too many worthless tactics in the deck and then if you dont draw one of the few good ones you are SCREWED. There are both too many tactics cards in there overall (it sucks to draw a bunch because then you dont get other stuff), and simultaneously not enough of the GOOD tactics, for which not drawing one means you are screwed and probably lose.
There arent enough colonies and it takes too long for the colonies to come out (like an entire Age later they appear, generally). Players who are behind on military probably wont be playing events (it screws them to do so), so the colonies take too long to come out.
Also you spend a lot of the game wading through a card row of mostly poor cards, waiting for certain critical cards to come and hoping them come out at a good time for you.
All of that said, I STILL love the game, which just shows how great it is despite both its flaws and its long game length. Its a wonderful game and a lot of fun, and I still love it even though there are a variety of things I want to change/improve about it.