Terraforming Robots 3 Cost Development (2 VP).
Settle — Draw a card after you settle/conquer a planet.
Consume — Consume a rare good for 1 VP + 1 Card.
Alexfrog, in his card-by-card guide, says:
Terraforming Robots (3) */* Until the expansion is out, this is overcosted. You’re basically paying one extra card for the fact that it says ‘Terraforming’. That makes it harder to make use of. However, it can be good, in military or production strategies that want a brown consume power. Or with New Economy, to score. I’m sure its better in the expansion when there are terraforming cards.
I'm not sure exactly how Alex gets overcosted ... If you develop this, then you spend 3 cards (including this one) to get this out. If you hit this early enough, then you'll probably get your money back from settle rebates. Still, with the "time value of money" earning back your income may not be particularly good. Getting double your cards back is better.
First of all, let's look at the mining worlds. There are 13 brown planets (6 production, 7 Windfall). Of those, exactly one has a consume power — New Earth. Apparently mining planets export, require a destination. Terraforming Robots will be a big interest to Alpha Centauri or anyone going the brown route. The real downside for Terraforming Robots, from Alpha Centauri's point of view, is that it isn't the Mining Conglomerate. The conglomerate earns income faster and triggers many more six developments (Mining League, Trade League; both score for New Economy and Galactic Federation). The conglomerate works less well in a diversified economy, whereas Terraforming Robots are fine with a single mining world. It won't score VP for Mining League, but it does consume efficiently.
The Conglomerate is a "brown pioneer" card. Assuming you have the most mining worlds, you'll get two extra cards per produce, an extra card per trade, and be able to consume with your spare worlds. The Robots are metallic leeches. If someone else consumes, you get a card + VP. You get an extra card whenever you settle, which lets you leech a military sprinter. Neither leeching role is amazing, but opponents tend to stop calling roles where you can leech for huge draws (unless they have a monstrous setup). How much would you have to be getting to call produce if it triggered someone else's mining conglomerate?
As Alex notes, A military strategy will happily play this card. Conquer a world, draw two cards. You'll probably luck into a military world every 3rd turn you do that (or get enough to pay for a six cost development).
Terraforming Robots will improve in the first expansion. I honestly don't remember what the Terraforming Guild does. You can't just slap down the Robots, but they work in a reasonable number of situations. If you've got any mining planets at all and are short of consumption powers, they're dandy, you'll consume an extra good and earn several cards back, not to mention rebate cards. A reasonable middle game card.
Update: I do, however, remember that the expansion contains another development that combines well with this ... Improved Logistics. Since the card hasn't been spoiled (that I've seen), let's just say that it combines well. (I.L. is a game changing card, to be sure).
This thread on BGG mentions what the Terraforming Guild does ... 2VP for each Terraforming card or windfall, and an extra rebate after each settle, and produce on a windfall world.
]]>You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:
- Alien Tech. Institute (Alien 6-dev)
- Lost Alien Warship (Defense 5 Windfall, +2 Military)
- Deserted Alien Colony (5 Cost Alien Windfall)
- Replicant Robots (-2 Cost for worlds)
- Blaster Gem Mines (3 Cost Rare Windfall, +1 Military)
- Spice World (Novelty Production, +2 to trade a novelty).
The panel selected:
OK, apart from ZZdroman, everyone explored + 1. I see one strong argument for exploring +5. New Military Tactics. If you get that, it's off to the races. Keeping DAC for a 2nd turn play is interesting, and one I overlooked.
Brian at the table. As usual, I took a different road. I pitched the Blaster Gem Mines and Deserted Alien Colony, saving SPICE WORLD as my expected first play. At the table, the deck hits new sparta over the head with the explore, given you Avian Uplift Race and Alien Rosetta Stone world. There was a T1 Settle, so I dropped the Avian World, sold it next turn ... on my last turn I played the 6 cost alien production world for free (thanks to Robots, ATI, and Rosetta Stone)... a brutal game for the opponents.
But, was I right? In retrospect, keeping the DAC would have given me a better backup plan (but pretty much anyone will be off to the races with that explore. I can see pitching RR, but keeping them gives options, especially when you've got a very good non-military play (Spice World). If there's a Develop and Settle (which is unlikely, but not impossible), you could drop SW on T1 (at the cost of your hand). More realistically, you can develop on T2, which lets you get SW for free and keep one other card to develop (two if there's another explore).
]]>You are Old Earth in a four player game (no Epsilon Eridani). You get:
- Mining Robots (MR)
- Terraforming Robots (TR)
- Expedition Force (EF)
- New Military Tactics (NMT)
- Free Trade Association (FTA)
- Pan Galactic League (PGL)
And the options:
Brian at the table -- You know, it's been several weeks. Fortunately I remember. MR & PGL, Explore +1.
Almost everyone pitches mining robots. I can see the point behind pitching both sixes, the mining robots could become good really quickly (you get radioactive world or destroyed world and can turn it into a production world). In fact, given the speed issue, I think that Terraforming Robots may be better as the first card to pitch.
As for the sixes, which one to keep is a matter of taste, and 'none' could be right.
The 'consensus' pick (MR & FTA) splits between +1, +5 or Develop. In fact, there is no real consensus. The +1s try to get a worlds and stay greedy (as I like in 4 player games). The +5s bank on practically locking up a good world.
The develops delay the explore for one turn, and make sure that if someone else explores and a settle hits, they can drop NMT if they got a conquerable world. This argument can't be dismissed lightly.
In summary, I don't think there is a consensus play.
Results at the table -- The Explore + 1 resulted in crap, just FYI.
Brian after reflection -- Actually, I'm leaning towards the early develop, to drop EF or NMT. (I haven't decided). I'm also leaning towards pitching the FTA & PGL. They are both long-term speculative plays you can't afford. You need something good to happen, but both of those require something great. Even if I keep them, they should have money. (To be fair, TR is almost certainly money as well and MR will be unless you get a cheap rare windfall).
No scores given, since I can't decide.
]]>[This idea is based I read many years ago in the Bridge World, but I can't find it online)].
Assume that your opponents will score in a normal distribution. Now say you could wave your hands and magically score the same each time. A bit above average (say, 1 standard deviation). In a (generic) two player game, you'd win fairly often. But as more players are added, you'd do poorly. Let's make this concrete. You always score 13 points, and your opponents roll 3d6. With one opponent, you like your odds. With 2 or 3, you are doing ok. Anyone who thinks they'll win against six opponents has never rolled up a D&D character.
Single-session Matchpoint bridge tournaments take this to an extreme (which is why the article was published). With dozens (or hundreds) of pairs, skill gets you so far, but swinging for the fences is useful too. (Longer games and other forms of scoring change that).
So consider a "New Sparta needs a military world" opening. Do you explore +5 or +1/+1? With more players, I feel more strongly that Explore +1/+1 is correct ... Even if the +5 gives me a good card 100% of the time, I'd rather take my chances getting a good card and some spare cash. With three opponents, the safe 35 points isn't as tempting as shooting for 45 (but often getting 20).
As Race is often 2-4 players, this isn't a huge effect ... yet.
With more players you can also swing for the fences by calling speculative trades (produces), and other tactics.
What else? With more players I'm slightly more worried about releasing good cards for opponents (since 4 players tend to go through the deck two full times, while less players usually peter out at 1.5 or so), but that's a minor concern compared to other issues.
I haven't really thought of other issues relating to # of players...
]]>You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:
Update: Fixed the card errors above.
]]>You are Old Earth in a four player game (no Epsilon Eridani). You get:
Peoples discards and actions.
If I can count, then five people pitch Spice World and Radioactive World, although disagree on how to proceed. Four people pitch FTA and Spice World (and disagree). Two people pitch the mining league and go novelty. Explore +1 gets the nod from 5.3 panelists, Settle gets 3.45, and Explore +5 2.25.
Brian at the Table — I went with Alex and Jeff. My hand can go for either six, so I keep them and the best world for each; call the greedy explore and await further developments. I may get a reasonable military world, investment credits /expedition force (and the cash to buy it) or hit the jackpot — a small novelty/rare military world that makes my decision.
Brian with hindsight — The problem with keeping both is that you (by necessity) pitch your only windfall. It's tempting to settle early because AC will probably consume ... and that hurts Old Earth and ELC (who would consume any windfall). But to do that, I really need a windfall and a nonwindfall, which means I'm leaning towards Wei-Hwa's play. That gives up on the T1 develop ... but how many developments could I realistically want to play? Investment Credits, New Military Tactics, Expedition Force ... any more? [Actually, there is one intriguing other answer ... Diversified Economy. Now you use your sixes to help pay for that ASAP ... you can produce/consume with just Rebel Miners, then add New Vinland and you are off to the races].
In addition, you've already pitched a nice card whichever way you go. If you are going novelty, you really really want spice world. (For rares, the first windfall is nice, and the ML will convert it later on). Yes, there are other worlds in deck, but not that many.
The intriguing play of Exploring +5 (while keeping both sixes) is tempting, but I think Lou's comment about keeping Consumer Markets or NGO ... how in the Wide Wide World of Sports are you going to pay for the Markets and Free Trade association with that slow a start? And if you grab the NGO, that means you are ditching both other sixes. I'm tempted by the Explore +5, but only for Runaway Robots, New Survivalists, etc (with the reasonable fallback of a <= 2 Military Gene/Alien World). Exploring +5 for Diversified Economy is tempting ... but if I were going to do that I'd be tempted to keep Radioactive World instead of FTA association (for engine development).
Clearly either of these plays could work out. Depends on the other roles selected and peeking at the top cards of the deck ...
So, how'd that work out, you ask? I got bupkis. I believe Bupkis is defined (by Webster) as Contact Specialist, Research Labs and some obscenely expensive world. To make matters worse, there was a develop and no settle. (AC traded, no produce).
I'd describe the following turns, but I figured I was pretty fair behind after turn two, so I tried a T3 consume (with no settle on T1 or T2). That did not end in glory, either. I did eventually drop the mining league, but without an engine built it didn't matter.
That doesn't prove anything, but my bad luck should be shared by all those who picked as I did, so I'm calling the correct answer — Pitch the Free Trade Association and Spice World and settle.
Ten points.
Nine Points for any other combination of cards and a point deduction for not settling. So everyone gets at least an 8.
]]>What do you discard and what do you play on your first turn?
]]>The first settle is tempered by the fear that someone may call trade, drop a windfall, and be off to the races. It's a real tension. (This reminds me of the poisoned craftsman in Puerto Rico). I'm not sure if there's a hard and fast rule.
If you don't have a consume power (and a windfall of your own), then it's less of a problem. You may give up a trade, but you'll get one later on. (Of course, the tempo means that you won't be out of cards). Sparta can settle, but may be better off just exploring to get a few more military cards. The issue there is that Sparta really doesn't want to let those pesky developers get a head start.
Alpha Centauri and Earth's Lost Colony have less incentive to settle, since they can trade/produce without helping anyone else. (ELC is, admittedly, less likely to do this).
Epsilon Eridini (and, amusingly, Earth's Lost Colony) don't necessarily mind getting a poor windfall consume. Eridini gets a card (and a VP), but saves a tempo. ELC gets a VP but can then produce and trade for a bonus VP.
Looking at this from a Game Theoretic point of view, I suspect that you just have to toss a bit of effective randomness in. You don't have to actually be random ... you can use information only you know ... like the cards in your hand.
But if we took a situation where we knew all the cards (say, set hands, but changing them around so that there were windfalls aplenty) then I think the optimal play would be Settle X%, Trade Y% Other Z%. Early on the Trade play will be surprising, and work fairly often. Then people will become suspicious and the Settle % will fall. This will, in turn, make the Trade % plummet. Which allows the Settle % to rise.
So ... no real answers.
Thoughts: