My second reaction was to look at the top start worlds and note that they were all worlds that give players early card advantage. The led me to hypothesize that the play on Genie taken as a whole was what I would call "intermediate" level, based on comparisons with the playtest groups' experiences with start worlds. (This is not to say that some Genie players aren't extremely strong or that this won't change over time.)

Now, to give Rob credit, he did go back and take a harder look at the Alpha Centauri data and found that it fared less well in winning % among the stronger players. To me, that was expected. Card advantage is something that is fairly easy for beginning and intermediate players to exploit (as opposed to leeching or explore powers, etc.).

(The emphasis on the last sentence is mine; earlier emphasis is Tom's).

This got me thinking: How do I deal with Early card disadvantage? Well, you stop calling Develop and Settle, for one thing (barring timing constraints, like the need to ensure your military is high enough so that you can leech a settle). Assuming you have card flow a turn or two later, then you will naturally consume/produce to trade, which will tend to balance tempo.

As I've played more, I've become more willing to drop a build tempo to look for a good combination (as compared to just 'increasing card flow'). With the increased variability in two expansions, you can't expect a reasonable card to just appear if you build mediocre cards.

I'll have to think some more about this ... I think I can do it, but I can't explain it well. Or perhaps I'm still an intermediate. Who knows?

I can't believe a game can reach the Top 10 on the Geek (right behind Dominion, and with a higher average rating) if there's only one path to victory.

As others pointed out, games with a single way to win can have a large following. You could argue (with some conviction and merit) that classics like Chess and Go have only one way to win. ("Mobilize your pieces better" and "Make efficient moves.") But in those cases, the devil is in the details, and these aren't particularly helpful discussions (which is why I don't think these games apply ...)

For definition, my single path to victory is a simple hueristic that will defeat someone who shuns (or is unaware of) that path.

If everyone groks the strategy and plays accordingly. then tactics and second level efficiencies dominate. I'm sure Le Havre contains levels I haven't explored (for efficiency), but I can feel like I could summarize the first level strategies ... (and ignoring them will cost you the game against competent opponents). [The fact that Alex Rockwell explicitly stated said strategy cemented my conviction. If he's recanted I'd certainly have to re-evaluate.]

In the BGG Top 100, games that have a single path that I feel confident I could (or have) stated are:

• Puerto Rico
• Le Havre
• Caylus
• St. Pete (without expansion)

Games where I suspect a strategy exists, but I'm not confident I can state it:

• Through the Ages (I've followed the strategy articles, and I think they are right, but the variance in that provides a lot of tactical exceptions)
• Brass (I don't like Brass enough to find out, and I may have had a rule wrong) ...
• Age of Steam (several maps, anyway)
• War of the Ring (base game)
• Automobile
• Ingenious seems like a candidate

I bet most of the (non-fluffy) tournament games at WBC probably have a guideline you can't violate ... that doesn't mean they have a single way to win; that depends on the guideline.

And yes, you get lots of Coal, make a huge coke conversion and ship it. To be fair, there are details you need to consider (avoiding loans isn't one of them). "Be efficient" and "Coal is most efficient" are your watchwords.

There's a computer AI for Race.

Based on feedback, I'm skipping the Neural Network and just going with a correlation matrix (which will eventually evolved). I've hardcoded my default correlation matrix (80 x 40) and initial weighting of cards (1 x 40). [Player #1 is the non-random one].

 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #1 won 82 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #2 won 9 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #3 won 5 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #4 won 8 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #5 won 3 games.

Right now I'm just using a "Play the card you like best each round", but perhaps I should look at the breakpoints ... if I know I won't be playing two of the cards at all, perhaps theirs a way to let it evolve ways of ordering the rest of the card play.

Now I just have to program a mutator, a serializor and a reaper. Then it's off to the evolutionary races! (Eventually I'll need to write a GUI so I can play against it, assuming it gets good enough ...)

I'll write some more bridge in a few days. And some actual game stuff later...

While I figure out what to do, I'll start writing some test cases for obscure scoring issues for the game I implemented. Or not. (Don't expect a release anytime soon, this is mainly a NN testbed right now. Doesn't even have a GUI yet).

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?

But has anyone ever won with the 3rd field? If not, then shouldn't we house rule the 3rd field to only cost 2 gold? (For all I know that has been changed in the newer versions, I have a very old copy of this, and have never read the newer rules).

One thing that I touched upon, but that Alexfrog explicitly called out, is that having a loan provides a cash infusion (if you manage your entry fees). This is definitely troubling. I agree that the cokery is where to aim. You only need to go there once, and then you have plenty of energy, a nice income boost (15-25 can happen, 10 is pretty easy).

[In fact, my flirtation with the courthouse last game was me trying to delay the cokery for as long as possible and see what happens. Since I was playing for no cokery to show up, I spent 5-8 coal on energy early, which narrowed my margin of victory].

Regarding Larry's question ("Is the player the one who always takes out lots of loans?") I don't have enough data to answer. So far, every game I've played the winner had lots of loans. But ... it's been me.

I can see Uwe's point ... if two players are taking out loans then the 3rd player should be able to get food cheaply ... but just because I'm taking out loans doesn't mean I'm giving up on fish. (Among other things, fish pay entry fees), just that I'm not desperate for it. I won't take 3 or 4 fish (unless there's really nothing to do, which sometimes happens on the first round or two). I'll happily take 6+ (until the late game). But that's not because I'm worried about loans; Taking 6+ fish is efficient. Just like taking 6+ wood. Or 3+ Iron.

The lack of various routes to efficiency is somewhat disturbing. Take a luxury yacht. It's 30-38 points. But it costs 3 Steel + 3 Energy (call it a coal). Well, you could use that coal to ship 3 Steel for 24. And you could ship other goods (if you had more goods, energy and boats) for more money. In other words, depending on what you've got, shipping may be more efficient than a yacht (but since you can't ship twice in a row, it may be best to ship/yacht/ship). That's the thing about the cokery .... it provides energy (for shipping, processing steel, etc) and a good commodity to ship, and income. Whereas building steel is strictly limited, costs energy. and often doesn't get money. You'll need some steel for steel ships, but it's a definite limited thing.

When I said

I'm not positive there's a dominant path to victory in Le Havre, but I wouldn't need much convincing.

Slaughtering cows gives you furs, but you can only process them a few at a time. [And cows ship for more than meat, which saves actions]. Ditto fish. Baking bread isn't bad, but costs energy. Maybe some special buildings mitigate, but the base buildings practically force you towards coke. And you can't stop people from getting into buildings.

(Consider a variant where the harvest rounds that build the cheapest building just remove the cheapest building. Now suddenly something might not get built and be missing for the whole game! Or that each special building also had a building it removed from the game (unless already owned by a player. Now in this case you'd have to worry that the cokery wouldn't be built. But even if it's buried at the bottom of a stack, it will probably still show up early enough ...)

Alex's discussion of the Coal strategy is here.

You are in the audience at a small, intimate theatre, watching a magic show. The magician hands a pack of cards to a random member of the audience, asks him to check that it's an ordinary pack, and would he please give it a shuffle. The magician turns to another member of the audience and asks her to name a card at random. "Ace of Hearts," she says. The magician covers his eyes, reaches out to the pack of cards, and after some fumbling around he pulls out a card. The question to you is what is the probability of the card being the Ace of Hearts?

Answer in the comments and then read the whole article.

(I could argue that this is related to game strategy, and it may be, but I really just like the arguments this causes.)