Anyone else annoyed by Improved Logistics?

[criticandfan]

Anyone else annoyed when they encounter Improved Logistics in a game? Whether I'm playing it or seeing it being played, especially toward the beginning of a match, it generally signals that the game's over. I can see how it might be less broken in a 3+ player game, but in a 2-player game it means you can military spam 4 cards per turn (or more if your opponent chooses to develop).

[ebay]

YES. YES. 10,000 TIMES YES. BAN IMPROVED LOGISTICS PLEASE!!!!

[RicardoRix]

how do they draw 4 cards (and specifically military world cards) by choosing settle, settle ?

and likely they would have also needed to have built up some military strength. Not quite as simple as it sounds.

[hiei]

how do they draw 4 cards (and specifically military world cards) by choosing settle, settle ?

and likely they would have also needed to have built up some military strength. Not quite as simple as it sounds.

With a Terraforming like power you get to draw 1 card for each world, with bonus you get 6 cards with only 1 draw after settle power. That gives you a pretty decent card economy.

I agree that IL is more of a mid game card, but if played decently, it ends the game immediately. It is not that difficult to get 2 military plus 2-3 low military/cheap worlds in hand and a draw per settle power (this is not needed, but there are a ton). IMO the card is pretty strong for what it does, for its price, and for what it needs to be used effectively, at least in a 2P game

[mogwen]

For me, galactic dev being a starting world is much more annoying!

[ksasaki]

yeah galactic developers and some cheap 1/2 cost devs is pretty powerful. There is the other one that is like public works that is a little weaker but still good and can also draw a card on produce.

The other card that is tremendously overpowered is pan galactic research, particularly if you draw it early. Even a first turn throw away your hand and develop pan galactic research is probably worth it. Combine galactic developers + pan galactic research and you have probably lost.

[la gratouille]

HI,

People won't be surprised to read me here

I've been very pleased when Criticanfand told me about this topics.

When I ask about not playing this card, a lot of people think it is because it is overpowered. The most anoying to me is that it breaks games. As told upper by Hiei it can be easy and fast to end a game, without any chance for the other player.

Of course, it does not work 100% of the time, you need to feed the card, but any colonisation will give you the opportunity to play an extra card, which is totally unfair and unbalanced. To find small worlds on the way is not that difficult...

2 cards for a player, 1 for the other, it really breaks the balance of the game. If RFTG was not a race, maybe it could be different, I do not know, but in a race it is totally against the game in my opinion.

Another awfull way to use the card is to play it at the end : 4 big worlds in a military strategy will destroy you for sure, for instance. Why think about a strategy if you can be destroyed at the end so easyly ???

Most people say this : "it is a card", it is part of the game", "You are not the author"...

They don't take in consideration that games are tested before they are published, which means they have changed on the process. They can also evolute after that, many games had a revised edition, changing rules, banishing cards and so on... What player can bring is a critical point of view that can open a change, an improvement. If they consider rules as a sacred book, then they paralyse evolution.

A point of view to defend this card, is to justify it to fight the dev. strategy. I would answer that the medecine is worst than the disease : "dev. strategy is unbalanced, OP, then let's bring another OP strategy"... is it serious ??? At the end, you did not solve the 1st problem around OP dev's, you only add a second problem : instead of 1 problem, you have two.

I agree with Kasaki about Pangalactic Reserch, it is OP for sure ; and the 3rd expansion is full of OP cards.

Either we accept it, or we banish cards.

Instead of that, some people try to justify, what was, maybe, a will of the author to get fun with new powerfull cards, some of them really OP.

So, they are trying to justify rationnaly what was, maybe, an unrational will of the author to give himself pleasure creating new cards ???

Open theory, pure speculation....

[Pocc]

Improved Logistics is annoying in 2p because you can settle 4 worlds in 1 round.

Force 2p to have only one of each phase per player and that solves a lot of OP develop/settle strategies

[Kesterer]

One usual solution I recommend to feeling frustrated by these cards is to play without goals, which push the strategy space of the game towards tableau rushing - something that makes both develop spamming and improved logistics more powerful. Unfortunately, we can't do that here.

I don't really understand why the BGA implementation does not allow playing without goals, which are clearly marked as optional in the rules - all the other optional parts of the expansions (takeovers, the orb, xeno invasion game) are correctly implemented as optional.

[Bardryn]

It is highly unballanced. When playing for military it allows for some insane plays, that just break the game. It's price should be bigger, and it's ability reserved only to civil worlds. In current form it is too overpowered