I just need to start asking people to not play improved logistics.

[SpecialDelivery]

If BGA wont give people the option to create games that restrict certain cards then its the only way to go forward. It just breaks the game too frequently and is not fun to play against. Ive asked before and some agree and some say no ....and some agree then play it anyways. People complain about a ton of cards from Federation to Markets but this will always be the only card in the game that has the potential to ruin the pace and flow of the game.

[f0rmula409]

It's very good when it's good, but, it's still situational.

[criticandfan]

Agreed. Would love a restricted cards option a la Dominion.

[Wonderful Plays]

The first arc as whole feels very experimental and unbalanced compared to later Alien Artifacts and Xeno Invasion. I'd just avoid it.

[Obsequious Vole]

I've been coming round to this position re: improved logistics as well.

It's not that it's OP (there are several equally/more powerful cards), it's in the particular way that it "breaks" the game. Its biggest power is in how it allows a player who is ahead to artificially bring forward the end of the game, thus snuffing out other players' strategies. This is fun-breaking as well as game-breaking, and it's effectively a "reverse catch-up mechanism".

A feature to de-select specific cards would be good, and this card would be my prime contender.

[Obsequious Vole]

The first arc as whole feels very experimental and unbalanced compared to later Alien Artifacts and Xeno Invasion. I'd just avoid it.

I can't comment much on AA or Xeno as I haven't played much of those, but to me, the first arc trio completes the game - especially the addition of prestige. These expansions definitely shake up the game - produce-consume is gone from a near all-conquering strategy to an almost niche strategy (produce-consume was, and still is, my go-to playstyle). And some of the new cards are very powerful (although you could argue this is a good thing, as it's a leveller between and stronger and weaker players).

Whenever I play without prestige now, it feels like playing in 2D instead of 3D. Or like a MMA fighter competing in a judo match.

[lrstaeo]

Likewise, i can't stand Improved Logistics.
I've had mixed luck requesting it not to be played, but overall i think it's helped to avoid it.
Though, with this brand new (to me) interface, i can't even find an way to request it....

[Retired Actuary]

It's not that it's OP (there are several equally/more powerful cards), it's in the particular way that it "breaks" the game. Its biggest power is in how it allows a player who is ahead to artificially bring forward the end of the game, thus snuffing out other players' strategies. This is fun-breaking as well as game-breaking, and it's effectively a "reverse catch-up mechanism".

Yes, particularly in 2PA when it allows someone to blitz out the end of a game with a double-settle. The thing is, RftG is already compressed as it is, in some ways that's the best part of the game...this just breaks that part in particular.

[la gratouille]

A long time ago in a galaxy... Hum, this is something else. But a not so long time ago i wrote this about Improved Logistics. My main reason to hate this card, it is not the fact that it can be OP, it is because it ruins the race.

"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.... "


Here is the link of the original topic :

https://boardgamearena.com/forum/viewto ... +logistics