The rules say that later players in turn order get a few extra gems.
This feels like insufficient compensation.
This feels like insufficient compensation.
gabrielcohn wrote: ↑20 September 2022, 00:13 As the designer, I'll say this:
There are so many variables in the setup of each game that we found little to no first player advantage overall. For sure, it is quite possible that the first player (or second or third) will have one more turn in a given game than a player later in the initial order. That said, I love the dynamic of being forced to choose, "do I think it's most advantageous for me to end the game now, or might I eke out a little more by doing X before I finish the game with action Y." That's ultimately why I landed on the structure as it is now. I could see an argument for making the bonus starting GEMs for later players 2/4/6 or maybe 1/3/5 instead of 1/2/3, but honestly, it seems to work just fine as is...
Played ten games so far but I think first player has an advantage, especially if they got the extra turn when other player ended the game.wodan46 wrote: ↑17 September 2022, 15:26 The game could've gone "everyone gets the same # of turns" but specifically chose "everyone but you gets 1 more turn if you end the game" rule which is a hefty disadvantage for players later in turn order. This implies to me that the developers believe that going later in turn order is better, as the balance bonus for going earlier is much bigger than the balance bonus for going later.
As to why, well for any given 'round':
1: The last player will accrue the most diplomacy gems before taking an action, potentially enabling more and better actions.
2: The last player will be the last to choose to spend gems... if their opponents are low they know they can safely take income.
3: The last player can counterpick diplomacy tracks, knowing that their opponent is 'spent' and will not be able to respond.