Two actions mostly all the time please

[danielvictor]

It's not just waiting for your opponent to deploy cities/icons.Suppose you have a way of generating a resource,and an action/activation that uses one.You would want to use these actions as pair,to prevent an opponent from attacking the resource in between.So if you had a third action that you wanted to play asap - eg claiming a milestone - you might want to wait after that in order to play the two actions as a pair.
Also,you might have a card that requires a certain temperature,percentage of oxygen or number of ocean tiles to play it. So then you might want to string out your turn if that target was close to being achieved.No real harm in that if you respond fairly quickly.

[OwnerOfTheIronThrone]

It's funny how top players would rather double action every time early, even if it puts them at disadvantage, while players who are simply weak or average at the game advocate to use every advantage possible. Doesn't it make you wonder if it's really that useful? Surely the people at the top would do it.

As for the depth of the game compared to the draft discussion - both of these are asked for as an option to be added, not to change default rules. Also please, I cringe every time I read how single action adds depth to the game. There is so much to learn about the game and that's like the most mechanical and obvious thing you could bring up. There is no skill in doing it, there is not decision making. It's only about being determined enough to waste time, when the other player isn't. It's as if you were saying that spending titanium and steel before cash was a skill. Oh technically you might draw advanced alloy so it takes skill to know when to do it.

Also in turn based if everyone made single action always it would take exactly twice as long to finish a game.

[RoyalRook]

*post moderated

[nanospy]

I am not concerned with playing fast. I want to play well.

[RoyalRook]

I am not concerned with playing fast. I want to play well.

The speed is not the point, once again it's the same if everyone do two actions, and only do one action till two action is resumed again. This is the last time I am going to repeat the base concept. Think about it, it's so simple, it's the SAME.

[nanospy]

I am not concerned with playing fast. I want to play well.

The speed is not the point, once again it's the same if everyone do two actions, and only do one action till two action is resumed again. This is the last time I am going to repeat the base concept. Think about it, it's so simple, it's the SAME.

Huh? The speed is the only reason for doing it. So while it may be almost the same if everyone is doing it, it still has no utility for me.

[happy-smile]

I think we discuss two separate things here.

One thing is if someone ALWAYS does single action or ALWAYS does two actions. Both are basically wrong. First thing slows down the game in online environment. The other one can force you to do something which is disadvantage for you.

The other thing is that if someone uses both single/double action based on the current need - and that’s how it should be. Sometimes two actions are highly desirable, sometimes only one. That’s how the game was designed and it has its reason why it is up to you to choose.

[Nekojin]

You've just highlighted one of the issues - that your games can take 115 to 125 mins. Have a look at the game history of the top ranked player, Threadpacifist. He's legitimately probably the best player on BGA and always takes two actions. Also, his games usually take 30 to 45 mins.

At least part of this is the result of taking two actions at a time.

"115 to 125" was based on memories of tabletop TfM taking several hours - I wasn't referring to the speed of my games here on BGA. Looking at my recent real-time games here, I'm seeing games that take around an hour, more or less. Less time to play also means less time impacted by stalling actions, though, so I don't see the argument here.

As for your reference to Threadpacifist, are you certain that he ALWAYS takes two actions? Or takes two actions when there's no tactical advantage to playing one and skipping the second action (which is most of the time)? There's a significant difference between the two. Have you asked him whether he'd be in favor of requiring that you take two actions whenever you're capable of it? Feel free to ask him in here for that.

His games taking 30 to 45 minutes is likely more to his ability to make his actions quickly, without pausing to think as many players do (and, importantly, playing against opponents who are also decisive and quick to play). Some people simply do not process the game on the fly, and only think about what they're going to do when it's their turn - they watch passively while other people play. There's one or two of those in my tabletop gaming group, and they absolutely make the game take longer because they don't know what they're going to do when it becomes their turn. And there's no way to force people to think faster.

I get it. You want your games to go faster. But taking away the choice of the second action is not the way to do it. You're trying to fix a square problem with a round peg. And the game will be worse for it. I'm honestly not a fan of people who buy extra cards so that they can sell to stall. But that's a narrow problem that can't be solved without causing damage to other legitimate reasons to only take one action while still having other things you intend to do.

Take, for example, this situation: You have no plants in play. You've got the Greenhouses card (1 plant per city in play), and there's enough cities on the table that you'll get 8+ plants, and be able to play a greenery. But you also need to buy a Milestone that you're already eligible for. If you do the Greenhouses and Greenery on your turn, one of your opponents will be able to take a Milestone, locking you out from the one you're eligible for. If you do the Milestone and the Greenhouse, one of your opponents will play Deimos Down (it was in the draft, and you passed on it for something you liked better) and wipe out the plants you just earned.

The safest play is to claim the Milestone and skip your second action, saving the Greenhouse for your next turn. Even without the specific knowledge of what your opponents are capable of doing, it's STILL the best course of action. But your proposed rule change would mean you lose that tactical flexibility.

I don't play one-pass all the time (or even the majority of the time), because most of the time, there's either no benefit to stalling, or there's an active benefit to getting my cards in play sooner. But I absolutely do when there's a good reason for it.

Terraforming Mars is a tactical game. Reducing tactical options is wrong.

Edit: Danielvictor gave the same example, more succinctly than I did.

[RoyalRook]

*post removed by moderators. Please stay friendly.

[SpajderDzerusalem]

I am not concerned with playing fast. I want to play well.

The speed is not the point, once again it's the same if everyone do two actions, and only do one action till two action is resumed again. This is the last time I am going to repeat the base concept. Think about it, it's so simple, it's the SAME.

I though about it, and it is not always the same.

For example, lets say you have no cards, played an action to draw a card. You draw a city that you need energy prod for, and you have 0. You have no other cards to activate, actions to play or cards to sell.

Now, you know that your opponent both has that card that can reduce energy.

If you pass with playing only one action, you can than, on your next two actions, do energy standard project + city card. If you "always play two actions", you have no other choice but to either play the energy standard project and get blown out by the energy stealing card, or to pass for the generation.
--

There are other such examples, usually when you play one action, then than leads you to only having a strong two action turn, with no buffer action to postpone the two action play. It is NOT the same.

Edit: simplified the example.