Two actions mostly all the time please

[RoyalRook]

[FrankJones]

I figured I would chime in, because, well, why not. I consider myself a high-level player at this game; might as well give my opinion.

"Two actions, please, all the time?"

NO.

The rules specifically say we can do one or two actions. The strategic default should be one action.
When I know my next two actions and I know that nothing that my opponent will do can affect my choices, and I know that having priority has no value, sure, I'll do 2. And of the course the obvious situations such as creating plants and deploying them for a greenery before they get zapped, stealing/protecting a bonus, qualifying for and claiming a milestone, etc.

Other than that, why exactly should I or anyone do more than one action?
When I do single action, it is usually done VERY fast. "Action, click skip second, done".

What's the problem?

[dialectic42]

The simplest thing to do is if your opponent takes 1 action, then you take 1 action back. It will become fairly obvious that the game flows faster and better if all players take 2 actions most of the time, but if your opponent insists on taking 1 action all the time, then you won't be at a disadvantage if you take 1 action back.

That being said, I will thumb down anyone who takes 1 action throughout most of the game.

[FrankJones]

The simplest thing to do is if your opponent takes 1 action, then you take 1 action back. It will become fairly obvious that the game flows faster and better if all players take 2 actions most of the time, but if your opponent insists on taking 1 action all the time, then you won't be at a disadvantage if you take 1 action back.

That being said, I will thumb down anyone who takes 1 action throughout most of the game.

That's unfortunate.

Maybe we can suggest BGA add a setting in the game creation for "2-actions preferred", that way the game creator can check (or not) that box, and a player can then choose whether to join the game?

[brh2113]

The system generally works pretty well. I think you'll find most players prefer to 2 action, especially >400 elo, so it probably doesn't really need its own category. But if you run into someone who 1-actions, then you can 1-action as well.

Note though that they're not getting any competitive advantage by doing that; they're just doubling the number of round passes and board state evals. In turn based games in particular this makes a huge difference in runtime, but the game is not meaningfully different in any interesting strategic way.

[FrankJones]

I'm sure this has been discussed already, but there are so many situations in which single actions make sense, especially in a 2-player game:

1) Anytime one of the 4 global parameter bonuses will go to the player who can outwait the other (8% oxygen, and the three temperature-related bonuses).

2) Any time one player needs a global parameter to be increased to play a crucial card (Insects, let's say), and has every reason to believe, based on previous drafts, that the opponent is likely to do so in the current generation. This scenario can happen often.

3) In any generation in which the game might end but might not.

4) When deciding whether to play a sub-optimal card, such as a cheap building tag, based on whether the other player makes a move at that milestone.

5) When one wishes to play cards that will produce plants but knows the opponent is holding "Virus" and looking to use it.

6) When holding card draws with optional purchase (Business Network, inventor's Guild), and the opponent's actions may very easily dictate whether it is worth buying one of these cards or not. Maybe there was a cad in the draft that the opponent might have, but might not. If the opponent does have that card, and plays it, the result might decrease the desirability or even the playability of cards seen by business network or inventor's guild.

7) When wishing to play an energy production card, but knowing the opponent has energy tapping. Obviously, it would be better to wait until that player has passed.

8) In a situation where one player has a lot of cards and options, knows for sure which one he or she wants to do, but hasn't come to a definite decision on the second action. Might as well just do the single action and then contemplate the next action while the other player plays.

9) Any situation in which it is beneficial to go last in the generation because that same player is going first in the next generation. This can happen often, where 3 or more consecutive actions are needed and could and would be interrupted by the other player if that player has not passed yet.

10) Any situation in which the opponent will be going first next gen, and can claim a contested milestone by getting one closer before closing out the current generation. If each player has one city, and mayor is the last milestone available, I would want to see whether my opponent plays a second city before deciding whether I want to play a slightly sub-optimal city myself, knowing that if the opponent starts the next gen with 1 city and I have 2, the milestone is mine if I want it, but that if the opponent plays a second city, I may then have no reason to play my second city.

There are probably others.

So, when a thread is entitled "two actions most of the time please", I'm unclear what "most of the time" means.

If one player has a significantly higher number of blue card actions, well, that's an extra advantage. Using that advantage in any of the above situations seems strategic to me, and folly to disregard.

[primrose1234]

You don't get the main point.

Lets say player 1 has 2 animals to activate and 2 card draws.
Player 2 has one animal one microbe two card draws.

Both can perform 4 one actions or two double actions to maintain the equilibrium. There is nothing smart about player 2 one actioning when player 1 two-axtioned, it's just breaking an unspoken agreement.

[FrankJones]

You don't get the main point.

Lets say player 1 has 2 animals to activate and 2 card draws.
Player 2 has one animal one microbe two card draws.

Both can perform 4 one actions or two double actions to maintain the equilibrium. There is nothing smart about player 2 one actioning when player 1 two-axtioned, it's just breaking an unspoken agreement.

I get the point, I just do not entirely agree with it.

Yes, in the situation you described, there is no point in doing single actions.
In many other situations, there is some strategic value in doing single actions.

My concern with the tone of some of the posts in the thread was that some people seemed opposed to taking single actions even in situations where there is obviously a good reason to do so.

[Endar999]

if the request is to play most of the time 2 actions, i agree.
if the request is to try to never play 1 action (not talking about the last action of the turn), then I don't agree.

there are some actions that need to be consecutive to avoid, problems or interference from the opponents, so can happen to slow down with 1 action, in order to do the two actions consecutive at the next step

[Wacky1]

if the request is to play most of the time 2 actions, i agree.
if the request is to try to never play 1 action (not talking about the last action of the turn), then I don't agree.

there are some actions that need to be consecutive to avoid, problems or interference from the opponents, so can happen to slow down with 1 action, in order to do the two actions consecutive at the next step

I completely agree with your take. There used to be one of the high level players that posted a well though out reply to this but I couldn't find it. It wasn't Rook (who is still here posting 'welcome' gifs, hi); I think it was Corbz or BWalsh? but anyways, they made the point that, ahem-, the game is _BALANCED_ around the two actions are possible but one is acceptable pace. The player going first has almost at every situation an advantage. The player going second may need to strategically one action. I've had so many ppl complain about this; there's no social contract here but following the BGA rules; which of course are coded to follow the game rules.

Anyone complaining about anyone else one actioning is, in my opinion, being unreasonable. If you want to play a different game under some social contract, by all means. The rest of us play the game as the rules delinate; if someone one actions me as second player I don't lose my mind; I accept it as a valid game move.


Thanks for coming to my Ted talk. It is a shame I can't find the post, it was much better worded than this.