Two actions mostly all the time please

[night9sky]

If the premise that - It is the same if all players just take 2 action per turn - is true, then BGA should implement a "mandatory 2 action" game preference and let players collectively decide.

I have not played this enough to know if this causes any loss in strategic depth.

Alternatively, it would be great if 'queuing' or 'pre-selecting' actions can be implemented as this would greatly enhance the experience of all then based games.

[FrankJones]

If the premise that - It is the same if all players just take 2 action per turn - is true, then BGA should implement a "mandatory 2 action" game preference and let players collectively decide.

I have not played this enough to know if this causes any loss in strategic depth.

Alternatively, it would be great if 'queuing' or 'pre-selecting' actions can be implemented as this would greatly enhance the experience of all then based games.

It makes zero strategic sense to perform 2 actions unless there is a reason to do so.

If there is a mutual agreement to perform 2 actions, so be it. But doing one action and "checking" is within the rules. My friend and I used to play over-the-board, and we were both poker players. In poker, you "check" when it is your turn but you wish to take no action while still remaining in the round. It is a highly valuable play. We would say play our card and then say "check", meaning, "I decline my second action, your turn". It did not waste any time.

Why would anyone take a second action for no reason? Okay, I play space station and then methane from titan. Now, the other player who has Small animals, which was unplayable, can play it and activate it. Well, I'm an idiot. If I had taken one action, he would have passed. Likewise playing any production card that can then get zapped by aq consortium card or energy tapping or whatever.

Maybe I don't want to rush my actions because I think my opponent has sabotage or hired raiders, and if he does, I wouldn't want to do my second action this generation.

I mean, I already listed approximately a dozen scenarios where 1 action makes sense. I understand that in turn based this might be annoying. Well, I do not play turn-based and I do not understand why anyone would. I can play a 15-gen 2-player game in 90 total minutes for both players. Even in different time zones, people cannot line that up in their schedules to make it work? Playing this game turn-based sounds like a frustrating experience in misery.

[xspuipuke]

Turn-based is great. I can play 20+ simulatenous tables. Simply the best.

[cosmosis]

I've been running into a few players lately who have this same mindset - that people playing one action are slowing down the game too much. One even 'punished' the other players who had played one action at a time on the final turn by dragging out the time to play their final greenery after the game ended (even clarifying that that's why they did it in the chat).

My thoughts are that anything that's allowed by the rules is a valid strategy and I don't mind watching other players slow roll their turns. People have already pointed out all the strategic reasons to play one action at a time. Personally, I will play one action at a time when I think it could matter strategically. If I don't think there are any consequences I'll do two actions.

I probably play one action turns more than some other players since I do consider potential unrevealed cards in opponents' hands when using one action turns.

It's also not as though playing one actions turns is always the strategic play. I like that there are points where the game encourages rushes for goals, etc.

[FrankJones]

I've been running into a few players lately who have this same mindset - that people playing one action are slowing down the game too much. One even 'punished' the other players who had played one action at a time on the final turn by dragging out the time to play their final greenery after the game ended (even clarifying that that's why they did it in the chat).

My thoughts are that anything that's allowed by the rules is a valid strategy and I don't mind watching other players slow roll their turns. People have already pointed out all the strategic reasons to play one action at a time. Personally, I will play one action at a time when I think it could matter strategically. If I don't think there are any consequences I'll do two actions.

I probably play one action turns more than some other players since I do consider potential unrevealed cards in opponents' hands when using one action turns.

It's also not as though playing one actions turns is always the strategic play. I like that there are points where the game encourages rushes for goals, etc.

Yes.

[anti-grav_lord420]

I also disagree with the topic. My general strategy is to have 15+ good endgame cards in last gen, make opponents go out of moves and then finish the game how I like it, sometimes stealing an award, other time ending the game before opponents expected etc. The game was made that way and so it can be played this way. It's a similar request ro making a 16 or 20 cards cap, so you couldn't have more in hand. Ofc there could be option to do that, but not in ELO counted games, although Heroku already has all that and more, so why bother.

[Shufflepants]

That's what all new players says in the beginning. But if you take a moment or play more games, you will realize it's all the same if everyone does two actions. If anyone needed to one action, you simply one action back. Selling one card counts as an action, so if it's agreed, you can always force two actions per turn. It's a general practice in the top TM competitive scene btw.

While I disagree with the Topic I would have wished that selling cards would't count as action at all. Makes especially last turn often last too long because people ping pong selling 1 card.

It's part of the tempo, especially with corp era on.

It's really not "all the same". There are many times when I do need to be taking 2 actions, because I have some stuff to get done before other players manage to take it. Maybe I need to play an energy card and immediately follow it with a card that consumes the energy so there's no opportunity to be energy tapped. Maybe I need to burst up 5 plants with Imported Hydrogen and then immediately convert a greenery before any one has a chance to kill them with an asteroid. Maybe I need to drop a city and claim mayor because another player could steal a milestone if they get another 2 actions. So, if someone does a 1 action turn, I may need to just 2 action anyway. So, there are lots of situations where 1 actioning will manage to stall because the other players cannot risk doing 1 action themselves.

Also, even if all players CAN 1 action doesn't mean you can't get ahead by 1 actioning. If I'm 3rd in turn order for the gen, and the 2 players ahead of me 2 action on their turns and then I 1 action, even if they start 1 actioning from then on, I've stalled by 1 action because they didn't 1 action their first turns before me.

[OPSEC IS CLEAN]

If the premise that - It is the same if all players just take 2 action per turn - is true, then BGA should implement a "mandatory 2 action" game preference and let players collectively decide.

I have not played this enough to know if this causes any loss in strategic depth.

Alternatively, it would be great if 'queuing' or 'pre-selecting' actions can be implemented as this would greatly enhance the experience of all then based games.

actually, on top of more than cutting time wasting in half, the "fast" setting adds depth; now, blayers have to choose whether to sell another card--that they are ever more likely to fancy than the last--to stay in the generation, making it an actual, tactical decision. default rules, meanwhile, dictate that any blayer who isn't in a hurry, at any given time, must take just the single action per turn

frankly, outside of personal preference and (potentially) newbie games, this is a non-issue

[FrankJones]

If the premise that - It is the same if all players just take 2 action per turn - is true, then BGA should implement a "mandatory 2 action" game preference and let players collectively decide.

I have not played this enough to know if this causes any loss in strategic depth.

Alternatively, it would be great if 'queuing' or 'pre-selecting' actions can be implemented as this would greatly enhance the experience of all then based games.

actually, on top of more than cutting time wasting in half, the "fast" setting adds depth; now, blayers have to choose whether to sell another card--that they are ever more likely to fancy than the last--to stay in the generation, making it an actual, tactical decision. default rules, meanwhile, dictate that any blayer who isn't in a hurry, at any given time, must take just the single action per turn

frankly, outside of personal preference and (potentially) newbie games, this is a non-issue

Yes. Obviously.

[jaymc1130]

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.

This is a fallacy and a complete failure to understand the natural dynamics of the game. The first player to act in a gen has major advantages by being able to take two priority actions in a row that generate excellent scoring potential. This is ALWAYS more advantageous in the grand scheme of things then winning priority to end a generation (the natural advantage offered to second or later positions as a counterpoint to the advantage offered to first position). Even in the situations where winning prio to end a gen unimpeded is powerful it's often largely powerful because you can end unimpeded in a fashion that sets you up to take 2 critical actions the following gen when you move INTO first position to make the best use of the massive advantage afforded to the player who is first to act. There is no "unspoken" agreement, there is the natural and intended competitive advantages afforded to each position and normal competitively optimized play pattern is, fundamentally, ALWAYS, for first position to take 2 actions and secure their natural and intended advantage and second position to take one action to attempt (not even definitively acquire, just attempt to set up) to secure second positions natural and intended advantage. That IS the expected normal pattern of play for optimal competitiveness.