Corvus Mortis wrote: ↑18 June 2025, 15:00
Crazily, I prefer Phobolog in the opener. Same cards + Vesta + Colonizer. Potentially swap Io Research Outpost for Research Network, but could go either way. Idea of Convoy on cards (or titanium if we lose cards) into Vesta + Titanium Mine. This works out very well for us when Asteroid Mining comes around gen 2. Regardless, gen 2 I would take and play Asteroid Mining even as Credicor here. Opens up Jovians as a potential scoring line, rewarded big time when GC and TG come to us later (or, if opponent cuts GC, whatever better card he took over it). I agree with the rest of aspirin's comments as the game played out.
Intriguing idea. I looked at the starting hand and it seems like a tough sell to me. Phobolog with 2 mediocre space cards in the starting hand, and a Jovian strategy with no (as of yet) Jovian multipliers. There are two titanium-producing cards, which is good. Though, Vesta is absurdly priced.
I suppose the plan is to add draft pressure against an opponent who will surely have no need for Jovian cards and multipliers that come up?
regarding the awards: Maybe this is "after-the-fact" rationalizing, but I did get two awards for 8 and 14 MC.
I'll need to review gen 5 to see whether gardener was a better option than builder.
For me, it partly comes down to this:
How much tactical game play does TFM involve? And what types of tactics?
For me, the answer might be, "not enough" (tactical game play), or "not the desired type" (of tactics).
I'll explain, using games I am familiar with as examples:
Games of Pure tactics, no hidden information, symmetrical starting conditions:
Pente, Connect6 (Or any games on a similar board such as Go, GoMoku, etc), Kulami. 100% skill, 0% luck. I like these games. Others include Othello, Chess, Chinese Chess, Chinese checkers, and numerous others. Some of these games have potential for 1000 Elo. No one will ever "play a better game" and lose.
Games of high tactical game play:
Blood rage. The factions are symmetrical, and the cards are drafted one at a time, no extra cards are acquired. Interaction is very high, and there are opportunities to bluff with bad cards. Tactics will decide the game.
7-Wonders: Asymmetrical factions, but with an attempt to make them all equal, including a recent revision. Cards are drafted one at a time, no extra cards are acquired. Opportunities to interfere with opponents' plans are high, and the cards are mostly equal in value.
Scythe: Some hidden information and some luck of the draw, but mostly tactics. Combat allows for highly tactical bluffing opportunities. Bidding helps deal with the asymmetrical starting factions/mats.
Aquatica: Nearly symmetrical starting cards; all additional character cards and location cards come from a communal pool of cards. Tactics are the major factor. Cards are generally balanced. The game has some balance issues that could easily be fixed.
Splendor and Azul: There is some hidden information, but the start is symmetrical, and the cards and pieces are communal. Tactical play is very high compared to the luck factor. This is reflected in the Elo of the highest rated players.
Games of Medum tactical play:
Wingspan: Much depends on the starting hand and the luck of the random face-don card draws. Sometimes the bird feeder stagnates uncooperatively, and sometimes the card draws are duds. Tactical means to overcome bad cards are highly limited.
Race for the Galaxy: Asymmetrical starting worlds and random card draws. The game is highly dependent on starting cards and random draws. Some cards are just plain broken. Opportunities to overcome bad cards are limited. BT - a key element is guessing correctly which 2 actions your opponent will choose, so in that regard, there are some key tactical decisions every turn.
Earth: Much depends on the starting hand, especially with regard to the common goals. This is a race game, and tactical play to overcome bad cards is very limited.
TFM: A lot depends on the Asymmetrical starting corp, cards, and preludes. Every random card draw could be Underground detonations or it would be Mars U or Earth catapult. Each draft can be a disaster if you get 0 or 2 good cards and your opponent gets 1 or 3. The extent of tactical play depends on how we define it. Card valuation is obviously crucial. I would say much of the tactics involve card valuation both in isolation (Mars U is good, Underground detonations is bad) and situationally (Sometimes Anti-grav or AI-central are game winners, sometimes they are useless).
Possibilities do present to overcome a card disadvantage, but not to the extent that I would elevate this to a "high tactical" game like the ones mentioned above. perhaps more so than any game I have played except maybe Wingspan, the cards are highly imbalanced in ways that are just puzzling and make me wonder how the decisions were made to calculate the card costs relative to their value.
The result of all this? Wingspan, Earth, RFTG, and TFM have, over time, become less interesting to me.
And we cannot forget: Texas Hold'em and Pot-limit Omaha. People think these are games of luck. They are very much mistaken. If you can review all the information gained on each street and figure out your opponent's range, and determine whether his story adds up, you can make hero calls for big profit with weak cards, you can bluff an opponent off a better hand, and you can bet for thin value, and can fold a strong second-best hand. This is the nuts and bolts of poker, not winning with AA against KK or winning with a flopped set or a nut flush.
Tactical play here is very high, especially if you start discussing tournaments with increasing blinds and antes and stack sizes.
)