Game analysis

[Lytical]

Oh I’m definitely doing that. I’m usually running 4-8 games at once. Probably too much

Good, gooooood, let the game flow through you. Try play 20, 30 games at once.

I wish I had the time for that, otherwise I totally would. But then all the games would blend together and there’d be no continuity in thinking.

It's the same thing as chess, when other players are so much lower in skill level, you won't be challenged anyway. You can play against 20 other GMs at the same time if you are a super GM. Continuity is just a mirage, just like time is relative, let your intuition be your gravity in this TM blackhole. If you play against 10 other 100s, you will be fine.

[ft029]

Starting hand: I would keep invention contest. It's a very efficient way to draw a great card.

Gen 1: Playing and activating search for life is a complete waste of money-- money is very precious in the early game of colonies. The only purpose of that card is its science tag.

Gen 2: Standard tech is a great find. Now perhaps we can be flexible between a terraforming or engine strategy depending on the next cards we find. Regolith eaters is too expensive and I would not buy them in either strategy.

Gen 3: Media group is far far better than energy saving. I would take terraforming ganymede over vesta shipyard as it's much more dangerous. Energy saving is worse than standard project power (which costs 8 with standard tech), so please skip it. You are too poor to afford nitrite reducing bacteria. You should trade Ceres instead of Luna; although you don't need steel, it might be more beneficial for the opponent. After opponent has played martian zoo, spin-off department, mars U, rim freighters, and media group, I think this is our cue that we cannot win an engine game. In fact the game is already looking grim.

Gen 4: From here I would shift my view and start trying to terraform before the opponent's engine can kick off. I would give up on taking mediocre cards to try to turn on anti-gravity technology. As such, ice asteroid is a great card, but we might even consider cutting heat trappers first.

Gen 5: I would not keep dev center at this stage. Your first trade should be with callisto for energy to trade later (and some heat rollover). I think you are okay with trading ganymede if the opponent takes luna. Regolith eaters is awful, even with enceladus in play. Think about it: your standard project greeneries right now cost 16mc since you are credicor with standard tech. That is a much more efficient way of taking oxygen points.

I think I've seen enough, the opponent has a typical crazy colonies engine while you have overkept too many mediocre cards, passed too many engine parts, and cannot terraform out of the game. Although, I think even with perfect play, this game still looks lost due to your opponent's insane setup.

I also want to disagree with rook's advice. Play the number of games that work best for you. Playing helps you learn as long as you review your lost games and figure out why you lost or what you missed. Good practice makes perfect, not tremendous amounts of mindless bad practice.

[Lytical]

Yes , not mindless, you have to study the games. Play more games is far more important, if you play classical chess you will know, you have to play rather than preps. We are om the same page and great break down.

Just random thoughts, if you are playing on Hellas, personally I am thinking just feed opponent bad cards to get to milestones, since they are not as important. I also like the south Polar developments better than the traditionally preferred north west ocean development. The rebates are arguably better and you put pressure on a natural milestone. And if they stress early to compete Polar you just get back at them on the award side.

[Camster]

Starting hand: I would keep invention contest. It's a very efficient way to draw a great card.

Gen 1: Playing and activating search for life is a complete waste of money-- money is very precious in the early game of colonies. The only purpose of that card is its science tag.

Gen 2: Standard tech is a great find. Now perhaps we can be flexible between a terraforming or engine strategy depending on the next cards we find. Regolith eaters is too expensive and I would not buy them in either strategy.

Gen 3: Media group is far far better than energy saving. I would take terraforming ganymede over vesta shipyard as it's much more dangerous. Energy saving is worse than standard project power (which costs 8 with standard tech), so please skip it. You are too poor to afford nitrite reducing bacteria. You should trade Ceres instead of Luna; although you don't need steel, it might be more beneficial for the opponent. After opponent has played martian zoo, spin-off department, mars U, rim freighters, and media group, I think this is our cue that we cannot win an engine game. In fact the game is already looking grim.

Gen 4: From here I would shift my view and start trying to terraform before the opponent's engine can kick off. I would give up on taking mediocre cards to try to turn on anti-gravity technology. As such, ice asteroid is a great card, but we might even consider cutting heat trappers first.

Gen 5: I would not keep dev center at this stage. Your first trade should be with callisto for energy to trade later (and some heat rollover). I think you are okay with trading ganymede if the opponent takes luna. Regolith eaters is awful, even with enceladus in play. Think about it: your standard project greeneries right now cost 16mc since you are credicor with standard tech. That is a much more efficient way of taking oxygen points.

I think I've seen enough, the opponent has a typical crazy colonies engine while you have overkept too many mediocre cards, passed too many engine parts, and cannot terraform out of the game. Although, I think even with perfect play, this game still looks lost due to your opponent's insane setup.

I also want to disagree with rook's advice. Play the number of games that work best for you. Playing helps you learn as long as you review your lost games and figure out why you lost or what you missed. Good practice makes perfect, not tremendous amounts of mindless bad practice.

Thank you for this! I’m starting to get a feel for my weaknesses