Board Game Arena

Osimani wrote: ↑16 May 2025, 13:53
Coincidentally, today I had a game and adopted the Military approach from Age 1. I had the same three Wonders as the ones you had in that game. I'm talking about the Mausoleum, Zeus, and the Colossus. They're probably the best ones to adopt that strategy (potentially 5 to 6 shields).

I won that game, but it was by being on the edge. My opponent could have beaten me in a moment, but she forgot to use an extra-turn Wonder that would have allowed her to win by science. Here's the link to the game: https://boardgamearena.com/table?table=673922778

Your game was much more unusual than mine. That game started with a front row that had four red cards and only one resource, plus you were second player. There's an important moment at the beginning of Age II. Your opponent had the option of choosing a red card worth 2 shields or a brown card worth 2 clay. He chose the bricks to suffocate your economy, but leaving you with the 2 shields. It's a nice situation to think about what would one have done.

It was fun to follow this strategy, but I think a lot of things have to fall into place to win the game. Also, if your opponent denies you a Military victory, it's almost impossible for you to win by VP.

Thanks for sharing the game; very interesting!

Unfortunately, all-in military strategies rarely work against good players, as they are used when there is no chance otherwise and, I think, they increase the a small probability of victory to still a small one, but still more. You can also build war cards in the first era to compensate for a small gap in resources and constrain the opponent's actions in the second era, however, good resources are far superior.

What do you think about
Strongest chooses when starting Age II, Weakest chooses when starting Age III?

Nobody will be losing at the beginning of Age II, but to give the player with a military disadvantage a chance to push back so they're not trapped near defeat and not being able to counter when 3 might show up on top?

I think the idea of changing the choosing player to be the one with stronger military is interesting but definitely better as an Age 2 change. I suspect the reason they designed it this way is because you could have a player with a strong military that just needs 2 shields to win in Age 3. If they then get to choose the starting player in Age 3, they could instantly win the game without the other player even having a chance to do anything. It also doesn't make a lot of sense to have a difference in how both ages work because it introduces more confusion.

Like you said in your post, Agora fixed the blue cards in Age 1 but they also slightly helped the red cards as well just by making the military tokens much stronger. The reason we don't see players value red cards in Age 1 is because the reward for making any progress is too small. The opponent discarding 2 cards is basically nothing. But adding an influence cube to the Senate is very good and though I won't do it every time, I've certainly had games where I've sacrificed the ability to choose the starting player for control of a very powerful senate chamber.

I don't think a second edition is warranted as the expansions kinda fix almost everything about the game that I personally had a problem with.