Page 13 of 13
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 30 April 2026, 02:28
by jaymc1130
dialectic42 wrote: ↑19 August 2025, 02:31
jaymc1130 wrote: ↑05 August 2025, 17:56
Bogeyun wrote: ↑04 August 2025, 19:46
I've lost with Gen 1 AI central. Twice.
I've probably only played Gen 1 AI central ~15-20 times before too.
Just twice in 5 and a half thousand games?
Lucky… must have lost at least half a dozen gen 1 AIC games.
Is it lucky, or is Bogeyun just the best player in the world? I think evidence points to the latter.
I think given the number of games he's played and only losing with gen 1 AI Central twice is lucky, yeah. Doesn't mean anything in terms of his best player in the world status, that's just well documented after several years. Still, AI gen 1 probably ought to have bricked more than just twice and worked out poorly in so many thousands of games so that amount likely is indicative of both talent and good fortune.
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 30 April 2026, 04:04
by FrankJones
I can count on zero hands the number of times I have had a gen 1 AI central. I wonder what a typical win rate is for that situation? It also depends on the circumstances, right? Were terrible cards played to get the 3 science tags? Or was it Olympus - Mars and solar wind power (also giving the energy production)?
One of my favorite games - "Earth" - also has an "AI Central". Actually, I think it's far better. It's a starting island (similar to a TFM corporation) that I will confidently pick literally every time I am dealt it (which is 1/6, on average). And my reaction when my opponent gets dealt this island is worse than when my TFM opponent plays AI central.
But I have lost with this island. And I do not often lose at this game.
So.. yes, it's possible to run above expectation in TFM with regard to early AI central draws/plays. Sometimes the cards are duds.
But with gen 1 AI central being so rare, and TFM having a lot of in-game variance, it would take a long time to get a large enough sample size to normalize the results to expectation.
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 30 April 2026, 19:08
by jaymc1130
FrankJones wrote: ↑30 April 2026, 04:04
I can count on zero hands the number of times I have had a gen 1 AI central. I wonder what a typical win rate is for that situation? It also depends on the circumstances, right? Were terrible cards played to get the 3 science tags? Or was it Olympus - Mars and solar wind power (also giving the energy production)?
One of my favorite games - "Earth" - also has an "AI Central". Actually, I think it's far better. It's a starting island (similar to a TFM corporation) that I will confidently pick literally every time I am dealt it (which is 1/6, on average). And my reaction when my opponent gets dealt this island is worse than when my TFM opponent plays AI central.
But I have lost with this island. And I do not often lose at this game.
So.. yes, it's possible to run above expectation in TFM with regard to early AI central draws/plays. Sometimes the cards are duds.
But with gen 1 AI central being so rare, and TFM having a lot of in-game variance, it would take a long time to get a large enough sample size to normalize the results to expectation.
I've played AIC gen 1 several dozens of times. Quite a lot, but then I've also got several thousands of games as well. I've definitely bricked with it more than twice, and I've played it gen 1 in scenarios like you describe where you get down no economy because you had to play dubious enablers and it becomes a "draw discounts to actually play anything asap or bust" kind of game and you bust. Generally it's a very strong play gen 1, so it should not lose often at all, but if you play it dozens and dozens of times chances are you wind up seeing it not work out when it comes up against a strong set up from the opponent or just whiffs on first dozen draws a handful of times. If you play it gen 1 in 4p (Parker perhaps plays a lot less of that than I have and I've played AIC gen 1 in quite a few 4p games) it's a lot less scary and will work out even less often than in 2p since 4p is about about scoring NOW more than anything else.
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 30 April 2026, 19:25
by Yahyra
Holy revival of an old thread, batman! Good points everyone, thanks for sharing.
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 30 April 2026, 22:51
by xspuipuke
Corporation
NECROMANCER
10 MC
Effect: Gain any cards that are discarded in the Research phase, including setup.
As your first action, you must necro a thread in the forums.
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 02 May 2026, 15:13
by Yahyra
xspuipuke wrote: ↑30 April 2026, 22:51
Corporation
NECROMANCER
10 MC
Effect: Gain any cards that are discarded in the Research phase, including setup.
As your first action, you must necro a thread in the forums.
Aha! Ok, this explains why this thread was revived a year later. They had to play this corporation.
A bit more seriously, good points everyone - nice discussion.
Re: TM is not a best 2Players game :( (nt)
Posted: 03 May 2026, 01:40
by jaymc1130
Yahyra wrote: ↑02 May 2026, 15:13
xspuipuke wrote: ↑30 April 2026, 22:51
Corporation
NECROMANCER
10 MC
Effect: Gain any cards that are discarded in the Research phase, including setup.
As your first action, you must necro a thread in the forums.
Aha! Ok, this explains why this thread was revived a year later. They had to play this corporate.
A bit more seriously, good points everyone - nice discussion.
I just didn't realize I had a notification of a response by Dialectic! Lol, it may be 6 months late but figured I'd respond to my friend and then Frank commented too so, yeah.