Board Game Arena

A Glitch wrote: ↑19 June 2024, 17:14 One of the biggest components of Mars is game control, and in particular game length control. The player who controls when the game ends has a huge advantage. If they are winning (and won't sacrifice the win by committing too much money into ending), they can end into a win. If they are losing, but have a stronger engine / better scaling, then they can choose not to end and hopefully catch up the following gen. (Of course, if you're neither winning nor have the potential to catch up next gen, then you're pretty much dead).

Typically this means heat control (either by having enough heat prod, or cards to push the heat), as heat is typically the last parameter to fill, at least in 2p. Of course, if oxygen/water is the lagging parameter, then it is control over those instead.

Whether you go first on the potential last generation doesn't really factor too much into your ability to control the game or not. So the answer to "Do you try to maneuver the game so that it ends on a generation where you are the starting player?" is no, because going first doesn't confer any benefit once you've triggered the end of the game. The benefit that going first on the potential last gen *does* confer, is the ability to fund any final awards ahead of your opponent (and with better information than the previous gen), and/or claim any last heat/oxygen/water TR (which, if the opponent were able to take themselves, is a net 2-point swing each). That, in turn, might inform whether you *should* end, but not whether you *can* end.

ronalda2 wrote: ↑17 July 2024, 09:44

A Glitch wrote: ↑19 June 2024, 17:14 One of the biggest components of Mars is game control, and in particular game length control. The player who controls when the game ends has a huge advantage. If they are winning (and won't sacrifice the win by committing too much money into ending), they can end into a win. If they are losing, but have a stronger engine / better scaling, then they can choose not to end and hopefully catch up the following gen. (Of course, if you're neither winning nor have the potential to catch up next gen, then you're pretty much dead).

Typically this means heat control (either by having enough heat prod, or cards to push the heat), as heat is typically the last parameter to fill, at least in 2p. Of course, if oxygen/water is the lagging parameter, then it is control over those instead.

Whether you go first on the potential last generation doesn't really factor too much into your ability to control the game or not. So the answer to "Do you try to maneuver the game so that it ends on a generation where you are the starting player?" is no, because going first doesn't confer any benefit once you've triggered the end of the game. The benefit that going first on the potential last gen *does* confer, is the ability to fund any final awards ahead of your opponent (and with better information than the previous gen), and/or claim any last heat/oxygen/water TR (which, if the opponent were able to take themselves, is a net 2-point swing each). That, in turn, might inform whether you *should* end, but not whether you *can* end.

How does the ability to control the game's (ex: basket random) endpoint provide a significant advantage for players, regardless of whether they are winning or losing at the time?

ronalda2 wrote: ↑17 July 2024, 09:44

A Glitch wrote: ↑19 June 2024, 17:14 One of the biggest components of Mars is game control, and in particular game length control. The player who controls when the game ends has a huge advantage. If they are winning (and won't sacrifice the win by committing too much money into ending), they can end into a win. If they are losing, but have a stronger engine / better scaling, then they can choose not to end and hopefully catch up the following gen. (Of course, if you're neither winning nor have the potential to catch up next gen, then you're pretty much dead).

Typically this means heat control (either by having enough heat prod, or cards to push the heat), as heat is typically the last parameter to fill, at least in 2p. Of course, if oxygen/water is the lagging parameter, then it is control over those instead.

Whether you go first on the potential last generation doesn't really factor too much into your ability to control the game or not. So the answer to "Do you try to maneuver the game so that it ends on a generation where you are the starting player?" is no, because going first doesn't confer any benefit once you've triggered the end of the game. The benefit that going first on the potential last gen *does* confer, is the ability to fund any final awards ahead of your opponent (and with better information than the previous gen), and/or claim any last heat/oxygen/water TR (which, if the opponent were able to take themselves, is a net 2-point swing each). That, in turn, might inform whether you *should* end, but not whether you *can* end.

How does the ability to control the game's (ex: basket random) endpoint provide a significant advantage for players, regardless of whether they are winning or losing at the time?

A Glitch wrote: ↑18 July 2024, 03:47

ronalda2 wrote: ↑17 July 2024, 09:44

A Glitch wrote: ↑19 June 2024, 17:14 One of the biggest components of Mars is game control, and in particular game length control. The player who controls when the game ends has a huge advantage. If they are winning (and won't sacrifice the win by committing too much money into ending), they can end into a win. If they are losing, but have a stronger engine / better scaling, then they can choose not to end and hopefully catch up the following gen. (Of course, if you're neither winning nor have the potential to catch up next gen, then you're pretty much dead).

Typically this means heat control (either by having enough heat prod, or cards to push the heat), as heat is typically the last parameter to fill, at least in 2p. Of course, if oxygen/water is the lagging parameter, then it is control over those instead.

Whether you go first on the potential last generation doesn't really factor too much into your ability to control the game or not. So the answer to "Do you try to maneuver the game so that it ends on a generation where you are the starting player?" is no, because going first doesn't confer any benefit once you've triggered the end of the game. The benefit that going first on the potential last gen *does* confer, is the ability to fund any final awards ahead of your opponent (and with better information than the previous gen), and/or claim any last heat/oxygen/water TR (which, if the opponent were able to take themselves, is a net 2-point swing each). That, in turn, might inform whether you *should* end, but not whether you *can* end.

How does the ability to control the game's (ex: basket random) endpoint provide a significant advantage for players, regardless of whether they are winning or losing at the time?

Because if you are winning, you can end the game into a win. And if you are losing, you can choose not to end and wait until you can catch up, assuming that you think you can score more points than your opponent in the next generation.

Think about it the other way: Let's say you're close to game end and winning currently, but don't have the ability to actually end the game. Now, if your point scoring is better than your opponent, then fine - hopefully you'll end on the next gen and still win. But if your opponent will outscore you next generation, the fact that you couldn't end now may very well lose you the game.

Moreover, if your opponent develops better scaling than you but is currently behind, they have no incentive to end. And so you may be forced to make costly, low-point moves (e.g. standard projects) in order to have a chance at ending in a generation where you'd still win.