Star Trek: Ascendancy

OK, a great time playing this today. Reasonably close game with the Klingons grabbing it at the end with a large attack, which they didn't need to worry too much about, to grab two culture by destroying six of my Federation ships (new to the game so the other two of us had completely forgotten about this) and this was just enough with the resources gathered at the end of the round to get his fifth ascendancy token.We had built all the systems, only had a few connections between all three of us, all had built all ships so it was destined to be a last round or two of bloodbaths anyway.
Overall impressions by some/all:
- probably better with more than three, too easy to become a 2 vs 1 situation and we nearly started to turtle at the end as we all knew as soon as player A attacked B with his massive fleet then C would bring his massive fleet in the back door.
- I played the Feds and suffered not getting any Civs or Phenomena early to get bonus cultures, I did do well early-mid game but not good enough to cover the end game combat-centric bursts by the other two.The Federation seems to have to build up most of their points early and mid game before the two brawlers take over late game, I couldn't see any Fed advancements that helped in combat so worked on my Shields instead.
- The Romulans learnt that visiting a Crystalline Entity with a fleet is not a good idea without shield & phaser upgrades.
- initial rating of 9.0 !

Rubbing my hands together, I think this is coming for xmas... now to find a third player!

Southernman wrote: Reasonably close game with the Klingons grabbing it at the end with a large attack, which they didn't need to worry too much about, to grab two culture by destroying six of my Federation ships (new to the game so the other two of us had completely forgotten about this) and this was just enough with the resources gathered at the end of the round to get his fifth ascendancy token.

Just making sure my rules understanding is the same. Was this two different attacks? I think you can only gain one culture per battle via Klinglon ability. You don't gain culture per 3 ships killed, any battle involving 3 or more ships that Klingons win nets them 1 bonus culture as I understand it.

Da Bid Dabid wrote:

Southernman wrote: Reasonably close game with the Klingons grabbing it at the end with a large attack, which they didn't need to worry too much about, to grab two culture by destroying six of my Federation ships (new to the game so the other two of us had completely forgotten about this) and this was just enough with the resources gathered at the end of the round to get his fifth ascendancy token.

Just making sure my rules understanding is the same. Was this two different attacks? I think you can only gain one culture per battle via Klinglon ability. You don't gain culture per 3 ships killed, any battle involving 3 or more ships that Klingons win nets them 1 bonus culture as I understand it.

FYI, that is my understanding as well. Believe it says something like "opponent defeated with at least 3 ships involved". The one question that hasn't been sufficiently answered was do the ships have to be destroyed or is it good enough for them to retreat (I think retreat should trigger it, personally, no running).

Inspired to look up the FAQ I think its pretty much answered as we just described. Also triggers with mutual destruction, since both sides count as "defeated".

"If your referring to the Romulan Advanced Cloaking Device, the Romulans don't retreat, the battle is canceled. (Alex)
Alex is correct, if the enemy runs, it is a defeat and he is correct in pointing out how the Romulan Advanced Cloaking Device works. Songs will be sung of the cunning warriors who forced their foes from the battlefield.
In the cases of mutual total destruction, both sides are considered ‘defeated’. However, as long as three enemy ships were destroyed, the Klingon’s ‘Ever Victorous” rule will still apply. Great will be the songs that tell the tale of how brave warriors sacrificed themselves, destroying their foes as they themselves died in glorious combat. (GF9)"

Well maybe the Klingon player didn't read his ability correctly (I never checked as I assume people can read ) although I did think it was a great race ability at the time ! But he was going to capture the system I was at and since it had a culture node and I had already had my turn he was going to get a second culture token anyway.
But thanks for the update guys.

OK, we have put a few games of this away now.
After two games it seemed apparent that the Research mechanic does not fit properly in the game, there is not enough in a semi-balanced game to support both Weapons & Shields and Advancements (the only time someone went +2 up on both Weapons & Shields was when the game went extended for a supremacy victory and the winner had so many systems that research was piling up).

And now after two games in a short afternoon the thing that euro-gamers often decry about AT-type games occurred - in both games. During the exploration and system draw one player (me) drew so badly that they were out of game reckoning after about five turns in both games, few systems and few resources (in the 2nd game of eight systems explored I got four planets, three phenomena and I crystalline entity disaster - for a total of 3 production). In the end the game is just a production race, who-ever builds the most ships (and can replace destroyed ones faster) will generally win. People will comment that this is typical of most games in this genre but the problem is that in those similar games you can get a chance to compete for resources but in ST:A, ironically because of the unique exploration mechanic, you are unable to compete for resources claimed by the other players until the map joins up - but it is too late production-wise by then.

It is still a fun game to play but maybe not the brilliant game that our group first thought, we'll still keep on playing and put up with any future occurrences of this. And perhaps the addition of more players may lessen this issue, as in a 3-player game if one player gets shorted on resources then then at least one of the other two will be very resource rich and the 'tank rush' is on. Yes, players will want to play in theme and research and use advancements but that takes time and in the end the biggest hammer wins.

Nice counterpoint on this game, Southernman, thanks for writing it up.

Gary Sax wrote: Nice counterpoint on this game, Southernman, thanks for writing it up.

I didn't really want to mention it as this is such a cool game but two experiences in a row (both mine) out of four games means it is a valid concern.
And even though I suggest it may be diluted with increased player numbers I only have three of us to play it at the moment ! (This was meant to be one of our 'go to' 3-player games).

Southernman wrote:

Gary Sax wrote: Nice counterpoint on this game, Southernman, thanks for writing it up.

I didn't really want to mention it as this is such a cool game but two experiences in a row (both mine) out of four games means it is a valid concern.
And even though I suggest it may be diluted with increased player numbers I only have three of us to play it at the moment ! (This was meant to be one of our 'go to' 3-player games).

Honestly, gamewise I come to this site for three things: new games of note from people outside the BGG consensus, analysis of games from many plays when most sites play their games 2-3 times at most, and dissenting opinions on games that explain their beefs. I'm very happy to read this stuff, you're checking two of my most valued boxes with your post.

Southernman wrote:

And now after two games in a short afternoon the thing that euro-gamers often decry about AT-type games occurred - in both games. During the exploration and system draw one player (me) drew so badly that they were out of game reckoning after about five turns in both games, few systems and few resources (in the 2nd game of eight systems explored I got four planets, three phenomena and I crystalline entity disaster - for a total of 3 production). In the end the game is just a production race, who-ever builds the most ships (and can replace destroyed ones faster) will generally win. People will comment that this is typical of most games in this genre but the problem is that in those similar games you can get a chance to compete for resources but in ST:A, ironically because of the unique exploration mechanic, you are unable to compete for resources claimed by the other players until the map joins up - but it is too late production-wise by then.

I've seen the same thing happen in Eclipse, and to a lesser extent in TI:3. In my last game of Eclipse, one of the players had very crappy tile draws that looked a lot like your description - no good resource systems, so he couldn't build.

Is there room to negotiate your way out of an unlucky start in Ascendancy?

I tend to like games that can start with unequal footing, if there's room to work your way out of via deal-making with a side of skulduggery. With so many games doing their damnedest to make sure that every player starts out equal to every other, I've found I have a propensity to hang on to older games that don't do this.

I've only played 3 times, not really enough to grasp these sorts of questions/answers. My early opinion is that the balance is very much player created where if someone gets a really good start or resources, the other 2 will need to gang up on him until things even out. I think even for the combat light Federation, it makes sense to try to establish first contact early on so that the losing two players can give each other better trade goods and be able to respond to a player with better exploration luck or resource rich holdings.

I agree that the research pool does not have enough to go weapons and shields and advances. I have tended to only get an advance here or there and concentrate on first getting +1 shields as a priority, then only boost shields or weapons as needed in response to others. Its a bit of a bummer because the advances give the most asymmetry to the factions and add unique flavor to the different races, but it seems the "good" ones should be fished for in the deck and after that focusing on shields and weapons for late game conquest is the strategically best play. Time will tell.

RobertB wrote: Southernman wrote:

And now after two games in a short afternoon the thing that euro-gamers often decry about AT-type games occurred - in both games. During the exploration and system draw one player (me) drew so badly that they were out of game reckoning after about five turns in both games, few systems and few resources (in the 2nd game of eight systems explored I got four planets, three phenomena and I crystalline entity disaster - for a total of 3 production). In the end the game is just a production race, who-ever builds the most ships (and can replace destroyed ones faster) will generally win. People will comment that this is typical of most games in this genre but the problem is that in those similar games you can get a chance to compete for resources but in ST:A, ironically because of the unique exploration mechanic, you are unable to compete for resources claimed by the other players until the map joins up - but it is too late production-wise by then.

I've seen the same thing happen in Eclipse, and to a lesser extent in TI:3. In my last game of Eclipse, one of the players had very crappy tile draws that looked a lot like your description - no good resource systems, so he couldn't build.

In those games (well in TI:3, I don't know about Eclipse) you can see what resources you all have and, if need be, can get to other players. In ST:A you do not know what you are getting and in the early/mid game you can't access any players with abundant resources and when you can it is too late.

wadenels wrote: Is there room to negotiate your way out of an unlucky start in Ascendancy?

I tend to like games that can start with unequal footing, if there's room to work your way out of via deal-making with a side of skulduggery. With so many games doing their damnedest to make sure that every player starts out equal to every other, I've found I have a propensity to hang on to older games that don't do this.

You could make deals but, for this particular scenario I am mentioning, you have ended up in an extremely weak position that there is nothing for you to offer them and both the other two know that one of them will win on either Ascendancy or Supremacy. Please note that I'm not talking about a slight imbalance of resources after the first five or so turns but a complete mis-match in the ability to build and compete before first contact is made.

Da Bid Dabid wrote: I've only played 3 times, not really enough to grasp these sorts of questions/answers. My early opinion is that the balance is very much player created where if someone gets a really good start or resources, the other 2 will need to gang up on him until things even out. I think even for the combat light Federation, it makes sense to try to establish first contact early on so that the losing two players can give each other better trade goods and be able to respond to a player with better exploration luck or resource rich holdings.

I agree that the research pool does not have enough to go weapons and shields and advances. I have tended to only get an advance here or there and concentrate on first getting +1 shields as a priority, then only boost shields or weapons as needed in response to others. Its a bit of a bummer because the advances give the most asymmetry to the factions and add unique flavor to the different races, but it seems the "good" ones should be fished for in the deck and after that focusing on shields and weapons for late game conquest is the strategically best play. Time will tell.

I'm not talking about one player getting ahead but one player getting extremely behind, such that they do not have the production to build nodes or ships or the research to upgrade anything - and all before first contact so you can neither get to your opponents before they get overwhelmingly stronger than you or to make a trade agreement with one of them.
But it's still a fun game and we will put up with any future occurrences, more players may dilute this affect as first contact will come quicker and systems may average out a bit more evenly.

Southernman wrote:

In those games (well in TI:3, I don't know about Eclipse) you can see what resources you all have and, if need be, can get to other players. In ST:A you do not know what you are getting and in the early/mid game you can't access any players with abundant resources and when you can it is too late.

After I typed that, I put my brain in gear for TI3. You're right about TI3; it's not too hard to get to your neighbor if you're feeling like a fight. Eclipse is a bit tougher. In a three-player game, you are at minimum two hexes away from your neighbor, and your neighbor can make it a little harder to get to him by judicious wormhole placements.