Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35156 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20835 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7426 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3980 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3505 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2078 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2586 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2256 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2498 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3019 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1973 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3696 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2625 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2462 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2291 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2508 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about Eurogames here.

Sell me on or talk me out of Through The Ages

More
29 May 2013 14:31 #153082 by Stonecutter
TTA is one of the few of the supposed greats I've never played. It's also one of the few games of its ilk my FLGS doesn't have a demo of, so I'm going to have to plunk down if I want to play it.

My interest basically stems from the following things I believe to be true about the game

1) It's meaty
2) It plays well with two
3) It's a Vlaada Chvátil game which means it's probably got some brilliant design

My worries are the following

1) It's not thematically deep enough to justify the meat
2) It doesn't play as well with 2 as it does with 3 or 4 (with 3 or 4 I'll break out clash of cultures to scratch the Civ itch or one of a dozen other games to get something deeper/longer)
3) It's a Vlaada Chvátil game, which means it might be so difficult to pick up as to not be worth it in the long run

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 14:56 #153091 by Black Barney
It's not difficult to pick up. There are 3 ways to play. You play the beginner version first, then the advanced version and then the full version.

It plays really well at 2. Best at 3 I think. At 4, it's WAY too long.

I got burned out on it after 6 months but those first three months were a blast. The design just FEELS so cool.

I don't think it has longevity at all but you will have a great time for 3-6 months if that's what you want.

Hope this helps

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 15:06 #153095 by Octavian
#s 1, 2, and 3 from your interests - all true.

#1 from worries, also true.

#2 worry I don't think is true. It plays differently with 3 than it does with 2 (4 is the bottom, IMO - extra player beyond 3 doesn't add much other than down time). Mainly, you can be A LOT more aggressive in a 2p game than in a 3p game because there isn't a third person to swoop in and pick you off after you've blown your wad destroying someone else. But the pact cards have some cool elements to them and the jockeying for position on different tracks is more nuanced with a third player.

Also don't think #3 is a worry. The game is fairly straight forward. The complexity comes from figuring out when to pull the trigger on things rather than in the rules.

So unless 1 is a deal-breaker (and it is REALLY dry), I'd give it a shot.
The following user(s) said Thank You: mikecl

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 16:05 #153104 by Matt Thrower
Best way to be sure is to try it online. I'll give you a game if you like - we had a couple of F:AT pitch-ins last year:

www.boardgaming-online.com/

TTA is a brilliant game in my opinion, one of the best. The black marks against it are:

* It's a long (3-4 hour) game.
* It's fiddly as hell, with tons of irritating little discs that need shifting around.
* While it's definately interactive, there's a lot more "head down concentrating" than "heads up chatting".

If those don't put you off, you should totally play it. It's great.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 16:12 #153105 by Dogmatix
I agree with Octo (and everyone else) that it's incredibly dry but the ability to be really cut-throat in the 2p game kind of makes up for the dry-ness. In my mind it's actually kind of like a train game (that actually plays 2, which few 18xx maps do) in that way--yea it's a very dry kind of game but you can really go after an opponent.

I've only played with 3p once; 2p probably a dozen times and it's a "game with cubes" that I'm always happy to see come out on the table, which is something I just can't say much these days.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 16:32 #153107 by Legomancer
I like it a bunch because there's a lot to it but it's doled out in such a way as to not be too overwhelming, which is a problem I often have with Civ games. It's one of those games that, even though everyone I'd play it with has a copy and there's no need for me to get one, I'd kind of like to have my own copy anyway.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 16:46 #153109 by mikecl
Octavian hit the nail on the head. You acquire cards that represent your civilization's achievements so that aspect is pretty abstracted. It is on the dry side, but it's an EXCELLENT design with real depth.

I have mainly played it with two. And with two, it is a great little knife fight. The gameplay does not suffer at all with two and there's a LOT of game there.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 16:53 #153110 by DukeofChutney
i've played about half a dozen games of it. It is in my view a euro and its the only true euro that i really like.

Thematically i think it is dry. It does feel civish, but i don't think it really nails the civ theme, hence i see it as a euro. I wouldnt say its themeless either. I'd put it next to Glory to Rome on theme. theres nothing very roman about Glory to Rome but it still manages to be an engaging game.


I like it with 2. I agree with the above, good with 2, great with 3, lame with 4.

What really makes the game is the card variety and the strategic options they create. There are many paths to victory and they aren't all just efficiency and aren't that easy either.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 17:31 #153118 by iguanaDitty
PM me if you want to trade for it. I don't see it hitting my table again.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 18:00 #153122 by engelstein
I second what Matt said about trying the online version first. It will make it a lot easier to learn, and will give you a good flavor for what the game's about, at your own pace.

It's one of my top games. The only real negative is that some of the cards are a little weak and don't get taken hardly at all (I'm looking at you, Shakespeare and Bach), and warfare can make the end game a little swingy - or a lot swingy if you neglected military.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 18:42 #153123 by SaMoKo
It's great if you want a long game with 2-3 players. For a short abstract civ game for 2-3 players, go with Innovation. My negative with Through the Ages is that it can often become a rush for a few key cards, like Napoleon. Everything else starts to surround preparing for and countering these cards.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 18:46 #153125 by repoman

SaMoKo wrote: It's great if you want a long game with 2-3 players. For a short abstract civ game for 2-3 players, go with Innovation. My negative with Through the Ages is that it can often become a rush for a few key cards, like Napoleon. Everything else starts to surround preparing for and countering these cards.


That is exactly right.


I'd love to have a set of "2nd edition" cards that alter certain out of whack cards like Napoleon which is far too powerful and make the dogs like Bach.

On the whole I think it is a great "once in a great while" game but I get burned out if I play it too often.
The following user(s) said Thank You: mikecl

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 20:12 #153128 by Black Barney
Napoleon is better than Michaelangelo? I haven't had issues playing against Napoleon yet and often do not rush to get him. My playgroup is different probably.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 20:33 - 29 May 2013 20:36 #153129 by repoman
It has been my experience that Napoleon coupled with a good army bonus (or whatever those cards are called..formations..or something) that it bounces that persons military way up. Then the other players have to struggle to maintain parity to the exclusion of other aspects or suffer repeated ass kickings via aggression cards.

The other leader that I think is overpowered is the one that gives vp's for each colony you own. (Magellan?) You get three or four colonies with that guy as your leader...8 vps per turn is pretty hard to beat. (unless the other guy has Napoleon and is kicking your ass and taking your colonies)
Last edit: 29 May 2013 20:36 by repoman.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
29 May 2013 21:04 #153132 by Black Barney
Cook?? I thought he was the worst of the leaders.

Maybe the meta has changed but when I used to play, Moses, Michaelangelo all seemed really strong.

Our military games have been really small and shallow though since my wife always picks Joan of Arc and Ghandi

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.541 seconds