Why do Civ-Lite attempts fail?

mrmarcus wrote:

Technically four, functionally only three. The first age runs to 1500, second to 1900, and the third to moder times. Played it a couple of more times the other night, and still hold the same opinion. The games runs too fast to have any real sense of building a civilization. Closer to resource management style.

4 ages? Hmmmm....

So pre-industrial, industrial and post-industrial?

I found Through the Ages to be really disappointing, having played it for the first time today. No map, no easy to relate to visual guide as to how I am doing, it's just a bunch of cards and numbers that I have to track. The game could be played with cards, a pen and paper and not really lose much. I didn't feel like I was really competing with my opponents, more competing with my own ability to efficiently manage the resources I had and generate more resources on my next turn that might help or might not. The game concept seemed fine, but it is really not designed for the gamer who responds to visual cues, more those that are able to sort everything in their head, analyse both their own and their opponents numbers and memorise which cards will benefit them most in different situations. That is not remotely the kind of gamer that I am.

The game has little to no AT appeal to it all as far as I can see, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but in this case it draws on a lot of the negative aspects of Euro gaming to produce something that is great in concept but fails in execution.

I'd play it again, as I can see the potential, but I am not sure it will ever fulfil it.

edit: I didn't read this thread at all before making my post, but going back and reading some other comments I am interested to see just how much my views tally with most other posters.

There's an excellent recent review of Through the Ages on BGG about what moss_icon was just talking about. I haven't played the game but it looks dry to me personally.

So I got Mare Nostrum while I was out in California and I got a chance to play it last night. It seemed pretty fun. There's conflict and some negotiating and with some tweaking could be a ittle better. Problem was that we played with 3 players. I think more would have made it more interesting.

Mare Nostrum is one of those games that comes to a screeching halt just as it is getting interesting. You build up these unique empires, develop interactions with the other empires, and get all geared up for a maelstrom to decide who will reign supreme when you find out that someone's already snaked the victory.

There are many games that do the build-up part of Civ games well, and there are many games that do the epic empire-level conflict thing well, but meshing those is where things often start falling short. Partly, I think, because the two occur on very different scales. To have real Civ-like conflict you would need to bring the empire building aspect of it to a halt until the conflict is resolved. If you don't conflict either tends to be uninteresting or inconsequential (or both!).

Ultimately, I suspect that Civ-Lite attempts fail for the same reason that microwaved steak-ums never approach the quality of a medium-rare steakhouse bone-in filet.

-MMM

Octavian wrote:

Ultimately, I suspect that Civ-Lite attempts fail for the same reason that microwaved steak-ums never approach the quality of a medium-rare steakhouse bone-in filet.

Got it: Weed required.

Octavian wrote:

Mare Nostrum is one of those games that comes to a screeching halt just as it is getting interesting. You build up these unique empires, develop interactions with the other empires, and get all geared up for a maelstrom to decide who will reign supreme when you find out that someone's already snaked the victory.
-MMM

I'll agree with you on this one. I think part of my problem was with it being a 3 player game. If we had more players, then I think we could have caused the maelstrom. I was cruising to victory when one of the other players attacked me which caused both of us to lose.

Octavian wrote:

Mare Nostrum is one of those games that comes to a screeching halt just as it is getting interesting. You build up these unique empires, develop interactions with the other empires, and get all geared up for a maelstrom to decide who will reign supreme when you find out that someone's already snaked the victory.

There are many games that do the build-up part of Civ games well, and there are many games that do the epic empire-level conflict thing well, but meshing those is where things often start falling short. Partly, I think, because the two occur on very different scales. To have real Civ-like conflict you would need to bring the empire building aspect of it to a halt until the conflict is resolved. If you don't conflict either tends to be uninteresting or inconsequential (or both!).

Ultimately, I suspect that Civ-Lite attempts fail for the same reason that microwaved steak-ums never approach the quality of a medium-rare steakhouse bone-in filet.

-MMM

Somewhat ironically, I think the game Titan actually handles this transition pretty well. You can see the Masterboard as the "build up" phase where players maneuver for resources and try to simultaneously not expose their soft underbelly while looking for same in their opponents. Mustering is a technology tree. Cast off a few cannon fodder "scout" units to see the real workings of your opponents' "empires" and then start chasing them for the kill on the Battleboard(s).