Eclipse? Anyone here still play it?

I've played both, and like Eclipse a bit better. Shockingly enough, while both of them are trying to make you fight your neighbor, Eclipse definitely seems to get the fighting started much more readily. Those last few turns, you'll generally _have to_ fight to win, unless the other players are asleep.

One thing for/against Eclipse, that TI3 doesn't have as much of, is that you definitely get that Euro-ish, "I _really_ need another action here, but can't afford it," sensation.

Again, I'd play both, and wouldn't be disappointed.

dragonstout wrote:

Josh Look wrote:

scissors wrote: Eclipse... is it worth getting?

Nope.

Seems like all the folks who were gushing like crazy upon Eclipse's release have cooled on it.

So what I really want to know is: forget the Twilight Imperium comparison, is there anyone here who prefers Eclipse to Clash of Cultures (who has played both, of course)?

I've only played Eclipse once, and it's been a while. However my memory tells me that it places more emphasis on the economic side of the coin. It's a little more efficiency as a result, and maybe not quite as metagamey. Clash of Cultures is much more about finding the tech synergies, I think. The resource production is just a step above Catan, really. The only difference there is that you have to choose to generate resources instead of tying them to a die roll.

repoman wrote:

Schweig! wrote: No, seems like Eclipse's most vocal critics are still banging the same old drum. Those are also the ones claiming TI3 is totally unlike Eclipse. But the two are very alike, playwise if not in scope.

They are nothing alike.

I've made my arguments and they are from experience, having played TI3 >20 times. All I ever hear from the other side is: "they're nothing alike".

I certainly don't regret having played TI3 that much, oh no!

But in TI3 your goal is also to build a VP generating engine. TI3 also borrows many mechanics from eurogames, starting with the role selection (Puerto Rico). TI3 encourages turtling even more than Eclipse, particularly in the base game, where you concentrate to pick up the Imperial card as often as possible in best worker placement fashion. Research in TI3 is essentially blind, despite the open tech tree, because you can hardly know what you need later in the game (but in the base game always improve your fighters). You also do resource management in TI3, albeit in a freer former, but Eclipse's way is quicker. The only difference is the amount of filler material that comes with TI3 and if that's your thing - and it certainly was when we were younger and had the time to game all night - then go for it, but there is simply no denying the the two games are very alike and I will certainly choose Eclipse over TI3 any time when I only have a couple of hours to play a game.

The main difference is probably that Eclipse has wooden cubes which allure eurogamers to want and play the game with you in which case you WILL have a bad time. That simply doesn't happen with TI3.

Schweig! wrote: TI3 also borrows many mechanics from eurogames, starting with the role selection (Puerto Rico).

This myth deserves to be shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave. Both Puerto Rico (published in 2002) and Twilight Imperium 3rd edition (published in 2005) borrowed the role selection concept from Citadels (published in 2000).

Shellhead wrote:

Schweig! wrote: TI3 also borrows many mechanics from eurogames, starting with the role selection (Puerto Rico).

This myth deserves to be shot in the head and buried in a shallow grave. Both Puerto Rico (published in 2002) and Twilight Imperium 3rd edition (published in 2005) borrowed the role selection concept from Citadels (published in 2000).

The role selections in Puerto Rico and TI3 have way more in common with each other than either one has with Citadels. It's not so much the selection itself (since that's pretty common), but rather the primary ability for one person and the secondary ability for everyone else.

I really like Eclipse, and it was a request of mine to play on my birthday, but I already told my wife she might have a hard time rounding up players for it for me (which she volunteered to do). I thought my economics-game-liking friends might like this, but they don't really, and they generally don't like theme-y games. (Yeah, I need new friends.) I think Eclipse is a very nice blend of Euro and war game, but clearly others feel that it falls between tool (or more) stools.

And doesn't Cristian Petersen go on about how PUERTO RICO informed his design for TI:3E? There's nothing wrong with pointing this out:

The Strategy Card mechanic of TI3 originates from an inspired evolution within German board games. From the small but clever Verrater by Marcel-André Casasola Merkle, to Citadels by Bruno Faidutti, a development had begun that, in my opinion, will change the board games of the future. The principle innovation of these games was that the typical "Phases" were greatly simplified, with the core game engagement now tied elegantly to components (in Citadel’s case, the Character Cards) rather than a heavy list of phases. Wolfgang Kramer also touched on this evolution in a different way, with the magnificent El Grande. In El Grande the essential component, the action cards, do not simulate phases as in Citadels, but prod players forward by having them choose specific strategies in a perfect-information environment. The engaging Vinci by Philippe Keyaerts introduced the wonderful "increasing value" system that provided balance to unselected abilities by increasing their value every turn until selected. Andreas Seyfarth took this evolution a step further as he combined the above elements (as well as adding his own innovation) in the wonderfully crafted and popular Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico merged the dynamic phases (Verrater, Citadels), perfect information selection strategy (El Grande), and the increasing value mechanic (Vinci) of its illustrious predecessors.

The big story I think is missing from gaming history right now is the deck-building concept as an extension of Seyfarth's SAN JUAN. Isn't that exactly what happened there? You make a little engine from an array of options, and the engine makes points to help you win?

TI3 encourages turtling even more than Eclipse, particularly in the base game, where you concentrate to pick up the Imperial card as often as possible in best worker placement fashion.

It's a downside that in the TI3 base game, that "Imperial / Initiative / Technology" triad walks its way around the table. For me, the cure is worse than the disease, in that the optional cards cure of Imperial II takes the clock off the game, and you can now do nothing for a long time. I'll grant that players don't sit down to TI3 for The Greatest 90-Minute Experience In Gaming, but that sticks another hour or two on an already-long game.

IIRC, they also nerfed fighters somehow, so that the "build up your fighters" strategy wasn't nearly as good.

The big story I think is missing from gaming history right now is the deck-building concept as an extension of Seyfarth's SAN JUAN. Isn't that exactly what happened there? You make a little engine from an array of options, and the engine makes points to help you win?

I think that card driven wargames really originated with Battle Masters, but nobody gives it credit either.