Jump to content

CapnZapp

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

About CapnZapp

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    -
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Province, St. Lucia
  1. In the computer game, delaying for a turn (or even a dozen, at lower difficulty settings and slower game speeds) isn't crippling. A game usually last for several hundred turns, if not a thousand. In this game, which lasts about fifteen turns (I guess), it would probably always be a bad move to delay even one turn. I guess you try out playing with random start tiles (instead of the tile geared towards your civ) instead. Though you'll probably realize why the "safe" tiles were added to the game - much like the computer game, a bad start can hose your entire game!
  2. Yes, even with two scouts that square can only end up being sent to ONE city. As regards to the overall question: yes, you can have two scouts in the same space. Check the figure stacking rules.
  3. Making the game finish in a reasonable length of time was highly likely a top consideration. After all, there are already plenty of games professing to give a "civ like" experience but which takes a long time to play. Making this game give a little of each aspect of "the civ feeling" (a little exploration, a little expansion, a little conflict, and some optimization) but then bringing each game to a close, so you could start up another, was quite possibly a very good move by FFG. The end-of-game timer doesn't start when some civ starts moving three steps on the culture tracker - it starts when the game begins. It's helpful if you already from the start realize this game is over in, what 12-16 (?) game turns. Unlike the computer game, there isn't a period at the beginning of each game where you simply know nothing of the end game, and does not even have to consider ending the game. This game certainly isn't about building up a kingdom and then enjoying that for any length of time. This game is a continuous race to the finish, where everything you do should be geared towards winning (and not "making a good-looking civilization"). This said, if enough extra material becomes available through expansions, I can easily see fans making variant rules for longer play time (making a tech victory require a step 6 tech, making the military victory require destroying 50% of the capitals, and so on)...
  4. By "PC games", do you mean the computer games (which are available for a variety of platforms, not just Windows)? If so, you should know that this board game is similar to the computer games in theme only. They are completely different games, with completely different limitations. For example, in Civilization IV, you can have as many as 18 civilizations on the same map at the same time (more with mods), all controllable by player or AI. As for your question, yes, I am personally convinced the board game was designed with expansions in mind. Nothing is official yet, but I would be very surprised if FFG aren't planning to announce more civilizations (and possibly also rules and tokens for a 5th or even 6th player) over the coming year.
  5. I would say that if the shape of Wonder tokens were in any way significant, this would be mentioned by the rules. Barring a ruling to the contrary, I would run the game with wonders and great people replacing the square's icons exactly in the way buildings do.
  6. There will most certainly be expansions. In fact, I can easily see LOTS of expansions. FFG could even do what Firaxis is doing with the computer game, sell individual new Civilizations (perhaps combined with a thematically appropriate Wonder, or a new Tech (starting or no), etc). Then they could sell an expansion pack which adds a 5th player (all the bits and bobs for it) coupled with more map tiles and yet more Wonders; though no new Civilizations. Then they could sell a second expansion which adds a 6th player and introduces some of the more "exotic" ideas (such as tiles with new terrains - including perhaps underwater cities, new resources, or whatever). This expansion would probably need a few rules tweaks to make sure the basic game holds up to a 6 player game (I suspect the relative ease of the different winning conditions will change, thus necessitating that, say, the cultural victory becomes slightly easier - or harder. And so on...) I could also see Alpha Centauri, preferably as a stand-alone game but with a mechanism to allow a game of Civ to "carry over" with some token benefit given to a winner that won through the Space/Tech victory... The possibilities are endless. And yes, I don't doubt the game was intentionally made that way.
  7. Bleached Lizard said: Thoughts? I read something very similar to this on the BGG forums...
  8. Smoo said: Bleached Lizard said: The official current ruling is that a player would win as determined by turn order (so the current First Player would have the first opportunity to win, and so on). However, Kevin Wilson has said that he will be reviewing this ruling for the first FAQ. Yes, and I will repeat my plea that he leaves it as is. No need to fix something that isn't broken. Perhaps you meant to say "No need to fix something I personally don't consider broken"...? Besides, he could make it optional, you know.
  9. We're not discussing WHY you'd want it, we're discussing whether you CAN do it. Not until the CAN is answered will the WHY become relevant.
  10. I'm a dedicated Civ fan but I'm holding off on buying Civ V until there's a major patch. Or, quite possibly, I won't buy it at all. The Civ franchise is not immune to the devs not making their homework, thinking that the brand name is strong enough for a sloppy game to sell itself. I've played Civ I, II and IV a lot. Unfortunately, this suggests the next brilliant (both deep and accessible) Civ game I'll play will be Civ VIII...
  11. I guess the intention behind this question is to use a Scout to "move" a square in one city's outskirts to another city, but I don't think that was the intention behind the rules (even if this isn't explicitly ruled out). So I'd say By the letter: yes By the spirit: no
  12. Artaxerxes said: ffgfan said: @Artaxerxes - I think the forum for WFRP 2ed will stay open - why it should be closed? There's no need for that. I think all fans of WFRP will agre with me. You've not met many marketing types have you, the v2 forum will likely be closed because the game isnt supported and it competes with the latest version... This. Of course the v2 forum will be closed once v3 is out there. The blame for this should not necessarily be put on Jay - this decision will be made, and probably not by those involved in the making of the rpg. Remember when BI was shut down - the web developer got the same question and answered something like "it will be open until the domain lapses" or something. The forum was specifically removed only months later, despite there being "no need"... Clearly someone higher up couldn't stand the fact there was a forum for an now-unsupported game line. However, it might just be that you won't be discouraged from posting your v2 questions on this board (after all, it doesn't specify any given edition). But really I feel it is much more worthwhile for you to register over at Strike to Stun. All old-edition refugees have a home there... where nobody has a new edition to push (only an old one )
  13. Great presentation (even though it looks like you had exactly one spectator ) Hopefully this clears out much of the misconceptions that otherwise could have soured the community.
  14. You are simply being negative, that's all.
  15. This sounds to be an introductory rpg. That is, an rpg with preprinted stat cards or less options is still an rpg, just not a very advanced one. In fact, one perfectly geared to introduce new players. This seems to be an industry trend (I'm thinking of Green Ronin's Dragon Age introductory box here) which I'm glad Warhammer gets to be a part of. (More WFRP players is always a good thing!) I'm guessing this is how the industry reacts to the harshness of the GSL. In other words, the reaction to how WotC stopped their generous d20 license where other companies were allowed to write for the D&D game rules. Apparently, dazzling production values and introductory complexity has been deemed necessary to claim some market share in the shadow of D&D 4th edition. The way these games come across as having boardgame appeal is probably a way not to have to compete directly with D&D, as well as finding new customers. Hopefully this will end up in a better way than the various introductory (A)D&D boxed sets, which always came across as blatant sell-ins to the main game of the era... Just because this is an introductory rpg, however, does not mean I feel a particular need to predict doom and gloom for us existing WFRP players. Just that the run of v2 finally has ended, and that to use further products for that edition, conversion will likely have to take place.
×
×
  • Create New...