Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Donald X.]

Is 15 turns a normal game length?

You can win in 15 turns without doing anything special, so I'd try to be faster.

[LastFootnote]

You need 30 crown advancements to win. 30 crown advancements ≈ $120. You start the game with $8 worth of cards (2 cards), and possibly some additional money. The average turn is an $8 value. So assuming you can end the game with no leftover money or cards in hand, that's 14 turns. Probably you usually have resources left over at the end of the game, but you know. 14 or 15 turns seems like a reasonable benchmark.

[liopoil]

I played the strategy suboptimally - its doable in 13 turns for sure.

[blueblimp]

I think I now understand Temporum's baseline strategy, analogous to Dominion's big money. Skip reading this if you want to figure out the baseline strategy for yourself, though it's pretty straightforward--just took me a while to break out of my initial "value idiot" mindset.

As a simplification, assume that only times 1-3 exist and each zone only performs its basic function (score, draw 2, play). Also assume that each player card delivers the par $12 and has no other effect.

Assume first player. Open by drawing 2 cards four times, to have 10 cards in hand. Find some combination of cards in your hand to score that sum to exactly 30 crowns. (If you can't yet, you need to spend an extra turn here to draw more cards.) Play the rest of the cards for $. Then score the remaining cards to win. The total turns taken is 14. You'll have enough money to do the scoring in this simplified scenario, because if you're scoring S cards for 30 crowns, they require 4*(30 - 3*S) = 120 - 12*S dollars, and we're playing 10-S cards for 12*(10-S) = 120 - 12*S dollars.

Analogous to Dominion's BM+X, there are obvious single-card upgrades to this strategy, like playing Conspiracy (extra crown per score) or Friends in Old Places (scoring costs $2 less) before you score anything, then adjusting your play/score balance in response.

In my most recent game, I had five cards lined up to score for the win with enough $ to score them (after accounting for bonuses), and pretty much just played my last turns on auto-pilot, except for monitoring the timeline to make sure Great Depression wouldn't wreck me. That was dull even though I won, but I think that maybe the zone selection was just unusually straightforward. Usually, I find that the zones force more adaptive play. I do find though that it's pretty common that for the last 1-2 rounds around the table, it becomes pretty clear that a certain player has a 90%+ chance to win and nobody can do anything about it, and that can be a bit frustrating.

I'm finding the tactics around timeline manipulation and time ruling are becoming more apparent and interesting with repeat plays. Edit: Here's an example. Roman Empire was initially real, so drawing 8 cards off the bat would put you $8 behind, a whole turn. So I wanted to either rule time 2 or alter the timeline so that the other time 2 zone is real, and the first is preferable since it doesn't help the other players. Either way, it was necessary to score a card much earlier than the baseline strategy wants to. I had Friends in Old Places, which I wanted to play before scoring anything, so that shook up the baseline even more.

[sitnaltax]

Blueblimp: That appraisal of the basic economy is the conclusion I arrived at. The secondary conclusion I arrived at is that the BIG value mostly lies in Age 4 cards. For example, Communist Utopia potentially allows you to play two cards in one turn. That's enormous--basically an entire free turn--but you have to stay under $12 to do it. So you either need to spend your money to take advantage, or at the very least run around to make sure none of your opponents can make use of it. Information Age similarly gives you an entire free turn, in this case if you've done some setup scoring work. I'm trying to write a basic strategy guide to post to here/BGG.

The other big strategy thing is not to have more card/money resources than you need to win the game. You can do everything efficiently and for great value, but still lose because you don't have enough turns to turn your $130 and 8 cards into a win. (Other side of the coin: having lots of cards in hand gives greater opportunities, makes it more likely that you'll have the right-value card to score, etc.) FWIW, I think this is why Barbarian Hordes is a good card. It's not efficient, but it lets you turn card resources into VP fast and straightforwardly.

[qmech]

Finally ordered this today (and studiously avoiding reading the strategy discussion above).  I'm looking forward to having a Donald X game that I can play with my group on an even footing.

[Donald X.]

In my most recent game, I had five cards lined up to score for the win with enough $ to score them (after accounting for bonuses), and pretty much just played my last turns on auto-pilot, except for monitoring the timeline to make sure Great Depression wouldn't wreck me. That was dull even though I won, but I think that maybe the zone selection was just unusually straightforward.

If it's any consolation, I would expect anyone putting off all of their scoring until the end to lose by a margin.

[Jorbles]

I got the game for Christmas and have been loving it.

[pedroluchini]

If it's any consolation, I would expect anyone putting off all of their scoring until the end to lose by a margin.

Do you mean a large margin or a small margin? By definition, anyone who loses does so by "a margin," right...?

[blueblimp]

If it's any consolation, I would expect anyone putting off all of their scoring until the end to lose by a margin.

Do you mean a large margin or a small margin? By definition, anyone who loses does so by "a margin," right...?

In my experience, this game is never lost by a large margin unless you make huge blunders. It's nearly always the case that everyone is 1-2 turns away from winning when the game ends. I've calibrated my expectations so that if I'm 3+ turns behind at the end of the game, that means I was blown out.

[Donald X.]

If it's any consolation, I would expect anyone putting off all of their scoring until the end to lose by a margin.

Do you mean a large margin or a small margin? By definition, anyone who loses does so by "a margin," right...?

In my experience, this game is never lost by a large margin unless you make huge blunders. It's nearly always the case that everyone is 1-2 turns away from winning when the game ends. I've calibrated my expectations so that if I'm 3+ turns behind at the end of the game, that means I was blown out.

By "by a margin" I meant "by more than they need." Not just barely winning.

Yes the game is often close. I would count "save all scoring until the end" as a huge blunder though. In a two-player game (i.e. no random effect of other players), I will get in a bunch of turns of half-turn advantages from ruling places, and they will add up to you being multiple turns behind. If there are no such places, I can still get ahead with a player card that cares about ruling times.

A good baseline strategy is to try to get ahead every turn. Every turn, get more than your one turn. If you spend the first four turns drawing 2 cards, those are turns you are not getting ahead.

[blueblimp]

Maybe my judgment is coloured by having played mostly 3-player games, where the difficulty of ruling is highest (~1.33 ruling slots per player, compared to 2 in 2p, 2 in 4p, and 1.6 in 5p). Anyway, I don't consider myself a good player, just crawling out of being completely terrible. The "baseline strategy" I described above is an antidote to my initial "value idiot" mentality, which goes something like: greedily make whatever play maximizes your immediate value (according to the $4 = 1 crown = 1 card rule of thumb), then at some point panic and try to convert it all into crowns. There are several reasons that fails horribly, of course, not just the lack of early drawing.

The major zone-agnostic advantages I see to drawing a lot early:

• By drawing up front, you have a better chance to play cards that are advantageous to play before any scoring. For example, with Conspiracy, having it in play for all your scoring is a pretty big deal: having it in play for 5 scores puts you a full turn above par. It's pretty bad to draw a card like Conspiracy after you've already scored a few times.
• Having all your cards in hand before playing/scoring allows you to work out the combinatorics of playing and scoring to have a clean finish. After all, every $4 you have at the end of the game is a half turn lost, and every excess crown advanced is another half turn lost. It's harder to plan these things out if you don't know what you're going to draw later.
• More generally, any card requiring planning ahead is more effective the earlier you know you have it.

Considering that having the extra information (and possibility to play cards) can pretty easily provide a turn or more worth of speed-up, that makes a case for preferring to draw early even at a small loss of value.

[Donald X.]

The major zone-agnostic advantages I see to drawing a lot early:

• By drawing up front, you have a better chance to play cards that are advantageous to play before any scoring. For example, with Conspiracy, having it in play for all your scoring is a pretty big deal: having it in play for 5 scores puts you a full turn above par. It's pretty bad to draw a card like Conspiracy after you've already scored a few times.
• Having all your cards in hand before playing/scoring allows you to work out the combinatorics of playing and scoring to have a clean finish. After all, every $4 you have at the end of the game is a half turn lost, and every excess crown advanced is another half turn lost. It's harder to plan these things out if you don't know what you're going to draw later.
• More generally, any card requiring planning ahead is more effective the earlier you know you have it.

It's true, drawing a lot of cards early is good, and you have listed some good reasons why. As it happens scoring immediately is good too, because it means you are getting advantages from ruling places instead of not (until your opponents counter that). And playing cards immediately is good, to have perpetual abilities for as long as possible, to leave you able to score immediately when needed to thwart opponents, and for whatever other reasons due to the specifics of what the cards do. It all wants to happen first.

[LastFootnote]

I didn't really understand how thematic Cold War was until I went there in a game. Whoever flinches last gets the payoff. Pretty clever.

[LastFootnote]

Unfortunately, Temporum was just panned by Dice Tower: http://boardgamegeek.com/video/60882/temporum/miami-dice-153-temporum

Tom Vasel seemed to think it was passable, but Dourpuss over on his left really hated it.

[GendoIkari]

Unfortunately, Temporum was just panned by Dice Tower: http://boardgamegeek.com/video/60882/temporum/miami-dice-153-temporum

Tom Vasel seemed to think it was passable, but Dourpuss over on his left really hated it.

Well that just sucks. I guess even a working clock is wrong sometimes. I remember one of them really hated Thebes too, which I think is great.

[GendoIkari]

Unfortunately, Temporum was just panned by Dice Tower: http://boardgamegeek.com/video/60882/temporum/miami-dice-153-temporum

Tom Vasel seemed to think it was passable, but Dourpuss over on his left really hated it.

Ugh, it's half just complaining about theme again. Why do people complain about theme? If you want to "feel like you're time traveling", then play a role playing game with a time travel theme. Don't play a board game.

I've played a lot of Puerto Rico, and never "felt" like I was actually a land owner in Puerto Rico. I've played a lot of Power Grid, and never "felt" like I was the owner of an electric company. I felt like I was playing a good board game... and that's a good thing, I played board games because I like to play board games, so I want to feel like I'm playing a board game.

[qmech]

That is the least impressed I have ever seen a board game reviewer.

I'm seeing more and more that people get different things out of games.  I don't play Dominion to pretend to be a medieval prince, and I don't play Temporum to live out Back to the Future.  So far I think Temproum is about reading boards, and I suspect that the Dice Tower team just aren't that good at it.

I don't know how the strategic depth of Temporum compares to that of Dominion.  There's certainly a much stronger clock in Temporum, so the skill comes in the little decisions.  I guess someone needs to write an Isotropic for Temporum so that we can work out the strategy faster.  Or perhaps it's already been done and we just need those in power to agree to open it up to the rest of us.

[eHalcyon]

That is the least impressed I have ever seen a board game reviewer.

Oh man, you need to do yourself a favour and watch the review for Oneupmanship.

Unfortunately, Temporum was just panned by Dice Tower: http://boardgamegeek.com/video/60882/temporum/miami-dice-153-temporum

Tom Vasel seemed to think it was passable, but Dourpuss over on his left really hated it.

Ugh, it's half just complaining about theme again. Why do people complain about theme? If you want to "feel like you're time traveling", then play a role playing game with a time travel theme. Don't play a board game.

I've played a lot of Puerto Rico, and never "felt" like I was actually a land owner in Puerto Rico. I've played a lot of Power Grid, and never "felt" like I was the owner of an electric company. I felt like I was playing a good board game... and that's a good thing, I played board games because I like to play board games, so I want to feel like I'm playing a board game.

To be fair, the other half was about the mechanics.  In particular, they say that all the things you do felt too same-y and repetitive.



I'd love to see a rebuttal.  I still haven't had a chance to play Temporum, but it is slipping from "future blind buy" to "try first". 

[blueblimp]

I haven't watched the review yet, but anyway, my perspective is that I played something like 10-ish games with family over the holidays (mostly with 3 players), and we enjoyed them all and weren't getting bored with the game. If anything, the game was becoming more interesting. So from that perspective, I'd recommend it. But I may not have a chance to play again IRL for a while, so hopefully something Isotropic-like crops up.

[Donald X.]

Unfortunately, Temporum was just panned by Dice Tower: http://boardgamegeek.com/video/60882/temporum/miami-dice-153-temporum

Tom Vasel seemed to think it was passable, but Dourpuss over on his left really hated it.

Elvis Costello - Couldn't Call It Unexpected No. 4

Temporum hasn't had very many reviews so far, but some of them are positive. One site mentioned in their podcast that they probably wouldn't review it, citing how identical the zones are, which to me is like saying, Mountebank and Monument are basically the same card, you get +$2 and then there's some nuance or other. I can't do much to improve things there; you can only maximize one variable, and I'd always rather make a game I think is good, than make a game that struggles to look good at a glance. I have an edge with the SdJ jury, because they endlessly replay games to decide whether or not to recommend them, and my games try more than others to be endlessly replayable. They probably won't like the theme though - too much war and grandfather killing.

I expected Temporum to go over well with Dominion fans, and continue to. Of course the Dice Tower doesn't like Dominion anymore, they prefer clones with different themes. [I went looking for the player's choice thing where I remember them not immediately having something to say, and didn't find it - in the one for this year they were just saying, look, it fell to #4, will it be around in 10 years, probably not, it needed a steady stream of expansions. So maybe I was remembering some other entity's list. And they still rate Dominion above clones, they just said, one expansion and this clone would replace Dominion for them, also they left out the word "clone," which for some reason I find to be important.]

But anyway, like, people who want to playtest Dominion at my table and get stuck with Temporum instead, they always like it. Of course they never get to guess "there was nothing there," because the experienced players clearly know something, and beat them up. I can't include an experienced player in the box, and that's a real issue, to make sure that an all-new-player game isn't wrecked by something. In the case of Temporum the only thing I can see is, I could have had four choose-one zones instead of seven. New players sometimes just park on them.

[Donald X.]

I guess someone needs to write an Isotropic for Temporum so that we can work out the strategy faster.  Or perhaps it's already been done and we just need those in power to agree to open it up to the rest of us.

I don't know of anything. You could suggest it to the Board Game Arena people.

[Donald X.]

Temporum got a positive review at Fortress: Ameritrash, so there. That was a pleasant surprise.

[GendoIkari]

Rules question: If you have Secret Society in play, and you score a card while the draw deck is empty, does Secret Society get shuffled in with the discard pile, or is it still in "being played/scored land"? Gang of Pickpockets specifies that its draw is after the other card is resolved (which I assume means that it's in the discard by that time), but Secret Society has no clarification. So to generalize it; when you score a card does it go directly to the discard pile, or does it go "in play" until you're done scoring it?

[Donald X.]

Rules question: If you have Secret Society in play, and you score a card while the draw deck is empty, does Secret Society get shuffled in with the discard pile, or is it still in "being played/scored land"? Gang of Pickpockets specifies that its draw is after the other card is resolved (which I assume means that it's in the discard by that time), but Secret Society has no clarification. So to generalize it; when you score a card does it go directly to the discard pile, or does it go "in play" until you're done scoring it?

You completely finish scoring the card before Secret Society triggers; thus it will be shuffled in.