Beren_Erchamion said:

Given that you are not following the normal game set up rules (actually not following most of the setup rules) on this one, the openning sequence will be equally none standard.  Obviously when I said the game was predictable in the openning rounds I was refering to a standard Twilight Imperium game.  I can only assume that if your not following the setup rules you are probobly changing other rules as well which would probobly make it even less possible to predict.  Good Luck with that one.

pedrotronic said:

My suggestions are as follows. The simpler the better for your first game or it may take you 12 hours.

Do NOT use Naalu, Saar or Muaat. Naalu and Saar tend to confuse first time players with thei racial abilities. Muaat is just plain hard to play until you ahve a handle on the game.

Good races for beginners: Sol, Norr, Letnev, L1z1x, Hacan, Mentak, Winnu (remember Winnu's racial abilities, they are easily forgotten)

The other races are alright, but a tad bit tougher to play.

RULES

Expansion Strategy Cards (Bureaucracy is generally better, but Imperial II can be fun)

Expansion Objectives (Gives more warfare related objectives so there is less "turtling")

Wormhole Nexus (You may forget it's there, but this is a key addition to the game and should be included. Note that it is NOT needed for the Keeper of Gates SO)

Artifacts (Adds more VPs which makes for a quicker game)

Voice of the Council (Optional, I don't like it personally, but it is a good addition to the game.)

Sabotage Runs (Just because they're cool. I never see anyone actually do one.)

Racial Techs (These balance a lot of the races that were underdogs in the original version.)

NO NOs

Whatever you do your first time playing, do NOT use Simulated Early Turns. You may find  you have a liking for it later and that's all fine and good, but the more playing you do the first game the more you will learn.

Good luck and have fun!

BigKahuna said:

And this is exactly why I don't use SET. You should try out the Star by Star Variant to set up some time. It makes for a far more interesting game than the out of the box set up.

Indeed, I can vouch for that.  I'm largely opposed to major game variants, because I like the game as written, but two variants that I do kind of like are:

1) Dreadnoughts roll 2 dice in battle when undamaged.  They count as 2 units for production purposes.  War suns take 3 hits to kill, roll one die per hit they have left, and count as 3 units for production purposes.  This variant makes Dreadnoughts more worthwhile, but still balances their added power (both with the non-constant dice, and the extra "production").  War Suns become better than they are because they take one extra hit, but they also lose power as they are hurt, and take up quite a bit of production to build.  I just like this one.

2) Star-by-Star.  This one I like, but don't "need" to make things fun, but I like how something so simple as more control over home system placement can add a LOT of interesting twists to the game without drastically altering the balance.  In a way, it can actually ENSURE more balance as no player is "stuck" in a bad starting position just because of having a bad hand - anyone can end up pretty much anywhere in the galaxy.

I just don't like SET because although the first few rounds may be "repetitive", they often set the tempo for the rest of the game.

Lots of interesting opinions here.  My 2 cents:

-For heaven's sake, don't use the original Imperial Strategy Card so you can play without it later!  That's like eating a spoonful of mud before you have a scoop of ice cream, just to make the ice cream taste better.  Leave the ISC where it belongs... under your table leg to keep it from wobbling.

-Once you know the rules, leaders don't really lengthen the game, with the exception that Diplomats can stall the invasion of a planet (and a few dice rolls when somebody gets killed or captured).  I'm kind of apathetic about whether they add that much to the game though.  I usually don't play with them because others in my group request not to.  Play without them the first couple of times for simplicity; once you've got the basics down, try them out to see how you like them.

-Distant Suns... I'm not going to debate them here.  In my opinion they aren't worth the cardboard they're printed on.  Some people, the poor souls, love 'em.  If you wanna play Russian Roulette, TI3-style, knock yourself out.

-I disagree that SET has a minimal impact on the start of the game.  It has tremendous impact... sometimes for the better, but often for the worse, depending on who you are playing.  One screwed race I don't think anyone has brought up yet:  Yin only gets 2 resources from their planet as they cannot flip it.  Besides, if you are learning the game, the first few turns are the most educational for new players.  Hell, I would even suggest that instead of playing 1 beginner game, you play THREE incomplete games, each lasting 2-3 turns, just to get the basics down.  Once you are experienced, try SET.  If the glaring impacts on the beginning game don't bother you (or you even like them), then use 'em if they float your boat.

Personally, I don't like SET.  I like to watch the first turns unfold.  There are some early moves one can pull (especially with the extra movement afforded by early XRD/Stasis, or one of the Warfare cards) that you can't do using SET.  Unlike some people here, I like seeing early-game aggression.  In my experience it rarely leads to early player elimination if you have good players.  And frankly, I find games where everyone gets their fair share of the pie to be mind-numbingly boring.

-I will second that Dreadnought/War Sun rules, and Preset Maps/Star-by-Star are great variants.  Play by the book a few times, then try these to spice things up.  You may prefer the original way... maybe?  Personally, I won't go back.

And Mike just put what I was trying to say about SET perfectly.

Mike_Evans said:

Mike is making some sense here, in particular about some of the arguments against using SET. I have to admit that I have never considered the impact on the Yinn, which after some consideration I have to agree is nearly as bad as the Saar.  Still I will say one thing about SET which, I think I have pointed out before but its worth consideration when you are watching the effects of SET on your games. 

In essence, everything has an impact on the starting conditions of your races, in fact, I would say that your starting conditions as a player are impacted considerably more by the layout of the galaxy, or what objectives come up then say what race you play.  This is a point worth considering because while SET certainly has some wacky effects on certain races, so does any other variant or condition of the game.  Everything in the game impacts how you will see the game from your chair and while we can argue what is a 'balanced' variant and what is not, again more often then not the experiance of the player will dictate his opinion. 

I often use my groups experiance with the Saar and SET.  It was agreed upon by my group that the Saar where getting screwed considerably by SET and that they needed an adjustment to make them worth picking.  However one night as we played one of the newbies (new to TI3 but certainly no stranger to strategy games) picked the Saar and we started the game and forget to implement the change to the Saar, hence they played as they are.  Not only did the Saar win, but they basicaly dominated the game.  Their racial abilities where used to perfection and to this day I have never seen anyone play so thoroughly successful as the Saar where.  The very next time the Saar where chosen while they didnt win, where certainly a top contender for the game (also a SET game).

Anywya the result was that my groups dynamic despite the initiatly intention to change the race resulted such that the Saar are now seen as a pretty good race to pick, as the tactics and strategy displayed by the player who won with them really showed the rest of us how good they can be.  So today my group makes no adjustments to the Saar, but more importantly more often then not fears the player controling them, because their win vs. loss and rank ratio is quite good in our group.  If you used our groups win loss record as a basis for picking races the Saar would be in the top 3.

My point with all this is to simply point out that starting condition while probobly the most debated, disputed and the very reason why so many variants and house rules exist are actualy not particularly critical to the game.  In the hands of a good player and the right table conditions (galaxy setup, public objective draws, action card draw, diplomatic atmosphere and many others) every race has a good shot at winning.

I would also point out that among experianced players it is usually considered wise to look at someone in a good starting condition with suspicion and caution.  I mean when I sit down to play a game of TI3 and I find that my neighbhoor is running Hacan or Yassiril, I can promise you that he is my enemy before the game starts and Im out to screw him right out of the gate, as I think most players are in my experiance.  This I think is a far bigger disadvantage to a player with a strong race (good starting conditions) and certainly supercedes the potential mechanical advantage.  I mean a Yassiril player can very easily find himself in round one facing 5 people who see him as the biggest threat at the board.  Considering that, I rather be in the shoes of a mediocare race any day.  In fact more often then not when I choose a race, I consider this very perspective.   

Just for a reference the Yassiril has one of the worse records in my group having one only won once in the history of the group.  I mean the Xxcha (un changed) has a better record then that.  I'm not saying here that they aren't the best race, they most definitly are, however there is absolutly no question in my mind that at my groups table when I draw 2 races and have to pick one and I happen to draw the Yassril, I'm going to be seriously considering picking the other race cause statisticaly whatever it is I have better odds of winning.

Just something to chew on.

I started to write a small reply, and it morphed into a ginormous post.  The first part is general, the second part is specific.  Good luck to those with long attention spans!

What you're talking about is groupthink.  I have read stories where a guy complains that because he is considered the best player in his group, yet he almost never wins because the everybody gangs up on him all the time.  I feel sorry for these guys.  When they're suffering through yet another game where they are getting gangbanged, it's not really much consolation to know that it's only because everybody else respects them so much.  They just happen to be getting the wrong end of the groupthink stick.

Groupthink dynamics can be interesting... if new "revelations" are had by the group, the gameplay can change significantly.  But if the groupthink doesn't change much, it becomes stagnant.  You'll see people become bored or frustrated with a game because they feel it has been "solved," when in reality they simply haven't found any new strategies in a while.  The key there is to constantly experiment.  Starcraft strategy is a perfect example of large-scale groupthink in action.  Some tactics that were commonplace several years ago are now obsolete as players have figured out how to counter them, and the new strategies will eventually be beaten by something else.  Now, if a game is good, it will be sufficiently deep that you can play it many different ways and keep it fresh.  If the game is shallow, you really will run out of viable strategies pretty quickly.  But if multiple groups notice a trend, then I think it's worth looking into some kind of rebalancing effort. After all, Blizzard was still rebalancing Starcraft with patches YEARS AND YEARS after its original release.

Now, when should a variant or house rule be introduced to change the balance? That's a tricky question. Unless the balance problem is obvious, one lone group will have a hard time definitively proclaiming what is or isn't balanced. But enough different groups playing enough different games can certainly point out trends that are harder to argue with. For example, somebody did the homework and found that Yssaril was winning an obscenely high percentage of the PBEMs. And of course there's common sense. I'm sorry to anyone who may disagree, but on paper, it's blindingly obvious that Mentak (pre-expansion) ain't got nothin' on Yssaril.  It is equally obvious that the original ISC is a broken card, and why should be obvious as well.

When you discuss strategy with other people, there's a lot of subjective stuff or just plain bullshit mixed in with the truth.  How do you tell which is which?  The key is debate. By comparing opinions, you can get to the bottom of a lot of it.  (This is a lot easier, emotionally, if you are watching the debate from the sidelines rather than participating in it!)  You can either point out bad/incomplete ideas with a little critical thinking, or you can compare war stories and see what is the same and what is different between groups.  This is why I'm such a fan of PsiComa's Shattered Ascension variant package. Psi took his experiences and those of his game group over years of play, and he took the anecdotes of others online.  Then he used that information to refine the game in terms of balance and "feel."   He succeeded beautifully, in my opinion. Granted, I have similar tastes as Psi in terms of what style of game I want to play, but I will also say that few people who have tried Shattered Ascension have been dissatisfied.   If people don't like Psi's variant, they don't have to play it.  But if they are of a like mind, they can enjoy it, and they do.  Immensely.

Incidentally, as most of us are painfully away, the "debating" part is where tempers flare. I have seen it many times... a guy comes to the forums, he has played a a grand total of once, and has all sorts of issues with the game. He insists that he's right when his real problem is he doesn't have enough experience yet to know what he's talking about. (not to derail this thread as it's been pretty productive, but almost without exception, most of the fights between the veterans and the newbies happen because of situations like this). This is more likely to happen the longer a game has been established.

------

To change gears to the specific:  I agree wholeheartedly that many variants can favor or penalize races.  For example, I feel that Mines favor the Yin in combat.  If if a mine hits and damages a sustain-damage ship, there's no choice in the matter of selecting casualties.  If Yin survives to the 2nd round of combat and has a destroyer sitting around, that's a guaranteed dead Dreadnought, or worse, a War Sun, and there's nothing to be done about it.  Another obvious example of a variant penalizing a race is Sabotage Runs.  Is it fair if Muatt does some early-game aggression against a virtually defenseless opponent, and yet the one or two fighters they had in the system as defense takes out your one and only starting ship?  Hardly.

Sure, you can win as Saar playing SET without any modifications.  Hell, you can do that and even win with a crappy starting position on top of that, even playing in a game where Yssaril, L1z1x, Jol Nar, Hacan, and Winnu (pre-nerf) are the other contenders.  As BigKahuna has said, there are a lot of factors that go into winning a game, and some aren't even tied to the stats, tiles, or races.  Manipulating the other players is the MOST important factor in winning this game.  And it helps to have good "technique."  But I would also say that given equal player skill, Saar is going to have a lot less of a chance in general.  The amount less is of course up for debate, but in my opinion it's substantial.

I think most people can agree that Saar should have a harder time, comparatively speaking, when SET is used.  Now, if only the strong races were screwed by SET and the weak ones were boosted, then I'd hail it as a great balancing tool.  But this just isn't true in my opinion, which is why I'm not a big SET fan.  I'm not inclined to give up the idea of SET entirely though!  I just haven't gotten around to tweaking it yet.  :)

(Side note: As a playtester, some of the game options included in the expansion were introduced very late in development/testing, kind of "tacked on." Frankly, some things simply weren't thought through enough, in my opinion. Some parts couldn't be adequately playtested because the testing phase was over too soon after the new options were introduced. So I do not have a lot of faith in the balance-worthiness of some game aspects, SET included. I see SET as a great idea, that was not properly implemented. This is not anybody's fault... a game needs to be released eventually otherwise FFG will go bankrupt!)

Back to generalizing again:  Time and again I see people who are against "balancing" state that the race balance is self-policing... the weaker races should gang up on the stronger ones and the game should balance itself, right?  Well, that is true.  But if the Yssaril is SO GOOD that they will win most of the time unless they are attacked on all sides, then other players have fewer strategic options, right?  That sounds like a shallow game to me.  That is why I wholeheartedly support ripping over/underpowered races, units, and other game mechanics to shreds and experimenting with ways to make it so that ideally, in a  COMPETITIVE TI3 tournament, every race would have roughly an equal statistical chance to win, given a statistically relevant number of players and number of games.  We will never get there of course, but I think it's worth trying for.  Especially since trying is a lot of fun!

I should probably start by saying I'm new to the forum and I've only played TI3 a total of three times. I read the previous post and I can only agree with the points about opinions and lack of experience. In fact, after the last game I played, a friend was a little disheartened with his first experience. We started to talk about the game and ways to play it, and he told me that overall he really enjoyed it but there are things he would change. He even asked me straight up, "You can't think of one thing you would change about this game?" I basically told him that no, I don't know what I would change simply because I don't have a full understanding of how everything interacts. Moreover, if I were to change something I'd have no idea of its full impact. The sheer depth of play in TI3 is something that struck me immediately after a couple of turns in my first play. Despite the fact that I knew so little about actually playing the game, I still knew it was "the game for me" and bought it shortly afterwards.

After the last game I was reading the racial guide on the wiki and read through the strategies. My friend was playing the N'orr, and played totally contrary to the recommendations of the guide. Now, the guide may not be the absolute authority on how to play, but it certainly offers some great advice. My friend understood the N'orr as a 'combat race' and played them accordingly. Only, there was no explicit difference in his mind (or mine for that matter at the time) between early and late game military power. The N'orr are slow... period. But he played a quick game, while believing that his "combativeness" would hold him up. It didn't.

I guess the point of this story is to say that a bad experience with a rule or trait doesn't make it a bad. Moreover, just because you think you understand something doesn't mean you do. It will certainly take some time to get used to the depth of this game and to have some idea as to whether you're making ideal decisions or not.