Essay incoming. Sorry to dig this up again.
Core question here is Age of Innovation. I’m anticipating the holidays this year discounting this one as it’s just past the hawtness, still on the radar, but likely in stock.
Core subquestion is how does this fit into the system? And by system, here is my understanding of the Terra Mystica / Gaia Project dichotomy:
(Public opinion seems pretty evenly divided, and I know we are rife with Terra Mysticans here)
Factions: TM factions are bland and live within the system. Get a free upgrade, which other factions can pay for. Do a standard action at a discount or with alternate currency. Expand reach in this specific way.
GP factions are creative and unique and break the game rules.
This is descriptive, not a point for GP. More on that below.
Coherency vs Combotasm: TM’s parts live in parallel. You have resources, you can spend them in any one of these disconnected arenas.
GP weaves the paths together, via race powers and the tech tree, allowing more freedom to squeeze resources and extend your turn through a creative combo pathway.
So GP can be a rabbit warren of combo potential while TM is more “you have what you brought, which thing do you want to do?”
Upshot 1: The combination of unique, powerful factions and combo potential means that in GP, you are playing your faction and leveraging combos. The relative blandness of TM in both cases can be framed as a lack of distraction. TM invites you to focus on the map, on the system, and a long term plan. To focus on the other players.
Upshot 2: GP has a lot of turn zero downtime, both true turn zero when assessing factions and variable map, but also the start of each round when you work out a pathway to maximize the round. TM gets you to the game faster, as you’re living and dying off your bigger plan, not tactical opportunities, and that’s already in your head. And it’s much easier to divine what your faction should be doing as you just lean into discounts.
Player Count: TM really needs 4 to be its best. GP, due to the above, is an excellent solo and scales well at 2 and 3.
Map Tightness: I’ve never gelled to the statement that TM has a tighter map. GP’s map is much tighter, with so little real estate. You are definitely gunning for that same planet and, if you don’t get it, maybe game over. TM has more real estate.
What TM has, though, is a Map focus. In GP, once you get that planet, you’re back to the race/engine. TM allows you to partially terraform and wrestle over land before/after a piece is placed. If someone blocks you, you build around them, tunnel under them, etc. It’s fair to say that TM has more fencing and focus regarding real estate.
TM is also meaner in its own way. In GP, the fight comes at step 1, before placing a mine. You lose, it’s absolute, but you move on. TM allows you to invest time and resources into a fight before you ultimately lose, which can be more game breaking.
Ultimate Takeaway: As deducible from the split public opinion, it’s a matter of flavor. TM is a lot about the map. About the long term plan, and bringing the right resources into the round. Plan, anticipate, build, block, etc.
GP is more “euro” insofar as the game is won or lost by the engine you build, how you wield your asymmetry, and what active and passive bonuses you can synergize as you hunt through the system for value.
How Age of Innovation fits in:
Is it a happy medium, bringing the good parts of both models together? Or a vestigial limb that doesn’t do either model as well as its progenitors?
Factions: AoI has modular factions, where the institute, race, and terrain are combined at the start of game. This gives variability, a la GP, but the resulting races are characteristically bland, a la TM. Much of the narrative reads “worst of both worlds” - there is still a turn zero brain burn and teaching hurdles, but without actually interesting factions. More work for no payout.
Coherency vs Combotasm: Can’t directly speak to this, but consensus is that AoI is more generous with resources than either. It sounds like AoI rests in between it’s parents, but you just have more here, mooting the point. Resource management and squeezing income out of your engine happens without either effort, without planning or comboing.
Could be argued this is a dumbing down, or another refocus on map brinksmanship. In some ways the abundance makes it easier to play, especially for newcomers, but it maintains more rules overhead than TM so it isn’t as easy to teach.
Player Count: Variable maps to support 2-3 players. AoI delivers the full range here.
Map Tightness: Map is closer to TM with abundant spaces and room to sprawl into and around each other – room for fencing. Reports say there is a hard bottleneck, more like GP, that can lock players out if they don’t get in fast enough. I don’t know how this comes together.
Takeaway: It’s a mess? Resource richness makes it easier to play, but extra rules and mechanisms erase that by making it inaccessible to teach. TM is still easier to introduce. Factions are a worst of both worlds situation, with extra setup and planning but low payoff. The engine is a nice hybrid, but too generous so it becomes irrelevant.
So back to that question, have other people played and what did you think? Is it a happy medium, bringing the good parts of both models together? Or a vestigial limb that doesn’t do either model as well as its progenitors?
