Has anyone played or have an opinion about...?

Boardgames
121

I haven’t played Maracaibo yet, but I will say that Pfister tends to be a consistently good designer. Plus, he has that annoying thing where each of his designs tends to be a little better and more refined than his previous one…

Not always. He has some stumbles (Blackout Hong Kong was fine but not great), but as a general rule he’s a safe bet.

I have played Gaia Project, but not single player. I don’t like it as much as Terra Mystica, which it borrows the design of almost whole-cloth. The Internet disagrees with me, though… last I checked Gaia Project was rated more highly.

My big complaints about it are:

  1. It’s more expensive than Terra Mystica, despite being plastic instead of wood. No idea why.
  2. It’s way more spread out. This might be considered a good thing by some people (less player interaction means fewer opportunities to be screwed by your neighbours), but it made the game way less engaging for me.
  3. The names were nonsensical.

I suspect the single player mode is just a Point Chaser, which I actively dislike as a gameplay style for single player, but again, that’s a suspicion not evidence.

4 Likes
122

I adore Maracaibo (regular edition), and have enjoyed the saga version. In terms of time management and the action economy, it’s an excellent game.

3 Likes
123

I have played a few games of Maracaibo on the app (before getting taught Great Western Trail). I am not a big fan of Pfister‘s designs. Isle of Skye is ok but I gave it away. Oh my Goods didn‘t play well with my partner. CloudAge was pretty meh. Really GWT is the only one I enjoyed playing. Maracaibo is a follow-up to that it seems to me. I might enjoy it more now that I have learned GWT.

However, the solo mode is a bit of a weirdo. The solo bot races through the rondel and so you have to play quite fast and I believe it takes away quite a few strategic options you would normally have.

I don‘t own any cardboard copies of either Maracaibo or GWT. I am waiting for the sheep edition (NZ) of GWT. Would play that over Maracaibo. But that is just my uninformed opinion.

I have played a bunch of Terra Mystica and a few solos of Gaia Project. I have enjoyed my time with both. Terra Mystica used to be my favorite game (until Spirit Island came along). I loved to play it two handed. Gaia Project has some improvements over Terra Mystica (mostly making the tracks actually useful). GP has a card driven solo mode that works well enough but takes a bit getting used to.

Both the Pfister Rondels (GWT + Maracaibo) and TM/GP are highly strategic games. GP/TM has no randomness built into the gameplay (the bot has some). Maracaibo has some randomness in then setup as far as I remember.

The big difference is in one you have a rondel where you choose your next action from a number of different ones ahead of you. In the other you are trying to build up your presence on a map and do this in a way that your player board generates enough income for you to get better and longer turns.

For a solo I think I would still prefer GP over Maracaibo. But that may be my big nostalgia for the Terra Mystica speaking. I know the mechanisms here quite well. On the other hand I have played neither in the last few years. So take that with a grain of salt. Maybe check how many people are currently actually playing these games (there are stats somewhere on BGG) to see how these hold up.

4 Likes
124

Gaia Project (and Terra Mystics) and Great Western Trail are all on boardgamearena, which you can sign up to for free.

I’m not a big fan of TM/GP but I’m sure some folks on here would play with you. I’d never turn down GWT.

I’m possibly the biggest fan of BGA on here and I think it’s a pretty good way to try a game out.

6 Likes
125

I’d happily play an async game of Gaia project if you would like to try it out :slight_smile:

4 Likes
126

I agree. BGA or TTS or apps (not free but significantly less investment than a cardboard copy).

4 Likes
127

OK - message from the local Gaia Project apologist.

First off, Gaia Project is a fantastic solo experience. It’s widely considered one of the best automas on the market and is made by the automa factory (an outsourced solo-mode contractor, heavily used by Stonemeier) who coined the term. The automa is a fully simulated opponent which is both smooth to run and convincing as an opponent. The solo mode IS available on BGA for trial.

Second, I love the game - but you have to know what it is. As for why I say it’s better than Terra Mystica, I found TM to be a hodgepodge of disparate parts. The cult tracks are over on the side, and you have to do them but you don’t really get much for doing them. The currencies are all separate. And I found the game was hard to remember (as the mechanical pieces didn’t connect) and often shut you out.

Furthermore, the different factions were imbalanced and same-y. There are 3-4 with minor variations on “easier to terraform”, 3-4 with minor variations on “further reach”, and one other category I don’t even remember now.

Gaia Project just fixed everything. In reverse order - the factions are balanced, unique, and really creative. Each one feels different and really demands a different approach, and they interact with all parts of the game. Secondly, the game is a bit more complex but at the same time more intuitive. The Cult Tracks, previously an unwanted appendix, are now tech tracks through which every other part of the game interacts. The game is less of a shuriken with bits sticking out in different directions and more of a spiderweb with everything leading back into itself.

Yes, the space is more spread out so there is no pathway blocking, but just wait until someone colonizes that planet you wanted… the fight for real estate is (ahem) real.

The arguments people have for Terra Mystical tend to be a) wood over plastic, b) fantasy over space, c) need for 5 players, or d) prefer the different style of terrain competition. Of all of those, I’d say D is the most compelling and even agree that TM does it better - but it’s not enough to overcome everything else that GP does better.

So that’s my essay on the difference between the two. As for what they ARE… they are math.

You’ve got several currencies, everything has a price, and then you have a shopping list of what you want to do and in what order. The start of each round (especially solo) is staring at the board and doing the math of how much of each currency you need, what you can and can’t do, making a trade-off and recalculating, staring at the board to try to find a way to convert that one currency into a different one, and then finally executing. It feels like A Feast for Odin in this way, a lot of planning followed by simple execution with a few re-evaluations when someone edges in on your territory.

If you like Paladins of the West Kingdom, Everdell, or Lost Ruins of Arnak, you’re going to get that writ large. Resource conversion for action chaining, trying to squeeze just a bit more life out of this round before you have to pass and move on.

But in the end, you’re doing a lot of math and algorithmical problem solving to achieve your ends.

9 Likes
128

I put in for both in a maths trade, got TM big box, as a result I’m unlikely to ever get GP. Even in space inertia is a problem. I also have quite afew friends who are all long term TM players so that helps. I think you make a convincing argument that a new player without the baggage may well be better served with a copy of GP and some may well have room for both.

6 Likes
129

As what seems a suitable follow on how about Terra Nova, or Terra Mystica lite?

Has anyone played it?

130

I was thinking about buying Modern Art for my family as I think its the kind of game that they will like.

I’ve noticed there is a card game implementation which seems to remove the auction element - which may actually be better for my mother in law. I’m also a fan of small card games.

Has anyone played both and have an opinion as to which is better?

3 Likes
131

I’ve only played my CMON version of Modern Art. The game is literally auctions, there’s nothing else.

It’s fantastic

3 Likes
132

Ditto - I think a non-auction version would find it hard to be meaningfully similar.

(I do think seating order is a problem - being just after a player who hasn’t quite worked things out can be very beneficial. But otherwise I love it.)

3 Likes
133

Yeah i think it’s a great game. Which is why i don’t understand the card game. But many people on BGG seem to really like it

3 Likes
134

Ethnos?

I keep hearing games I like (El Grande, Ra, Nidavellir) compared to this which sounds odd, unlikely and potentially interesting.

I’m culling at the moment, but if 20 games go and one comes in that seems a good ratio

5 Likes
135

It looks weird and even by my aesthetic standards kind of ugly. Day-glo plastic pieces and murky brown genetic fantasy card art.

I played it once or twice and quite enjoyed it but not enough to overcome that 'cos I am shallow. People who’ve played it a few more times often seem to like it.

4 Likes
136

For some reason it feels a lot like ticket to ride to me. It’s like dudes on a map with a ticket to ride sensibility.

3 Likes
137

Don’t suppose you have it?

2 Likes
138

It got lost in an early cull. For its fun it’s not got a great two player feel (which is not unexpected).

3 Likes
139

I have it, and my wife and I play it somewhat frequently. I agree with @mistercrayon, it is not best at two player, but it is serviceable. I get the Ticket to Ride comparison, as you are trying to make sets of either color or tribe, which is similar to trying to play a route in TtR. As far as El Grande comparisons, there is area control involved with the six regions of the board, but I’m afraid I see no comparison to Ra or Nidavellir, as there is no auction mechanism or anything similar.

It is also rather ugly, as @RogerBW points out. I have to assume the color of the control markers was chosen to be color-blind friendly, as they are rather outlandish from standard colors. The board is very generic looking. The artwork on the cards is fantastical, but rather muddy looking. Nothing “pops” other than the card colors themselves, which are standard red, blue, green, etc., but have the name of each region on them, again, I assume, to be color-blind friendly.

What I like about the game is there is virtually no down time, even in a full 6 player game. You either play a band from your hand, or you draw one card. The drawn card can be from the face up market or the face down deck. If you play a band, you discard the rest of your hand to the market, which is the only way it gets replenished. This means very often, you draw a card, everyone else you are playing with draws a card, and it’s your turn again. Very quick!

The top card of your band determines which ability gets used and where you are attempting to place a control marker. If the band is larger than your current number of control markers in that region (all markers in the region for 2-player), you get to add one. Otherwise, you don’t. The age ends when the third dragon card is revealed from the deck, and bands are scored as well as the regions for the area control aspect. Shuffle up all the cards and play again. Play three ages (two in 2-3 player games) and the game’s over.

So I like it as a 2-3 player game simply because you can set it up and play it in about 30 minutes. But even games with more players only take about 45 minutes. There is a lot of luck of the draw involved, as if you can’t get cards of the same color or tribe, you can miss out in the area control aspect, and won’t be scoring large bands either. Some of this can be offset by the tribe abilities though.

If you can get it at a reasonable price, I think it’s a good investment.

6 Likes
140

Thanks, that’s really helpful.

I think we have better games for 2 players so happy for it to be a large player count experience.

Certainly sounds like one I want to play, although there are a couple on eBay at a reasonable price currently

3 Likes