the bored gamer wrote:
Technology tree vs. Technology board
Here I thought prior to having played the game, CoC would emerge victorious. Based on pictures, the technology board of Clash of Cultures seemed so much superior in displaying your possibilities in terms of technology advances, but there are crosslinks. Lots of them! It wasn't until I finished the science line that I saw that having philosophy grants you a bonus for every science technology you discover. In contrast to FFG Civ also the wonders have (all different) prerequisites in order to be built.
Here I thought prior to having played the game, CoC would emerge victorious. Based on pictures, the technology board of Clash of Cultures seemed so much superior in displaying your possibilities in terms of technology advances, but there are crosslinks. Lots of them! It wasn't until I finished the science line that I saw that having philosophy grants you a bonus for every science technology you discover. In contrast to FFG Civ also the wonders have (all different) prerequisites in order to be built.
I really appreciate that players can see all of the technologies at once, whereas in SMC you have to flip through a deck of cards. I don't think that the interconnectedness is a big deal because it will mostly be an issue in the first game, and I don't think a Civ game CAN have a tech tree that is fully grasped in the first game.
Also, SMC and COC both have effective prerequisites for Wonders; what were you trying to point out here?
the bored gamer wrote:
Victory conditions
It’s been raved about the greatness of SMC’s different victory conditions. And deservedly so! With people pursuing different strategies, you minimize the risks of your typical “bash-the-leader”-symptom. Who would you bash if everyone is leading in one way or the other? Once again CoC keeps it simple and I like the cultural influence you can take on your coplayers, even though it’s quite costly. Personally, I don’t like the rule that you can play as many objective cards as you like during one status phase. Sure, if you don’t play them you’re taking the risk you might not be able to play it later on, but I dislike when all of a sudden, my opponents reveal victory points galore at the very end. SMC scores. (3:5)
It’s been raved about the greatness of SMC’s different victory conditions. And deservedly so! With people pursuing different strategies, you minimize the risks of your typical “bash-the-leader”-symptom. Who would you bash if everyone is leading in one way or the other? Once again CoC keeps it simple and I like the cultural influence you can take on your coplayers, even though it’s quite costly. Personally, I don’t like the rule that you can play as many objective cards as you like during one status phase. Sure, if you don’t play them you’re taking the risk you might not be able to play it later on, but I dislike when all of a sudden, my opponents reveal victory points galore at the very end. SMC scores. (3:5)
I have two big issues with SMC's victory conditions: (1) It strongly encourages focused play strategies, effectively limiting the viability of mixed play styles and making the game strategies become rote, and (2) the victory types are not well balanced, at least prior to the expansion. I also don't think the different play strategies reduces the "bash the leader" syndrome: each player is assessed by how close they are to being able to fulfill their victory condition. Add in the fact that your civilization in SMC strongly encourages a narrow range of victory types and the result is a game that is needlessly constraining.
I also don't like the idea that players can wait until the last turn to cash in a lot of objective cards: I think limiting the number of objective cards that can be scored each status phase OR requiring the cards to be scored when it is possible would be a reasonable variant.