IMPORTANT NOTICE:
We played a game of Civ with 7 players yesterday.
We have played this for the third time in 6 months with several different players at a time.
Let me speak for all players of our group , because this is not only my own opinion, but we concluded this as a group.
We came to the conclusion that the combination "politics", "monotheism" and "Fundamentalism" is TOO strong. This first two games we thought this was due to accident, or maybe a combination of bad luck and lack of experience with the 'new' cards.
But after the 3rd game we noticed the following.
- The card 'monotheism' has always been a good card, but could be reasonably easily defended against. Because the option for 24 purchases, each player has had enough option that (accidently) gave credit for religion cards, so either Monotheism or Theology could be bought when needed.
- With all 51 cards, it's sometimes that a player, say, goes for civics and this way has had bought (almost) no religion that give credits to 'monotheism' or 'theology'. One can say, "well you should be prepared for this", but the fun part of the expansion, is to be free to go for different strategies, and not to be forced to purchase specifiec cards.
- The card "politics" is a powerfull card that, in the game, almost result the same as montheism. It isn't cheap, but it isn't too powerfull either.
- Defending against 'Politics' isn't as easy though. "politics" itself isn't cheap, and the same goes for this card as stated above for credits for 'monotheism'. One should not be forced to invest in 'arts' to be prepared.
- 'Cultural Ascendancy' is a VERY difficult card to purchase. A full set of any one commodity-sort is not enough. So without enough credits, this cards cannot reasonably bought. Again, I should say, one should not be forced to invest in one specific group to be prepared.
- 'Fundamentalism' is an anoying card. Not as powerfull as the other two bove. But when you go for the combination "diaspora" and "Fundamentalism", this can be as powerfull.
- The main problem is:
As soon a player purchases any of these three cards, say for instance, "Fundamentalism", his neighbour, hurries to do the same, just to be defended. Offcourse, you do not HAVE to use it, but then why buy it in the first place?
In no time, all players get into this 'snowball-effect'.
If one player does not, he gets the victim of say, 5-6 times fundamentalisms each turn. He can defend only by doing the same or purchasing the even more expensive 'Philosophy'. But after two turns of destruction, this becomes more and more an illusion rahter than a sollution.
- All this is not so much for a problem, if it wouldn't be possible to cumulate this with 'politics' and 'monotheism'. As soon as the last player has finally got all his half sets together to be abled to purchase 'fundamentalism', the first player(s) purchase 'pol' and or 'mon'.
- This way we experienced several times, the game results in a run for these three cards rather than a free choice of strategy. If you decide NOT to compete in the run for 'fund' 'pol' and 'mon'-combo,
you get SACKED BIG TIME. No other choice.
You can even be destroyed totally. In not time, you have no power left to build enough cities to get trade cards to purchase any defense. Before you know it it's too late.
Ofcourse one can say 'it's all in the game', but playing for 12 hours, this is no fun to anyone. Besided that, Civilization was never ment for destruction of nations.
The sollution:
we discussed several options to make a sollution to this:
1. Change Politics, to take over only tokens. This way, the cities remain more easily, and a (badlucked) picked-on-player has a at least an option to defend against the row of special abilities.
2. Change Poltics, to take over only tokens when the victim holds a card like 'written record' or 'literacy'. This can still be realistic in the historic meaning of the card, and also a way to defend more easily without taking all the power off of politics.
3. Change Monotheism, to be abled to also take over cities of players holding 'monotheism'. This way, it may result in taking a player's city, then that player takes his city back. But this way, a weaker player stays untouched. All players still have the option to all pick on one player, and the eye-for-an-eye option should not allways occur. But the most important: it's not the only option left to all pick on one player.
4. Change Politics, to be abled to also take over cities of players holding 'politics'. This way, not only the same as above counts, but what differs it from monotheism: In the eye-for-an-eye option, it takes 5 treasury from both players.
5. Change Fundamentalism to be abled to also destroy areas of players holding fundamentalism. This way, agressive players destroy eachother without touched passive players. This is also more realistic.
For both 3., 4. and 5. counts: This way, players can pick on the player that is about to win. Only the better player can defend with 'cult.asc.' ,'philo' and/or 'theo'.
option 1 and 2 are more or less apart from option 3 4 and 5.
We believe both 3, 4 and 5 should be changed.
Option 1 and 2 are extra options.
All this should result in a game where all players can be totally free to pick any strategy without being forced to purchase specific cards.
Newer options:
6. Change the costs of cards.
7. maximum 3 special abilities per turn.
8. A player can be target by maximum one special ability per player per turn.