Ok after the last couple playtests we have a number of advances and endgame scoreing changes I want to try. You can check out the new rulebook (with the proposed changes in red).

Let me know what you think!

www.civproject.net\files\ExpansionRulebook_2.07.doc

Firstly, your lik is borken. It shold be:
http://www.civproject.net/files/Expansi ... k_2.07.doc

Secondly, I have some comments on the changes:
AdvMil might be a bit overpowered, if so your change seems reconably.

I don't like the change to Anatomy, it just becomes lame, and there is NO reason what so ever to purchase it early...

The change to diaspora is OK. However, Diaspora and Universal Doctrine uses the same wording. Either change both or none. I also liked the idea of sea blokades that would dissapear if you did this change, so I'm not entirely positive.

The new costs on tradecard purchases in Mining seems unbalanced.
With your proposal purchases can be made as:
2nd: 7 treasury tokens
3rd: 9 treasury tokens
6th: 11 treasury tokens
7th: 15 treasury tokens
8th: 15 treasury tokens
9th: 18 treasury tokens
Personaly I think 3rd for 9 and 9th for 18 is balanced, and to have the other at a linear cost curve they should be:
2nd: 7.5 treasury tokens
3rd: 9 treasury tokens
6th: 13.5 treasury tokens
7th: 15 treasury tokens
8th: 16.5 treasury tokens
9th: 18 treasury tokens
Of practical reasons I'd just cut the .5 and get:
2nd: 7 treasury tokens
3rd: 9 treasury tokens
6th: 13 treasury tokens
7th: 15 treasury tokens
8th: 16 treasury tokens
9th: 18 treasury tokens
Thus only your new Mining diverge. The idea of allowing purchases of 8th stack is OK; but please use the costs above (13 and 16). Please dont't limit them to 1 card though, as no other stacks is limited to one card (only to the 2 cards total maximum).

The Provincial Empire change is good

The public works change is good (though the changed sentence could be completely removed with the same effect).

The VP changes are good.

In response:

Anatomy: I agree that it is sort of lame. It is still better than the last iteration though (which no one ever bought). I'm completely open to suggestions though. It doesn't even need to be anatomy - just a very advanced science card.

Diaspora just needed to be made more attractive. Hopefully this will be enough. I'll make the changes to Universal Doctrine as well.

Mining: I'll make those changes. Hopefully it will be enough.

Well, the iteration before last (all science < 100) was hugely overpowered, but I don't think the current iteration (two science < 100) is underpowered. I bought it in ADM and won...
Actually I think "two science < 100" is fairly well-balanced.

Well I didn't buy it because I already had all the science cards - so there was no way I was going to consider getting it. It's the only advance that to be truely worthwhile you have to avoid buying other advances earlier in your gameplay - something I'm not too keen of.

Surely we can come up with something new we all (mostly) agree is cool!

Then you planed poorly. I bought it as my first 200+ card, after saving two science cards I didn't have any urgent need of, which gave a huge VP boost, as well as lots of credits and some extra bonuses, for a decent price. In another game I purchased it as my first 100+ card. Ofcourse that was at the good old time when it gave me 5 free cards...
I don't see anything wrong with the fact that some 200+ cards won't be considered in some strategies. The new VP rules weekens Anatomy somewhat (5VP instead of 6 VP), so a price drop to about 250 might be balanced. It would also make it obtainable slightly earlier, and thus you are more likely to still have some spare <100 science cards.

But no other card requires you to plan that far ahead in order to really use it. It doesn't make much sense to me when the basic philosophy of Adv Civ is that the more similar color cards to you have the easier it is to get more of the similiar color cards. This actually rewards you for ignoreing prior advances in the same color.

I'm not a fan. What does everyone else think though?

I downloaded the Rules 2.07 yesterday.

Just a sugestion: 29.282 A player who holds Military is immune to the effects of Diplomacy. (p39)

Diplomacy is not an aggressive card. How about " A player who holds Military nullifies the protective effect of Diplomacy" ?

Also being pedantic I note:

22.55 A player who holds Mining (29.291) may buy one or more trade cards from the 6th level stack at a cost of 13 treasury tokens per card. (p 20)

29.291 A player holding Mining may purchase one trade card from the 6th stack at a cost of 11 treasury tokens or purchase one trade card from the 8th stack for 15 treasury tokens. (p 39)

Does the 6th level stack cost 13 or 11 treasury tokens?

Finally, though experienced players of the game already know the Special Ability cards, for someone new to the game and who has downloaded the rules, it is not until you have sifted though the 10 pages dealing with the 51 Civilization Cards, that you discover which 7 cards impart these Special Abilities.

On page 22 would you consider adding the following?

25.11 The cards with these Special Abilities are:
Diaspora (29.14)
Fundamentalism (29.20)
Monotheism (29.20)
Politics (29.38)
Provincial Empire (29.40)
Trade Empire (29.47)
Universal Doctrine (29.49)

By the way, thanks for the fantastic job done for such a great game.

I would also like a listing of the special cards in the special card section

Why the change to the victory condition. I havn't played with the new simplified victory condition, but the 2 points per card seemed rather elegant and simple. What were the drivers to change to 1, 2, or 3 points for a advancement card depending on the value? Does it make a significant change in what people choose to buy? Does it change purchase strategy?

Craig

With the red text, the change to 11 & 15 tokens is the newer one.. and the 13 token cost is the older one...

==> Here's the kicker: All of the other card buying has no limit (other than the two per turn) on what you can buy. This new Mining allows you buy a single 6 or a single 8, but not two 6's or two 8's.

I'm still thinking of whether or not you could buy one 6 and one 8 in the same turn with the way it's written, though.

The original game has score by points on the card, giving some benefit beyond the card itself. With two points per card, the incentives are extremely strong to just purchase all of the small cards you can... making the civilizations more similiar than they would be otherwise. Of course, the effect may or may not be minor. I'm going to try the 1/2/3 point variation and disucss after the game if people's strategies would have been different it was a flat 2 points.

I have played with the flat 2 points per card, and the comments from the players at the time were more towards a slight variance in the card values.

The general thinking was that people would have to invest in bigger cards to progress on the AST thereby making every civilization a bit unique. Unfortunatly, in practice, once you get the minimum high cards to advance most players seldom had the urge to keep investing when they could get the same benifit and points from a cheaper card.

I think the point change is essesential now.

Just as soon as my life can get vaguely normal, I'll run a small player game with the latest whatevers

OK, I have now put together a proper draft of the new rules. It includes everything discussed in this thread, except the Anatomy change Velusion proposed (and I disagreed with). More comments on what to do with Anatomy is appreciated.
The new draft contains fixes of other areas of the rules that was affected by the changes, as well as the usual minor fixes. It can be found at my site as ODF Text or PDF