- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Poll: What is your least favorite thing about Pirates CSG? (other than the fact that it is out of print) Fragility/breakability of components, Rules issues, length of play, long setup time, more?
Without question, the “collectibility”.
Everyone loves pulling something rare or cool from the random packs, but once you’re past the first dozen or so packs from any given set, you hit diminishing returns very quickly. You’re less and less likely to find something new, and increasingly likely to get duplicates of what you already have.
It would add a lot to the start-up cost of playing the game, but I think it would be a lot better to have fixed sets of cards. They could be set up with a handful of ships and crew for each faction, so multiple people could play with a single set, or they could be in sets where you get a whole bunch of stuff for a single faction, so you’d need a different one for each player (unless you wanted to do single-faction “civil war” battles).
You’d lose a lot of the sheer quantity because there wouldn’t be set after set of “filler” ships that are generally inferior to others that already exist (and/or appear in the same set), but having less in the game would allow for what is there to be balanced and tested much more, and much better.
You have to give WK a lot of credit for attempting that sort of non-random model with games like Crimson Skies, even though it obviously had a negative impact on the profitability of the game. Getting people to keep buying the same stuff over and over again is the bread & butter of the collectible market, and from what I’ve heard from numerous other sources, it’s also the primary market that keeps brick & mortar gaming stores afloat.
I’ve always disliked the fragility of ships.
Oftentimes a ship will be sunk in one volley. This of course does not make the game very fun for the person who lost the ship.
This fragility also limits crew compositions. If you want to get anything accomplished with a ship, you have to take the helmsman/captain combo. This is the standard. That way you have the maneuverability to strike the enemy ship first, otherwise you will get struck first, and likely crippled. Engagements between opposing ships very rarely last more than 1-2 turns. And there are rarely interesting maneuvers that I think would result from less captains being in play. If ships weren’t so fragile, captains wouldn’t matter as much because you would be more likely to get to return fire.
I think making ships twice as durable would provide for more interesting engagements. Either they get 2 “hull points” for every mast (so 5 masters would have 10 hull points), or the classic 2 hits for every mast in same shoot action (which I think I saw utilized in one of Ben’s campaign games or something to introduce more realism).
Of course, increasing the number of ships would also counteract the negatives of ship fragility. Lose a ship and it didn’t even get to do anything? No problem, you’ve got 10 more!
All of this said, I’ve never been bothered by long games, and either of the above changes would of course increase game length. Some people, probably most people, want a short game so the fragility of ships in standard games makes sense.
@Woelf: I love how many good options there are for making it less collectible.
the classic 2 hits for every mast in same shoot action (which I think I saw utilized in one of Ben’s campaign games or something to introduce more realism)
Indeed, both Century of the Empires and Command the Oceans had that rule.
Of course, increasing the number of ships would also counteract the negatives of ship fragility. Lose a ship and it didn’t even get to do anything? No problem, you’ve got 10 more!
I assume you’re saying there would be more ships because less ships would be dismasted or sunk on average?
Of course, increasing the number of ships would also counteract the negatives of ship fragility. Lose a ship and it didn’t even get to do anything? No problem, you’ve got 10 more!
I assume you’re saying there would be more ships because less ships would be dismasted or sunk on average?
Oops, I didn’t explain well (I was trying to not write a novel length post!). An alternative to making ships more tough would be to simply increase the number of ships in a standard game. So ships would still be flimsy, but the loss of said paper thin ship wouldn’t matter as much as you have more on the table in general.
I was trying to not write a novel length post!
No problem with those! 😀
An alternative to making ships more tough would be to simply increase the number of ships in a standard game.
By increasing the build total? Or having a mandatory number of ships each player must sail with? I do like higher build totals, especially since it allows you to have more of a proper “fleet”, rather than calling 1-3 ships the same thing.
Mine is more of a double-edged sword than a thing I downright dislike: eBay.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve gotten some excellent deals on Pirates stuff on eBay, and I’m sure others here have too, but I’ve started to notice that prices for ships I consider to be relatively common are increasing at an absurd rate. This has spread over to lots as well, despite most of the offenders containing little to no elusive pieces.
The upside here is that trading looks like a better option, though I personally think the closing of MT has made it more difficult to do nowadays.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve gotten some excellent deals on Pirates stuff on eBay, and I’m sure others here have too, but I’ve started to notice that prices for ships I consider to be relatively common are increasing at an absurd rate. This has spread over to lots as well, despite most of the offenders containing little to no elusive pieces.
Agreed, a lot of non-auctions (and even some auctions) have gotten to pretty crazy price levels. The upside that I see is the demand for the game remaining somewhat strong. Which I love since I really want to see a relaunch. As I’ve said already, I’m super happy that I collected mainly from 2011-2014 before prices rose, which I think started around 2015.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.