Exploration: Spice Islands - AARs and Map Disclosures

[Strategus]

A thought for the designer. I enjoyed playing this game, for the exploration aspect. I basically gave up the chance of a draw to try to explore the potential of the game. The three way was still a possibility, but I considered that Jon would win out in the end, just through pure maths. He had more fleets. If we had carried on, he would have ground out the win, and we would have done no exploring. It was a bit selfish of me to a degree, as Epic wanted to draw or carry on, but as the first game in this genre, I thought it was worth sacrificing the result for a bit of knowledge. The upshot of it all was that I think the maps for future games need to have more of an incentive to explore. I found that the logistics involved in building forts, convoying armies to foreign shores, and the like was what I was trying to do all along, but every time I thought I could go about it, I had to defend a centre instead, or build a fleet to protect my holdings. This was a big frustration for me. The game was about exploration, but I couldn't make it happen (until I convinced Jon to let me do a bit). So I don't know what the answer is specifically, but it needs bigger land masses "in your face" so to speak, i.e. more balance between land and sea, and the effective inability to solo without going inland.I.e. more centres away from the shores. As I say, I don't know the answer, but there is food for thought. Over to you, designer - good job, but room for improvement. And thanks for doing it regardless. Must be a thankless task (although I am thanking you )

[Aeschines]

A thought for the designer. I enjoyed playing this game, for the exploration aspect. I basically gave up the chance of a draw to try to explore the potential of the game. The three way was still a possibility, but I considered that Jon would win out in the end, just through pure maths. He had more fleets. If we had carried on, he would have ground out the win, and we would have done no exploring. It was a bit selfish of me to a degree, as Epic wanted to draw or carry on, but as the first game in this genre, I thought it was worth sacrificing the result for a bit of knowledge. The upshot of it all was that I think the maps for future games need to have more of an incentive to explore. I found that the logistics involved in building forts, convoying armies to foreign shores, and the like was what I was trying to do all along, but every time I thought I could go about it, I had to defend a centre instead, or build a fleet to protect my holdings. This was a big frustration for me. The game was about exploration, but I couldn't make it happen (until I convinced Jon to let me do a bit). So I don't know what the answer is specifically, but it needs bigger land masses "in your face" so to speak, i.e. more balance between land and sea, and the effective inability to solo without going inland.I.e. more centres away from the shores. As I say, I don't know the answer, but there is food for thought. Over to you, designer - good job, but room for improvement. And thanks for doing it regardless. Must be a thankless task (although I am thanking you )

This is all a very good point! I was definitely disappointed at how much defending-of-SCs had to happen (that was definitely a map design issue). If you have a chance to check out Exploration: Great Expeditions' ruleset, I'd love to hear your thoughts on whether I've provided enough of an incentive to explore, while also cutting down on the amount of logistical stuff that each player needs to do.

Also, thank you for the thanks! They're well appreciated.

[Strategus]

I won't be playing it, due to commitments elsewhere atm, but I will be happy to offer my assistance in any way you want.