home/ Communication

Terra mysticism reviews. Review of the iOS version of Terra Mystica. Having built a base camp

Shovels.

Good day! I wanted to make sure I understood the correct use of shovels. If it's not difficult, tell me. Is it true that with any terraforming action (even if you get a shovel for magic), you can immediately build a dwelling, except for the shovel received from the cult bonus (since the action phase at the time of receiving the bonus has already ended) ??? Thanks!

Explain to me, please, "high replayability" and "conflict and high interaction between players" in Terra Mystic.

1. Replay value. For me personally, replayability is when there are many ways to victory, when you come to victory in different ways, in different games you can use different combinations of tactics and strategies. In Terra Mystica I did not see this. It is, of course, there, but in some minimal dose compared to most other games. Let me explain: here for each faction there is only one way to play it effectively, develop as quickly as possible and gain maximum points. Any other development option worsens development and points gain. Those. if you are trying to win, then playing with the same race you will always do almost the same thing. Yes, we can say that you can dig up the ground and build in different places, but this is not enough, all the same 60-70% of the game in all parties for one race is the same. Yes, there are unique tasks for each turn, but this is still not enough. In Carcassonne, for example, the parties are much more varied. And in this heaped up game - if you have identified the winning strategy of one race, then you will do almost the same thing in all games playing with this race. There is very little diversity within one race. More precisely, no. All parties are 70% the same. In the same Slender you can use different tactics in different games, but here you are tied to the winning strategy of a particular race. It turns out that the replay value here depends only on the number of races.
So, the average replay value of this game = 14 times the number of games you need to determine the winning strategy for each race.
This is extremely small for such a vaunted game. Perhaps I did not take into account something, I would like to know what. But today I have played about 30 games, won each army. In the same Cyclades I played more than 100 games and I still find new tactics that lead to victory.

2. Conflict and interaction. As for me, this is even worse here. There is almost no interaction. I've heard reviews that there is a lot of interaction in this game. Compared to what? With Carcassonne? There you can squeeze out other people's cities, roads, fields. There is more interaction in Carcassonne. In the Colonizers, you can trade and exchange resources. In Serp, which, in my opinion, is an improved Terra Mystic - military units have been added there and you can fight. And here? Occasionally dig up the ground for a loser who did not calculate it (and there is more than enough space on the map for everyone), sometimes give magic and say pass first? This is less than 15% of the entire batch. The only significant conflict in the game is the race in the temples. But even this does not reach the conflict level of the same Serp.

The only plus for me in this game is a very thoughtful and cool resource management. He is beyond praise here. Better than Serpa, etc.
But this is a game with extremely low replayability and about how everyone digs in their tablet. These two minuses completely devalue the plus of the game. This is probably why the authors of the game rushed to make new games that will fix these jambs.

Explain to me, pliz, what I missed and what I did not see. If there is a lot of interaction here, then compared to what? From what I've played, almost every game is superior to Terra in terms of interaction and conflict.

It's hard to say, until I have played 30 games, it can be a little over 10. But for now, not everything is 100% clear even for one race, I'm talking about the most winning strategy. True, I fell in love with the game, I like everything !!
There is no interaction between players at all, zero. I do not know where this infa comes from. Replayability - the add-on can help a lot in this matter.

I see no reason to argue, because the game comes to someone, but not to someone. Personally, right after buying the game, I played all races within a week, and I didn't want to stop. It is possible that hard-core players can figure out the tactics for each race so quickly, but it seems to me that this will take at least three times to play for each of them. A total of 42 batches, which more than compensates for the cost of this box.
There is interaction between the players, although it is not so active. First, as mentioned above, this is a struggle for more profitable territories, that is, for those on which less resources will have to be spent for development. Secondly, which has also already been mentioned, is the struggle for advancement in the temples. But you can also add, thirdly, this is the fight for bonus scrolls before the start of a new round. Often the whole strategy is ruined by the fact that another player before you manages to steal the bonus that you need so much now. Fourthly, it is the use of force actions that are located on the playing field. Since only one action of force can be used per round, this often generates competition, and can also spoil the entire development strategy. Fifth, the fight for cities. I agree right away that this is not so obvious, but we had situations several times when several players opened their mouths on the same city at once. After all, the bonuses for the construction of cities are very different, and at times this is critical.
In general, what am I crucifying here ?! Personally, I like the game, more than 42 games have already been played in it, and so far it has not bothered me.

The 5 game aspects for which the players compete with each other are well described. Indeed, sometimes, having conceded in the struggle for the city token, taking into account which he planned further moves, one has to reconsider the nearest tactical decisions.

This is not to mention the consequences of losing competition for a building site. An example from a recent game: I played as a dwarf, placed 2 starting buildings across the river, hoping to develop them to 2 cities, then aim at building a third. However, the rivals blocked the construction of the first city - they had to connect 2 starting points into a single city, then start building the second city, not thinking about the third. This is all in the face of fierce competition for round bonuses and on cult tracks.

Sorry, but I see "good replayability and conflict in this game, because I like it." Is it possible without emotions and coldly-harshly about the mechanics of the game? Or is it not welcome here?

Ok, you gave this game a limit of 42 games, so be it. This, of course, is enough to get fun and offset the costs of the box. But! Chess, go, the twilight of the empire has been played for years, discovering more and more new strategies, more and more revealing these games. And here are 42 games. And that's all. I played 42 games and there is no more development, the ceiling has been reached. Fan, of course, you can get. But you can also get fun from a plush toy, and if we talk about a serious game with well-thought-out mechanics, then 42 games is criminally small. Moreover, the number of parties depends on the number of races. And in chess, for a minute, 2 absolutely identical armies. And the replayability is such that humanity has not yet reached the ceiling in it. With all the components of terra, its replay value is only 42 games. After that, how can you call it a serious and deep strategy?
I myself like the way it is made, thick cardboard, nice wooden houses. Just don't confuse the emotions and the mathematics of the game. These are two different things. In the terrain, mathematics is primitive and does not apply to deep games at all. What is written on the box is pure marketing that does not correspond to reality.
Someone needs to play 42 games to understand a winning strategy in a game of 5 in a row. This is also a low ceiling game.

By the way, in Serpa, the issue with replayability was raised by the fact that the tablet was cut into 2 parts and these parts can be mixed in different batches. Obviously, the authors of the game were thinking about the issue of replayability there, but here they are not.

Conflict in the game. You have repeated the 5 aspects of the game that I have already written. I also wrote that this is not enough to call the game very conflicting. The bottom line is that if you play effectively with your tablet, then all the fuss is who takes the first scroll, etc. has little effect on anything. If it does, then you are not using your tablet efficiently enough. If you know how to effectively work with the faction tablet, you will go into the lead and no scrolls will help you catch up with you. If you work ineffectively with the faction tablet, then also, no scrolls will help you win the game. The maximum conflict in the terra is in the race across the temples. But this is also small in comparison with the same Sickle. Where there is a race for adventure, a struggle for territories, a squeeze of resources, you can prevent your opponents from placing stars and popularity, and there is also a war, which increases the conflict level at times.
20-30% - from conflict interactions. If terra seems to you to be conflicting, then games where there is war are hyper-conflict ones for you? Can you give examples of games where there is less conflict than in terra?

If you play Terra with experts, then they, if necessary, will break your development strategy so that you will no longer be among the leaders.
Unlike, for example, wargames, where it seems like an obvious conflict, but the dice will fall for the opponent, then for you. (The battles do not always take place with an obvious statistical advantage, sometimes everything is kept in the balance).
How much more conflict, when they just took and broke the whole game for you? And in this game, everyone has arrived, you are an extra and beyond the prizes.

Not all war games are in cubes. Eat with controlled randomness or no randomness at all.

Honestly, I don’t imagine how terra in the middle of the game can break the whole strategy that is tied to the player's tablet. to throw it back slightly - yes, to hold it back - yes, to squeeze out a couple of points - yes, but in such a way as to break and deprive the chances of winning - you have to try very hard to let your opponents do this with you. If possible, discard a photo of such a situation from a real game.

You can not only in the middle of the game, but even earlier, you may not get the key territory, the desired action from the field, the desired blessing token, city, etc. This slows you down so much that you lose the opportunity to build a third city, connect territories, a place in a temple, etc. This has such consequences that doing something in the next round is no longer so effective in terms of software, or it is completely pointless to do it. Something like a snowball. One, seemingly insignificant, inconspicuous action drags terribly a lot with it. result. It's just that not everyone can appreciate and understand these consequences.

In a four-to-five game, without taking the + 2 VP token for the houses, you often have already played in a certain scenario. And this is on the first moves of the 1st round.

Check out the expert games on bga. You will see many examples.

In my 30+ games, I haven’t seen a snowball effect yet. Except for situations where players give up mentally despite the fact that they have ways to win back, they simply do not see them because of emotions.
What you are talking about sounds good in words. If this is actually in the game, then what can I do, I will study the question and play again.

There are chess players, a beginner (30 games), a little better than a beginner (100 games. And they decided to play chess with an international grandmaster. It seems that they have already played a lot and everything in this simple game is clear: the moves are familiar, the goal of the game and the strategy are visible to the naked eye. ...
It was not clear to the second only why everything went wrong from the very first moves and he resigned without waiting for the middle of the game. Still, he planned to hold out a couple of moves longer.
But at first everything was as it should be for the first: the strategy justified itself, but by the middle of the game, on the fourth move, a bolt from the blue and it became clear that this game could no longer be saved.
P. S. I do not always understand how the experts in Terra get out of hopeless situations, winning victory after victory. But if you really want to comprehend the full depth of the game, then you can scrupulously, layer by layer, go deeper and deeper.
Register on bga, play with highly rated players, share with us your impressions, whether the game will open to you from a different, previously unknown side.

I watched a lot of recordings of games on bga and YouTube. From looking like a snowball, I saw it only when there were players in the parties, obviously with a big difference in zadro ... level. Those. one is clearly stronger, the other is clearly weaker. As a result - a snowball. Neither Go nor Chess usually snowballs when masters of the same level are playing. The snowball is a consequence of the different levels of players. Where one simply does not see and does not understand what can be done with him and does nothing. Player good level will see such things and prick in advance. If the game has a snowball effect for good players of the same level, then this is rather a minus of the game, tk. the game is simply not flexible. In Go, you can lose the first half games and then win. In Chess too.
But the question about the balance of races remained. Here many write that the races are unbalanced. Then what kind of game is praised if it breaks the math of the game?
True, I myself did not notice any imbalance in the races for my games. It's just that each one needs its own unique approach, but this is in any game with asymmetric sides. I won in Terra with any army, I haven't seen a breakdown yet. But what confused me was the bonuses for the rounds - they can go to someone's suit, someone can't.
By chance, is it not because of this that you wrote below about the auction of races?

We are talking about different snowballs, it seems. I'm talking about the fact that the lack of a resource, or the seizure of the territory on which there were views, or another event due to some unexpected action of the opponent can lead to a snowball of negative consequences.
For example, they unexpectedly took away the territory near the almost completed city. You were unable to build a city in this round and get 2 workers from a city token, so you were unable to place 2 houses and get 8 VP for a blessing token and a round bonus. 2 workers did not receive additional income for the next round. 4 mana wasted not for 7 coins,
And on a shovel for another territory, in order to finish building a city (for example, a not quite potential city was blocked). But by this time, the city tokens on the workers ran out. As a result, you lost VP, money, workers, in this round you did not build 2 trading posts (bonuses were on them), you lost another 6 VP (or 12 with a blessing token). In the next round, they did not receive money from them, did not build a temple, did not advance in the cult, did not receive mana, blessings, round bonus for position on the track, etc.
As you can see, development slowed down very significantly, not to mention the lost software.
About such a lump (or rather a chain events-consequences) can only be formed in a couple of rounds.
Someone said there is no interaction and conflict in the game). If you evaluate such things in the language of wargames, consider that with tz. As a result, your army was practically cut out of the game, leaving several helpless units.

Yes, it's cool to cut your opponent suddenly at the right moment so that his efforts were in vain and he could not realize his plan, Break off, so that until the end of the round he silently smokes bamboo while others go to victory. This is a thrill.
But this, as for me, is in any good and thoughtful strategy.

> 70-80% of terra success depends on how efficiently you dig in your tablet.

No, not at all.

I don't really like "Terra Mystica", it has obvious shoals: unbalanced races, demands on the number of players, the dumbest mega-cold with bonus points in each round.

But! At the same time, inside she has a classic abstract on the topic of graphs and control of territories. This is never digging in a tablet and not exchanging sewing for soap. For this developers a fat plus, it is really a fresh stream.

I am reminded of Game of Thrones where territorial control decides. Cyclades, where control of territories decides. Kemet, where the control of the territories decides. Are you seriously saying that territorial control is as critical in Terra as it is in Kemet?
If not, then Terra is not about control of territories (although it is present slightly), but about something else.

Still how he decides. Four - Five experienced players can play a game in Terra Mystic, with an emphasis on territorial control, that Kemet and the Cyclades will nervously smoke on the sidelines. But for two or three, area control certainly turns into water. That is why it is always advised to play with the maximum composition or at least four players. Terra Mystique is a special highlight of the game in Terra Mystic. Special in that the mechanism of this control itself compares favorably with classic games to control the territories. In such games, the mechanism is simple: put a chip on the territory and it is yours. And in Terra Mystic, thanks to the "repainting" of foreign lands into their own (the mechanism of which is directly taken from such an elegant section of mathematics as Graph Theory), it makes the game process very interesting and exciting, and most importantly gambling, dramatic and moderately conflict.

I apologize for my French, but I get the feeling of some kind of dr * chev on the theory of graphs. Probably because many times he won games in Terra by different races, scoring to control the territories and at the same time building 3 cities. And despite the fact that the land was repainted for me. Only it didn't stop me from winning.
I admit that it may be a matter of rivals, although the same people played other games more than worthily.

But, if you believe your words, then it is enough to make one well-aimed undercut to get rid of the opponent. And this, if, honestly, is not a plus game, tk. for the correct accurate hit, you must carefully remember who develops how, who wants to do what, how are things on the tablets for each player. Those. not "correctly assess the situation", but simply "digest a lot of information." Not elegant for a "cool strategy" in our time, when it is the correct interpretation of data that is appreciated, and not memorizing a lot of information.

Plus a non-scalable map for the number of players. How is it allowed in such a "great" game? In general, something doesn't add up. If brilliant game unfinished, then you can no longer call her a genius.

> Are you seriously saying that territorial control is as critical in Terra as in Kemet?

In Terra Mystic, he is still much more critical than in Kemet. In "Terra Mystica" control of territories is the very essence and meaning of the game, and in "Kemet" it is just an insignificant detail to everything else.

It looks like you're confusing theme and gameplay again. The military theme does not mean the control of territories, and the lack of combat in the game does not mean that it is about digging in the tablet. (About 90 percent of abstracts are about the control of territories in one form or another.)

> In "Terra Mystica" control of territories is the very essence and meaning of the game, and in "Kemet" it is just an insignificant detail to everything else.

In Kemet, control of specific territories is the most important source of software. Indeed, an insignificant detail)

The races in Terra cannot be balanced. Their strength depends, for example, on:
1. Other races in the game (how much the colors of their home territories differ from yours)
2. The order of the move in the 1st round (for example, if the witches are 4e, and in the game the prizes are, say, 3 and 5 rounds for houses, then they can sink a lot only because they are 4th and they do not have enough blessing tokens for these houses), incl. on the order of the initial placement
3. From bonuses of rounds (see 2, for example), or in what rounds the fortress / sanctuary is in each round (someone is in their suit earlier, someone is not), etc.
4. From the 2nd main bonus for 18/12/6 points (if you play with the add-on)
As you can see, there are many factors.

Those. one and the same race in one scenario may be significantly stronger than itself in another scenario.

Therefore, those who play Terra seriously, play strictly with the auction rule for choosing races and the order of the move from the expansion (for this, the expansion itself is not necessary, it is enough to play with such rules).

By the way, the rule of the auction in the Clans of Caledonia is no less important. It is not uncommon for the 1st player to get a so-so clan, therefore, for example, when playing three or four, it is useful to roll back strong clans by arranging an auction.

Those. balancing of races does not take place on the basis of editing their unique features (although there were corrections for 2 races from the special stage), but on the basis of the strength of their features in relation to a specific layout.
A very competent and wise decision: firstly, there is no one to blame other than oneself beloved for choosing the wrong race or not rolling back another one enough. Secondly, customizable race balance is also a very smart approach.
Minus one: in order to balance this way, experience is needed.

Everything is so, but I will probably never understand what is the use of the initial auction, which is supposedly aimed at balancing the races among themselves for a particular party. By itself, the auction can give nothing. it is all built exclusively on the human factor. Someone bluffs, someone makes a bet at random or even inflates the race for fun for fun, and someone diligently with a serious look is trying to squeeze something out there to the maximum. And most importantly, how in general can you determine and adjust the degree of balance between races with the help of an auction? Who knows the optimal set of starting points for Chaos Mages in relation to, for example, Mermaids? Who at the auction can understand and comprehend how many starting points are needed in order not to “sell too cheap?” I may be mistaken, but I sincerely do not understand the meaning of all these auctions.

well, like if you are "in the subject", played a lot of games, then you can evaluate the usefulness of this or that race by the starting layout of bonuses and other dynamically changing pieces
this is straightforward for absolutely groping chip
sit down for an auction with "random" or fan lovers so-so idea, yeah

personally, I'm not in the subject) I don't like TM) I just know a couple of terra-mystic fans who, according to the initial layout, will popularly explain who is worth playing for and who is not)
so I have an excellent idea of who this rule is for, but it is clearly not for me)

Example 1. Tournament on TM with the participation of the author from "Zvezda". It was carried out in the same scenario, the races were determined by drawing lots. Starting from a certain stage, when high-level players remained, the outcomes of the games were determined at the draw stage. If I remember correctly, the hobbits did everything in that layout.

Example 2. Our tournament in Yekaterinburg, the final game with an auction. Strong races rolled back. There was a stubborn struggle, 3 first places finished with a difference of one point (the second from the first one was 1 point behind, the third from the second - also by 1 point).

Attention, question. Which of the options is better: the first, when you throw lots for the races and you can disperse without playing (like in chess, when the players do not finish the game, when everything is already clear), or the second, with an "incomprehensible" auction?

The auction is needed tm. But at the same time, the understanding of this fact scares me. Having played only two games, I realized that there is an abyss between the races. If you apply the fact that there is still another abyss between the races AT A CERTAIN LAYOUT, then it becomes quite sad. So you need to directly deeply understand the game, and this is not for everybody. It's like draft seasons. An unbalanced arcade game without a draft, but an attempt to combat predestination with a draft.

Plus, as they said, the snowball effect. In the first round, I did not take the right piece of soil and for the next five I watched how the others played.

The game is good, but very demanding. Too demanding. Plus the level of the players must be equal. Those. You can have fun, but you need to prepare well

Any game with normal difficulty or higher, with decent replay value, is very demanding. Those who are afraid of this have only one destiny: to play children's games.
Serious games require a deep understanding of both the game itself, experience in it specifically, and a general understanding of what can and cannot be done in games (understanding what kingmaking is, for example).
Not everyone needs serious games, it's hard for someone to play them. And not interesting.
Not everyone needs families, fillers. It's easy for some to play them. And not interesting.
Pick up those that are interesting to you and your friends. After all, the most important thing is communication. And in order for it to be as pleasant and long as possible, it is necessary for everyone to like everything.
Thank God, the choice of games is huge and everyone can choose the right combination of difficulty, mechanics, setting, etc.
And that's great.
P.S. The modern level of chess development is such that if you play at a high level, you need to know and keep in mind a huge number of openings and their variations. Most ordinary mortals do not need this, while no one says that chess is bad game... It's just that not everyone needs it at the deepest level. So it is in board games. Games with high replay value are gradually opening up a depth that I never knew existed. For many, this is what allows you to lay it out over and over again.
But, as in chess, players at different levels of understanding, as a rule, are not interested in playing with each other. These are two opposites of such games. And that's okay. They are afraid of wolves - do not go to the forest. At the same time, it is far from necessary to climb into the thicket. The forest park will be enough for someone.

1. They are balanced. Anyone can win. You need to build on the layout.
You need to play with promo tokens of cities, bonus rounds ... And an auction. Ice and volcanic races from dopa are usually more difficult. Therefore, it is more interesting.
2. There was no goal to combine with special stage 1. This will be TM 2.0, the rebirth of the game with new mechanics in the same setting after a while. The properties of races (fortresses, for example) that can be changed during the game have been announced. Announced release this year. We are waiting, I hope they will be in time for Essen.
3. In Gaia with races, the situation is exactly the same with the choice of races: in some scenarios, some are stronger, in others - others. The most important thing is to choose the right race at the beginning of the game. This also requires experience.

1. In what situation, say, fakirs can defeat darklings even with bonus fakir cities? What if the darklings were hunted down by a -20 points auction? And if they are driven away, can the oars be dried?

2. Yeah, we saw how wonderful the old races docked with Ice and Fire and decided that it was better to burn it.

3. Let's just say that in Gaia they are less imbalanced, there is no such thing that the Ice Maidens row two blessing tokens, and the Engineers just build bridges.

1. With the one that I won with them in the final at the tournament in Yekaterinburg.
2. Know comments
3. When you gain 200+ points in Gaia, thoughts about the imbalance of races may arise even more. Maybe it’s not only the imbalance, but something else?

https://terra.snellman.net/game/FourteenFactionsSeries01Game01

The superiority of the fakirs over the darklings is quite a feasible event.

In terra, you just need to know the game VERY well, and for this you need to operate with too much input data.

But judging by your tone, and by Mae's tone, these are all empty words.
It is impossible to bring facts to a person who is not ready to accept them.

> 70-80% of terra success depends on how efficiently you dig in your tablet.

Today I thought that I basically "dig" in the tablets of the opponents in the game to assess their possible priorities and moves in the current round, in order to assess the danger posed by them in the struggle for the bonuses I need, the actions of strength, and progress along the tracks. For example, does this player have enough workers and money to build a fortress / sanctuary and claim the 4 VP per Cr / Sv round bonus? Will that rival priest spend on the track or on improving navigation and take over that section of interest to me? Etc. And I don't need to look at my tablet all the time - I know about my income, I have already learned the abilities of the race.

Not really. More precisely, not at all. This game is not about rubies and emeralds. And the tactics in it are:
- you can buy cards, focusing on the required sets of nobles in order to take 4 + 3 points in the last move.
- you can play in general having scored on the nobles.
- you can buy the cheapest cards so that you can later take the expensive ones without spending stones on them.
- you can buy exactly 3 cards of 5 points per game, this is the fastest tactic if the layout allows.
- you can take only cards that give the maximum points in their row (1 point in the 1st, 3 points in the 2nd and 5 in the 3rd), it is optimal in speed, but it is cut easily.
- you can take cards that require a minimum of stones (say, there are two cards for 3 points, the cost of one is 6 stones, the other is 8), this method allows you to quickly buy cards.
- you can keep stones that other players need to redeem their cards.
- you can pick up the stones, which are the least of all, because they are most needed by their rivals.

If you combine these tactics and mix, then there is much more interaction and replay value than in terra. Normal for a primitive filler?

This is overkill, there is no such variety. As a rule, everyone evaluates the initial layout and plans one version of the game, and if something goes wrong, then they use a spare. Moreover, someone will also want to use your tactics, will cut, and so on. I played a lot of games, with the above tactics - usually one (two) profitable, which quickly get bored.

Maybe you played with the wrong ones?) Do not forget that, as a rule, not only 2 tactics "to win" are combined, but at least one is used to "screw up the opponent." In the course of one game there are 1-2 tactics, maximum 3-4 maybe, not more, this is so. But the games are fast too. For such a time for a party, this is the norm. In another game, different tactics. For a filler, it is the most it.

This is what I meant that no matter how many options there are for the movement to victory in Splendora, it all comes down to finding exactly one. This is boring. It is not so important for me whether I am a nobleman or am I saving up for expensive cards- This is a forced measure due to the influence of opponents and the layout on the table. If the cards in the 3rd row came out on blue and red stones, and all the cards with these stones are taken from my nose, this tactic of buying 3 cards for 5 will not be relevant to me, no matter how much I want to go into it.
If you are comparing by the number of tactics, then you should not write about the filler later. A lot of nuances are not taken into account in such a comparison. Yes, the result to which one goes in TM is also one, but the question is in the ways of achieving it, and there are more of them.

> this is a forced measure due to the influence of rivals

Vooot! Finally! And I’m talking about that. In this filler, there is much more conflict and interaction than in the volumetric strategy of Terra Mystica. Everything that you do in a slender is directly tied to each move of the opponent. In Terra, despite the abundance of opportunities, everything is tied to the player's tablet in the first place. There is much less interaction between players.

It often happens that there are fewer interactions in Euro games than in fillers. This is only due to the fact that in the filler there are much fewer actions that you can perform, fewer variations and subsequent decisions. Here the question is not about TM, but the category of games to which it belongs. If you like fillers with good interaction - one thing, Euro strategies for thinking - another.

I like Brass Lancashire. Euro. On to think. With much higher interaction between players than in Terra.
Sickle. Map, tablet, improvements, buildings, resources, coins. Thinking strategy. There are many more interactions than in Terra.
Santiago de Cuba. There are more interactions than in Terra.
Tzolkin. There are more interactions than in Terra.
In each of these games, EVERY move by any player can be STRONGLY influencing others. And you have to adapt to each move. In Terra, you can make moves that do not affect others. Or influence, but not as much as in the above.

Serp has fights and direct interaction. There, mechanically, there can be no less interaction. Terra has nothing to do with direct attacks, which are pure interaction and conflict.

And about the Brass. Well let's see. Both games have money, and the winner is the one with the most VPs. There is a field where players place buildings from their personal tablets. Houses are built for resources and money. And they get a profit from the built houses. So far, no difference has been observed. Don't be fooled by the wrapper, these are games of the same type.

Terra has as much interaction, if not more, as in other games of the genre - Lorenzo, Marco Polo, Austria Hotel, Rosenberg games, CDW. Teru, among others, distinguishes chess and the complete absence of randomness - there is no hidden information, there are no cubes, respectively - whoever calculates all the options better will win. This is very stressful for the brain, given the number of possible options. Digging in your tablet - yes, you can learn it in three games for each faction. But all the raisins and interaction in actions are available to everyone. When playing Terra, I think about the 20% tablet - no one will bother me there. But on the field, actions for power, turn order, bonus tokens and blessings, cults and cities, there is a struggle. What to take and what to let the opponent take? You rightly said that 70% of the game is a tablet - or rather, 70% of your victory points is a tablet, and 30% of the remaining points you share among everyone - and who plays correctly outside the tablet - will grab a larger piece.

And, since Terra is an old school game - it does not forgive mistakes - any loss of pace (usually not related to the tablet) entails a loss of victory points at the end, the more, the more rounds to the end. This is because there are no workarounds in it, if someone takes something, then this is forever or until the end of the round, if it is screwed up, it will not turn out. And on the board of almost every faction, there are usually two ways to play - to the right to the blessing tokens or up to the faction property. This often changes the whole strategy and adds variability → replayability.

Thank you for the answer. In fact, only you and cyril2012 answered my question on the case.

In the rest of the responses, I saw "I think so because I think so", "this game is cool because I like it" and "this game is a masterpiece, I don't want to know anything else." It was especially amusing when they said that in Terra, area control is more important than in IP. In IP, control of territories immediately gives 100% victory, in Terra, it gives or deprives n points that can affect the victory. Influence, not give 100% victory. The mechanics of Terra, in principle, cannot give such a critically dependent areal-knotrol as IP. It's just a facepalm.

I already had a similar case, when one guy foaming at the mouth argued that the Hive is the same deep play like chess and didn't want to hear anything else. I told you that this is a game with a low ceiling, i.e. replayability, it has only 2 winning strategies (this was before the release of the last official special stage, which changed the situation). And then this guy lost 10 games in a row to me. Which means that I understood the game and the situation with it better than him.

I would definitely not compare the game with chess, because the goal in chess is specific - to kill the king. Games with a specific purpose are played differently. These are not even strategies, but tactics. Rather, Terra can be compared to go - a game with open information and a set of points. To win, it is enough to get at least 1 point more.

How the survey began is a matter of replayability and interaction. After studying all the comments, feedback and my experience, I come to the following conclusion:
victory primarily depends on how well you own your tablet. If it's bad, then everything else is not important, you are in flight. If all players are equally good at owning their tablets, then then those 30% of the interaction in the game is decided. And for good, the game revolves around that 30%. I thought that this was not enough. But! Considering that this is a game with completely open information and a well-aimed hit can be calculated from the very beginning of the game, this is a clear plus for the game. I would say a highlight. On the other hand, there is something like this to some extent in any good game. But in many others modern games some cards are added, and this is + expectation and probability theory.
Regularity depends on this 30% interaction + dopa.
In general, it is good game for miscalculation. And let everyone decide for himself whether he has enough replayability or not.

I rethought the games in Terra that I had. There was a clear advantage for those who know their tablet well and play at the level and those who see the tablet for the first time and did not reveal their pros and cons. Those. the games were over, one might say, at the start. Therefore, things just did not reach those 30%. It makes sense for me to train several players in Terra and, when everyone is perfectly using their tablet, to arrange a real battle.

I tried to objectively evaluate the mechanics. Now my personal is subjective.
Long ago, before the release of Terra, I decided for myself that in board games I sit down to interact with other living people as much as possible. I saw that someone is playing a tabletop fallout solo, but I have a computer fallout for that. And I sit down in board games in order to interact with other players as much as possible. At the same time, I understand that many (and I, too) sometimes play solo, but this is in order to learn the mechanics, gain experience / understanding and take revenge from the opponent in the next game. It's like going to the gym before a fight in the ring.
For this reason, Terra is simply not my game. I can play occasionally and get some fun from the process, but this is not something that I will play regularly. I prefer games where there is no less depth of calculation, work of the brain, but at the same time there is more interaction. In the same Chess, Go, Rising Sun, there is a tough conflict from the very first move, from the first moves you can deprive your opponent of what he already has. In Forbidden Stars, indirect interaction begins during the game setup. Yes, in Terra, too, there is indirect interaction from the very beginning. Direct is when you deprive the player of what he already has, indirect - when you deprive him of what he can get. Terra is a game about indirect interaction. Yes, it can evoke driving emotions and be decisive in the game. But personally, I like games with direct interaction or the threat of direct interaction.

Thanks to everyone who took part in the holiv .. conversation.

1. Play with five people - there will be conflict. Strategies will break. When playing with a large squad, you have to move away from them, at the right time being distracted by situations that are critical for your party. There is also a conflict in the fact that players will more often take the actions you need, at least, and completely block you if you blindly play the strategy of your race, as a maximum. There were also such parties. The art consists in breaking the opponent's strategy, seeing his bottleneck, without breaking your own. On the other hand, on the contrary, it should not be allowed to break his own, so that the aggressor wasted a lot of resources, not having achieved success and turning himself off from the struggle.
2. Play 100 games by playing different races, incl. from the supplement.
3. Play the auction according to the rules for choosing a race from the add-on, on 3 different fields. Knowing the approximate strategies of all races, you will see which of the races dropped out in a given game the round bonuses and the 2nd main bonus favor in this particular layout. You will know by how many (up to 40 VP) which races you need to lower at the start relative to the weaker ones.
4. Somehow my tongue does not turn to compare Terra with Carcassonne. After all, they are completely in different weight categories. It's like putting a "fly" boxer in the ring and, if not a heavyweight, but a heavyweight.

I am not comparing the mechanics of games, but the repeatability and conflict that these very mechanics give. It is quite possible to do this. As well as comparing the punching force of a boxer and a heavyweight.

I did not play with dopom. I played in the base with the maximum composition.

And where did you get the idea that someone should tell you and present something that you did not see?
This is stupidity. You obviously didn't like the game.

It's as stupid as, being the owner of some expensive German, to come to a Korean car lovers club and ask them to prove to you that they drive something worthwhile.

It's just useless, you still won't play it, no matter who and how much and what will answer you.

You just spawned a mountain of flood.

And probably>

The meaning of your "show me", if you have already painted and decided all the nuances and impressions for yourself?

It looks like you just came to see the words that the game sucks. Doing nonsense, in general.

Absolutely EMPTY, stubborn and useless conversation in this case.

No one owes nothing to nobody. I asked who wants to - will answer. And the usefulness of your comment is questionable.

And you are wrong. The game suits me well, it just raises some questions.

I had a question initially, and through discussions I received an answer. This is what discussions are for. This discussion is useful for me. Maybe also for those who are interested in such questions.

> And probably> 30,000 people around the world (this is just those who checked in on desktop sites) are just fools and blind.

Clarified. Yes, as I understand it, everything is exactly like that: you can add to navigation and yes - for construction, incl. cities. The river square is not counted, only buildings are always counted. Indeed, in essence, it is similar to simply having a bridge. Consider that mermaids always have a bridge.

Ability:
You may skip one River space when founding a Town. (You
decide if and when you want to use this ability. When founding a Town in
this fashion, put the Town tile on the skipped River space. Of course, you
may build Bridges as usual.)

Impressed by the "resource person" on the Project Guy tablets, I "clumsily assembled" something similar for TM. jpg file was thrown into the "files and links", the photo of the finished "craft" can be seen in the "photo and video." "little things)

As part of the New Year's review competition Konstantin Manzyuk sent material about the game Terra Mystic... Rather, this is not just a review, but a story about the impressions of the game, highlighting its pros and cons. In short, this is a very good euro with rules that are not easy to explain.

I have long wanted to write a review of the wonderful game terra mystica, but all hands did not reach.

And then, as luck would have it, I saw a contest of reviews on the site. I apologize in advance to all readers for possible bloopers, the first experience of writing reviews

Attention: this is more likely not a review of the game, but a hodgepodge of impressions from the process of getting to know it.

Well, let's get started.

Introduction

I live in the city of Barnaul, this is a kind of remote place. Games can only be obtained by ordering from online stores; of course, there can be no question of collective orders from a coolstaf. The local store sells a small selection of hobbyworld games. Therefore, Terra Mystica came to me simply by the fact that I reached out to her. The more pleasant was the surprise from acquaintance with the game.

The coveted box has arrived ...

When they brought the box with the game, I was shocked by the abundance of wood and cardboard in it. This is really impressive. The filling is no worse than in Eclipse. Just think about it - there are only cardboard and wood inside the box. Of the paper components, only the rules.

After the sacred ritual of squeezing out tokens, dividing them into groups and packing them into ziplocks (which, by the way, were put with a large margin), I began to study the rules.

About the rules

The game is quite simple and logical, but the rules are difficult to tell. This paradox stems from the fact that every aspect of the game is very organically intertwined with the rest. It turns out a whole world that lives by its own rules. And from whatever side you approach the rules, you come across a situation that the player must already know some of these rules.

The rulebook itself is excellently written, especially nice inserts with a fictional description of the races found in the game. If you read them, the game starts to look very atmospheric.

The rules themselves

Now I will try to outline these rules very briefly so that readers understand what is happening in this game. I will omit the nuances, because the goal is to create a general idea of the game.

In Terra Mystic, we take on the role of one of the 14 races that inhabit a small world. As the game progresses, we will more and more populate the area and develop our civilization. But each race can live only on one of 7 types of terrain (forests, mountains, deserts, wastelands, lakes, swamps, fields). If you want to populate a region, you must first terraform it, that is, transform it into a region with its own type of terrain.

Also, in order to develop, we can not populate new regions, but improve old buildings. All buildings give us resources at the beginning of the next turn.

Another way of development is serving the elements, which brings precious Power there (an analogue of mana, which is spent on additional resources and opportunities). In addition, a high level of service to the elements gives various bonuses from the corresponding gods at the end of the turn (mostly also resources).

And all these paths, one way or another, bring us precious VPs.

The game consists of 6 rounds, which take place in 3 phases.

1) The phase of obtaining resources - we just get those resources that buildings bring us. The system is very simple and transparent - when we expose a building from a personal tablet to the field, the resources that we receive are opened on the tablet (the system is similar to eclipse)

2) Action Phase - starting with the first player, each player makes one move until all players fold. On his turn, each player is free to perform any of the possible actions, if he has enough resources for this (and again hello to eclipse). It is during this phase that we terraform territories, build and improve buildings, send priests to serve cults, and a number of other possible actions.

3) The phase of receiving bonuses for serving the elements. In this phase, we receive the resources that this or that cult gives us this turn.

In the end, we just count who has more software. We get them during the game for various actions (in our games this is about 50-60% of all VP), as well as at the end of the game for the largest territory and for a higher level of service to the elements (each element is considered separately).

Pros and cons of the game

Pros:

1) Game design. Personally, I like the art in the game, its colors, pictogram style, wooden components.

2) "Thoughtfulness" of the game. Here it is manifested in everything. Player boards - they have all the information you need. The amount of resources obtained, the prices of buildings, the properties of factions, the power of buildings, the complexity of terraforming the territory, the table for converting power into resources - all this is on the tablet and is so well and clearly laid out that it is difficult to get confused. And I haven't named everything yet. I just now realized how much information the tablet actually gives.

Separately, you should pay attention to the excellent pictograms. They turned out to be even clearer than in the 7 wonders game, although Bauza set the standard for working with pictograms.

Another nifty moment is bonus tokens for each round. 6 of them are laid out on the field. These tokens describe additional conditions for earning VPs in this round. When the round is over, we just close the next token. Thus, it is never forgotten which round is going on now (for our company it was a big problem in eclipse).

3) Excellent scalability of the game. Terra mystica is perfectly played in the range of 3-5 people, despite the same field for all. This is due to the interesting mechanics of gaining Power in the game (the player gains Power if an opponent builds or improves a building on the adjacent territory), as well as the fact that some buildings are cheaper if there is an opponent in the neighboring territory. This leaves the players with a choice - to build next to the rival, but risk that in the future it will be difficult to occupy new territory or develop apart from the rest, but slower due to the lack of Strength and the high cost of some buildings.

Of course, the game for 3 and 5 people differs in style quite a lot. But it is equally interesting to play with any line-up (I didn't have a chance to try the game for two).

This property is especially valuable after purchasing chaos in games the old world (strictly 4 people) and Game of Thrones (strictly 6 people or not those impressions of the game).

4) Choice. The game always gives a choice in which way to develop. And all the paths of development are somehow connected with each other. Each turn, the player decides whether to get a little VP now, to increase the chance of getting VP at the end of the game, to develop his race a little so that in the future it will be easier with resources, or even to pass in order to go first in the next round and collect all the cream. And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

5) Lack of random generators. There are no cards or dice in this game. There is a random only at the stage of forming the starting conditions of the game, but it rather increases the uniqueness of each game. Everything in this game is under the control of the players. And all the surprises, all the collapses of great plans can only be caused by other players. And it gives a kind of excitement when you wait for your move and hope that your opponent does not take territory or ability. Feelings are like playing a ticket to ride.

6) A variety of ways to win. There are a huge number of ways to obtain software that can be combined with each other in any proportion. And this will constitute a victory. After Terra Mystica, some games start to look one-sided. For example, in Eclipse, the whole game revolves around war, the rest is secondary. Moreover, without the addition, the scheme for the development of your faction is often roughly the same. In the game chaos in the old world, the developers themselves chose the paths by which the players go to victory. These games did not become less interesting because of this, they are one of my favorite games, but they clearly lose to Terra mysticism in this aspect (fans, please do not throw stones at me).

7) Atmospheric abilities of races. The most fragile plus of this game. Many will argue with me, but if you read the art cuts in the rulebook, all abilities fall into place and seem perfect and are often very interesting.

In addition, it is often seen on the field that halflings have built up everything they can with their huts, cultists serve cults more faithfully than many, mermaids have a bunch of settlements on the coast, magicians rushed to build temples of the elements, gnomes dug all the territories with tunnels, so much so that the whole city to the end there is no game.

8) The consistency of the game. There is simply nothing to add here. Everything is simple, clear and transparent.

9) The most important thing in serious games is the balance of the game. At least not yet managed to find any special loopholes and broken moments in the game.

Attention! Colored ravilas in Russian are included in the box.

In front of you complex game European school, designed for experienced players, in which the mass fraction of randomness is reduced to almost zero. A lot of options for actions can firstly affect the duration of each player's move (in the so-called "downtime"), but the speed increases after several rounds in the course of one game and from party to party, respectively. The game features 14 very diverse races, which have their own preferences for habitat (which will significantly determine your strategy for the entire party), which often leads to competition for territory. The spread of your race by increasing the territory (and its terraforming, that is, modifying it to fit your needs) opens up new opportunities for the development of your cities.

This game is famous for its thoughtful and very balanced resource management. You have to build buildings (it brings a bonus, such as replenishing resources at a certain step). In the arsenal of players there are both standard eight basic actions (resources are spent on them), and bonus (racial or acquired after construction). However, originality gameplay lies not in the above, but in how skillfully the magic of the circulation of power is woven into its process (it flows sequentially through three bowls from one to another), which can be used only at the stage of its maturity (the third bowl) and will contribute to activation one of six bonus actions.

As in any Euro game, the winner is the one with the most victory points over six rounds for almost everything, adding bonuses for territories and blessings at the end.

In addition to basic version We bring to your attention an add-on that will bring additional variety to the game due to new races and mechanics. If you want to change the setting and develop your empire in space, then we highly recommend the game.

The rules of the game in Russian are included in the box. German edition itself

Game package:

playing field;
7 individual reversible playing fields; the field of cults;
56 double-sided land tiles
65 worker markers;
40 coins of denomination 1;
25 coins of denomination 2;
20 coins with denomination of 5;
65 purple Strength markers;
first player marker;
17 action tokens
end of game token;
5 “100 Victory Points” tokens;
28 cult support tiles
10 city tiles
9 bonus cards; 8 scoring tiles; in each of 7 colors:
8 dwellings;
4 trading houses;
1 citadel;
3 temples;
1 sanctuary;
7 priests;
3 bridges;
7 markers;
5 reminder cards;
12 zip-lock packages;

Terra Mystica board game buy at BanzGames

Buy a board game Terra mystica(Terra Mystica) at the price of 3,790 R. in Moscow, delivery throughout Russia or self-delivery in the BanzGames online store is possible by placing an order through the website or by contacting us by contact phone.

Shovels.

Explain to me, please, "high replayability" and "conflict and high interaction between players" in Terra Mystic.

Sorry, but I see "good replayability and conflict in this game, because I like it." Is it possible without emotions and coldly-harshly about the mechanics of the game? Or is it not welcome here?

Not all war games are in cubes. Eat with controlled randomness or no randomness at all.

In a four-to-five game, without taking the + 2 VP token for the houses, you often have already played in a certain scenario. And this is on the first moves of the 1st round.

Check out the expert games on bga. You will see many examples.

I watched a lot of recordings of games on bga and YouTube. From looking like a snowball, I saw it only when there were players in the parties, obviously with a big difference in zadro ... level. Those. one is clearly stronger, the other is clearly weaker. As a result - a snowball. Neither Go nor Chess usually snowballs when masters of the same level are playing. The snowball is a consequence of the different levels of players. Where one simply does not see and does not understand what can be done with him and does nothing. A player of a good level will see and pinch such things in advance. If the game has a snowball effect for good players of the same level, then this is rather a minus of the game, because the game is simply not flexible. In Go, you can lose the first half games and then win. In Chess too.
But the question about the balance of races remained. Here many write that the races are unbalanced. Then what kind of game is praised if it breaks the math of the game?
True, I myself did not notice any imbalance in the races for my games. It's just that each one needs its own unique approach, but this is in any game with asymmetric sides. I won in Terra with any army, I haven't seen a breakdown yet. But what confused me was the bonuses for the rounds - they can go to someone's suit, someone can't.
By chance, is it not because of this that you wrote below about the auction of races?

We are talking about different snowballs, it seems. I'm talking about the fact that the lack of a resource, or the seizure of the territory on which there were views, or another event due to some unexpected action of the opponent can lead to a snowball of negative consequences.
For example, they unexpectedly took away the territory near the almost completed city. You were unable to build a city in this round and get 2 workers from a city token, so you were unable to place 2 houses and get 8 VP for a blessing token and a round bonus. 2 workers did not receive additional income for the next round. 4 mana wasted not for 7 coins,
And on a shovel for another territory, in order to finish building a city (for example, a not quite potential city was blocked). But by this time, the city tokens on the workers ran out. As a result, you lost VP, money, workers, in this round you did not build 2 trading posts (bonuses were on them), you lost another 6 VP (or 12 with a blessing token). In the next round, they did not receive money from them, did not build a temple, did not advance in the cult, did not receive mana, blessings, round bonus for position on the track, etc.
As you can see, development slowed down very significantly, not to mention the lost software.
Approximately such a lump (or rather a chain of events-consequences) can form only in a couple of rounds.
Someone said there is no interaction and conflict in the game). If you evaluate such things in the language of wargames, consider that with tz. As a result, your army was practically cut out of the game, leaving several helpless units.

> 70-80% of terra success depends on how efficiently you dig in your tablet.

No, not at all.

I don't really like "Terra Mystica", it has obvious shoals: unbalanced races, demands on the number of players, the dumbest mega-cold with bonus points in each round.

Still how he decides. Four - Five experienced players can play a game in Terra Mystic, with an emphasis on territorial control, that Kemet and the Cyclades will nervously smoke on the sidelines. But for two or three, area control certainly turns into water. That is why it is always advised to play with the maximum composition or at least four players. Terra Mystique is a special highlight of the game in Terra Mystic. Special in that the very mechanism of this control compares favorably with the classic games for the control of territories. In such games, the mechanism is simple: put a chip on the territory and it is yours. And in Terra Mystic, thanks to the "repainting" of foreign lands into their own (the mechanism of which is directly taken from such an elegant section of mathematics as Graph Theory), it makes the game process very interesting and exciting, and most importantly gambling, dramatic and moderately conflict.

Plus a non-scalable map for the number of players. How is it allowed in such a "great" game? In general, something doesn't add up. If a game of genius is not finished yet, then it cannot be called a genius.

> Are you seriously saying that territorial control is as critical in Terra as in Kemet?

> In "Terra Mystica" control of territories is the very essence and meaning of the game, and in "Kemet" it is just an insignificant detail to everything else.

In Kemet, control of specific territories is the most important source of software. Indeed, an insignificant detail)

Those. one and the same race in one scenario may be significantly stronger than itself in another scenario.

Plus, as they said, the snowball effect. In the first round, I did not take the right piece of soil and for the next five I watched how the others played.

The game is good, but very demanding. Too demanding. Plus the level of the players must be equal. Those. You can have fun, but you need to prepare well

Any game with normal difficulty or higher, with decent replay value, is very demanding. Those who are afraid of this have only one destiny: to play children's games.
Serious games require a deep understanding of both the game itself, experience in it specifically, and a general understanding of what can and cannot be done in games (understanding what kingmaking is, for example).
Not everyone needs serious games, it's hard for someone to play them. And not interesting.
Not everyone needs families, fillers. It's easy for some to play them. And not interesting.
Pick up those that are interesting to you and your friends. After all, the most important thing is communication. And in order for it to be as pleasant and long as possible, it is necessary for everyone to like everything.
Thank God, the choice of games is huge and everyone can choose the right combination of difficulty, mechanics, setting, etc.
And that's great.
P.S. The modern level of chess development is such that if you play at a high level, you need to know and keep in mind a huge number of openings and their variations. Most ordinary mortals do not need this, and no one says that chess is a bad game. It's just that not everyone needs it at the deepest level. So it is in board games. Games with high replay value are gradually opening up a depth that I never knew existed. For many, this is what allows you to lay it out over and over again.
But, as in chess, players at different levels of understanding, as a rule, are not interested in playing with each other. These are two opposites of such games. And that's okay. They are afraid of wolves - do not go to the forest. At the same time, it is far from necessary to climb into the thicket. The forest park will be enough for someone.