SpaceCorp 2025-2300 - A Gaming Rules! Review

[@nirszi]

A solo gamer counter-argument: I love that I don't have to read thru the rulebook or play multi handed and I can just read the solo book and know the whole game. I wish more games offered a full dedicated solo rulebook.

[@MrPostm]

"I was there last Tuesday. That's what it looks like." Nice one!

[@nguinguingui]

I came across when he says it. I lol

[@Dell999950]

I think you were slightly to the left? Or was it right?

[@CosmicFrogX]

Nice review, thank you :) You mentioned you disliked the setup of the two rulebooks, honestly I find it good that way. I for instance, started with a solo session so I picked up the solo rulebook right away and didn't need to touch or read through the multiplayer book at all. I liked that a lot.

[@dillenbeck53531]

Would I play a game where a player is given an advantage at setup? Yes. _Agricola_ is the first one that comes to mind. Almost every game my wife has had a set of cards dealt to her that worked together better than mine - even when I thought I had an outstanding set of cards that worked together, she got a near perfect set of cards that just blew me out of the water. Revised edition makes it so the cards all work fairly well together, but there is still a difference. Would I play a game where I can't execute the strategy I want? Yes. _Splendor_ at 4 players is a prime example of this. Sure, I may want to plan to buy card A and then B after getting some gems, all so I have a wonderful engine to get a noble tile; sadly, at 4 players, odds are someone will draft that card before me. I have the exact same situation in _SpaceCorp_ when playing, where I have open cards to draft and the option to "blind draw" - but I not only need to react to what exploration tiles come up, but what I can draft or what my blind draft brings up. As a fan of games like _Eldritch Horror_ and related games, I don't mind randomness - I get it is part of the game. Don't like it? Pull it out. House rule your game. You dislike it, so it is bad for you. However, I don't think it makes it bad game design; otherwise, most games are badly designed. Why in _War of the Ring_ can my siege fail turn after turn just because in 40 dice rolls I don't roll a single value above 3? Why in _Battle of the Five Armies_ is it good design that I commit all my resources in taking down an opponent's fort only to have them play a single card that completely restores it? Why in _Splendor_ is it good design if all the cards out there take blue gems to get but my opponents took all the blue gem poker chips and I have no easy to acquire blue gem cards? 99% of games will have to be thrown out as bad design because players can lose a couple of points or not execute a desired strategy because of a random element, and we'll all go back to playing _Chess_ (which I'm okay with, I like that game too). I think you're falling into the trap I fall into with boardgames like this and video games like _Sid Meier's Civilization_ series - you aren't playing the game, you are playing the theme. In most of my solo games I just want to explore planets, discover life, mutate my humans, have revelations for new tech, and fulfill lots of cool contracts. However, my tile draws don't let this happen, nor do my card draws - thus I had to fight hard to get those production cards and make high value production sites. I had to be the evil "here for profit" corporation rather than the noble space explorers; and once I got past that and started playing the game and not the theme, I started to come up with strategies to get past pirates and all the nasty things that happened. In the end, I think the "bad taste" is a matter of perception - much in the way I hated the solo opponent "The Competition" when I first played it. It cheats, I thought. Then I realized it was my perception that was skewed. The Competition isn't a solo AI opponent that plays the game against you, it is an algorithm that simulates the results of what a human opponent would do when playing the game. Thus while it feels like "cheating", what it is doing is removing all the lengthy game play decision and replicating the results to speed up its turn. This is good because it lets you focus on your game and your strategy instead of following a lengthy COIN-styled bot (which I also enjoy playing against), and that reduces solo play time significantly. *************** Concerning the rulebook, I almost always start by playing around with a game with a bit of solo play. Your argument of "learn the multiplayer, expected solo rules to be modifiers" would have been a poor rulebook design for me. I started with solo and appreciated having a full rulebook - should I have expected the multiplayer book to just be a set of modifications to the solo game? My issue with the rulebook is they make for a poor reference manuals when learning the game. Fortunately, the game is fairly simple and so you can usually find stuff quickly; unfortunately, there is a lot of redundancy due to the "learn as you play" style. Lots of wasted page space. It is an okay rulebook, but there is a lot that could be improved on it (and cost reduced by condensing it down). Heck, I think it would be better as a rulebook and a playbook (like you get with a COIN game). ************** Finally, counterpoint to scaling. Space is always the same size. They had a few choices - fix the deck size and let lower player counts do more stuff and score higher points, block off areas of space to shrink the play area and reduce the cards/tiles so the number of actions is the same (but I would be upset if in my solo and 2 player games I couldn't ever get to see certain parts of the game), or require bot players to fill out the game to always 4 competitors (which would add procedural AIs and lengthen the game significantly). I'm okay they chose to vary the amount you get to do each game. The net result is more consistent play time (players in a 2 player game get to do twice as much, thus a 2 player and 4 player game take about the same amount of time; if they had the same amount of actions per player, a 2 player game would play quickly and a 4 player game would be longer). Also, bases in 5 regions isn't that hard - at least, not compared to the other same value goals of 6 progress cards, bases in 3 multi-star regions, and colonies with 15 value. Remember, a player may explore first but you might get there and build a base first - "claim jumping" is a very real and nasty tactic in the game. Yes, you are giving opponents profit (victory points) when you do this and devaluing the bonus - but those bases can give VP in other ways also. Sometimes in the business world, its okay to let other players be first to discover so you can be the one to profit overall. ************ I'll conclude my rebuttal with saying that _SpaceCorp_ is a deceptive game - it looks like a Euro but it isn't. I think people who are drawn to it want it to be a Euro game design, but there are only Euro elements in it. There is another game that has the same issue, _Warrior and Traders_ looks like a wargame but it is not. It is a solid _Agricola_ styled Euro. The theme and play is so mismatched it was hated (and it also had some component issues with an overly busy design and a slightly flawed technology progress track), but it is not a bad game (just average). _SpaceCorp_ for me is too light and stripped down to compete with games like _Leaving Earth_ or _High Frontier 3E_ - but it has its place. When not filming and talking, and when playing with experienced players, it really does play fairly quickly. I only wish they included a pad of "save game" log sheets so you could break up the game over multiple sessions. However, it isn't too hard to create your own or use a _This War of Mine_ system of using baggies or trays to make your own save system. Because _SpaceCorp_ looks like a Euro, I think people want it to be played like a Euro - and they don't like the American style game elements or wargame styled game elements that pop up. Also, people want to play the theme and not the game. There are times I want to discover friendly aliens and advance mankind, but the game conspires to not allow that. This isn't a sandbox where you make a plan an execute that (like _Leaving Earth_ and other Euros), it's a game of adaptation and reaction. It is a game where you don't have as much choice as you want _if_ you want to win. All that said, I am not trying to say your review is invalid. You perception is a perfectly valid one, and house rule out those elements you don't like to make it fun! I just want to offer a different perspective - and then I'll encourage people to watch your playthrough videos (and others' playthroughs) to decide if it is a game they would like. Perhaps I am doing this because I had the opposite experience; I started out *meh* on the game and over multiple plays I have found I really appreciate the game and the design choices more and more (but that it is probably just too simple a game without enough variability in it to hold up to lots of repeated plays, but I got my joy out of it and I will pull it out when I don't have time for HF3E).

[@GamingRulesVideos]

when this reply arrived in my email, it was one big wall of text with no gaps, no line spacing, no nothing. I went "OMG, what is this :)" looking at it on YT makes it much more readable. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[@bubblepipemedia3414]

I love the idea of a solo book, just seems like they should have put something in the front of the solo book for those who already knew all the rules to the main game.

[@3MBG]

First of all, 1 love the 3 eras. That's an excellent idea and concept. Not the only game from GMT i've played with that (Comancheria for example), but its something you don't see often. Especially not over 3 boards. Also, being a GMT fan, love card driven games. Twilight struggle and Paths of glory are two of my favs. A bit of randomness doesn't bother me personally, but that's a good thing to point out as it will annoy a lot of people. I also take some cards out of games if i feel they are broken or stupid. (like the stunt dog in Dead of Winter). Art/graphics wise. I love how clear the move, build explore stuff on the cards are. That's as easy to read as anything i've seen. Love me a good 3 hour long solo, so thats a tick up :) Good in-depth review mate. Top notch. One last question, have you played Leaving Earth? If so, how would you compare them?

[@apostateant]

+1 for Leaving Earth, Paul, if you've played both. They're very different games, and I much prefer Leaving Earth solo, but it would be interesting to get your take on it, Paul. I need to get Leaving Earth played multiplayer as I hear it can be very different.

[@dillenbeck53531]

Another +1 for a Leaving Earth comparison if you have played it, and your thoughts on this vs High Frontier if you have played it. Myself, I have played all 3. In my opinion, SpaceCorp is a light euro version of High Frontier 3rd Edition - it covers the same areas of exploration in a very streamlined way. HF3E is still my favorite of the two, but I can actually get a full game of SpaceCorp in over a few hours while the other would day a whole day (plus) of gaming to complete. Leaving Earth to me feels like a very different game - and if a bit of bad luck on tiles in SpaceCorp irked you, I wonder how you see the randomness in a game like Leaving Earth! For me, Leaving Earth is Roads & Boats in space as both games feel like they are all about logistical planning.

[@GamingRulesVideos]

@@dillenbeck53531 Thanks for the tips on Leaving Earth.

[@apostateant]

Great job, as always, Paul. I was concerned about the overall randomness as well in a game that length but so far I've enjoyed it. We'll see how it goes with future plays.

[@michaelhill6453]

Those tiles are coming out! Thanks very much for a very measured review. On the subject of the solo rule book, I played the Mariners board with a friend then borrowed his copy so i could try the solo; I really appreciated having just one book I need to work through and having played solo, I know know how to play the multiplayer game too.. Everyone's different of course.

[@shatnershairpiece]

Paul, did you keep this one? I can get it with the expansion for $50 CAD. I owned base game before and played it once. I do remember it took 3 nights to play full game. Tempting to get it again with expansion, but wonder how often it would get played. Odd thing is this guy has had it for sale for a year and no one has bought it!

[@GamingRulesVideos]

I did. I covered it again within the last year. Still really like it, just don’t get chance to play it.

[@rabardy2992]

Another excellent review... I remain in two minds about this one, but won't say no to trying it as soon as the opportunity presents itself... All the best. Alex

[@jjcomics]

Thank you for the thurough review. Well said on all points. Love all your content!

[@markusschmidt9260]

Great review, in my opinion, some of the edge cards are more swingy then the exploration tiles, though. And regarding play time: for me it is always a plus, if a game takes 4 hours and afterwards you are wondering, where all the time was gone. Much better, then if a game takes only 1 hour but feels like longer then that! But if people have issues with packing such a long game into a gaming slot, there is always another option, you did not mention: play a full three era game, but split it among two evenings. Because there is so few to take over, saving the progress after Planeteers (with pen & paper, or easier still a few photos), taking everything down and setting up Starfarers another day would not really be an issue. Could even be split among three days, but as you said, Mariners is so short, that probably nobody would bother to do this.

[@bibleboardgames]

Thank you! I am looking for 1 epic Sci-fi game for my collection. SpaceCorp was rising toward the top, but a bit concerned that it isn't as interesting after multiple plays. Stellar Horizons looks like it will appeal to my serious science side but at 8+ hours it won't make it to the table enough. Still debating all the options.

[@chewiewins]

Really enjoyed my one play so far of this, all 3 eras.

[@st0ox]

That are very valid criticisms that are however fixable in a new edition with small changes. I hope the devs recognise them.

[@tsimpkins43228]

Great review. I have played this game three times and I would play it again, but I am not sure it would be my pick. Nothing wrong with it, but for the time investment there are games I would rather play.

[@OverlordZephyros]

You said you studied astrophysics and like the theme. What other boardgamers with a HARD SCI-FI theme do you recommend??? 🤔🤔 I also like the theme and read a few books about it. I even bought this game too lol

[@TheJoaninhaMendes]

There are 2 or 3 tiles that makes you lose 2 VPs. I usually draw them all. Last game I drew all.of them... - 6 VPs... and I always win the game 😅

[@studiopaski]

Thank you for a realy good review :) Can you please make a list what tiles are the bad ones to remove? Thank you again!

[@GamingRulesVideos]

There are a couple which say "lose 2 points, draw another tile". There is hostile aliens, and the pirates. They are the main ones.

[@KSweeney36]

For the solo, do you have to play all 3 eras? Would not, only playing one or two help with the time? Also for your solo game would it, not get faster the better you knew the game, less looking up rules? And lastly would it be even faster if you won’t filming?

[@dillenbeck53531]

Solo you do not have to play all 3 eras. From the video, he said he played multiplayer first and thus I think he should have gotten down the basic rules and strategy. However, there isn't an AI in the game you compete against (like in a COIN game) but an algorithm that simulates the results of what might get blocked by other players - that new twist in the solo game takes a bit getting used to. The upside to the design is that the enemy player turn takes very little time to resolve, so you get to keep focus on playing your turn and adapting your strategy. Concerning filming, I bet you are right - even if you just have a camera on for a whole field view of the game (which is doable in this game), you probably still spend a lot of time vocalizing. When I play solo, I don't spend nearly as much time on the full game; and with repeated plays I get faster as I learn different major strategies. I will say my solo experience so far is having to perform very limitedly in the first era, being a bit behind in second era, and if I had been focused on being the first to explore beyond the limits of the current era's board I get to pull ahead majorly in the third era. The opponent isn't "intelligent" so it is like the USSR in Twilight Struggle - strong early on, weak later (if you played okay).

[@TheByteknight]

I didn't mind so much the tile where you lost 2T so much.. the one issue is the progressive card that gives perpetual radiation shielding. There are only like 2 of these cards, so if a 3 or 4 player game, 2 players will have to always build shielding or constantly lost 3T every move or build in the 3rd era. Which means, if you don't get that card, you're unlikely to win.

[@pfefferle74]

Getting the radiation shielding adaption comes at the price of not getting one of the other adaption cards that are just as strong and useful in the game. Getting the second radiation adaption comes at the additional price of losing out on 2T for not choosing another new adaption that no other player has chosen yet. And there are many other ways to deal with radiation: 1.) All movements originating from the inner solar sytem or Sol are always shielded (and you can always use the transit to move your inactive other team back to those locations - transit does not occur any radiation penalty). 2.) It only takes a single card from your hand or Infra with shielded movement to make the entire movement shielded. Note that there are a few cards with shielded movement that can be upgraded into Infra and that you can use them even if another player has them in their Infra (for a reward). 3.) It only takes a shield factory in the same REGION for a movement originating from a site within that region to be shielded. 4.) You can always use another player's shield factory within the region for shielded movement (granting them a card draw reward). 5.) Sometimes it's worth to pay the radiation penality if it means fullfilling a certain contract before another player can.

[@frabac72]

I am re-listening at his again and again, because I am about to take the game to the table, finally. About the tile that takes two points away from you. You showed us also the natural wonder that gives you two points. I am sincerely trying to understand: why is giving you two points OK and taking them from you not? Thanks

[@ormstunga7878]

frabac72 Yeah, the reasoning around ”why have it in the game” is so silly. It’s a game about exploration and adaptation. If you’re the kind of player who, when losing by a point or two, points at a certain element of the game and go ”There’s my two points! This part of the game obviously sucks” I dont really know what games you should be play.

[@bubblepipemedia3414]

Some people mind more obvious luck elements than others. I know I wouldn’t play a game that had this feature unless it was meant to be short and stupid. When I see this in a more complex game I mostly assume there’s little to no alignment of interests between me and the designer.

[@frabac72]

@@bubblepipemedia3414 yes, and also I think in the long run positives and negatives will even out each other, to some extent. And it's space exploration anyway, so something is bound to go wrong unexpectedly, isn't it?

[@bubblepipemedia3414]

@@frabac72 in my experience positives and negatives seldom even out. It takes many more die rolls than most people thing for things to even out statistically. Not sure about the statistics here, but I highly doubt it evens out. As for the second part, that’s thematic. Which is fine. I avoid games that put their theme over the game though. I prefer to play games that are games, rather than themes that are games. I understand that is not the interest of all folks. The issue with this particular game I think largely has to do with who it’s appealing to. It managed to, it seems, appeal to a large amount of more euro players (which is why I even heard about it). This is why you’ll likely see comments regarding luck, both by the reviewer and elsewhere. If it didn’t appeal to the euro-strategy crowd, I don’t think you’d see that. This is why you’re less likely to see those comments on a dice chucking game, because they took one look at that and ran away, knowing it’s not their thing. But here, it can come off as a glaring flaw. I used to be far less forgiving than I am now, regarding this kind of stuff. The way I’d phrase it would have been much less nice than Paul’s a few years ago. Today, thankfully, I’d probably phrase it as nicely as Paul did. Haven’t played this specific game yet, so hard to say, but the specific thing he pointed out would have been real big giant sore points for me. The fact that he already figured out that you can remove them and the game will still function fine is, frankly, immensely helpful. It’s the difference between a game on my wishlist and a game on my ‘avoid if possible’ list.

[@frabac72]

@@bubblepipemedia3414 thanks for the time you took. It is really hard to disagree with you, so I am not going to even try 🙂 Like the distinction between Euro players and dice chuckers. I guess my attitude also changed with the years and where previously I would not have accepted a defeat because of a bad luck throw or pick, now I can accept it is part of the game (but I do not need it to be). Now I am more along for the ride than striving for success. Just getting old, I guess.

[@pfefferle74]

People who play lengthy wargames with DRC (dice resolved combat) can only roll their eyes about your nitpick of SpaceCorp's discoveries being "too swingy". I think this is just an very subjective eurogamer complaint. Also, full-4X-players wouldn't even bat an eye at it because their worst opponent isn't the RNG but the other players.