Through the Ages: A New Story of Civilization Review

[@EclecticCamel]

25:34 Joel's hair attempts to escape after years of forced subjugation

[@DriveThruReview]

LMAO!! I am just seeing these comments now!

[@robertaustin6302]

Zing! 😂😂

[@lsk101]

Playing the shorter variant of the game (2 ages) tends to cut the "pick on the weakest player" part of the game, though it kind of remove the best age since your engine to build points should really pick up in the last age. Though, for the newer players, I think it is imperative to know the kind of card they'll get up in age 3 before stating to play since some war cards are so brutal and can really kill the fun if you didn't prepare to it. For the luck part, there is alot of yellow card to mitigate your missed upgrades for an age. For me, the luck part really is to get the right leader or wonders, but again, even if they are unique, there are some similar leaders to compensate... as long as not everybody has the same strategy. For myself, awesome game, maybe too long for most of my friends, but nothing is decided before the last few rounds usually.

[@steveg7000]

A great review turns into a bad hair day around 26:30 :) Seriously, thanks for the review. This is one of those games that fall outside my impulse-buy price range, so I really deliberate over whether or not to add to my already way-too-big collection.

[@DriveThruReview]

Bwahahha... that's hilarious! :D Sorry it took me so long. I've found a trove of comments I've not seen before.

[@Misiodziej]

This review was beyond awesome. I must admit I've been craving for one but wow this was fantastic. Great job Joel.

[@gohantube7017]

Joel, I do not know how the rules on resigning are in the new edition. But the old edition Resign rules were there in case a player was being pummeled down by a superior military opponent. Say for example the military power house of the game is on second place, one good age 3 war would win him the game, he decides to go for easy points on the 4th place, the 4th place player on his turn seeing the situation simply resigns. No points for the over-eager aggressor and 4th place leaves the game honorably. It basically discouraged just "Farming" points on a weaker player, and encouraged strong military players to go against more closely matched players. (at least in my games)

[@christianhorvath791]

Great review!

[@DriveThruReview]

Glad you enjoyed it

[@Moezel]

I have played Nations over 20 times and really enjoy it. I like this better but cant get it to the table as much because its more complicated.

[@EclecticCamel]

+Mohammed Al-Ateeqi I prefer Nations as well due to length of play, and I don't feel like I am sacrificing a lot with the shorter game time. However, I have a real problem with how few military cards there are in that game given how much keys off of military. The number of cards that require military outnumber actual military available by a substantial amount. Stability can prevent resource loss but not point loss, and I feel like if you have military lead early, you can step on your opponents' neck(s) by maintaining that first player spot and getting the best card on the table. It gets worse with fewer players, I think. This game looks like it has the same luck of the draw BS, so I will be staying away from it. The game length wouldn't work with my group anyways.

[@SebastiaanBenders]

Here's the thing I get from your review and others as well (SU&SD, for instance) - it is easy to pick on the weak player. This is no fun. It's somewhat possible to mitigate if you miss out on something, but not always. You say it yourself: it comes down to luck. And that's fine in games, BUT, not when you know you still have to play 3 hours and you feel like you probably won't really be able to make a comeback. I wouldn't be able to take that and I wouldn't wish it on any other player at the table.

[@DriveThruReview]

It's a rough game. I can't help but appreciate the game and the level of play that is required, but it's got a high likelihood that the game will be very un-fun for one or more players, especially in a multiplayer game.

[@SebastiaanBenders]

Thanks for getting back and also thanks for the review. It's allowed me to make an informed decision not buying the game. Maybe I'll get a chance to sit in on it being played in a gaming group!

[@DriveThruReview]

No worries. Just an FYI. They just recently released an app for iOS and Android, which will shorten the play length and give you opportunity to play it against an AI and "fail fast" as they say.

[@DonnaBrooks]

I just saw this in my related vids section, but don't have time to watch it now, so I wanted to ask you for a comparison b/t this game and the older Through the Ages game. I noticed that on BGG the original TtA game is still more high-ranking, and more highly rated than this new one, and I wonder whether that is just resistance to change, or if there are legitimate complaints about the new version. In what ways is it different and is it different enough that it justifies buying the new version if you already have the old one?? If you already addressed this in this video, (or another video), my apologies for asking, and please let me know the video or timestamp where you discuss this and I'll take a look later. Thanks for all the reviews!

[@DriveThruReview]

The new one has actually overtaken the old one. I think the consensus is that it's better in every way. I did cover this slightly (iirc) in the final thoughts portion. There's a time stamp in the video description.

[@TorIverWilhelmsen]

Have you played Nations or The Golden Ages? At least the latter seems less abstract (i.e. it has a world map though the layout of the lands need not match our Earth)...

[@DriveThruReview]

+Tor Iver Wilhelmsen I have. I enjoyed Golden Ages and didn't really care for Nations at all.

[@deanofgames4661]

Drive Thru Review I realize this review is old and your comments are history, but would you elaborate on what you didn't care for Nations! I played it recently and enjoyed it quite a bit.

[@DriveThruReview]

I didn't like the way the cards came out. I prefer Through the Ages in that regard. I think that was a big stickler for me. I had a couple of games (well at least one) where there was a decent runaway leader issue. Some other issues that I don't recall unfortunately.

[@jkuntz667]

Joel, about once a month a group of gamers get together on a Saturday to play day long games. I do have Clash of Cultures, but not the expansion. I was thinking of picking up Through the Ages: A new story and Eclipse. Would you rate Eclipse better than Through the Ages: A new story? What do you think of Clasjh of Culture without expansion vs Through the Ages: A new story?

[@DriveThruReview]

+Joel Kuntz I would put Eclipse above TtA. Clash without the expansion is an odd one. Once I played the expansion, I never ever want to go back to playing without, so I'm a bit tainted in that regard.

[@zerdos2]

Hey Joel, still looking to do a review of the FFG cilvilzation board game? I've always been on the edge if I should pull the trigger on it and I am wondering what you think of it. Thanks!

[@DriveThruReview]

I am. Still got it. I've played it without expansions and didn't care for it. But, I want to get it to the table with expansions. Just haven't had time yet :(

[@A.L.E.X.42]

I really wanted to enjoy the original (Civ building being my favorite game theme) but the length-to-luck ratio just felt really off to me so I maybe got it to the table four times in all the years I've owned it. I'm happy that you feel some of the issues (mainly in aggression) are patched up a bit. Do you feel like this new version would change someone's opinion if they were lukewarm on TTA 1.0? (Yes I know its a really subjective and arbitrary question)

[@DriveThruReview]

+Alex M It did for me. I really never wanted to play the original. In a perfect world with time and experienced players (who are aware of the caveats raised), I'd play the new edition.

[@A.L.E.X.42]

+Drive Thru Review Awesome! Realistically I can get two people to consistently play heavier civ games with. You mentioned playing with 3, do you feel that's a good player count? Have any opinions on best/worst head count? (Sorry if I totally missed it in your final thoughts)

[@DriveThruReview]

+Alex M Hmm ya I really didn't cover the player count thing. It works fine at all player counts. Of course, it will be longer with more. But, if you have two, it works great with two. You miss out on pacts and military is kind of zero sum, but I still really enjoy it with two. It might even be the best civ game at two come to think of it.

[@A.L.E.X.42]

+Drive Thru Review Sold :) Thanks! Looking forward to your FFG Civ review (a game that doesn't seem to get much love, likely because it almost needs the expansions)

[@GabrielDFbhz]

What do you think about the game today??

[@DriveThruReview]

I've definitely softened bit on this one even more. I honestly find it a bit frustrating these days. I never play it in person anymore. I can handle an online game via the app or other online tool though. It's just too number crunchy for what I want in a "civ" game. I mean... it's great... just doesn't jazz me up :)

[@RobertWard3000]

Draft the Vidal Sasoon card. JK great review.

[@DriveThruReview]

LMAO... just catching this now :)

[@davedogge2280]

A wonderful game.