The android/iOS/Steam implementation I think really makes it shine, by taking away all the fiddly moving cubes around. They just put themselves efficiently where they're supposed to be, leaving the core of the game to shine. I do find it pretty fiddly actually on the table. But when the cubes aren't bothering you, the beauty becomes apparent. When you fall behind you can see why, and there are ways to catch up. Yes, there are certain significant blunders you should only commit once (letting yourself fall way behind in military is one, or overbidding on a colony, or filling up your entire card selection with techs you can't afford so you can't take any new cards...) but then it's just beautiful and lovely.
I'm really glad I got this as an Android App and not as a board-game. I can see how much longer everything would take if you have to manually keep track of it, where the App just does it for you. This way you can actually appreciate how brilliant the game-design is about the decision-making without the burden of moving around cubes and markers.
I just discovered the PC version and it is great, it's my first big expert game but the tutorial is very good and funny so I quickly grasped the mechanics, nonetheless for the reasons Paul and you mentionned I don't think I'll ever buy the physical boardgame. For newbies like me, I really recommend trying the digital version first before plunging into this kind of game...
I had probably around 250 digital games behind me (over 500 now) when I played my first physical game. I also expected upkeep to be a huge hassle, but I was very surprised by how easy it ended up being. Sure, having the app calculate everything is easier, but doing it by hand really wasn't at all the chore I feared it would be, almost like the game was designed with that in mind!
You know, normally I would agree with this. You do nail the issue: it's old school and long for what it is. 2nd best game ever? Really? And yet, and yet, and yet... there is something deliciously moreish about it. I know very few games where 4 hours can swish by in the blink of an eye, yet this is one. I am completely engrossed the whole way through. (And I find many, even most, pure euro games a total snooze.) Primarily, it's the balance.... the delicate tension between military and production and science, and points and... well, it's just got the special sauce in my opinion. One more turn!
I might be weird, but eventhough I usually prefer ~60 mins games I love Through the Ages and usually I wish the eras wouldn't end so quickly, cause I still wanted to build this and upgrade that. We play it for 5 hours and then I'm like "damn, one more turn, please!" The level of strategy is just great and if you're struggling in some aspects (like military) you can focus on other (like science and production) and make it up for it. Be a bit behind in military is not that big of a deal, if you play wise (cause then you are ahead in other areas), but of course completely neglect military and you will be crushed. It certainly isn't a game for everyone, but I am glad I bought it, cause I love Sid Meier's Civ games and this game has the feeling of literally advancing through the ages and optimizing what to build when you need everything, but don't have time/resources.
Try playing this with an AP-prone player, a new gamer (who "just wants to play, don't be so serious about rules") and a friend who plays like you (think before your turn, so your turn takes only about 30-60 seconds). Our game took 7+ hours... But it was amazing!
First play through... 7 hours!! Glad it wasn't just us that laughed in a hollow fashion at the 120mins LIE on the box. And we didn’t even do any wars or colonialism or we'd still be playing!
I'm firmly in the camp of "Had a bad time," with this game. Things went awry with my economy a little way in, and then my engine was broken and there wasn't a meaningful way to engage with the game except to sort of shamble on as a kind of zombie player that existed to keep the player interaction elements ticking over. Faced with the prospects of multiple hours of that, when it was late enough already, I said my apologies, worked out how best to simulate my presence, and I left. (I think it's the only time I've bailed on a boardgame or RPG)
No need to simulate or improvise; the game comes with rules for resigning from the game. I think that tells you a lot about the game in general and the designer, good and bad.
You can irrecoverably ruin your “engine.” New players should play a simplified short game for the first play as well as given tips. A new player joining experienced players in a non-teaching game is headed to disaster.
I don't always agree with SUSD on reviews but I think Paul relatively on point here. I've played Through the Ages with a few different groups and in every case it's been fun but not - FUN -, at least not to the level I'd have expected given the game length and the hype surrounding it. And Paul is 100% spot on about the length. Sure, people who play the game a ton can play it "quickly" in about two hours, but good luck playing a full three age game that quickly with a new group or average group of friends. Also because of the way the military cards work it seems like two player games lose a bit on the military front (pardon the pun). I've played two players and it's good but three players seems like the ideal count since it opens up more possibilities for things like pacts and wars and such. Also with three players if one player starts pulling ahead the other two can work together to keep them in check which probably helps mitigate the runaway leader issue Paul hinted at in the review and which might be more of an issue in a two player game. Four players might be a bit too random and long as well, so three seems optimal to me. So I definitely don't regret getting this game, it's fun and one of those games where I can sit back and think "yeah, one of these days my friends and I will all have five hours free some Saturday to play Through the Ages". But it's definitely in the category of "I like the game but I'm not going to really go out of my way to try and play it too often."
I've played this game a few times now. Several real-time play and many more times on the (very good) app. The review is rather in depth but missed on a few notes. First is subjective: It is one of the best games ever created :) It is deep and rich, and highly replayble. The way the cards come out and the way the other players play will completely change the nature of the game. I've seen games end up with 300+ winning score, and 50 points winning score. It is an amazingly interactive game for a euro. Secondly After the first game it is possible to see how to make that big jump in military when needed, and that attacking the person farthest behind on the track isn't always the best decision. And the catchup machanic? If someone is completely crushing you in culture then military IS that catch-up mechanic. If they spent all their resources into getting culture just smack them over the head and steal their gold! And no, i'm not saying you need to play 20 times to have fun with this game. I've had fun from the first time playing TTA. I really recommend playing the app a few times to see if you're into the game, it will also give you a way to experiment with the game and learning it faster then getting it to the table.
I'll be blunt and just say it. This review was disappointing. If only because SUSD review track is really something to behold. I am not very good with words, unlike these guys, so I will simply try to list stuff I think Paul missed. 1. He says that there is no catch up mechanic, other than some yellow cards. Well, so, there are catch up mechanics! Also, some events (which are not random like he says, I'll talk about this later) help weaker players. And pacts. Other than that, it's true that it is not easy for players to catch up, and I would not have it any other way. Players who are in the lead are there because they are playing better. It would not be right to lift to their level those in the back only so that they feel better. 2. Random events. That is simply wrong. Events are not random. The event deck is seeded by players. Also, it acts as a military counter because players have to decide whether to use their only political action to play a future event or an aggression/war. An aggressive player will not seed as many events as the rest and thus will have less control over them. 3. Overpowered military. I guess just like in history. But the beauty of the game is that in order to have a strong army, you need science or else you will find that no matter how many soldiers you have, the other players will be stronger with a few advanced units. Also, if you want to be able to play wars and aggressions, you need a government with a fair number of red actions, and those tend to have less civil actions and culture/happiness bonus so it will be harder to get expensive cards and complete wonders. But, in order to have a healthy dose of science, you need a strong production, otherwise you won't be able to build those expensive labs and libraries. And in order to have a strong production, you need, once again, science, but also workers, which require that you keep your population entertained... So, everything is interconnected. It is almost impossible to have a strong army without also having a strong production and science engine. And don't forget happiness or you will regret it at the end of each era. Point being, military strength is crucial in the game, but having a strong army is not something you can achieve in isolation. Only by having a balanced civilization you will be able to overpower your rivals. And even then, it is very likely you lose the game to a weaker but wiser civilization. 4. Interaction. I do not even know where to begin. So, military is overpowered and at the same time there is little interaction? There are several layers of interaction in the game, many more than in almost any other game. First, direct interaction, aka wars and aggressions. Also pacts, which, btw, can be used as a catch up mechanic by refusing to pact with players in the lead. Second, direct competition bidding for colonies. Third, technology competition on the main card track. This interaction is the most subtle of all. Do you overpay for that leader that just showed up because it would be perfect for your civilization? Or even more important sometimes, do you overpay for that wonder that just showed up because it would be perfect for your rival? Can you afford to not pick an Iron mine on age I? If there are repeated cards, will you pick the one from the leftmost side to slow technology advancement, or will you pick the one that costs 2 civil actions in order to speed up the game? Can you go ahead with your revolution plans now that the first coal mine showed up? 5. Samey. I feel like this is an unfair argument to use on a boardgame. Isn't A Feast for Odin samey just like Trough the Ages? Or Caverna? Or The Resistance? Archipelago? Dead of Winter? Lords of Vegas? Most games have a core loop (turn, round, etc.) that gets repeated until the game ends. At least, given the structure of Through the Ages, even though a player turn always follows the same recipe, as the game progresses you feel like you are doing different things. At first you are trying to get your production engine going on (or maybe you are trying to complete a key early wonder, or you decide to focus on science). Then, once you complete that first goal, you start thinking about culture, and maybe military strength and playing future events and colonies that will work for you. And then, you have to decide on a middle game leader. Will you try to rack up points with Michelangelo? Will you bully everyone with Napoleon? Will you ride the Joan of Arc wave until it crashes and will you be able to survive its aftereffects? Will you bet everything on Newton setting you in place for technological domination in the third age? Will you squeeze the life of every leader until their very last gasp or will you try to get new leaders with every age? The end game is a race to get as many points as you can even if that means pillaging your own mines or labs. And don't forget about the end of game scoring events. Those can be huge. So yes, every turn is a political action, and then civil and military actions. And coal farms are no different than bronze farms, only better. But that is a very superficial conclusion. 6. Long game. This is correct. It is a very long game. And it's not like a long book that you can read for a few hours and leave for the next weekend. This is an event game. This is a game you bring out on very special occasions. That is not a boon. But there is nothing to do about it, other than play in the incredibly fantastic app. I won't argue Paul's conclusion: SUSD does not recommend the game, and in fact, neither do I, except to a very specific subset of hardcore gamers. But, even though I think that the conclusion is completely spot on, I just do not agree with the argument route that drove him there. Through the Ages is a very complex, very long, very fiddly game. That can hardly be argued against. But it is not random, it is not samey (for boardgame standards), there is a lot of interaction and military being overpowered is only the visible effect of a poorly managed civilization. Even though I felt the review was not up to their own standard, I can't but appreciate the incredible job these guys do.
All I can say is I’m glad this review exists because I made sure to try the steam app first. After trying the app I learned that I hate this game. It’s all the complexity of civilization without any ability to plan ahead since the cards really are so random (at least with more than 2 players). If you like the game good for you, but this review was made for people like me. God I can’t imagine playing the physical version with real people and longer turns. I can barely stand the first age in the app.
I’d also argue that you can’t counter these points independently. If it’s a long game, overpowered military (in which it is absolutely best to just always attack the lowest player, and by definition there will always be one) while having very few catch up mechanics in a game that is severely long and shows it’s entire package of things to do after one game means that the player in last is going to have a long, boring, even awful time. And all of those things are true. That’s why I imagine this game is ok with 2, but big civ games should be more fun with more players in my opinion, as player interaction is what history makes the perfect backdrop for. Hell even 7 Wonders has more direct player interaction than Through The Ages, and scales better with as little as 1/10 of the time to play.
I totally agree with this review. The game is OK, but not great. Some one falls behind militarily, and everyone picks on them. It is so long for the amount of fun it generates. You can have the walking dead problem where one person is sure to lose, but gamely plays on to not spoil other people's fun. You wait and wait while other players, think about how to optimize a just a tiny bit better. The start of the game feels the same as the end. There is _so_much_ busy work in moving cubes around to track the game state. But despite these problems, it IS a fun game. But not a FUN game. But Concordia is more fun and plays in 1/3 the time. Race for the galaxy (if you are past the learning curve) is more fun and plays in 1/8 of the time. I can not fathom why this is the second best game on BGG. Warm regards, Rick.
i've played mostly 2 player games of this, always with my cousin. First time we played was about 4 hours long, after a couple of games we got better and now it takes about 2 hours for us to play a game, but never less than that
I agree with Paul in general opinion on this game, but first Age III differs from earlier ages. It is the time when you seed scoring events. And what you meant by room events? Almost all( besides A Age) events are chosen by players. It is you of the most geniuos (almost)non-random events systems I have seen in games.
Great review. Have had the game for about a year and played it maybe 6-8 times (meet up for game night on average 2x a month), never regretted the purchase. Initially I was very obsessed with playing the game, and only stopped playing it as frequently because of other games entering my library like descent 2e. It is very long and I'd actually say around 1.5 to 2 hours base + 1 hour per person. By the end of the game all the players tend to be exhausted it seems, I believe the main reason for this is the number of actions a player can take is capable of growing to high numbers thanks to government and laws and this slows the game down in the 2nd and 3rd age significantly.
I discovered this game through the app which I play 1 player vs the AI and doing the challenges. It is highly addictive. But I remember playing it thinking how long it would take vs human opponents because you really want to mull over your turns.
Why do all the reviewers or rules instructors insist that the yellow cubes in the bottom row of the player board represent "population" in some way? The manual says very clearly that this track represents available land. Less land with more workers (i.e. your *actual* population) means increased population density. It is a fairly logical - if not intuitively obvious - concept.
try the app, it has all the PROs of the game (rich, deep, thematic, great mechanics and combinations), and none of its CONs (duration, fiddliness, hard to learn)
3 jugadores, jugando la versión en ingles. Primera vez que lo jugábamos, asi que consultabamos las reglas a cada rato (sin ayudas en español). Nos tomó 3 horas.
FWIW - this is my personal largest about face on a game. I hated this fiddly monstrosity when I was first introduced to it. I still have no desire to play a physical copy with all its cubes.... But the app!!!! Playing with your friends asyncrhonously... magnifique!!!
@Shut Up & Sit Down What is it then, recommended or not? Viz: 19:35 "Can shut up and sit down recommend this? ... No" 20:11 "I just can't recommend this enough." Please clarify.
My wife and I play this, having it set up on a dedicated table and dividing it up over sessions. She isn't much of a board gamer, but she LOVES this game. I enjoy it as well when it is just me and her. 4 players? Yeah, I don't think we have yet to finish a game. Maybe it's because the 3rd and 4th player are usually unfamiliar with the game, but it slows down to an absolute crawl. This game shines with experience, but good luck convincing anyone to commit
This is _totally_ my type of thing, and you definitely sold me on it, but unfortunately I am certain my friends wouldn't like it, so I can't even get it even though I want to.
Get the App, it's amazing, and we should be getting an expansion after Essen this year... great interface, lot's of speed options for async or live games, easy to find tables online, competent AI, and lots of challenges that tinker a bit with the rules to make interesting scenarios against the AI, many of which are quite difficult to win...
9:10 "Hey, man. We really need to talk about your friend moving in. I'm not comfortable with it, and we really need to stop putting this conversation off!" "Oh, yeah. That's why we came to the Basilica. How do you feel about it now?" "You know, I guess I'm okay with it."
Song at the beginning is Beethoven's 7th Symphony. Link: ua-cam.com/video/jZ8tmkDLkLs/v-deo.html You can also find it on Spotify under Beethoven's profile.
The length is probably the one thing I would agree with in this review - its long, especially with four players. However, there are some aspects of this review I find pretty disingenuous. All of the ages feel very different, especially Age A and Age 4, not sure where Paul gets the idea they all feel the same. In fact, the steady increase in complexity is part of the game's appeal. In so far as there aren't any "catch up" mechanics, those would be the events seeded by players revealed at the very end of the game. Its the definition of a catch up mechanic. Yellow cards specifically give greater rewards to the player in last place as well. Also, there are no "random" events, they are seeded by other players. "Rats" is a perfect example of an event that can ruin other players, but someone who invested in agriculture will thrive afterwards. In general, I feel like the popularity of the game has led to some snobbery by the hardcore crowd, not sure why. Its the one game they got me into serious boardgaming and its just generally excellent.
Paul takes one for the team. Halfway through this, I was zoning out - not a criticism of the review, just the nature of covering a game as big an inelegant as this. So many bit mechanics that all contribute in abstract ways that aren't intuitive... or at least that's how it seemed. Bonus out takes!
Happy unofficial 10th anniversary of this video. I hope you completed your game by now. (The app is awesome btw, it tracks all the nonsense for you and you can finish a game in 30 minutes)
What an awesome review. Now personally I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate Through the Ages. It's too long, too tedious (like Paul says - it's the same at the end as it is at the beginning, the numbers just get bigger), and too frustrating if you are not in the lead. But you managed to make a review about a game I hate so entertaining!
I've only played with the app. The game is an impressive feat of design and balance. It's addictive. But even though I spent a lot of time on it, I did not take away much. To me, it is like some video games (e.g. league of legends) which are engrossing but at the end of the day, you regret investing that much in it. On the top of that, the theme is very generic. It conveys questionable messages (only one female as leader? No African or American?). If I have to spend time on a complicated historical/card-based game, I would prefer the likes of Pax Pamir, which is super fun and actually helps understand a very complicated time of human history.
This game on phone is perfect. On the table it should be shorter. Maybe with more simultaneous selection stuff. The "taking cards from the development row" in turns really don't make much thematic sense anyways, that could turn into a simultaneous mechanic.
1) I miss Paul. 2) Having made my way through half the challenges in the app version of this game I can safely say that I don't like it that much. The balance is really screwy and it would work way better as a board game. 3) Ironically the board game is worse because of the fiddliness but better because it's a board game.
I feel like a really important question here is whether they used Beethoven's 7th because they knew of it and thought it was appropriate or because they watched Zardoz.
Been itching to play this (I’m a huge fan of Vlaada), but I’m glad I watched this video to temper my expectations. I mean, I’m still gonna play it, but I’ll be sure to set aside a full day...or two. :) Thanks for the great video, as always!
On a related note, what are the general opinions (of SU&SD or others) of the official Civilization board game? I received it for Xmas a few years ago and have never been able to get people to play.
DjynnFlyssa I own through the ages, Sid Meier ' s civ, and clash of Cultures. I prefer through the ages the most, but Sid Meier civilization looks the nicest to play. be warned it has lots of fiddly rules exceptions you'll get wrong a lot :)
We didn't like it. Too long and it always comes down to armies rushing across the map and killing cities, all other strategies to winning are subpar. Keep in mind it is basically an area control, combat game, not a euro-style strategy like Through. From what I''ve seen Clash of Cultures should be an improved version of Sid Meier's Civ.
This is easily the best board game ever designed, it has so much replay-ability and everything is balanced beautifully. I've played many board games and this is the only one I ever need.
So does the app that came out Sept 14th 2017 solve most of their complaints with the game? ;) Personally I love the TtA board game, one of my favs. But definitely not for everyone.
Great Review. All of the these games like Through the Ages or Civ take too long for a more classic strategy game. Tigris and Euphrates is a better game of that category....aaand they are too short for something really epic like Twilight Imperium with all its negotiating and politics
Well, sure you can be screwed by random events. What is wrong here is the implication that the game is chaos beyond your control and not strategy. The events are from a very limited pool and have deterministic effects. They consistently punish poor or risky play, and mitigating the damage events can have on you is actually skill. I have played this game hundreds of times, including tournaments, and the best player usually wins even in a four player game. In skilled play, the game's random elements force you to play differently each time but "luck" is not a big factor in determining the victor. This is a major reason why the game is rated so highly. The review presents the view of someone who doesn't understand how to play this game well. To be fair, a lot of people who try it won't understand how to play it well. It doesn't help that the rules are already complex enough that few people will read the events (which are rightly treated as core rules and not a surprise). So I imagine for many people this is their experience when they play. But a review of chess from someone who is still overwhelmed by how to move the pieces doesn't really give a fair indication of what the game is really about.
Haha I play both(I've lost months to each game), and I find that while civilization is grander and somewhat more complex, through the ages is much more competitive since it has a much better multiplayer mode. Both games work completely differently however and it certainly will not feel repetitive at all having both games.
Well, it is not possible to truly qualify that statement. The game is currently ranked number two on board game geek, so it would seem it is pretty damn good. The reviewer's problem is that he doesn't understand why, or even what being ranked in the top ten means.
Today I conceded my first game of Through the Ages. After six hours, I was starting to feel actually, physically nauseous, I felt like I was treading water, just trying to survive while the other three players took their turns. I kept on looking at the big, fat age III deck and I just couldn't. Afterwards I heard the game continued for some forty minutes after that.
The android/iOS/Steam implementation I think really makes it shine, by taking away all the fiddly moving cubes around. They just put themselves efficiently where they're supposed to be, leaving the core of the game to shine. I do find it pretty fiddly actually on the table. But when the cubes aren't bothering you, the beauty becomes apparent. When you fall behind you can see why, and there are ways to catch up. Yes, there are certain significant blunders you should only commit once (letting yourself fall way behind in military is one, or overbidding on a colony, or filling up your entire card selection with techs you can't afford so you can't take any new cards...) but then it's just beautiful and lovely.
I'm really glad I got this as an Android App and not as a board-game. I can see how much longer everything would take if you have to manually keep track of it, where the App just does it for you. This way you can actually appreciate how brilliant the game-design is about the decision-making without the burden of moving around cubes and markers.
I like the App better too.
I just discovered the PC version and it is great, it's my first big expert game but the tutorial is very good and funny so I quickly grasped the mechanics, nonetheless for the reasons Paul and you mentionned I don't think I'll ever buy the physical boardgame. For newbies like me, I really recommend trying the digital version first before plunging into this kind of game...
I had probably around 250 digital games behind me (over 500 now) when I played my first physical game. I also expected upkeep to be a huge hassle, but I was very surprised by how easy it ended up being. Sure, having the app calculate everything is easier, but doing it by hand really wasn't at all the chore I feared it would be, almost like the game was designed with that in mind!
You know, normally I would agree with this. You do nail the issue: it's old school and long for what it is. 2nd best game ever? Really? And yet, and yet, and yet... there is something deliciously moreish about it. I know very few games where 4 hours can swish by in the blink of an eye, yet this is one. I am completely engrossed the whole way through. (And I find many, even most, pure euro games a total snooze.) Primarily, it's the balance.... the delicate tension between military and production and science, and points and... well, it's just got the special sauce in my opinion. One more turn!
I might be weird, but eventhough I usually prefer ~60 mins games I love Through the Ages and usually I wish the eras wouldn't end so quickly, cause I still wanted to build this and upgrade that. We play it for 5 hours and then I'm like "damn, one more turn, please!" The level of strategy is just great and if you're struggling in some aspects (like military) you can focus on other (like science and production) and make it up for it. Be a bit behind in military is not that big of a deal, if you play wise (cause then you are ahead in other areas), but of course completely neglect military and you will be crushed. It certainly isn't a game for everyone, but I am glad I bought it, cause I love Sid Meier's Civ games and this game has the feeling of literally advancing through the ages and optimizing what to build when you need everything, but don't have time/resources.
Thank you. BGG ratings are certainly not "gospel" and thank you for having the guts to say so.
What's better across all humanity?
I could see it looking at Rotten Tomatoes user ratings tho. Evidently, my neighbor is extremely easily amused.
Try playing this with an AP-prone player, a new gamer (who "just wants to play, don't be so serious about rules") and a friend who plays like you (think before your turn, so your turn takes only about 30-60 seconds). Our game took 7+ hours... But it was amazing!
Bought it recently and I consider it to be the greatest 2p board game I've ever played. Sure it takes a while to learn but it certainly is worth it.
lol a Sid Meier Card :D
That's one way of saying "yes, we are toooootally the board game version of the Civilization video game series."
@@RonponVideos Having played both, this is much more faithful to Civilization than the actual civ board game.
That 120+ ... that's hours, not minutes.
... or maybe it's centuries, or millennia, depending on how you look at it.
Tennouseijin in the fourth dimension, you mean?
120+ eons PER player.
This ending might be the very best of any SU&SD episode, ever.
First play through... 7 hours!! Glad it wasn't just us that laughed in a hollow fashion at the 120mins LIE on the box. And we didn’t even do any wars or colonialism or we'd still be playing!
I'm firmly in the camp of "Had a bad time," with this game. Things went awry with my economy a little way in, and then my engine was broken and there wasn't a meaningful way to engage with the game except to sort of shamble on as a kind of zombie player that existed to keep the player interaction elements ticking over. Faced with the prospects of multiple hours of that, when it was late enough already, I said my apologies, worked out how best to simulate my presence, and I left. (I think it's the only time I've bailed on a boardgame or RPG)
No need to simulate or improvise; the game comes with rules for resigning from the game. I think that tells you a lot about the game in general and the designer, good and bad.
You can irrecoverably ruin your “engine.” New players should play a simplified short game for the first play as well as given tips. A new player joining experienced players in a non-teaching game is headed to disaster.
You had me at Beethoven's 7th...
I thought it was Cloud Atlas..
@@tahunuva4254 Watch Zardoz. Or at least just the ending.
I don't always agree with SUSD on reviews but I think Paul relatively on point here. I've played Through the Ages with a few different groups and in every case it's been fun but not - FUN -, at least not to the level I'd have expected given the game length and the hype surrounding it. And Paul is 100% spot on about the length. Sure, people who play the game a ton can play it "quickly" in about two hours, but good luck playing a full three age game that quickly with a new group or average group of friends.
Also because of the way the military cards work it seems like two player games lose a bit on the military front (pardon the pun). I've played two players and it's good but three players seems like the ideal count since it opens up more possibilities for things like pacts and wars and such. Also with three players if one player starts pulling ahead the other two can work together to keep them in check which probably helps mitigate the runaway leader issue Paul hinted at in the review and which might be more of an issue in a two player game. Four players might be a bit too random and long as well, so three seems optimal to me.
So I definitely don't regret getting this game, it's fun and one of those games where I can sit back and think "yeah, one of these days my friends and I will all have five hours free some Saturday to play Through the Ages". But it's definitely in the category of "I like the game but I'm not going to really go out of my way to try and play it too often."
Do you have any idea why people think this is the 3rd best board game in the world? Check out BGG...
I've played this game a few times now. Several real-time play and many more times on the (very good) app.
The review is rather in depth but missed on a few notes. First is subjective: It is one of the best games ever created :)
It is deep and rich, and highly replayble. The way the cards come out and the way the other players play will completely change the nature of the game. I've seen games end up with 300+ winning score, and 50 points winning score. It is an amazingly interactive game for a euro.
Secondly After the first game it is possible to see how to make that big jump in military when needed, and that attacking the person farthest behind on the track isn't always the best decision. And the catchup machanic? If someone is completely crushing you in culture then military IS that catch-up mechanic. If they spent all their resources into getting culture just smack them over the head and steal their gold!
And no, i'm not saying you need to play 20 times to have fun with this game. I've had fun from the first time playing TTA.
I really recommend playing the app a few times to see if you're into the game, it will also give you a way to experiment with the game and learning it faster then getting it to the table.
Love the cube cam. One of the most surreal, raw experiences every time it came on.
I'll be blunt and just say it. This review was disappointing. If only because SUSD review track is really something to behold. I am not very good with words, unlike these guys, so I will simply try to list stuff I think Paul missed.
1. He says that there is no catch up mechanic, other than some yellow cards. Well, so, there are catch up mechanics! Also, some events (which are not random like he says, I'll talk about this later) help weaker players. And pacts. Other than that, it's true that it is not easy for players to catch up, and I would not have it any other way. Players who are in the lead are there because they are playing better. It would not be right to lift to their level those in the back only so that they feel better.
2. Random events. That is simply wrong. Events are not random. The event deck is seeded by players. Also, it acts as a military counter because players have to decide whether to use their only political action to play a future event or an aggression/war. An aggressive player will not seed as many events as the rest and thus will have less control over them.
3. Overpowered military. I guess just like in history. But the beauty of the game is that in order to have a strong army, you need science or else you will find that no matter how many soldiers you have, the other players will be stronger with a few advanced units. Also, if you want to be able to play wars and aggressions, you need a government with a fair number of red actions, and those tend to have less civil actions and culture/happiness bonus so it will be harder to get expensive cards and complete wonders. But, in order to have a healthy dose of science, you need a strong production, otherwise you won't be able to build those expensive labs and libraries. And in order to have a strong production, you need, once again, science, but also workers, which require that you keep your population entertained... So, everything is interconnected. It is almost impossible to have a strong army without also having a strong production and science engine. And don't forget happiness or you will regret it at the end of each era.
Point being, military strength is crucial in the game, but having a strong army is not something you can achieve in isolation. Only by having a balanced civilization you will be able to overpower your rivals. And even then, it is very likely you lose the game to a weaker but wiser civilization.
4. Interaction. I do not even know where to begin. So, military is overpowered and at the same time there is little interaction? There are several layers of interaction in the game, many more than in almost any other game. First, direct interaction, aka wars and aggressions. Also pacts, which, btw, can be used as a catch up mechanic by refusing to pact with players in the lead. Second, direct competition bidding for colonies. Third, technology competition on the main card track. This interaction is the most subtle of all. Do you overpay for that leader that just showed up because it would be perfect for your civilization? Or even more important sometimes, do you overpay for that wonder that just showed up because it would be perfect for your rival? Can you afford to not pick an Iron mine on age I? If there are repeated cards, will you pick the one from the leftmost side to slow technology advancement, or will you pick the one that costs 2 civil actions in order to speed up the game? Can you go ahead with your revolution plans now that the first coal mine showed up?
5. Samey. I feel like this is an unfair argument to use on a boardgame. Isn't A Feast for Odin samey just like Trough the Ages? Or Caverna? Or The Resistance? Archipelago? Dead of Winter? Lords of Vegas? Most games have a core loop (turn, round, etc.) that gets repeated until the game ends. At least, given the structure of Through the Ages, even though a player turn always follows the same recipe, as the game progresses you feel like you are doing different things. At first you are trying to get your production engine going on (or maybe you are trying to complete a key early wonder, or you decide to focus on science). Then, once you complete that first goal, you start thinking about culture, and maybe military strength and playing future events and colonies that will work for you. And then, you have to decide on a middle game leader. Will you try to rack up points with Michelangelo? Will you bully everyone with Napoleon? Will you ride the Joan of Arc wave until it crashes and will you be able to survive its aftereffects? Will you bet everything on Newton setting you in place for technological domination in the third age? Will you squeeze the life of every leader until their very last gasp or will you try to get new leaders with every age? The end game is a race to get as many points as you can even if that means pillaging your own mines or labs. And don't forget about the end of game scoring events. Those can be huge.
So yes, every turn is a political action, and then civil and military actions. And coal farms are no different than bronze farms, only better. But that is a very superficial conclusion.
6. Long game. This is correct. It is a very long game. And it's not like a long book that you can read for a few hours and leave for the next weekend. This is an event game. This is a game you bring out on very special occasions. That is not a boon. But there is nothing to do about it, other than play in the incredibly fantastic app.
I won't argue Paul's conclusion: SUSD does not recommend the game, and in fact, neither do I, except to a very specific subset of hardcore gamers. But, even though I think that the conclusion is completely spot on, I just do not agree with the argument route that drove him there. Through the Ages is a very complex, very long, very fiddly game. That can hardly be argued against. But it is not random, it is not samey (for boardgame standards), there is a lot of interaction and military being overpowered is only the visible effect of a poorly managed civilization.
Even though I felt the review was not up to their own standard, I can't but appreciate the incredible job these guys do.
"It would not be right to lift to their level those in the back only so that they feel better."
Jesus Christ.
All I can say is I’m glad this review exists because I made sure to try the steam app first. After trying the app I learned that I hate this game. It’s all the complexity of civilization without any ability to plan ahead since the cards really are so random (at least with more than 2 players). If you like the game good for you, but this review was made for people like me. God I can’t imagine playing the physical version with real people and longer turns. I can barely stand the first age in the app.
I’d also argue that you can’t counter these points independently. If it’s a long game, overpowered military (in which it is absolutely best to just always attack the lowest player, and by definition there will always be one) while having very few catch up mechanics in a game that is severely long and shows it’s entire package of things to do after one game means that the player in last is going to have a long, boring, even awful time. And all of those things are true. That’s why I imagine this game is ok with 2, but big civ games should be more fun with more players in my opinion, as player interaction is what history makes the perfect backdrop for. Hell even 7 Wonders has more direct player interaction than Through The Ages, and scales better with as little as 1/10 of the time to play.
@@fy8798 - He's talking about a board game, not real life.
What's for dinner, mum?
CUUUUUUBES!
You are now Cube! DEFENDER OF THE POLYVERSE!
I totally agree with this review.
The game is OK, but not great. Some one falls behind militarily, and everyone picks on them. It is so long for the amount of fun it generates. You can have the walking dead problem where one person is sure to lose, but gamely plays on to not spoil other people's fun. You wait and wait while other players, think about how to optimize a just a tiny bit better. The start of the game feels the same as the end. There is _so_much_ busy work in moving cubes around to track the game state.
But despite these problems, it IS a fun game. But not a FUN game.
But Concordia is more fun and plays in 1/3 the time. Race for the galaxy (if you are past the learning curve) is more fun and plays in 1/8 of the time.
I can not fathom why this is the second best game on BGG.
Warm regards, Rick.
i've played mostly 2 player games of this, always with my cousin. First time we played was about 4 hours long, after a couple of games we got better and now it takes about 2 hours for us to play a game, but never less than that
I agree with Paul in general opinion on this game, but first Age III differs from earlier ages. It is the time when you seed scoring events. And what you meant by room events? Almost all( besides A Age) events are chosen by players. It is you of the most geniuos (almost)non-random events systems I have seen in games.
Who among you chose the Beethoven symphony no. 7 mvt. 2? Great selection!
Great review. Have had the game for about a year and played it maybe 6-8 times (meet up for game night on average 2x a month), never regretted the purchase. Initially I was very obsessed with playing the game, and only stopped playing it as frequently because of other games entering my library like descent 2e. It is very long and I'd actually say around 1.5 to 2 hours base + 1 hour per person. By the end of the game all the players tend to be exhausted it seems, I believe the main reason for this is the number of actions a player can take is capable of growing to high numbers thanks to government and laws and this slows the game down in the 2nd and 3rd age significantly.
I discovered this game through the app which I play 1 player vs the AI and doing the challenges. It is highly addictive. But I remember playing it thinking how long it would take vs human opponents because you really want to mull over your turns.
Why do all the reviewers or rules instructors insist that the yellow cubes in the bottom row of the player board represent "population" in some way? The manual says very clearly that this track represents available land. Less land with more workers (i.e. your *actual* population) means increased population density. It is a fairly logical - if not intuitively obvious - concept.
try the app, it has all the PROs of the game (rich, deep, thematic, great mechanics and combinations), and none of its CONs (duration, fiddliness, hard to learn)
"Id rather play imperial assault or descent" lmao
3 jugadores, jugando la versión en ingles. Primera vez que lo jugábamos, asi que consultabamos las reglas a cada rato (sin ayudas en español). Nos tomó 3 horas.
This might be my favorite SUSD review. The Cannonball Run style bloopers at the end put it over the top.
FWIW - this is my personal largest about face on a game. I hated this fiddly monstrosity when I was first introduced to it. I still have no desire to play a physical copy with all its cubes.... But the app!!!! Playing with your friends asyncrhonously... magnifique!!!
TTA app will solve lots of boardgame's issues - tutorial, remembering all the rules, undo/redo, downtime, etc.
And this my friends is when a youtube legend was born
No game has more strategy than this. Also the new edition is beautiful.
Just borrowed this from the library... Bit daunting people saying it will take 7hours plus! But what the heck
CUBECAM !!!
The digital version is great, been playing it for a couple of years. I never could imagine how it would work on the table. Very heavy complex game.
@Shut Up & Sit Down What is it then, recommended or not? Viz:
19:35 "Can shut up and sit down recommend this? ... No"
20:11 "I just can't recommend this enough."
Please clarify.
BGG is the best database period.
No other DB makes me as happy as BGG's
"like all Basilicas... everywhere"
my favorite game, but I agree that it's not for a lot of people.
So this is like Civilization(Sid) in board game edition ,to put it simply?
18:02 Impressive Jared Diamond reference. 👍
Paul's officially my favorite. Been unofficial for a while, but the giggles he gets in the out-takes seals it for me.
Beethoven - 7th Symphony, Movement II. Nice! Charlie Brooker would be proud.
My wife and I play this, having it set up on a dedicated table and dividing it up over sessions. She isn't much of a board gamer, but she LOVES this game. I enjoy it as well when it is just me and her. 4 players? Yeah, I don't think we have yet to finish a game. Maybe it's because the 3rd and 4th player are usually unfamiliar with the game, but it slows down to an absolute crawl. This game shines with experience, but good luck convincing anyone to commit
This is _totally_ my type of thing, and you definitely sold me on it, but unfortunately I am certain my friends wouldn't like it, so I can't even get it even though I want to.
Get the App, it's amazing, and we should be getting an expansion after Essen this year... great interface, lot's of speed options for async or live games, easy to find tables online, competent AI, and lots of challenges that tinker a bit with the rules to make interesting scenarios against the AI, many of which are quite difficult to win...
9:10 "Hey, man. We really need to talk about your friend moving in. I'm not comfortable with it, and we really need to stop putting this conversation off!" "Oh, yeah. That's why we came to the Basilica. How do you feel about it now?" "You know, I guess I'm okay with it."
Song at the beginning is Beethoven's 7th Symphony.
Link: ua-cam.com/video/jZ8tmkDLkLs/v-deo.html
You can also find it on Spotify under Beethoven's profile.
18:19 It can remain quite engrossing. So it is not all bad then.
lol you had me at the thumbnail
I didn't realize "boxfart" was really a thing until now...
So is a fartbox.
Nevertheless i just ordered it and i can't wait to play! Epic weekend is coming :)
The length is probably the one thing I would agree with in this review - its long, especially with four players. However, there are some aspects of this review I find pretty disingenuous. All of the ages feel very different, especially Age A and Age 4, not sure where Paul gets the idea they all feel the same. In fact, the steady increase in complexity is part of the game's appeal. In so far as there aren't any "catch up" mechanics, those would be the events seeded by players revealed at the very end of the game. Its the definition of a catch up mechanic. Yellow cards specifically give greater rewards to the player in last place as well. Also, there are no "random" events, they are seeded by other players. "Rats" is a perfect example of an event that can ruin other players, but someone who invested in agriculture will thrive afterwards. In general, I feel like the popularity of the game has led to some snobbery by the hardcore crowd, not sure why. Its the one game they got me into serious boardgaming and its just generally excellent.
We need more outtakes!
4:37 "Bunny, Bunny, Moose, Moose"?!? 🤔 I'll have to look that one up on BoardGameGeek...
OMG it actually exists. 🤦♂️ boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/59149/bunny-bunny-moose-moose
We all make mistakes, even Vlaada
Paul takes one for the team.
Halfway through this, I was zoning out - not a criticism of the review, just the nature of covering a game as big an inelegant as this. So many bit mechanics that all contribute in abstract ways that aren't intuitive... or at least that's how it seemed.
Bonus out takes!
Happy unofficial 10th anniversary of this video. I hope you completed your game by now.
(The app is awesome btw, it tracks all the nonsense for you and you can finish a game in 30 minutes)
you guys rock
What an awesome review. Now personally I hate hate hate hate hate hate hate Through the Ages. It's too long, too tedious (like Paul says - it's the same at the end as it is at the beginning, the numbers just get bigger), and too frustrating if you are not in the lead. But you managed to make a review about a game I hate so entertaining!
What's the name of the classical music used at the beginning?
I've only played with the app.
The game is an impressive feat of design and balance. It's addictive. But even though I spent a lot of time on it, I did not take away much. To me, it is like some video games (e.g. league of legends) which are engrossing but at the end of the day, you regret investing that much in it.
On the top of that, the theme is very generic. It conveys questionable messages (only one female as leader? No African or American?).
If I have to spend time on a complicated historical/card-based game, I would prefer the likes of Pax Pamir, which is super fun and actually helps understand a very complicated time of human history.
This game on phone is perfect. On the table it should be shorter. Maybe with more simultaneous selection stuff. The "taking cards from the development row" in turns really don't make much thematic sense anyways, that could turn into a simultaneous mechanic.
1) I miss Paul.
2) Having made my way through half the challenges in the app version of this game I can safely say that I don't like it that much. The balance is really screwy and it would work way better as a board game.
3) Ironically the board game is worse because of the fiddliness but better because it's a board game.
My poor left ear...
Freinds have told me that the app is the best way to play this.
Better as a computer game. Having the computer deal with all the bookkeeping allows you to focus on strategy, and makes it play much much faster.
Not only is it long, but it gives players gas.
The online version is much better. Takes care of the fiddly bit for you, and you can take as long as you like thinking about your turn.
I feel like a really important question here is whether they used Beethoven's 7th because they knew of it and thought it was appropriate or because they watched Zardoz.
Some "Don't Hug Me I'm Scared" vibes at the end...
I'ts the Mads Mikkelsen edition! :D
Its 7 Wonders in 7 hours
Been itching to play this (I’m a huge fan of Vlaada), but I’m glad I watched this video to temper my expectations. I mean, I’m still gonna play it, but I’ll be sure to set aside a full day...or two. :)
Thanks for the great video, as always!
Play the app version.
High chance you'll like it.
On a related note, what are the general opinions (of SU&SD or others) of the official Civilization board game? I received it for Xmas a few years ago and have never been able to get people to play.
DjynnFlyssa I own through the ages, Sid Meier ' s civ, and clash of Cultures. I prefer through the ages the most, but Sid Meier civilization looks the nicest to play. be warned it has lots of fiddly rules exceptions you'll get wrong a lot :)
We didn't like it. Too long and it always comes down to armies rushing across the map and killing cities, all other strategies to winning are subpar. Keep in mind it is basically an area control, combat game, not a euro-style strategy like Through. From what I''ve seen Clash of Cultures should be an improved version of Sid Meier's Civ.
I think it needs tweaking for military victory rules, but all of the other elements come together nicely in my 8 hours (2 plays) of experience.
3:23 : "whizard is bak"
This is easily the best board game ever designed, it has so much replay-ability and everything is balanced beautifully. I've played many board games and this is the only one I ever need.
BGG voters agree with you. But these guys think it's bad. I'm so confused.
you guys are great :)
I didn't agree with this review the first time it was uploaded! All things are opinion though...
Is the original version still worth playing?
Can your modern infantry co-exist with your cannon from last century? :D
Sure. You can have a band of ancient warriors getting backup from a fighter jet.
So does the app that came out Sept 14th 2017 solve most of their complaints with the game? ;) Personally I love the TtA board game, one of my favs. But definitely not for everyone.
The app is a true to game re-creation. A masterpiece like the original.
The app is the best way to learn the game imo.
I just wanted to hear about the game. I quit after 3 min of nothing about the gamr.
Aww now I'm worried. I bought this (and it's not cheap) because of the BGG ranking... but 5 hours and 'it's not that good' has killed the hype!
It is THAT good.
Great Review. All of the these games like Through the Ages or Civ take too long for a more classic strategy game. Tigris and Euphrates is a better game of that category....aaand they are too short for something really epic like Twilight Imperium with all its negotiating and politics
17:34 He says you can be scr#w#d by random events. Do the fans of the game agree, or is that just wrong?
Well, sure you can be screwed by random events. What is wrong here is the implication that the game is chaos beyond your control and not strategy. The events are from a very limited pool and have deterministic effects. They consistently punish poor or risky play, and mitigating the damage events can have on you is actually skill. I have played this game hundreds of times, including tournaments, and the best player usually wins even in a four player game. In skilled play, the game's random elements force you to play differently each time but "luck" is not a big factor in determining the victor. This is a major reason why the game is rated so highly.
The review presents the view of someone who doesn't understand how to play this game well. To be fair, a lot of people who try it won't understand how to play it well. It doesn't help that the rules are already complex enough that few people will read the events (which are rightly treated as core rules and not a surprise). So I imagine for many people this is their experience when they play. But a review of chess from someone who is still overwhelmed by how to move the pieces doesn't really give a fair indication of what the game is really about.
How do Ravages of Time, Iconoclasm and Terrorism punish poor or risky play?
At this level of complexity, why not just play civ? No I mean the PC version
Yeah, this is what i felt when i played civ.... it s cool but next to the pc? Meh :P
Haha I play both(I've lost months to each game), and I find that while civilization is grander and somewhat more complex, through the ages is much more competitive since it has a much better multiplayer mode. Both games work completely differently however and it certainly will not feel repetitive at all having both games.
Maybe will play some day too, kind of intimidated by the scope of the game.
I have yet to play the board game, but I am loving the Android app.
i dare to say some games are better as apps
Kind of surprised they used smiley faces rather than comedy and tragedy masks.
The digital version is really good.
Best game of all time!!!
Rahdo would go with Nations!
Not for best game of all time :)
18:36 "What bugs me the most is that it is not great" ... "It is not one of the ten best games that have ever existed" True? Or is he wrong.
Well, it is not possible to truly qualify that statement. The game is currently ranked number two on board game geek, so it would seem it is pretty damn good. The reviewer's problem is that he doesn't understand why, or even what being ranked in the top ten means.
I'm just glad to be reminded that whizard is bak
Today I conceded my first game of Through the Ages. After six hours, I was starting to feel actually, physically nauseous, I felt like I was treading water, just trying to survive while the other three players took their turns. I kept on looking at the big, fat age III deck and I just couldn't. Afterwards I heard the game continued for some forty minutes after that.
please review betrayal on the house on the hill
Connor McLeod they did it a long time ago :)
good episode!
He should have mentioned it's very easy to solve the game length issue by just playing less ages. This is likely to hit bgg #1 soon
Paul is 15 and living in North America? Hmm.....
Why was some audio mono and some stereo?
I played this as a vidya on steam and was happy that I could refund it.