You failed to mention the best change in regards to the contracts, and that is how they are not flushed out after every round, like in the original. It gives you time to grab them when it works for you, and you can plan your strategy around grabbing specific ones. For me, as someone who really loves doing the travel strategy in Marco Polo, my favourite thing is the three-tiered travel option. In the original you were only allowed to travel once per round and had to rely on contract or city bonuses to be able to move around more, but this opened up widely in Marco Polo 2, I also really like the change that the travel costs are now printed on the board, and the board is now more made for many short steps instead of fewer longer ones. The contracts change kind of falls into this, as you now has to travel to grab contract spots in order to get and do contracts. I think it nicely balances out the two strategies. As a bonus thing, I also really love the new objective cards, and how it's no longer named city spaces, nor is it an all or nothing thing either as you have the option to do only part of the contract should you choose to.
Marco Polo 2 is so much better at 4 player than the original was, mostly because there's more ways to do movement in #2 - in #1 there's too much of a gold cost if you don't get there first each time and it impacted explorers who needed to travel to do well too negatively.
I think my favorite change in MPII is the presence of 3 dice placement spots for travel, rather than just one spot. That is also a change that brings more focus to the board, as you can travel 2 or 3 times in a round without bonus actions or bonus (black) dice. In the original, you could only count on 1 travel move per round. I also like that the travel spaces have different mechanisms (especially the 3-die space, which lets you drop off an extra house). I have mixed feelings about the contract mechanism you cited. It's truly a major shift; probably the most major shift from a design perspective. There has always been a great debate in MP about whether contracts or travel is the best strategy (spoiler alert: it depends!). In MPII, you can't do contracts without travel. Part of me really likes that, but part of me wonders if that means there is less diversity in what players end up doing. Of course, MPII brings in new ways to go after points, but the forking diagram of possible strategies still seems narrower than in the original game.
At the same time, though, the shift to placing contracts onto the board means they aren't flushed out after every round, so it gives you time to plan where you want to go and what you want to grab when you get there and how that is going to help you further. I think it's a very positive change because instead of weighing two strategies up against each other, it marries them, while still giving you the choice on what you want to focus on. Someone who wants to go contract heavy can choose to do only a couple of travel actions to a couple of contract spots and focus on resource accumulation and contract-fulfilling. While someone who wants to focus on travel can do the occasional contract along the way, but mainly grab city symbols and seals.
You failed to mention the best change in regards to the contracts, and that is how they are not flushed out after every round, like in the original. It gives you time to grab them when it works for you, and you can plan your strategy around grabbing specific ones.
For me, as someone who really loves doing the travel strategy in Marco Polo, my favourite thing is the three-tiered travel option. In the original you were only allowed to travel once per round and had to rely on contract or city bonuses to be able to move around more, but this opened up widely in Marco Polo 2, I also really like the change that the travel costs are now printed on the board, and the board is now more made for many short steps instead of fewer longer ones. The contracts change kind of falls into this, as you now has to travel to grab contract spots in order to get and do contracts. I think it nicely balances out the two strategies.
As a bonus thing, I also really love the new objective cards, and how it's no longer named city spaces, nor is it an all or nothing thing either as you have the option to do only part of the contract should you choose to.
Marco Polo 2 is so much better at 4 player than the original was, mostly because there's more ways to do movement in #2 - in #1 there's too much of a gold cost if you don't get there first each time and it impacted explorers who needed to travel to do well too negatively.
What’s you take on the second iteration compared to the original. Do you prefer one over the other?
You know, I think they both have their merits--I would gladly play either.
I think my favorite change in MPII is the presence of 3 dice placement spots for travel, rather than just one spot. That is also a change that brings more focus to the board, as you can travel 2 or 3 times in a round without bonus actions or bonus (black) dice. In the original, you could only count on 1 travel move per round. I also like that the travel spaces have different mechanisms (especially the 3-die space, which lets you drop off an extra house).
I have mixed feelings about the contract mechanism you cited. It's truly a major shift; probably the most major shift from a design perspective. There has always been a great debate in MP about whether contracts or travel is the best strategy (spoiler alert: it depends!). In MPII, you can't do contracts without travel. Part of me really likes that, but part of me wonders if that means there is less diversity in what players end up doing. Of course, MPII brings in new ways to go after points, but the forking diagram of possible strategies still seems narrower than in the original game.
At the same time, though, the shift to placing contracts onto the board means they aren't flushed out after every round, so it gives you time to plan where you want to go and what you want to grab when you get there and how that is going to help you further. I think it's a very positive change because instead of weighing two strategies up against each other, it marries them, while still giving you the choice on what you want to focus on. Someone who wants to go contract heavy can choose to do only a couple of travel actions to a couple of contract spots and focus on resource accumulation and contract-fulfilling. While someone who wants to focus on travel can do the occasional contract along the way, but mainly grab city symbols and seals.
@@mkitten13 I like those points. I also like that you immediately get one contract when you first put a house on a contract city.
@@StevenStJohn-kj9eb totally agree on the travel.