I agree with this. I think the AI is solid, and I think it compares well generally to the AI of other top board games on the platform. It's not as challenging as Samurai (which is merciless) or Small World (which can be difficult), but it's much better than many of the other board game/card game conversions. I do agree that online multiplayer is the focus. I will be venturing into that over the weekend as well.
The TtR AI has the advantage of having been refined over the last few years. I forget the exact date, but TtR Online has been around for quite awhile. Over the years, more bots have been added, existing bots have been improved, etc. The end result is a better product for the consumer and a more challenging (but definitely still beatable) game.
Oh, nice! I didn't realize this was based on the same AI used in the online game for years. While no AI will ever be perfect and will, almost always, be much more predictable than a human player, knowing this has been road tested and tweaked over a couple of years means so much more to me than hearing it was something the developers whipped up over the weekend before submitting the game (as sadly seems the case with a few digitized board/card games out there geared mainly toward multiplayer play).
Thanks for the input on the 1910 Expansion. I'll pick it up along with Switzerland (I did already buy the Europe expansion). I do wish it had bluetooth multiplayer to play on car trips. I have found the AI to be decent. Though I have only just started playing the game, so am a beginner. But it seems the more AI players you have, the higher the challenge level.
I have a gameplay question. Some cities have two possible routes connecting up from the same direction. They are side-by-side routes. It looks like whoever places the first route gets that route and no else can use the other open route. Does claiming a station in the Europe expansion allow you to use that other route for yourself? I'm not sure if I tried that out while I was playing, but I was wondering if that is why you want to claim a station. Thanks!
That's the rule for 2- or 3-player games. With 4-plus, both routes are open (although the same player cannot claim both). Yes. That's essentially what stations do you get to "borrow" that route.
I agree, it's annoying to an unending degree! You can't even turn off their voices, which makes me sad. I decided to just risk it, as I'd never played it before, to buy the game and all expansions. For $10, I found a game that seriously makes me smile. I'm terrible at it, I'm a terrible strategist who can't really think that many moves ahead, but MAN I love it, so much. I can't really express it in words, but there's just something very enjoyable and Carcassonne-ish about it. Yes, yes, yes. I feel the same about Samurai's AI, it needs some variety. And choosing the different-looking AI would also be nice, none of these things would be that difficult. Again, I agree 100%. I love the bluetooth nature of these games, and having TtR missing that is a huge mark against it. I normally am in an area where there is internet, but what happens when I'm not? There is a reason that these other games have bluetooth multiplayer. No reason why this shouldn't. Enough people wanting it and chirping about it might still get that changed. Just because you or others don't like it, doesn't mean that you can decide no one else wants it. I've played Carcassone and finished a turn in seconds. I've moved a chess piece in seconds. Conversely, I've spent a fair bit of time trying to decide where to lay my tracks. Maybe 2/3rds of the people don't want it, or maybe 3/4 of them don't - but for those that do, they really do. Same with pass-and-play.
It's not me deciding anything; it's the president of the company that makes the game ... you know, the guy who is on record as saying "we have no interest in this feature." Seriously, I strongly recommend against not holding your breath. Not only is asynch a terrible fit for TtR, but the game already has a long-established, very active online multiplayer presence. There's no reason whatsoever for anyone to even consider asynch when a complete game of online multiplayer can be played in as little as 15 minutes.
I have never heard of this game before, but I bought it after reading this thread and I'm totally addicted! I absolutely love it, and I might order the real board game now. I don't want to stir the pot, but I'm not sure pass and play would work so well, but it would be nice to have the option. Even without it it's an absolute blast and the online play works very well. The IAP for a dollar each was a steal as well.
Definitely like to hear if this is a planned feature. Plus, asynchronous multiplayer doesn't have to be that slow. It's useful when playing games at working or doing other things if you sometimes, but not always need long gaps between turns.
After more time with this game, I'm convinced more than ever that asynchronous play with friends is a crucial, missing piece. It's entirely doable, just like Carcassonne. It would be totally optional, and would get people playing multiple games at once. You get people to dip in and out of your game at multiple points throughout the day, and not in just in isolated 15 minute chunks. As an extremely busy individual with very busy friends, asynchronous play would hold our attention much longer than the week or so I plan on devoting to this game. I hope the devs reconsider adding this innocuous feature.
Certain games with tons of turns are not ideal this being one of them. Move along now. Not a chance on iphone there is no way you could scroll around like a maniac. Even on ipad it's pushing it but it works just fine. I'd imagine some will have to zoom (I don't) but at least it's available as a double tap or a pinch.
I decided to buy the 3 maps also. Havent play them. Still want to master the US map first. I also play 5 players w/ 4 AI. They are pretty decent. Not too easy or hard. I won twice out of 10 games or so. I also don't pay this much for an Ipad game anymore but it's definitely worth it. One of the best out there with great replay value.
Just because HE doesn't want it doesn't mean that he won't listen to the people putting money into the game that DO want it. If devs never listened to what people wanted, then we would have a lot of games missing a LOT of features. Especially with iOS games, I can't count the number of times I've seen "Due to overwhelming requests from our fans..." and multiple features that were not intially planned. So while I understand that the president doesn't want to have this in the game, it seems enough OTHER people do, and since these other people are those who pay money for the game, I think it's just for them to request it and I don't think it's impossible that it will happen.
People said World of Goo would never work on the iPhone, and look - it is and does incredibly well. Carcassonne works. Through the Desert. etc, Etc. no one is going to move along, those who want asynch will continue to want it and not give up.
Ok so after some terrible games i'm ready to try something good finally. What would you guys reccomend this, Small World or Carcassonne?
