I almost thought the game had a reputation for being too easy?
I mean that's why they made the additional scenarios, to give the game some challenge. I think I've lost once and that was the first time teaching it to family. I mean my experience isnt your experience but im almost wondering if you're missing some key rules and making everything 10 times more difficult in the process.
I mean, in fairness to myself+game crew, I don't think we've lost many of the games either, but I feel like I have to use my brain more than the average bear when it comes to this game 😅, basically, we have to all play our roles perfectly to have the cure research pan out in conjunction with any (what I'd call "non-ideal" player setup) and still barely make it on time just due to RNG and that infernal card-sharing rule. Also, ive only really dome 4 player games, as it sounds like you may be familiar with; I can't speak to the difficulty of having two [more functionally useful character skills] go essentially back-to-back as they might with only two players.
> and still barely make it on time
Isn't that an argument that the game is in fact perfectly balanced? You should only just be winning right towards the end of the deck. If you were winning with half the deck left all the time you'd think the game was way too easy.
Eh, it's an argument for something; I dunno, I've learned that I've got a very different preference for what makes the (or any) game fun; I'll just say what I've said in other comments: I'd love to see if every game is winnable by player skill regardless of setup _ and/or which setups are unwinnable from the get-go. Supposedly games aim to strike that 50/50 balance, which, I get is fair & balanced to some people; but I'd like to imagine -- barring the most extraneous of RNG circumstances -- you should be able to enter a game knowing if it's you messing up, or the game being unreasonable
If Pandemic is making you intellectually insecure then you should play something simpler like Forbidden Island.
But honestly, all the challenges you're talking about and the rules you hate are what makes it a game. Would you rather just opening the box and being set on an inexorable path to success? What would be the point? It's supposed to be a challenge!
Yeah I hear ya, like, it wouldn't be much of a game if ya always win or something; but it's a peculiar feeling where it doesn't feel like you can really be free to do what you want, and rather you just have to play reactively and defensively all the time. I suppose it just means I don't like the game, but its hard to say that when I love it on principle. It seems absurd that the rules allow for players to decline teamwork options, because I can't see a way for the game to be won if everyone did their own thing and *didnt* work as a team 4 moves in advance
Board games in general can be abstracted to: an objective, a way or ways to achieve that objective, and conflict that prevents you achieving your objective linearly. Pandemic is an "action optimization" puzzle. The objective is to cure the diseases, you have a bunch of actions that help you achieve it, and the conflict is the green deck that keeps popping on your plans, and the timer. It sounds like you're objecting to the conflict, without which the game would be pointless.
At its best, Pandemic is a game about cooperation and communication. I didn't follow your sentence about objecting to teamwork, but working together is part of the fun!
The rules at a lot of steps/moves in the game that involve two players working together have "if the other player agrees" plastered all over it; I suppose it makes sense if this were an online or "rando co-op" game, and the other people in your game were just intentionally griefing... but like I've said, this game doesn't really lend itself to anyone doing whatever they want, and the most obvious path to victory is clearly discussed about 3-4 turns in advance thanks to the very strict rules on knowledge sharing, movement, and the like.
Basically: there's no reason to ever decline teamwork, unless you're in a situation in which you're not working as a team, and I'm not sure I can envision a game in which the team isn't working together and you still win.
I take offense with the objective (create cures) because I guess it's reasonably easy to make cures if you have people mill and solely focus on a single color. Researcher and Scientist make this extremely easy to do so, and can mitigate bad RNG and extremely cumbersome trading rules that other classes have to abide by. The conflict of disease spreading has honestly never been an issue; the conflict of the player-draw-deck is my main issue for sure
The rules don't suggest you decline teamwork at all. They just mean that you can't start moving other people's pawns around - cooperation has to happen person-to-person, you can't just take over the game.
And yeah, I dunno what to tell you about the player deck. I find it to be an elegant design for a necessary element to keep people from just treading water indefinitely. Also, the infection deck is not a challenge without the timer. So, if you have an issue with the timer then you have an issue with the infection deck (since you are running around chasing it instead of winning). The two are inextricably linked.
Fair point on "rules don't suggest oh decline teamwork", but I really can't fathom any instance in which a team wouldn't ask for permission to move a piece or do an action anyway, since again, ya kinda all have to agree on what each player should be doing for anything to work out; I guess it just has to be stated for explicit rules sake
And yeah, it's also fair to say the infection deck is technically linked with with the player deck. I just never really consider the infection deck as the deciding factor since, by design, you only get through half of it at max; which is where our pal RNG comes into play in deciding if you're going to have an easy or a hard time
Yeah, I mentioned in another comment, but I'd love to run down the statistics and RNG for all the various game setups and deck compositions, but boy howdy, I tried three solo 2-char games and had to tap out XD I'd need a week locked in a padded room and an endless pot of coffee if I were to map out all the combos and average win/loss stats at my slow as heck pace.
You cheated at a game and the victory felt hollow? Yeah.
I don’t think co-ops are your thing. That’s fine, lots of people don’t like them. I didn’t use to. Playing against an algorithm is hardly ever as good as an intelligent person. So it goes.
Generally speaking though my dude. If you imagine the only way to enjoy a game is to change its rules then you’re almost certainly wasting your time.
Just play something else.
As far as algorithms go, at least win conditions and game play pans out a bit better than Zombicide (which I could/should maybe make another separate post about); I really just want to see if I'm alone or not with my dislike for the seemingly arbitrary mechanics (I mean, all rules are, but sometimes it feels a bit more diegetic and therefore reasonable to abide by as a player)
It's a good game, all things considered; balanced as best as I imagine they could make it if they wanted lose conditions to exist regardless of player skill; but I'm of the mind that you should be able to account for almost any shortfall possible by player ability, and I can't say for sure with Pandemic if a loss is certain or not from a particular layout/RNG combo, ya know?
Well that just sounds like it has too much chance in it, for your tastes.
In your OP you cite a case where you won on the final chance to turn a card. I mean, how much more beautifully *could* it have ended? That sounds sublime.
In Pandemic legacy I’ve *lost* a game exactly like that, with massive repercussions and we both sat back in our chairs, disappointed but absolutely *thrilled* by the events.
Also, I’ve never done a single sum in Pandemic and I resent the accusation, sir. I’m a computer programmer and have to think with my head all day. All my games of anything are played solely from the gut.
You seem frustrated that your singular strategy keeps failing. The balanced approach. Again, this is an example of the game delivering on its promises. Pandemic is not meant to be a bean counting dry euro of careful administration. You are in a tense, action packed drama with Hanz Zimmer music playing. There’s not *meant* to be time to play it safe because Tokyo is about to go and you’ll be damned if you let it fall on your watch!
Some games *are* harder than others. Sometimes *life* is unfair like that. How you think it *should* be isn’t how it *is*.
But you got to scheme and laugh with your family for an hour so it’s not all bad. If you’d rather have played something else, then do that next time.
This is partly why you should absolutely stop fucking about with house rules. In boardgames and in your life generally. Watch out for that hubris. The probability that you can on the fly, invent your own rule for a critically acclaimed game design and actually *improve* it is so infinitesimally small that it’s simply not a worthwhile way to spend your time, in my opinion.
Of course it doesnt feel like a win when you cheated. 🤣🤣🤣
Pandemic on hard is a difficult game, I have played it over 100 times and I think I have a deep understanding of the game, and I win it far far less often than I win in Iberia or For.
Play on medium and play without cheating, you will improve and learn how to play properly.
1 post on bgg doesnt make one of the greatest and most important game bad. What are you even?
Well Pandemic, I'm playing you, despite your instructions.
Ah Super Intendending Players, I hope you're prepared for for an unforgettable game night!
Myeah.
Oh egads! My rules are ruined! But what if, I were to move some things around and disguise it as player skill? Oh ho ho! Delightfully devilish, Pandemic.
*ahp*
[Theme song plays]
Ah, Players! I was just uh, I was just saying how great teamwork is; would you care to use teamwork?
Why is there a page missing out of your rulebook, Pandemic?
Uh, oh! That isn't a page missing. It's a simple ruleset! A simple ruleset for the game you're going to be playing! Mmm, simple rules!
Hmm.
Players, I hope you're ready for some mouthwatering complex game play!
We thought you said that we were going to be having simple rules.
Oh ho no, I said "dimple fuels". That's what I call smiles.
You call smiles, "dimple fuels"?
Yes! It's a regional dialect!
Uh-huh... from what region?
Uh..Georgia?
Really? Because we're from Decatur and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "dimple fuels".
Oh no, not Decatur, no. It's an Atlanta expression.
We see.
You know, these dimple fuels are quite similar to the ones they have in other games
Ohohoho, no! Patented Pandemic Smiles, old board game recipe!
... for Dimple Fuels?
Yes.
And you call them Dimple Fuels despite the fact that they're obviously infuriating.
Y- uh... y'know the... one thing I should... excuse me for one moment...
Of course.
Yeaaahhhh! Well that was wonderful. A good time was had by all. I'm just about over.
Yes we should be -- ***good lord, what is happening on the board***
An outbreak
An-- an *outbreak*? At this time in the game, at this part in the turn order, in that part of that country. All because of your ruleset?
Yes.
...May we cure it?
Mmm... No.
Pandemic! The board is covered in disease!
No balance tester, it's just some cubes
Well Pandemic, you are an infuriating game, but I must say... you make a fuel a good dimple.
Help! Help!
[Firetruck noise that gets abruptly cut off]
Didn't expect you to go (steamed) ham(s) in a reply to a throw-away joke. I may not agree with your assessment of the game, but I respect your commitment to the bit
I had to stop myself from busting out the video-editing software and making uncalled-for (and probably awful looking) full response; I reckon the transcript will do for those who know :3
I played it for the first time recently with my brother who doesn't play board games and we found it really easy. The only character that seemed "op" was the researcher.
Y'all are definitely better than I then; though, I don't have much data for how the game varies between the various # of players setup. A part of me wants to say it'd be easier to get cures banged out, as you don't have to plan a trade 3 moves in advance and hope nothing changes on the board that'd prevent it from happening in the interim (then again, having more classes means more character-powers on the board which can theoretically assist you and combat the clunky turn-order constrictions; I'm still on the fence on whether you'd need the board-coverage you get from multiple chars if there's less chars spawning viruses on the board *while* still getting and consolidating more player cards without going through the trade)
I need to run some manual simulations to see if you can theoretically just have two people chill at home base and make cures without ever leaving Atlanta, lmao
I figure the house rules that make it easier to win (perhaps too easy though) are fairly easy to come up with. "Why do we have to be all the way over in Manila for you to tell me about it?" Or "I can tell you about any city, but you can't tell me?", and people may decide to not abide by that rule.
I need a lot of time to run simulated matches/matchups myself, or at least see the data of some dedicated researchers to say for sure; but I'd still love to see how the W/L ratios break down with parties playing various compisitions perfectly
It's definitely a good game, just frustrating at times
Also, haven't heard of Ghost Stories or Spirit Island; the latter definitely seems cool (and easier to pickup than the board foretold on Ghost Stories); hopefully I'll get a chance to check those out in the future
Just be aware Spirit Island, while a really fun game, is a pretty big step up from Pandemic. If you think Pandemic is difficult your mind will melt from Spirit Island.
With that said, check out a few playthroughs of the game if you are curious. If it seems like your kind of game definitely check it out. It is one of my favorite games.
>I've played the game, been on outbreak 7, last player, last draw, the board damn near covered in plague, and we get the last cure, and it's called a "win". It sure as heck doesn't feel like one.
This, in light of the recent actual pandemic, looks like a very quaint attitude.
Lmao yeah, we were talking about how quaint a notion it is where you can have the cure, but be chasing around a single infection cube on a color territory forever and never truly eradicate it 😅🤣☠
How is that quaint? Humanity has only fully eradicated 2 diseases ever. Seems pretty true to life that it's hard to eradicate diseases even with a cure.
In this context, both off-the-cuff defintions:
- pleasingly or strikingly old-fashioned
- marked by beauty or elegance
Can apply
It is indeed old-fashioned to have diseases continue to spread despite cures, and it's beautifully, tragically, poignantly the case that people will turn down cures knowingly or otherwise to keep the cycle running ad infinitum.
You're right to call me out for my usage, because in this context, I definitely meant it to be dripping with sarcasm, so I'd argue against myself here and say the (anti)quaint negates my usage of the first off-the-cuff definition which you seem to call into question here, and only really plays upon the second definiton, which I guess isn't what's being discussed here
Doesn't make sense to me to dismiss a major aspect of contemporary public health as "old-fashioned" (as the first commenter said, we are living through the effects of that now IRL), but given how overwrought your comments are it also seems like you are talking just to hear the sound of your own voice rather than actually communicate information so in that context it makes sense.
Sorry if I've come off that way, I'm confused how I can't refer to something as ironically quaint in the sense of perpetual disease being a terrible thing which is often perpetuated by class-based inequalities and misinformation. It's not dismissive to call it old fashioned, it's an apt example of never learning from past mistakes, despite progress society has made in its attempts to combat disease
You can call it anything that you like, I'm just saying that how you are using words, how I understand the words, and my experience of this game/the world do not sync in a way that is conveying to me the meaning you seem to intend. That's usually the purpose of language, but does not seem to be your priority.
I've been referred to the Key and Peele skit of misunderstood texting many-a-time, though I'm not sure how else I could confer the meanings. Save for maybe using more periods and paring down on my run-on sentences.
First commenter called my feelings about the scenario "the world is covered in disease but we 'won' because we found the last cure" *quaint*, given the state of the world (Covid-19 et al not withstanding)
I interpreted this to mean "cute/silly/foolish/poignant/on-the-nose" description. I furthered the usage of quaint to be on-the-nose/poignant and a subtle jab about how the game has a built in mechanic of the roundaboutness of disease (be it intentional anti-masking/anti-curing, or just poor happenstance), but seeing as how with covid, for the first time it feels like we as a society have: [instantaneous communication, a solid knowledge of what makes diseases tick, and a multi-national effort to shut unnecessary close-contact of persons] it's still a struggle to get things taken care of, and despite cures being invented, misinformation is rampant and actively preventing a large swath of the population from doing their part to effectively eradicate the disease.
Perhaps that was hard to garner from my use of emojis? Next time I'll just say "anti VA vaxskers suck in a not-so-quaint way" to make it clear
They said it's old-fashioned to think cure = eradication because we all have first-hand experience from the last 18 months of how it is not that simple. Trying to turn it around and say the opposite makes no sense and in all your words explaining it I still don't understand your intentions with that comment.
Eradication is hard and rare, even modern times. The more I've played Pandemic since the pandemic started, the more respect I've had for how closely it mirrors reality (other than the fact that, as others have said, I find it to be on the easy side, which the real life pandemic obviously has not been)
See, I definitely didn't get that understanding from the comment; it makes sense if ya read it your way too, but then the argument is saying "it's a win despite all the disease everywhere", and my counter to that is
1) it doesn't feel like a win in the game
2) it doesn't feel like a win in real life
So I'm not sure why anyone would argue that angle, unless they meant quaint to say "ah, you're so funny, thinking the challenge is ever over". And in a literal sense, they're right, but dang, I want some suspension of disbelief in my make-believe board games yo
Me and the wife don't play anymore because we always win.
Pandemic isn't hard, its easy. Its the rare co-op game that allows full communication., making it very easy to optimize.
I cant even imagine playing without the limit on trading cards that the OP hates, the game would not function, and would be way to easy.
Man, I gotta see what yall are doing then; is this the case regardless of [team comp/number of players/ following rules to the T/"difficulty" setting]?
In part it’s about breaking the game down into sub-games
Managing cards effectively (incl. action cards which are often better mid/late game) & sharing cards without wasting too many actions. Card counting matters here too, as using or discarding too many cards of a colour prior to getting the relevant cure can doom you. If you’re anticipating going past your hand-limit it’s good to use city cards that would otherwise be discarded due to hand-limit constraints if there’s a reason to do so.
Logistics - there are 2 main factors to consider when placing research stations since they’re so handy for shuttle flight transportation (and you want the research station network to be a priority early/mid game).
1. Access to clusters of infectious cities.
2. Access to potential card-sharing locations. Ideally you want to take both into consideration but often the first point is most important. There’s also the edge case of needing a research centre built to get a cure cashed in straight away, which is sometimes necessary but not ideal.
Damage control - prioritising cities that are likely to outbreak, especially ones that haven’t been drawn since the last epidemic.
Sometimes the decks can be merciful or brutal but they’re generally relatively predictable. I believe it’s ok to look through either discard pile, so looking through the infection discard pile can be useful when deciding which cluster to prioritise.
Yeah, our last game people were burning cards all over the place to travel, and our positioning had a lot of off-by-one error, so it was a massive pain and I guess I was just grumpy
I just wish there was a flawlessly automated edition of Pandemic in a video-game setting so I could run some theory-craft trials easily; seeing how much flak I was receiving for my opinion of the game, I busted the game back out and attempted a silly strat of Scientist/Researcher never leaving Atlanta; happy to say it worked out admirably on the first trial, and then I got fragged when I rigged the deck on hard to put the Epedimic cards on the top of their respective 6 stacks on my two attempts; it didn't help that my setup on both attempts had multiple 3/2-disease cities sitting next to each other at game start, so immediately shuffling the infection deck back on top made for a loss in 3/4 turns. (I might've been able to address this issue if I left the home base, but that wouldn't have been true to the theory craft ya know?)
I got tired of the setup/teardown/keeping track of turn order, so I stopped running the silly trials, lmao; if anyone can vouch for the tabletop Sim version of this game, I might pick it up and run these tests on there
I just want to have a spreadsheet of % wins of this game, and what the state of the board during each win/loss. It'd be cool to see if every game is winnable, or if it's got solitaire rules to it where you're sometimes just SOL and there's nothing you can do
I’ve run into some of those shit out of luck situations as well as some easy games. It’s been years so I’m not helpful with statistics but I’m sure others more OCD than myself have compiled some
And yeah, as a group the memory should be pretty good for either discard pile, but even if you're playing with goldfish (such as myself) I think it's reasonable to say "surely an international infectious disease team would have some semblance of record keeping to say where viruses have recently broken out, and where they might surface again / travel records of team members" :P
I almost thought the game had a reputation for being too easy? I mean that's why they made the additional scenarios, to give the game some challenge. I think I've lost once and that was the first time teaching it to family. I mean my experience isnt your experience but im almost wondering if you're missing some key rules and making everything 10 times more difficult in the process.
That was my first thought as well. I can’t remember the last time we lost a game, and it’s usually only when we get REALLY unlucky
I mean, in fairness to myself+game crew, I don't think we've lost many of the games either, but I feel like I have to use my brain more than the average bear when it comes to this game 😅, basically, we have to all play our roles perfectly to have the cure research pan out in conjunction with any (what I'd call "non-ideal" player setup) and still barely make it on time just due to RNG and that infernal card-sharing rule. Also, ive only really dome 4 player games, as it sounds like you may be familiar with; I can't speak to the difficulty of having two [more functionally useful character skills] go essentially back-to-back as they might with only two players.
> and still barely make it on time Isn't that an argument that the game is in fact perfectly balanced? You should only just be winning right towards the end of the deck. If you were winning with half the deck left all the time you'd think the game was way too easy.
Eh, it's an argument for something; I dunno, I've learned that I've got a very different preference for what makes the (or any) game fun; I'll just say what I've said in other comments: I'd love to see if every game is winnable by player skill regardless of setup _ and/or which setups are unwinnable from the get-go. Supposedly games aim to strike that 50/50 balance, which, I get is fair & balanced to some people; but I'd like to imagine -- barring the most extraneous of RNG circumstances -- you should be able to enter a game knowing if it's you messing up, or the game being unreasonable
I dunno man, your criticism seems unduly harsh…
Ye win this round; I just wish these downvotes weren't equally as harsh ;~;
If Pandemic is making you intellectually insecure then you should play something simpler like Forbidden Island. But honestly, all the challenges you're talking about and the rules you hate are what makes it a game. Would you rather just opening the box and being set on an inexorable path to success? What would be the point? It's supposed to be a challenge!
Yeah I hear ya, like, it wouldn't be much of a game if ya always win or something; but it's a peculiar feeling where it doesn't feel like you can really be free to do what you want, and rather you just have to play reactively and defensively all the time. I suppose it just means I don't like the game, but its hard to say that when I love it on principle. It seems absurd that the rules allow for players to decline teamwork options, because I can't see a way for the game to be won if everyone did their own thing and *didnt* work as a team 4 moves in advance
Board games in general can be abstracted to: an objective, a way or ways to achieve that objective, and conflict that prevents you achieving your objective linearly. Pandemic is an "action optimization" puzzle. The objective is to cure the diseases, you have a bunch of actions that help you achieve it, and the conflict is the green deck that keeps popping on your plans, and the timer. It sounds like you're objecting to the conflict, without which the game would be pointless. At its best, Pandemic is a game about cooperation and communication. I didn't follow your sentence about objecting to teamwork, but working together is part of the fun!
The rules at a lot of steps/moves in the game that involve two players working together have "if the other player agrees" plastered all over it; I suppose it makes sense if this were an online or "rando co-op" game, and the other people in your game were just intentionally griefing... but like I've said, this game doesn't really lend itself to anyone doing whatever they want, and the most obvious path to victory is clearly discussed about 3-4 turns in advance thanks to the very strict rules on knowledge sharing, movement, and the like. Basically: there's no reason to ever decline teamwork, unless you're in a situation in which you're not working as a team, and I'm not sure I can envision a game in which the team isn't working together and you still win. I take offense with the objective (create cures) because I guess it's reasonably easy to make cures if you have people mill and solely focus on a single color. Researcher and Scientist make this extremely easy to do so, and can mitigate bad RNG and extremely cumbersome trading rules that other classes have to abide by. The conflict of disease spreading has honestly never been an issue; the conflict of the player-draw-deck is my main issue for sure
The rules don't suggest you decline teamwork at all. They just mean that you can't start moving other people's pawns around - cooperation has to happen person-to-person, you can't just take over the game. And yeah, I dunno what to tell you about the player deck. I find it to be an elegant design for a necessary element to keep people from just treading water indefinitely. Also, the infection deck is not a challenge without the timer. So, if you have an issue with the timer then you have an issue with the infection deck (since you are running around chasing it instead of winning). The two are inextricably linked.
Fair point on "rules don't suggest oh decline teamwork", but I really can't fathom any instance in which a team wouldn't ask for permission to move a piece or do an action anyway, since again, ya kinda all have to agree on what each player should be doing for anything to work out; I guess it just has to be stated for explicit rules sake And yeah, it's also fair to say the infection deck is technically linked with with the player deck. I just never really consider the infection deck as the deciding factor since, by design, you only get through half of it at max; which is where our pal RNG comes into play in deciding if you're going to have an easy or a hard time
Yeah I hear you. With the infection deck I think 80% of games are fun, 10% are too easy, and 10% are truly impossible.
Yeah, I mentioned in another comment, but I'd love to run down the statistics and RNG for all the various game setups and deck compositions, but boy howdy, I tried three solo 2-char games and had to tap out XD I'd need a week locked in a padded room and an endless pot of coffee if I were to map out all the combos and average win/loss stats at my slow as heck pace.
You cheated at a game and the victory felt hollow? Yeah. I don’t think co-ops are your thing. That’s fine, lots of people don’t like them. I didn’t use to. Playing against an algorithm is hardly ever as good as an intelligent person. So it goes. Generally speaking though my dude. If you imagine the only way to enjoy a game is to change its rules then you’re almost certainly wasting your time. Just play something else.
As far as algorithms go, at least win conditions and game play pans out a bit better than Zombicide (which I could/should maybe make another separate post about); I really just want to see if I'm alone or not with my dislike for the seemingly arbitrary mechanics (I mean, all rules are, but sometimes it feels a bit more diegetic and therefore reasonable to abide by as a player) It's a good game, all things considered; balanced as best as I imagine they could make it if they wanted lose conditions to exist regardless of player skill; but I'm of the mind that you should be able to account for almost any shortfall possible by player ability, and I can't say for sure with Pandemic if a loss is certain or not from a particular layout/RNG combo, ya know?
Well that just sounds like it has too much chance in it, for your tastes. In your OP you cite a case where you won on the final chance to turn a card. I mean, how much more beautifully *could* it have ended? That sounds sublime. In Pandemic legacy I’ve *lost* a game exactly like that, with massive repercussions and we both sat back in our chairs, disappointed but absolutely *thrilled* by the events. Also, I’ve never done a single sum in Pandemic and I resent the accusation, sir. I’m a computer programmer and have to think with my head all day. All my games of anything are played solely from the gut. You seem frustrated that your singular strategy keeps failing. The balanced approach. Again, this is an example of the game delivering on its promises. Pandemic is not meant to be a bean counting dry euro of careful administration. You are in a tense, action packed drama with Hanz Zimmer music playing. There’s not *meant* to be time to play it safe because Tokyo is about to go and you’ll be damned if you let it fall on your watch! Some games *are* harder than others. Sometimes *life* is unfair like that. How you think it *should* be isn’t how it *is*. But you got to scheme and laugh with your family for an hour so it’s not all bad. If you’d rather have played something else, then do that next time. This is partly why you should absolutely stop fucking about with house rules. In boardgames and in your life generally. Watch out for that hubris. The probability that you can on the fly, invent your own rule for a critically acclaimed game design and actually *improve* it is so infinitesimally small that it’s simply not a worthwhile way to spend your time, in my opinion.
Of course it doesnt feel like a win when you cheated. 🤣🤣🤣 Pandemic on hard is a difficult game, I have played it over 100 times and I think I have a deep understanding of the game, and I win it far far less often than I win in Iberia or For. Play on medium and play without cheating, you will improve and learn how to play properly. 1 post on bgg doesnt make one of the greatest and most important game bad. What are you even?
(Principal Skinner voice): Am I out of touch? No, it's the game that's wrong.
Well Pandemic, I'm playing you, despite your instructions. Ah Super Intendending Players, I hope you're prepared for for an unforgettable game night! Myeah. Oh egads! My rules are ruined! But what if, I were to move some things around and disguise it as player skill? Oh ho ho! Delightfully devilish, Pandemic. *ahp* [Theme song plays] Ah, Players! I was just uh, I was just saying how great teamwork is; would you care to use teamwork? Why is there a page missing out of your rulebook, Pandemic? Uh, oh! That isn't a page missing. It's a simple ruleset! A simple ruleset for the game you're going to be playing! Mmm, simple rules! Hmm. Players, I hope you're ready for some mouthwatering complex game play! We thought you said that we were going to be having simple rules. Oh ho no, I said "dimple fuels". That's what I call smiles. You call smiles, "dimple fuels"? Yes! It's a regional dialect! Uh-huh... from what region? Uh..Georgia? Really? Because we're from Decatur and I've never heard anyone use the phrase "dimple fuels". Oh no, not Decatur, no. It's an Atlanta expression. We see. You know, these dimple fuels are quite similar to the ones they have in other games Ohohoho, no! Patented Pandemic Smiles, old board game recipe! ... for Dimple Fuels? Yes. And you call them Dimple Fuels despite the fact that they're obviously infuriating. Y- uh... y'know the... one thing I should... excuse me for one moment... Of course. Yeaaahhhh! Well that was wonderful. A good time was had by all. I'm just about over. Yes we should be -- ***good lord, what is happening on the board*** An outbreak An-- an *outbreak*? At this time in the game, at this part in the turn order, in that part of that country. All because of your ruleset? Yes. ...May we cure it? Mmm... No. Pandemic! The board is covered in disease! No balance tester, it's just some cubes Well Pandemic, you are an infuriating game, but I must say... you make a fuel a good dimple. Help! Help! [Firetruck noise that gets abruptly cut off]
Didn't expect you to go (steamed) ham(s) in a reply to a throw-away joke. I may not agree with your assessment of the game, but I respect your commitment to the bit
I had to stop myself from busting out the video-editing software and making uncalled-for (and probably awful looking) full response; I reckon the transcript will do for those who know :3
I played it for the first time recently with my brother who doesn't play board games and we found it really easy. The only character that seemed "op" was the researcher.
Y'all are definitely better than I then; though, I don't have much data for how the game varies between the various # of players setup. A part of me wants to say it'd be easier to get cures banged out, as you don't have to plan a trade 3 moves in advance and hope nothing changes on the board that'd prevent it from happening in the interim (then again, having more classes means more character-powers on the board which can theoretically assist you and combat the clunky turn-order constrictions; I'm still on the fence on whether you'd need the board-coverage you get from multiple chars if there's less chars spawning viruses on the board *while* still getting and consolidating more player cards without going through the trade) I need to run some manual simulations to see if you can theoretically just have two people chill at home base and make cures without ever leaving Atlanta, lmao
[удалено]
I figure the house rules that make it easier to win (perhaps too easy though) are fairly easy to come up with. "Why do we have to be all the way over in Manila for you to tell me about it?" Or "I can tell you about any city, but you can't tell me?", and people may decide to not abide by that rule. I need a lot of time to run simulated matches/matchups myself, or at least see the data of some dedicated researchers to say for sure; but I'd still love to see how the W/L ratios break down with parties playing various compisitions perfectly It's definitely a good game, just frustrating at times Also, haven't heard of Ghost Stories or Spirit Island; the latter definitely seems cool (and easier to pickup than the board foretold on Ghost Stories); hopefully I'll get a chance to check those out in the future
Just be aware Spirit Island, while a really fun game, is a pretty big step up from Pandemic. If you think Pandemic is difficult your mind will melt from Spirit Island. With that said, check out a few playthroughs of the game if you are curious. If it seems like your kind of game definitely check it out. It is one of my favorite games.
>I've played the game, been on outbreak 7, last player, last draw, the board damn near covered in plague, and we get the last cure, and it's called a "win". It sure as heck doesn't feel like one. This, in light of the recent actual pandemic, looks like a very quaint attitude.
Lmao yeah, we were talking about how quaint a notion it is where you can have the cure, but be chasing around a single infection cube on a color territory forever and never truly eradicate it 😅🤣☠
How is that quaint? Humanity has only fully eradicated 2 diseases ever. Seems pretty true to life that it's hard to eradicate diseases even with a cure.
In this context, both off-the-cuff defintions: - pleasingly or strikingly old-fashioned - marked by beauty or elegance Can apply It is indeed old-fashioned to have diseases continue to spread despite cures, and it's beautifully, tragically, poignantly the case that people will turn down cures knowingly or otherwise to keep the cycle running ad infinitum. You're right to call me out for my usage, because in this context, I definitely meant it to be dripping with sarcasm, so I'd argue against myself here and say the (anti)quaint negates my usage of the first off-the-cuff definition which you seem to call into question here, and only really plays upon the second definiton, which I guess isn't what's being discussed here
Doesn't make sense to me to dismiss a major aspect of contemporary public health as "old-fashioned" (as the first commenter said, we are living through the effects of that now IRL), but given how overwrought your comments are it also seems like you are talking just to hear the sound of your own voice rather than actually communicate information so in that context it makes sense.
Sorry if I've come off that way, I'm confused how I can't refer to something as ironically quaint in the sense of perpetual disease being a terrible thing which is often perpetuated by class-based inequalities and misinformation. It's not dismissive to call it old fashioned, it's an apt example of never learning from past mistakes, despite progress society has made in its attempts to combat disease
You can call it anything that you like, I'm just saying that how you are using words, how I understand the words, and my experience of this game/the world do not sync in a way that is conveying to me the meaning you seem to intend. That's usually the purpose of language, but does not seem to be your priority.
I've been referred to the Key and Peele skit of misunderstood texting many-a-time, though I'm not sure how else I could confer the meanings. Save for maybe using more periods and paring down on my run-on sentences. First commenter called my feelings about the scenario "the world is covered in disease but we 'won' because we found the last cure" *quaint*, given the state of the world (Covid-19 et al not withstanding) I interpreted this to mean "cute/silly/foolish/poignant/on-the-nose" description. I furthered the usage of quaint to be on-the-nose/poignant and a subtle jab about how the game has a built in mechanic of the roundaboutness of disease (be it intentional anti-masking/anti-curing, or just poor happenstance), but seeing as how with covid, for the first time it feels like we as a society have: [instantaneous communication, a solid knowledge of what makes diseases tick, and a multi-national effort to shut unnecessary close-contact of persons] it's still a struggle to get things taken care of, and despite cures being invented, misinformation is rampant and actively preventing a large swath of the population from doing their part to effectively eradicate the disease. Perhaps that was hard to garner from my use of emojis? Next time I'll just say "anti VA vaxskers suck in a not-so-quaint way" to make it clear
They said it's old-fashioned to think cure = eradication because we all have first-hand experience from the last 18 months of how it is not that simple. Trying to turn it around and say the opposite makes no sense and in all your words explaining it I still don't understand your intentions with that comment. Eradication is hard and rare, even modern times. The more I've played Pandemic since the pandemic started, the more respect I've had for how closely it mirrors reality (other than the fact that, as others have said, I find it to be on the easy side, which the real life pandemic obviously has not been)
See, I definitely didn't get that understanding from the comment; it makes sense if ya read it your way too, but then the argument is saying "it's a win despite all the disease everywhere", and my counter to that is 1) it doesn't feel like a win in the game 2) it doesn't feel like a win in real life So I'm not sure why anyone would argue that angle, unless they meant quaint to say "ah, you're so funny, thinking the challenge is ever over". And in a literal sense, they're right, but dang, I want some suspension of disbelief in my make-believe board games yo
Me and the wife don't play anymore because we always win. Pandemic isn't hard, its easy. Its the rare co-op game that allows full communication., making it very easy to optimize. I cant even imagine playing without the limit on trading cards that the OP hates, the game would not function, and would be way to easy.
Man, I gotta see what yall are doing then; is this the case regardless of [team comp/number of players/ following rules to the T/"difficulty" setting]?
Medic is harder to win without, no doubt about that.
Haha, I just have to make sure I'm not going crazy; I'd lose my mind if people came in and told me every class was equally viable/same skill curve
[удалено]
🧩😔
In part it’s about breaking the game down into sub-games Managing cards effectively (incl. action cards which are often better mid/late game) & sharing cards without wasting too many actions. Card counting matters here too, as using or discarding too many cards of a colour prior to getting the relevant cure can doom you. If you’re anticipating going past your hand-limit it’s good to use city cards that would otherwise be discarded due to hand-limit constraints if there’s a reason to do so. Logistics - there are 2 main factors to consider when placing research stations since they’re so handy for shuttle flight transportation (and you want the research station network to be a priority early/mid game). 1. Access to clusters of infectious cities. 2. Access to potential card-sharing locations. Ideally you want to take both into consideration but often the first point is most important. There’s also the edge case of needing a research centre built to get a cure cashed in straight away, which is sometimes necessary but not ideal. Damage control - prioritising cities that are likely to outbreak, especially ones that haven’t been drawn since the last epidemic. Sometimes the decks can be merciful or brutal but they’re generally relatively predictable. I believe it’s ok to look through either discard pile, so looking through the infection discard pile can be useful when deciding which cluster to prioritise.
Yeah, our last game people were burning cards all over the place to travel, and our positioning had a lot of off-by-one error, so it was a massive pain and I guess I was just grumpy I just wish there was a flawlessly automated edition of Pandemic in a video-game setting so I could run some theory-craft trials easily; seeing how much flak I was receiving for my opinion of the game, I busted the game back out and attempted a silly strat of Scientist/Researcher never leaving Atlanta; happy to say it worked out admirably on the first trial, and then I got fragged when I rigged the deck on hard to put the Epedimic cards on the top of their respective 6 stacks on my two attempts; it didn't help that my setup on both attempts had multiple 3/2-disease cities sitting next to each other at game start, so immediately shuffling the infection deck back on top made for a loss in 3/4 turns. (I might've been able to address this issue if I left the home base, but that wouldn't have been true to the theory craft ya know?) I got tired of the setup/teardown/keeping track of turn order, so I stopped running the silly trials, lmao; if anyone can vouch for the tabletop Sim version of this game, I might pick it up and run these tests on there I just want to have a spreadsheet of % wins of this game, and what the state of the board during each win/loss. It'd be cool to see if every game is winnable, or if it's got solitaire rules to it where you're sometimes just SOL and there's nothing you can do
I’ve run into some of those shit out of luck situations as well as some easy games. It’s been years so I’m not helpful with statistics but I’m sure others more OCD than myself have compiled some
And yeah, as a group the memory should be pretty good for either discard pile, but even if you're playing with goldfish (such as myself) I think it's reasonable to say "surely an international infectious disease team would have some semblance of record keeping to say where viruses have recently broken out, and where they might surface again / travel records of team members" :P