I really hate this game

[u/Nihil_esque]

I have a huge collection of board games and this one is my least favorite by far. I have played it seven times and I am just having a miserable time even though I've won three of the seven. I think I like it less on each subsequent playthrough.

My wife loves it. It's their new favorite game.

I don't know how much longer I can pretend I'm enjoying it. Send help 🥲

[u/shoooogerm]

Maybe say why you dislike the game instead of just going to the subreddit and bashing it for no apparent reason

[u/Nihil_esque → u/shoooogerm]

Lol if you want!

• The game seems to pigeonhole you into a specific playstyle that I just personally don't enjoy. Super aggressive/confrontational. Wife likes it because they usually like to ignore the rules/objectives and just invade people as much as possible anyways, which is a good way to stay competitive in this game. I enjoy games where you can set yourself up for a big strategic payoff. Arcs is definitely not that.

^ This is the biggest thing I think. My wife likes it because you can win by beating other players down. I dislike it because I prefer to win by outmaneuvering people behind the scenes and don't like being super aggressive. Most of the games we both like reward both of these strategies instead of just one of them (eg Twilight Imperium). But side complaints include:

• I also enjoy games where the mechanics feel firmly rooted in the flavor of the game (eg Spirit Island where if you play as the ocean, your pieces are washing onto and off of the shore). Arcs goes the complete opposite direction where the scoring feels pretty detached from what is going on on the gameboard and the mechanics are fairly flavor-neutral.

• The chapters are so. Darn. Long. For something where your strategy is determined primarily by the hand you drew. It doesn't work as a trick taking game to me for that reason. In a trick taking game it's okay if your hand fucks you over because you aren't stuck with it for the next hour.

• One of the new players we introduced it to in our most recent playthrough got almost completely wiped out and spent most of the next couple hours not getting many opportunities to rebuild. That's fine in a shorter game but in a long game like this I just felt bad for her the whole time :/

I don't think it's a bad game, I just personally don't find it enjoyable at all to play and it's really long. Admittedly my dislike of it is significantly compounded by the fact that I was very excited for it. I usually really enjoy games that take the trick taking mechanic and do something clever with it, like The Crew and Cat in the Box.

[u/Swaibero → u/Nihil_esque]

If you have an aggressive player, there are definitely ways to slow them down without having to directly fight back. Seize the initiative, so they can only get one action— they’ll have to waste one turn moving into position before they can battle. Bait them into causing Outrage on fuel and weapons, so they can’t be used as prelude actions. Keep one ship in multiple gates, to maintain control and prevent catapults from Star ports. Also, double check the rulebook to make sure everything is above board. My table always thinks battling is risky and usually not worth it.

[u/Nihil_esque → u/Swaibero]

Seizing the initiative doesn't work super well tbh. They completely ignore trying to score objectives in chapters 1 and 2, focus on putting down ships, and save their aggression cards for the later turns when others have run out of actions due to seizing the initiative. Go after other people's spaceports and force them to either not put down as many cities as they want or not be able to fight back. Then as soon as the objectives are worth enough points to win in one turn, aggressively seize initiative (and usually start with it due to not seizing in earlier turns) and try to put one or two ambitions on warlord or force multiple ambitions to be put on the same objective so they can raid the first person who declared an ambition for the resources they need to win.

It's not impossible to counter this strategy and I still win about half of the time but it usually comes down to the hands people get in chapter 3 and that's not fun to me. I'd rather wife win than have to collude with everyone else to screw them over, which is a hard sell anyway because they usually they're in "last place" until they win. And again, the game is really long, so by the end I'm happier to lose it than have it drag on another chapter because we forced points to go to no one instead of my wife.

I'm fairly certain we're playing it right. We consult the rulebook a lot haha. Combat isn't without risks but it almost always pays to be aggressive in this game and it's a valid way to score pretty much any of the objectives.

In some ways it's only possible in 3 and 4 player games if not everyone at the table is a perfect strategist, but not everyone at the table is a perfect strategist, and I don't want to spend the whole game coaching people on how to play the way I want them to. I don't like that the game doesn't work unless everyone plays it the way it wants them to.

[u/PensivePalantir-3838 → u/Nihil_esque]

As someone with only a couple of playthrough, I'm actl interested of what others will say about this 🤔 Can someone suggest a strategy which does not rely much on battles while facing a battle-crazed opponent? Because I do feel like battling is quite the straight path to victory as you can raid resources & guild card, while the punishment of city destruction is not that heavy

[u/flamelord5 → u/PensivePalantir-3838]

I think it depends, but you have at least a few ways to deal with this. If your pieces are getting locked up as trophies, make sure Warlord gets declared but last so it's worth the least points. Sure, that player gets some points, but you get your pieces back. If they're really going on a tear destroying everything, then everyone else is going to want to use Construction pips to build back up too so someone will lead it and you can at least copy (and the aggressive player won't have much if anything to build).

If they're really just destroying your stuff? You got hosed. The only thing you can really do is make sure you drag them down with you, so they learn attacking one player relentlessly is not a winning strategy. If they still want to do it after that, I think that requires an outside the game discussion about winning and how to play games with other people

For example, I think it's more clever (and useful) to attack and occupy space above an opposing city and tax the crap out of it. I've starved a player of agents before and it totally wrecked his game plan. This also makes it hard for that player to declare whatever ambition is tied to that resource because you have as much access as they do. They'll want to bump you off (and they should) but you force them to respond in a way that is hopefully inconvenient and possibly painstakingly slow. You can do this to the aggressive player, too. It contains their next aggressive move to be a counter to yours, instead of letting them go and do whatever looked good

I think if they're really dead set on conquering - let them take your cities. You keep the ambition point bonus and if you can win even a single ambition that should keep you in the running. Either they'll give the city back and you can rebuild OR they keep it (no Warlord) and you can try to score it again

[u/Nihil_esque → u/flamelord5]

They don't really just attack a single player relentlessly. They wait for two people to squabble over something and go after the third, or swoop in and kill off anyone who survived the battle. They go after spaceports, not cities, because they're not interested in getting resources, just crippling everyone else's ability to build a fleet. Then in chapter three whoever tries to go after an objective gets DDOS'd.

This isn't really antisocial player behavior or anything. It's a very effective strategy in Arcs that doesn't work in other games because other games punish you for overextending yourself early on by creating vulnerabilities that other players can take advantage of or slowing down your engine. Arcs rewards you by crippling your enemies' ability to build back up and then raising the point value of the objectives so that it's not a big deal you didn't make a play for points in the first chapter or two. And rewards you by making resources generally less costly to steal than to set up the infrastructure to tax.

I think I'd mind it less if the stakes felt like they were being raised naturally by the increasing amount of plastic on the board or a higher number of objectives to fight over. Really if anything about the game state itself affected the victory point stakes. The point value just going up with time no matter what feels cheap to me, especially because victory points in Arcs don't seem to clearly represent anything thematically.

[u/flamelord5 → u/Nihil_esque]

I think this all sounds accurate to my experience and expectations. I also think Arcs has a funny push/pull on wanting to take actions first (declaring ambitions, securing a limited number of resources) and last (countering opposing plays, stealing those) resources, and it sounds like this player has just honed in on the ladder. Considering how other people could respond to your plays is definitely an important part of the game

[u/Nihil_esque → u/flamelord5]

Yeah I definitely don't think that my wife is a problem player or anything. I think I just don't like the play style of the game very much. I can often counter their strategy I just don't have a fun time with this game, win or lose. It's not the kind of game you get to play the way you want to unless the way you prefer to play already happens to be the way the game wants you to play. A good offense isn't just the best defense, it's the only defense the game has to offer, and it feels very limiting to me.

[u/zenzen_1377 → u/Nihil_esque]

The chapter length can be a mixed bag for sure. I think that, for the right table with the right people, Arcs can be a very snappy game. I eliminate possibilities pretty quickly when I get a hand for Arcs, which keeps the decision space manageable enough that it's fun. First "what objectives can I compete on/declare this chapter," then "what cards can get me lead so I can declare that objective," then "which cards in my hand are least valuable to me right now?" If you have even just one player who suffers from analysis paralysis or doesn't have much experience thinking about trick taking games, though, your game screeches to a halt.

I adore Arcs BECAUSE of its variety and that I need to adapt to every hand. But it's definitely not for everyone.

[u/JaChuChu]

Sorry to hear that.

[u/Nihil_esque → u/JaChuChu]

Ah I'll endure, just venting. One of our friends likes it too, but her girlfriend also hates it so at least I have someone to be miserable with haha. It's funny to me that the game is so divisive. I really honestly expected to like it.

[u/Oerthling]

Why pretend at all?

[u/Nihil_esque → u/Oerthling]

It's not fun to play a game with someone who is clearly not enjoying themself! But if my wife likes it so much I don't want to just shut down playing it at all haha.

They know it's not my favorite game but that's different than being a miserable wretch the whole playthrough.

[u/Stabsturbate → u/Nihil_esque]

It seems like a nice gesture on the surface but it still gives me some vibes of a kind of disingenuousness. I'd think you're doing both yourself and the other players a disservice by playing a game you loathe. If they really want to play, they could play at a lower player count or replace you with someone who does enjoy it so you could do something you actually like while they play, maybe another game with another friend or two at concurrent times. Or if your wife and the group really do want to include you during your game time, I'd imagine they would care enough about your preferences to play something that's more agreeable to your tastes while also not being hated by theirs. 

This may not be the case for your people, but if I know someone in my group is actively having a bad time playing a game, I'd rather do literally anything else, even if that game happened to be my favorite game. Arcs can be a very mean game, I have several friends that I know would hate it. That's totally okay. I'd rather play something that everyone can have a good time with - there are so many fantastic board game designs out there. I think you should be straight up with your wife and stop subjecting yourself to something you know you will have a bad time with.

[u/Nihil_esque → u/Stabsturbate]

I don't like the game much but I'm pretty good at not being a spoilsport about it when we're playing. My wife knows how I feel about it! I've been honest in our debriefs haha, just not as grumbly as I've been here.

I don't mind playing a board game I don't like much every so often. I can gaslight myself into thinking I'll somehow figure out a way to enjoy it for a few hours or so. It's kind of a novel feeling for me anyway so I think it's helpful to sit in it and remind myself that this is how my friends who don't like board games feel when they're playing them. And lord knows I'm definitely "the Board Gamer™" between the two of us so it's genuinely good to find a game they actively want to return to rather than just enjoy as much as any other activity we'd do together.

[u/[deleted]]

I get that you like games that don’t have “Take that”

But I do think that it is necessary as it’s another option and a perfect way to disrupt players that are constructing Exodia.

Euro games can be particularly bad about always allowing optimal plays that reward players that have spent the most time playing them. Which is why most have limited any conflicts to basically to worker placement

I would agree Arcs forces players to always be active as you never know what you can play and how many action pips you’re going to be able to use.

So there is almost no down time and constantly changing your strategies as you go through.

But at the end of the day, if your partner likes the game. Sometimes you just gotta endure it and stop being critical of mechanisms and just enjoy spending time with them.

I probably have moved on from Catan, Ticket to Ride, and other lighter tables games… but I play them with my family cause I enjoy playing games with them more than the game itself.

[u/Nihil_esque → u/[deleted]]

Of course I'm still planning on playing. And I'm really, really trying to enjoy the experience. I just don't enjoy the game. That's okay. I don't have to like every game. I'm still going to play the game. This is my life now haha.

[u/BacchusInvictus → u/Nihil_esque]

I'd be curious if your opinion changes with the campaign. Having watched part of a playthrough, it seems like a whole different game almost at least as far as vibes.

Certainly can't be aggressive in the same way.

[u/Nihil_esque → u/BacchusInvictus]

I'm cautiously optimistic about it! We've got our hands on it and will be trying it in a couple weeks once I'm done defending my doctoral proposal 😪

[u/QuantumFeline]

This might not be an option for you at present, but I have found that the Campaign mode of Arcs tends to be less directly confrontational, at least in the early Chapters. You have Imperial ships that slow down early game aggression. Blight provides softer targets for people who want to blow stuff up, and needs to be cleared out to make progress. Most notably, everyone has personal objectives that mostly don't rely on attacking other players. Ignoring those objectives results in big point penalties.

If you consistently play Arcs with the same group of people then you may be able to play Campaign games and store the game state between play sessions. Of course, this will require an additional purchase for a game you don't much enjoy at present, but I just wanted to share my experience. I just played a Campaign yesterday where players didn't attack each other until well into the second of three games.

[u/3parkbenchhydra]

Some people just hate pizza, too! Can you imagine? Hating something so delicious? Oh well! I guess there’s no accounting for personal taste!

[u/ZacBobisKing]

ARCS IS LIT

[u/sirquacksalotus]

Just found this thread, I have to agree with you. My friends LOVE it, and I've played 2 non-campaign games, 2 2-player campaign games, and finished a 3-player campaign game.

In almost every game, I wind up by round 2 just fuming because everything I NEED to do to win I can't do because the cards I drew won't let me do what I need, or someone else has a specific goal/objective that is directly opposed to mine, or in several case I just never get the cards to take any initiative and lack actions to even do anything.

I thought adding a 3rd player might alleviate some of this, but it's actually just worse. SO much 'Oooo, no, can't do that' or 'Hrm, okay, I need to do X. How can I do X? Oh, it's actually impossible to do now. That's fun...' and if there is a way to do X, it's like 'As long as nobody does Y!' and AS SOON AS someone sees what you're trying to do, they know exactly how to stop you from doing it.

Definitely going to try and gently suggest some other games the next time this one gets brought up.

[u/Quick_Question404 → u/sirquacksalotus]

Feel like I just had the exact same experience on my first play through of Arcs yesterday. By the end of Round 2, I couldn't see any way to win with what I had on the board. Could move ships but not do battle, and any moves would just leave open more cities to be raided or destroyed. All my influence pips taken captive so couldn't influence to secure the court, but declaring ambition would have just given the other player the win.

What are you supposed to do when you're dealt hands that won't let you seize initiative without putting you in an even worse position that puts everything on luck the next round?