These reviews were left by users who have played the game. If you'd like to leave a review, you can start by going to the game page.
Maybe there is something here. I might play it again. The asymmetry is interesting, and suggests a path to you based on your faction, but doesn't really force you into it. I feel like further plays of this one might be interesting for a while, but I don't think this would have any staying power in the long run.
1-4 players, card drafting/tableau building, medium heavy game, 75-90 minutes.Rating based on a couple of plays, both solo and with 2 players. I like the mechanics and flow of the game and the art work is really appealing, very colourful with nice wooden bits. Traded the game away, but decided to add it to the collection once again as I'd like to play this some more, try the different nations and perhaps some of the expansions.https://boardgamegeek.com/article/26446670
Didn't do much for me. The asymmetry is nice, I guess, but the drafting and interaction is hampered by some of the samey-ness of the cards and the really tiny font. Normally I don't complain about font sizes, but how am I supposed to be able to look across the table to discern what my opponents can do and want when the cards are so difficult to read? Smooth enough mechanically, but didn't grab me.
I've only played this solo so far. It seems fine. I haven't decided if I want to try with more people. It's a standard civ game. Build up your production and use it to get points and fight stuff. It's not that hard, but I also see how this game could be fun with more people. There's room for a lot of take-that. But in a way that wouldn't feel random. You'll all be hitting each other, but it's more expensive than just attacking NPCs for resources; so it should be done with precision.
This will take some getting used to. It seems wonky, but that's happened before prior to a game clicking for me. I am also going with the designer's pedigree here... he's yet to let me down in any significant way, so I will slog through this phase.
This is a bit of an unfair 5-rating in that it's a personal 5, or a 5 for me, but I see how Imperial Settlers is a good game and why others would rate it much higher. I've just come to realize that deck builders/hand builders/tableau builders where turns take longer and longer so each player can "run" their area don't appeal to me too much. This might work better as a 2-player only game. PROS -Theme and art are fun! CONS -Card abilities are not that exciting; most are just point generators. -Gathering resources to build three or more cards in a round felt like too much of a struggle. It reminded me of City of Remnants where I just spent 2/3 of the game scraping enough together to do one small action. -Despite the "razing" mechanic, player interaction is pretty minimal. -Quite hard to keep track of what others were building or working toward in a 4-player game.
Play with 2 players. There are many things bored me from enjoying the game: Little interaction, solitaire gameplay, luck dependent on the first round draw. Micro management and maximize the resource are not enough to get me though the hours of the game.
Solid card game. It's fairly easy to teach (rule of 3s) but has a ton of emergent depth. It's an engine builder that runs exactly long enough to let you do everything you want to do. It's incredibly variable. It can be played as cutthroat or solitaire as you want. It even has a compelling solo variant! Edit: trading because it's VERY good, but we just like 51st State more. Can't justify keeping both.
First game was a learn as you go type affair. Luckily nobody seemed to mind and we had a fun time getting to grips with it. Everyone enjoyed it, including me. This is a keeper, but requires a players guide and a few rule clarifications before playing again. 2nd game. I'm finding that i want to like this game a bit more than i actually do. 2 games in and the barbarians won both. The first game left me thinking i could have done better due to not knowing how it works. The 2nd game left me thinking that i had lost by round 4.
A Race for the Galaxy-esque tableau/engine-builder with some asymmetric factions that score differently. The base game is way more solitaire than Race, despite the ostensible interaction of razing opponents' locations. I would just rather play Race.
Was the ability to raze an opponents building added after it was designed to add player interaction because the designer realized that it was multiplayer solitaire? It feels tacked on, especially the ability to protect one building, on your turn only. Other than that the game feels too long, 5 rounds? By the end you've torn down all of your generic building for faction specific ones and have to spend 10 minutes fiddling with resources for optimization. The game also lacks strategic depth, the optimal play is fairly obvious from the first playthrough, and this adds to the drawn out feel of the game as you will spend time going through the motions of playing without too much enjoyment.