Die minimalste Änderung des Balancings, was ein Benutzer angemahnt hat, hat also so gut wie keine Auswirkung auf das Spiel (was mich auch gewundert hätte).
Da ich den Thread heute auch gelesen habe bzw. mit Neugier die Einschätzung des Autors zum veränderten Balancing, hier auch für andere, die das interessiert:
"Hey there guys, I just stumble on this post and I'd like to check out with you the changes that were made for the German version.
I just talked with Inside Up today while they were speaking with people at Skellig games. If I understand correctly, what happened is that Skellig wanted to keep the game as thematic as possible. While working on the translation, they transferred some Geographic, Colour and Animal from names of plants that where different in German than in English on other cards. In total, there's the exact same number of Geographic, Colour and Animal cards in the 283 cards deck. They did that to avoid having bold, italic or underline words in the names of cards that would not make sense.
In the end, the overall balance of the game is identical since the % of Geographic, Colour and Animal were kept the same. Objective wise, the game would be identical, with the same odds of playing or drawing such cards. The difference in balance would come on some specific cards that either lost or gained one of these elements. I think they did modify a total of 17 of them over the 283 cards deck of cards.
The actual average value of a Geographic, Colour or Animal is about 0.47 vp per card per game, given the odds that one or more objective targeting them come out. The tolerance I kept for cards at the same soil cost is a 1.5 vp range in average scoring. For example, at a certain soil cost, cards would generate about 16.38 to 17.87 vp over many, many games. This means that, for at least half of those 17 cards, they would still be within the limits I kept while designing the game. Half of them would fall a little below or higher than this limit. That would mean 9 cards out of 283 will score in average 0.3 vp higher or lower than their initial fixed values, that is for 3% of the cards. So, as for the example stated above, the 9 cards would score between extremes of 15.91 vp to 18.34 instead of 16.38 to 17.87, most of them being still closer to the original range.
In the end, Skellig took the decision that it wasn't a big variation that would be applied only to a low number of cards. Thus, they preferred to keep the thematic feel, right translation and bold, underline and italic at the right places in Card's names for their localization. On the game play level, it changes nothing in the viability of some strategic paths or the global balance of the game since the same % exists in the game. It modifies the balance of some cards for sure, but without the formula it would be impossible for a human eye to see such differences between the cards over a big number of games. They then decided to keep the best translation possible and preserve the theme over slight variance on several of the cards.
So, this is my analysis of the situation, I don't read German and I'm not sure about all the details, but I hope this helps a bit clarify the differences applied to the German version! Let me know if I've missed anything about it!"
Ich denke, das ist noch verkraftbar und ich begrüße den Einsatz von Skellig, möglichst thematisch zu bleiben. Die echten Fehler auf den Karten sind ärgerlich, aber auch nicht so dramatisch, wie ein User auf BGG schrieb ("unplayable").
Mein Exemplar kam gerade an. Jetzt müssen nur noch die Sleeves ankommen und es wird getestet.
Welches Sleeves hast du genommen? Die Angaben auf BGG schwanken zw. 56x87, 57x89 und 57,5x89, also small American Standard, American Standard und Chimera.