I'll be waiting... with a gun and a pack of sandwiches (Flying colours, Way Out West)

Lots of gunfire this evening.

Luch, Kozure and I opened with Flying Colours, a naval war game from GMT. We played an introductory scenario which boils down the conflict to a simple 2 vs 1 fight. Luch and I teamed up as the British and Kozure played the lone (but much larger) french ship. It's a basic hex and counter war game, played on a large paper map of the ocean. Rules, for our scenario at least, were quite simple for a wargame. Movement factors in wind direction in a simple way, and other than that the rest of the rules involved combat (choosing to shoot the hull or the sails, arc of fire restrictions, dice result tables, etc). In our brief session, Luch and I sped along to the back of Kozure's ship. Along the way, I took a shot just as I was rounding the bend and started a fire onboard his ship. Then, I took a perfect shot right down the length of his hull and cleared the way for Luch to do the same. We both rolled high, and the French sunk like rocks.

We got pretty lucky, and I'd say the scenario felt pretty heavily weighted in our favour (Kozure confirmed this later). Still, it seemed like the system would be fun enough to play a more fleshed out scenario next time.

Next, we played Way Out West. JayWowzer and Shemp had arrived. I think it's the first time we've played with five.

Full disclosure: I always feel lost when I play this game. Although eurogames frequently make you feel like there are all sorts of things you'd like to do, and very few actions to do them, WoW takes is a few steps further and I never feel like I'm being effective. In fact, I was convinced that I'd never even come close to winning before (though, apparently I won our last game. I'll have to re-read that post to remember it).

True to form, the game started and I was perpetually broke, never in possession of the store or hotel where it was usefull (or the wagon, for that matter). I decided to build the jail everywhere, and see if I could take other buildings over later on. I also decided I'd try to start fights when the odds were approximately 3 to 4 against me (since the weaker side shoots first, it seems like an advantage to go in weaker). Whether it's an ill advised plan to start with, or luck just wasn't on my side, all I can say is I tried to put that plan in action on 2 occasions in Abalene and both times I lost everything. I was down to 1 cowboy on the board (in Kansas) and it was protecting the last 4 cows I had on the board. I thought I was sunk. Then, something funny happened... everybody started fighting each other around me and THEY lost everything. My cows in Kansas city stayed safe (giving me the majority) and Dodge City went from raging metropolis to ghost town. I had since placed 2 cowboys there and had my pick of the buildings to take over. Having gained the majority (through buildings, I still had no cows outside of Abalene) I scored big at the endgame and won.

On my ride home, I was thinking about how my win was mostly a result of other people misfortune, and how JayWowser wound up with very little to do on his final few turns. It occurred to me that these are similar "issues" we've had with Conquest of the Empire... another Wallace game (more or less). The limit of 2 actions per turn in both games force players to make things happen over a series of moves, and the fact that certain items must be in place (cowboys, in this instance) and that they are easily lost, can easily lead to situations where players have nothing to do. I think I called this a problem of "inertia" in CotE. Anyway, it's just an observation. I'll lump Way Out West into the same category as Shogun... games I always find fun for the experience, despite the fact they ... might not work exactly right as a strategy game. They are also similar in the sense that they FEEL heavy and strategy oriented in most of their mechanics, but are then sent kareening in the other direction by one or two aspects of the game.

But really, could the Wild West and strategy REALLY be found in the same game and feel right? Probably not.

edit: I re-read the last Way Out West post, to see if I had really won. I did. Unsurprisingly, the reason was similar: the leading player was undone, and I spied an opportunity in the aftermath. Who knew the cowboy way favoured the sneaky?

2nd edit: a quick trip to BGG shows me we are not the only ones that want to redo the board. There are already a number of alternates there for download!

Random games (Blue Moon City, Goa, Transeuropa, Carcassonne)

With Bharmer and Kozure out this week, I was glad I had packed my bag with a number of games that were good at three.

Blue Moon City

I explained the rules to Shemp, and then he proceeded to show US how the game is played. Clearly, the man has a knack for the it because as much as luck has a big role in the game, strategy is very important and he really seemed like he knew what he was doing (he avoided wasting cards on getting scales when he couldn't win the majority, for example, wich is a very common mistake). In the final turns of the game, Shemp was one offering from winning with a pile of crystals in front of him. He skipped the obelisk and went to a building, so he obviously was just short one or two. I was also one offering away, but quite a bit short on crystals. Lucky for me, Luch forced the payout of scales on his turn and I was the big beneficiary. With my newfound wealth, I managed to swoop in for the win. Shemp should have won, but such is luck. This is my favorite middleweight game right now, always extremely enjoyable. Too bad it maxes out at 4 players.

Goa

And another fine game which is limited to 4. Shemp hadn't played this one either so we explained it and got underway (in record time, too). I couldn't really get things working right... always short one or two actions from doing what I wanted properly. Worst of all, Luch kept getting to level 4 in each track just before I would! He won quite handily, with all four islands discovered and a well advanced set of tracks. I'll have to look it up, but I think Luch creamed us last time we played this too. I guess everyone has a inclination for certain games.

Transeuropa

Since we had about 1/2 hour left, we brought out Shemp's copy of Transeuropa. I've played Transamerica quite often, but not this version. I can't say it felt substantially different, with the sole exception that some of the Nordic countries seem particularly hard to get to. Luch took a major dive on the first round, bringing him to within 1 point of losing. Then, as this game often does, things flipped pretty dramatically in the following rounds and I wound up losing big time (I think Shemp and Luch tied for the win)

Carcassonne

With 10 minutes left, we opted for speed Carcassonne. As soon as you play a tile, you grab your next one. As soon as it's your turn, you must play. This is one for the Conan brain, and apparently I don't have one... I SUCKED. I beleive I was lapped by both players. Oh well! (the end of the game comes REAL FAST with just the base tiles). I think Shemp won on the strength of his farmers. Game over in 10 minutes flat.

Where...are...you? (Clue: The Great Museum Caper, Fury of Dracula, To Court the King)

Shemp and Bharmer were out this week, but in an email to us Shemp mentioned we should take this occasion to play Lord of the Rings: Sauron and Clue: The Great Museum Caper, since he hates them and he won't be there. I wanted to play Fury of Dracula, so I couldn't completely satisfy his request, but 1 out of 2 ain't bad, right?

Clue: The Great Museum Caper

I'm not sure why I keep bringing this one out, because it just doesn't seem to work. There's a part of me that really wants this to be a really good casual-friendly game (as it's described by many on BGG), but each session ends the same way... the thief didn't have a chance. I thought that playing with 3 players would be better balanced than with 4, and it was, but not probably enough. In our two games, the thief was caught easily before there was much danger of a successful escape with 3 paintings. Maybe rolling d6 for the detectives is too much or maybe the layout of the board is too restrictive. Fortunately (unfortunately ?), I got another glimmer of hope during the final few moves of my turn as the thief which will probably cause me to give it yet another go: I don't think I"ve been capitalising enough on the order of movement of the detectives. In other words, If I move between each detective's turn I am much safer running towards a player that just moved because I will get to move once or twice before that player gets another turn. I'm pretty sure I've been letting the location of the pawns and my objectives dictate my move, and possibly the game would be easier if the thief took greater advantage of the timing aspect.

Still, it's so easy to get backed into a corner by the detectives... I'll probably give it one last try at some point and then trade it away.

Fury of Dracula

Another game of hidden movement, but this one far more successful in design. Fury of Dracula is a game I really enjoy as a change of pace. It represents, to me, many of the great things "Ameritrash" games bring to the table (well integrated theme, mostly) but streamlined with eurogame sensibilities to make it a manageable and reasonably smooth experience.

Dracula was played by Kozure this time, so this was my first game ever on the hunters' side. Luch had Lord Godalming and Seward. I had Van Helsing and Mina. Kozure played an excellent game of cat and mouse, starting out in the east and snaking around us while convincing us that he was elsewhere (in fact, a lucky card draw revealed that his starting location was right next to us, and yet he managed to evade us and remain hidden most of the game). A well armed Van Helsing did manage to find and attack the count in Munich and inflict enormous damage with his stake and sacred bullets but he fell a few points short of sealing the deal... Dracula escaped and a hapless Mina soon wandered into a well protected catacomb where she died and gave Kozure the victory.

I'm curious how many Dracula victories are directly a result of Mina's death. Both of ours have been.

The reason I think this game succeeds so well is that the rules are fairly streamlined and the amount of dice rolling and modifiers which need to be kept track of a kept to a minimum. Also, the "hidden character" works because finding it is not the only goal... you also have to kill it. This means that the tension inherent in trying to pin down the count (or in evading the characters, if you're Dracula) doesn't operate in a straight line. You may have to find, fight and find again several times over the course of the game. I like it because it avoids the *cheap victory* feeling you get in Clue:TGMC (for example) when you accidentally land on the thief and win the game. My only complaint is that it takes too much space on the table for all the bits and character cards, that the game runs a little too long, and that the combat system is a little clunky (all the separate decks, the downtime it creates, the fruitless "loops" which can occur in combat). I'm not sure what system could have improved on these points without sacrificing flavor, but it would be interesting to come up with one.

To Court the King

Luch left us, so me and Kozure tried out To Court the King, a dice rolling game which seems to try to mash together Yahtzee and (insert random renaissance Italy themed euro... Louis XIV? Princes of Florence?).

Game play is simple enough. Roll three dice, set at least one aside, and roll again until all dice have been set aside. According to the result of the rolls (a pair, a full house, a straight), you may be able to purchase a card which will give you a special power towards all your subsequent rolls. Maybe you'll be able to roll and additional die, set the value of one of your dice, re-roll a die, etc, etc. The first player to roll 7 of a kind ends the game and then a final roll-off determines the winner.

Deciding which character cards to try to purchase, and then how to best use their powers, is fairly fun. I imagine for more than 3 players the downtime might get too high, and there is the real potential that the best choice will eventually become too easy to pick out, but it will take more games to know for sure. I wish there was a bit more tension in the choices, however. It would have been nice, for example, if collecting 1s somehow yielded powerful cards to offset the risk of going after such a weak suit. As it is, 6s are always better than 3s or 1s. Higher totals always win. Different viable strategies might have made it more engaging.

I can't really say that it grabbed me too much, but it certainly wasn't bad (I guess I'm just not sure in what circumstances I'd want to play it in the future... it's got too much going on for non-gamers, it's too long for filler and too random for a serious game). I think I'll prbably trade it sooner rather than later.

In the game we played, I made it to seven of a kind first, but the queen it gave me was not enough to let me win the game. Kozure took it with 8 (or 9?) of a kind.