We finally had a nearly normal week at wags, with three people in attendance and everything! It was my pick, but we weren't sure how long we would have so I kept it to relatively short games.
Alien frontiers
Shemp hadn't played this yet, but it,s rather simple so it didn't take too long. Alien frontiers has been a bit of a disappointment for me.... I enjoy it, but not overly. I hadn't yet played it with more than two, and the added interaction and blocking was welcome, but the downtime that comes with it was not so great. In this session I felt that the interplay on the planet was somewhat missing, though. In my last game with Kozure, we had taken advantage of the alien tech cards and their abilities to move space colonies around on the planet and this had added substantially to the game in my opinion. This session, we were mostly just placing them and leaving them be.
Anyway, Kozure managed to win this one. I was in the running, and Shemp was going the "tech king" route which probably would have payed dividends if the game had a lasted a little longer.
Vikings
Tonight was also our second session of Vikings and WAGS. I had been looking forward to playing this again because I had enjoyed the design. Shemp has built his collection out of games that are simple yet engaging straight euros (Carcassonne, Acquire, Transamerica, Santiago, etc). There is a nice mix of straightforward design and tough decisions that makes it a light puzzly auction game.
This one came down to the wire. Kozure and I were tied on points, but he had more left over coins for the win. Shemp looked like he was running away with it at the beginning, but this is one of those games that leaves much of the points for endgame bonuses so it can be unpredictable.
7 wonders
Another game of 7 Wonders. This is consistently enjoyable and I don't see that changing. I might sleeve the cards, because they are starting to show wear ( a problem in hidden card selection games!). We all played uncharacteristically, with me going after military and eschewing science, Shemp doing science and Kozure competing with me in military. It's one of those games where you are rewarded for not doing what the others do, but at the same time once begone down a path it's hard to change it.
With no one else going after science, Shemp managed to accumulate quite a bit. It,s hard to beat an unopposed science strategy.... Shemp won.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
Green Eggs and Eyes (Go) + Haaaaroooo! *jowl wagging* Nixon Gets in Early, B*tches! (1960)
So I (Kozure) have been meaning to get in better touch with my Japanese roots and force myself to play a game of Go.
A little background... I dislike abstract games. I would use the word "loathe", except that I really appreciate the effort and clarity of vision that is required to distill a game into its most intrinsic elements. That said, if you pull out a game of Dvonn or Yinsh or Nqyltz or whatever, I get the same sensation that I would feel if I were asked to participate in a three day symposium on the economic theory behind 18th century Paraguayan quantity surveying; I'm sure would be enjoyable for some people on this planet - I am not one of those people.
For me, Go fell into the same category of pre-5AM push-ups; I knew that I would benefit from doing it, but the thought of the effort required wasn't making me rush out to start.
However, I force myself to eat fish because I know it's good for me (my Japanese ancestors finger their ghostly wakizashi short swords in shame), even though I dislike the taste, texture and look of most cooked fish, but I eat it nonetheless, so I felt it was time that I swallowed my mental gag reflex and gave Go a decent shot.
The other thing that held me back is that for such a simple game, I could tell that it is dripping with deep strategies. Strategies within strategies. Strategies within strategies within strategies. Strategies so strategic that it reaches a Zen state of strategy. Literally.
I am bad at strategy. Not horrendously bad, good enough that I can tell that I am bad, which is probably both a blessing and a curse. I can hold my own in some strategic games, but in most games where very long term strategy is key, I will be used as a mop to wipe up the blood of my countless slaughtered gameboard minions.
"But," I said to myself, "this is Go, we're talking about here. This is a game where gameplay is rumoured to be so eloquent that Zen masters can hold off of bashing their students about the noggins for several days just to finish a game."
"Self," I said, "You need to play this game."
So, I borrowed a copy from a friend, along with a strategy guide, read the rules and... put it back on the shelf. It's been sitting there for nigh on two years (the friend told me to hang onto the game). I just couldn't wrap my head around the strategy or the appeal.
Recently my wife introduced our eldest son to chess. As an highly-strategic abstract (albeit a wargame-y one), I have a sort of love-hate relationship with chess. I love it because it's a battle, the figures and the board are just so beautiful in all of their incarnations, and its obviously such a remarkably distilled and studied game. I hate it because it's intimidating to game with a better player, and my strategic skills are not such that I feel equal to playing others with any modicum of skill. Playing chess with my son again reminded me of the classical beauty of the game - the strategy involved was deep, but the game itself was also pleasurable.
Recently our games night attendance has dropped to two at times for a variety of reasons, so I took another deep breath and proposed that Shemp and I play Go. He's played before, but not often - he thinks 12 or 15 times - not often that I'd be embarrassed to even venture to compete, anyway.
Now Shemp cares very little for theme. It's not that he dislikes them, but he doesn't care one way or the other if a game is well-themed. I'm almost on the other side of the spectrum. I want that "real-world" connection. I want to simulate the trajectory of a APCBC round from a M1 57mm anti-tank gun smacking into the Zimmermit-slathered front glacis of a PzKfw V Panther Ausf G tank. I want my cubes to be representative of specific commodities, not generic "colours". I want theme!
Go.
(deep breath)
We start simple. 9 x 9 grid. We pick randomly for side. I've read enough of the strategy to place somewhere in the middle of one of the quadrants. I pick a point and play a stone. Shane initially plays conservatively and starts into his own little quadrant. I start to flesh out an eye, then he comes at me with an aggressive play. I treat it like a wargame and consolidate my position, forming a line and linking my chains. I realize there is a definite real-world connection - the connected lines of orthogonal plays are like battle lines, strong, but requiring "supply" in the form of liberties. He continues to push. I try to lengthen my lines. He continues to push. Even with simple stones and points, there is an amazing simulation going on here.
I see the inklings of strategies and how they relate to board position begin form in my mind. He is pushing me. Fine, I will push back. Then, I push too far. I realize I have overextended. I can keep trying to develop this salient, or I can approach it from a different angle. I realize I am throwing good money after bad and play into another quadrant of the board.
Shane looks at me with a expression of mild surprise, "Good play."
(later he says he saw "the penny drop" in my mind)
The game develops. Shane develops a strong chain in the centre, but I am trying for an envelopment strategy. Unfortunately he's too quick and experienced and manages a stable two eye structure. He's also seen the weakness of another portion of my line and starts attacking it. I attack in another direction to change tempo. He backs off his attack to shore up his own flank. I take the breathing room to shore up my chains. He comes back at me, but this time I've got a better footing. He makes a play to get around behind.
I try another angle - I realize that I can also feint, and sacrifice, much as in chess.
At this point, I realize I've been thinking too linearly - too much in terms of real-world strategy. New perceptions open up. This sounds trite/clichéd, but the game is opening up to me. It's like a chime has rung in my mind. Lines are static, conservative. Diagonals are dynamic, aggressive.
We continue playing, but with each stone, I'm trying to drop my pre-conceptions of warfighting and concentrate on the simple - life and death - and then "zoom out" to the complex - stable systems - growing systems, dying systems.
Basho's frog leaps into the pond.
I am playing now with thought, but also "no thought" - I reach a point where I think I have managed a good position, but I will have to fight to the finish to be sure. We are grappling over the interstitial spaces between our strong chains and some of the edges of the board. I've managed an anchor of sorts in one corner, he has one, one is denied to either of us and we're fighting for the third.
Then, suddenly, Shemp says, "I pass."
I've forgotten completely that's an option in gameplay. I blink for a moment and consider the board. Have I missed something? I think back to the rules. My recollection is that if both players pass in succession the game is ended. I ask if that's the case.
He nods, knowingly.
I look at the board. I think I have won. I don't know enough about the game to be sure.
"I believe that I have more empty points," I begin, uncertainly, "so if I pass at this point, I win, correct?"
He smiles broadly.
I pass as well. I have won my first game of Go.
This game is amazing. I couldn't grasp it until I was playing but it is astoundingly deep. Even knowing going in how deep it was, I didn't realize it - couldn't internalize it.
I don't know how easy Shemp was going on me. Perhaps he was holding back, perhaps not. He's not the type to hold back usually, and he's only played just over a dozen times. I'll chalk it up to luck backed up with a little skill.
Or, as my dabblings in the river of Zen has taught me, "Zen mind, beginner's mind."
I asked for another game, but Shemp wanted a rematch in 1960: Making of the President last night. We randomly chose candidates - I got Nixon this time. Again it was a close game in the end, but I won 299 votes to Kennedy/Shemp's 238. AGAIN it came down to Cook County deciding Illinois and Early Returns from Connecticut deciding California. I had leapt to an early lead in the South and West, and we really duked it out in the Midwest and East.
He snaked Texas and Pennsylvania from me in the last turn, and almost (almost!) got California as well with two CA cards in his campaign strategy hole. Nice try, Jack. Maybe in 1964!
Good game, good opponent, great night. (Except for thinking I had left the games on the roof of my car, asking Shemp to go look for them in the streets outside my house, and then discovering I had left them on his washing machine in the basement)
A little background... I dislike abstract games. I would use the word "loathe", except that I really appreciate the effort and clarity of vision that is required to distill a game into its most intrinsic elements. That said, if you pull out a game of Dvonn or Yinsh or Nqyltz or whatever, I get the same sensation that I would feel if I were asked to participate in a three day symposium on the economic theory behind 18th century Paraguayan quantity surveying; I'm sure would be enjoyable for some people on this planet - I am not one of those people.
For me, Go fell into the same category of pre-5AM push-ups; I knew that I would benefit from doing it, but the thought of the effort required wasn't making me rush out to start.
However, I force myself to eat fish because I know it's good for me (my Japanese ancestors finger their ghostly wakizashi short swords in shame), even though I dislike the taste, texture and look of most cooked fish, but I eat it nonetheless, so I felt it was time that I swallowed my mental gag reflex and gave Go a decent shot.
The other thing that held me back is that for such a simple game, I could tell that it is dripping with deep strategies. Strategies within strategies. Strategies within strategies within strategies. Strategies so strategic that it reaches a Zen state of strategy. Literally.
I am bad at strategy. Not horrendously bad, good enough that I can tell that I am bad, which is probably both a blessing and a curse. I can hold my own in some strategic games, but in most games where very long term strategy is key, I will be used as a mop to wipe up the blood of my countless slaughtered gameboard minions.
"But," I said to myself, "this is Go, we're talking about here. This is a game where gameplay is rumoured to be so eloquent that Zen masters can hold off of bashing their students about the noggins for several days just to finish a game."
"Self," I said, "You need to play this game."
So, I borrowed a copy from a friend, along with a strategy guide, read the rules and... put it back on the shelf. It's been sitting there for nigh on two years (the friend told me to hang onto the game). I just couldn't wrap my head around the strategy or the appeal.
Recently my wife introduced our eldest son to chess. As an highly-strategic abstract (albeit a wargame-y one), I have a sort of love-hate relationship with chess. I love it because it's a battle, the figures and the board are just so beautiful in all of their incarnations, and its obviously such a remarkably distilled and studied game. I hate it because it's intimidating to game with a better player, and my strategic skills are not such that I feel equal to playing others with any modicum of skill. Playing chess with my son again reminded me of the classical beauty of the game - the strategy involved was deep, but the game itself was also pleasurable.
Recently our games night attendance has dropped to two at times for a variety of reasons, so I took another deep breath and proposed that Shemp and I play Go. He's played before, but not often - he thinks 12 or 15 times - not often that I'd be embarrassed to even venture to compete, anyway.
Now Shemp cares very little for theme. It's not that he dislikes them, but he doesn't care one way or the other if a game is well-themed. I'm almost on the other side of the spectrum. I want that "real-world" connection. I want to simulate the trajectory of a APCBC round from a M1 57mm anti-tank gun smacking into the Zimmermit-slathered front glacis of a PzKfw V Panther Ausf G tank. I want my cubes to be representative of specific commodities, not generic "colours". I want theme!
Go.
(deep breath)
We start simple. 9 x 9 grid. We pick randomly for side. I've read enough of the strategy to place somewhere in the middle of one of the quadrants. I pick a point and play a stone. Shane initially plays conservatively and starts into his own little quadrant. I start to flesh out an eye, then he comes at me with an aggressive play. I treat it like a wargame and consolidate my position, forming a line and linking my chains. I realize there is a definite real-world connection - the connected lines of orthogonal plays are like battle lines, strong, but requiring "supply" in the form of liberties. He continues to push. I try to lengthen my lines. He continues to push. Even with simple stones and points, there is an amazing simulation going on here.
I see the inklings of strategies and how they relate to board position begin form in my mind. He is pushing me. Fine, I will push back. Then, I push too far. I realize I have overextended. I can keep trying to develop this salient, or I can approach it from a different angle. I realize I am throwing good money after bad and play into another quadrant of the board.
Shane looks at me with a expression of mild surprise, "Good play."
(later he says he saw "the penny drop" in my mind)
The game develops. Shane develops a strong chain in the centre, but I am trying for an envelopment strategy. Unfortunately he's too quick and experienced and manages a stable two eye structure. He's also seen the weakness of another portion of my line and starts attacking it. I attack in another direction to change tempo. He backs off his attack to shore up his own flank. I take the breathing room to shore up my chains. He comes back at me, but this time I've got a better footing. He makes a play to get around behind.
I try another angle - I realize that I can also feint, and sacrifice, much as in chess.
At this point, I realize I've been thinking too linearly - too much in terms of real-world strategy. New perceptions open up. This sounds trite/clichéd, but the game is opening up to me. It's like a chime has rung in my mind. Lines are static, conservative. Diagonals are dynamic, aggressive.
We continue playing, but with each stone, I'm trying to drop my pre-conceptions of warfighting and concentrate on the simple - life and death - and then "zoom out" to the complex - stable systems - growing systems, dying systems.
Basho's frog leaps into the pond.
I am playing now with thought, but also "no thought" - I reach a point where I think I have managed a good position, but I will have to fight to the finish to be sure. We are grappling over the interstitial spaces between our strong chains and some of the edges of the board. I've managed an anchor of sorts in one corner, he has one, one is denied to either of us and we're fighting for the third.
Then, suddenly, Shemp says, "I pass."
I've forgotten completely that's an option in gameplay. I blink for a moment and consider the board. Have I missed something? I think back to the rules. My recollection is that if both players pass in succession the game is ended. I ask if that's the case.
He nods, knowingly.
I look at the board. I think I have won. I don't know enough about the game to be sure.
"I believe that I have more empty points," I begin, uncertainly, "so if I pass at this point, I win, correct?"
He smiles broadly.
I pass as well. I have won my first game of Go.
This game is amazing. I couldn't grasp it until I was playing but it is astoundingly deep. Even knowing going in how deep it was, I didn't realize it - couldn't internalize it.
I don't know how easy Shemp was going on me. Perhaps he was holding back, perhaps not. He's not the type to hold back usually, and he's only played just over a dozen times. I'll chalk it up to luck backed up with a little skill.
Or, as my dabblings in the river of Zen has taught me, "Zen mind, beginner's mind."
I asked for another game, but Shemp wanted a rematch in 1960: Making of the President last night. We randomly chose candidates - I got Nixon this time. Again it was a close game in the end, but I won 299 votes to Kennedy/Shemp's 238. AGAIN it came down to Cook County deciding Illinois and Early Returns from Connecticut deciding California. I had leapt to an early lead in the South and West, and we really duked it out in the Midwest and East.
He snaked Texas and Pennsylvania from me in the last turn, and almost (almost!) got California as well with two CA cards in his campaign strategy hole. Nice try, Jack. Maybe in 1964!
Good game, good opponent, great night. (Except for thinking I had left the games on the roof of my car, asking Shemp to go look for them in the streets outside my house, and then discovering I had left them on his washing machine in the basement)
Saturday, April 09, 2011
You don't see the fast trolls too often (Dungeon Twister, Roma x3, Dvonn)
Work and life schedules are getting busier and busier... Kozure wasn't able to join us this week and I've been out for a few weeks myself. Shemp and I convened for an evening of two player games, determined to keep the WAGS torch burning.
Dungeon Twister
We started with Dungeon Twister, using the basic tiles and characters. Very early on in the game, the tile at Shemp's end of the board was revealed showing my troll and the speed potion. An unusually speedy troll sprinted to the finish line one turn later. Otherwise, it was fairly tit for tat as the game progressed... Shemp scoring a point, then me scoring a point. Then, suddenly, Shemp was in position to win because he was able to get the two points he needed. I strategized and came up with a way to frustrate his plan, but alas a third way was open to him to score the last point he needed and that was the game (He had wounded a character previously and so he went and finished him off). Score 1 for Shemp, 0 for Easy.
Roma
I've been really enjoying Stephen Feld's games recently (Macao and In the Year of the Dragon), and thought I'd look into some of his back catalogue. Roma seemed like an interesting two player game so I gave it a shot. Actually, I meant to purchase Arena: Roma 2, but somehow I got the wrong one. Don't ask.
Roma is a short and relatively simple card game that relies on rolling dice to activate cards. Players start with 10 VP and the game ends when a player's VPs run out or when the central pool runs out. This leads to two distinctly different strategies... run the other player down or try to score points for yourself.
In our game, the first 3/4 of the game is about avoiding bankruptcy and staying afloat with VPs. This goes on until players start getting forums (the main bug VP earners) and then it's a race to finish the VP supply.
As with the other Feld games I've played, the theme is weak and weakly implemented but the gameplay is interesting and fun. It seems like luck plays a huge role in the game but clever play can definitely help you change your fortunes.
We played three times, and I lost all three. In the last game, I was pleased to have set up a combination between the Forum and the Crane... If I could activate the crane, I could move the Forum to whatever numbers I had rolled and score VPs easily. It was a good move, but clearly not enough! It's a really good game, and judging from Shemp's enthusiasm I'm betting we'll see it again.
Shemp 4, Easy 0
Dvonn
I discovered that I am missing a regular Dvonn piece from my set. Luckily, a piece of checkers worked reasonably well.
We set up randomly and got going. I felt like I was playing well, but when it was all said and done Shemp and I were perfectly tied! Little known fact:There is no tie-breaker rule in Dvonn.
So, no wins for me tonight. Oh well!
Dungeon Twister
We started with Dungeon Twister, using the basic tiles and characters. Very early on in the game, the tile at Shemp's end of the board was revealed showing my troll and the speed potion. An unusually speedy troll sprinted to the finish line one turn later. Otherwise, it was fairly tit for tat as the game progressed... Shemp scoring a point, then me scoring a point. Then, suddenly, Shemp was in position to win because he was able to get the two points he needed. I strategized and came up with a way to frustrate his plan, but alas a third way was open to him to score the last point he needed and that was the game (He had wounded a character previously and so he went and finished him off). Score 1 for Shemp, 0 for Easy.
Roma
I've been really enjoying Stephen Feld's games recently (Macao and In the Year of the Dragon), and thought I'd look into some of his back catalogue. Roma seemed like an interesting two player game so I gave it a shot. Actually, I meant to purchase Arena: Roma 2, but somehow I got the wrong one. Don't ask.
Roma is a short and relatively simple card game that relies on rolling dice to activate cards. Players start with 10 VP and the game ends when a player's VPs run out or when the central pool runs out. This leads to two distinctly different strategies... run the other player down or try to score points for yourself.
In our game, the first 3/4 of the game is about avoiding bankruptcy and staying afloat with VPs. This goes on until players start getting forums (the main bug VP earners) and then it's a race to finish the VP supply.
As with the other Feld games I've played, the theme is weak and weakly implemented but the gameplay is interesting and fun. It seems like luck plays a huge role in the game but clever play can definitely help you change your fortunes.
We played three times, and I lost all three. In the last game, I was pleased to have set up a combination between the Forum and the Crane... If I could activate the crane, I could move the Forum to whatever numbers I had rolled and score VPs easily. It was a good move, but clearly not enough! It's a really good game, and judging from Shemp's enthusiasm I'm betting we'll see it again.
Shemp 4, Easy 0
Dvonn
I discovered that I am missing a regular Dvonn piece from my set. Luckily, a piece of checkers worked reasonably well.
We set up randomly and got going. I felt like I was playing well, but when it was all said and done Shemp and I were perfectly tied! Little known fact:There is no tie-breaker rule in Dvonn.
So, no wins for me tonight. Oh well!
Sunday, April 03, 2011
They played 1960 (1960: The Making of a President)
I was absent last week, but Shemp and Kozure report that a fun game of "1960: The Making of a President" was had.
Recorded for posterity.
Recorded for posterity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
