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)

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.

Remember Alea? (Macao, 1960: The Making of the President)

Circumstances conspired to give me and Shemp another 2 player game night. I thought it would be a good opportunity to play Macao and 1960: The Making of the President.

Macao

Many eurogamers say they really like Alea games. I am one of them. Scan my top games list, and you will see quite a few of them (Ra, Taj Mahal, Princes of Florence, In the Year of the Dragon, Puerto Rico, Traders of Genoa, etc). Still, with the exception of Ra they rarely get played anymore. I can't be sure why, but I feel like the plethora of game releases has led me to search out games whose theme excite me as much as the underlying game mechanics. Alea games, though they typically provide excellent gameplay, often have very thin themes and for a couple of years this type of game wasn't really appealing to me (of course, Alea went on a pretty weak streak for a while there, which didn't help their cause). Last year they released Stephen Feld's In the Year of the Dragon, which I really liked and we've played a fair bit. Now Alea has collaborated with Stephen Feld again for Macao and I wanted to give it a try despite the particularly humdrum theme of the game.

Macao is yet another euro game about gathering resources, delivering goods and building buildings in a random distant location (in this case, a portuguese colony in China). It also jumps on a number of recent eurogame bandwagons by including dice and many, many cards with text that give various special abilities. Excited yet?

However, as I've often said it's how things come together than matters. Macao is a fantastic example of this. In playing Macao, I felt like this was a very unique and engaging game, despite how bland most of the component parts are. Oh, and challenging. Definitely challenging. Feld appears to like to add a dose of punishment to his games, if In the Year of the Dragon and Macao are any indication, and this appears to raise the stakes a little bit when playing his games.

At it's heart, Macao is a game where players must struggle to plan amidst randomness. It's hard to describe, but you have to think strategically as you act tactically.

Each round, a player rolls 6 differently coloured dice. Each player chooses two of the results and receives cubes in number and colour according to the chosen dice. The big trick is that the larger the number on the die, the longer it will take before you can actually USE the cubes. For example: if you choose the red dice showing a 4, you will get 4 red cubes in 4 turns. These cubes will be used to purchase cards and buildings later on, but cubes don't carry over from turn to turn so in order to buy something that requires a particular combination of cubes you need to plan ahead and make sure you coordinate the dice you choose so that you will receive the combination you want together on a given turn. This isn't as hard as it sounds but it does require forward planning... over several turns you know that at least one cube of every colour will be produced and it's up to you to select them if you need them. Most times, the choice is between few resources now or many resources later. Where things get, err, dicey, is when you decide you need to build or purchase something fast and really need certain combinations to come up.

What are the cubes used for? You can build buildings in the city to gain goods, you can sail your ship to deliver said goods, you can pay for cards which will give you special powers and you can jockey for turn order. Deciding which resources to go for, which cards and buildings to purchase in the coming turns, etc, is already enough to require some serious think. Planning for these costs while faced with the pressures of other players competing for the same resources and in the face of the randomness of the dice makes it feel even more challenging. Don't play this game while drinking... it can melt your brain a little bit.

While the randomness makes the forward planning difficult, it also makes it a little less of a brain burner than it might have been if everything was open and perfect forward planning was possible. You don't know how many cubes of various colours are coming, and you don't know what card powers will be available. You have to go with the flow to a certain extent. That being said, you also need to plan ahead quite a lot. If you don't put effort to filling your future turns with cube combinations that work to purchase the cards and buildings you need, it will NOT happen on it's own and you will spend the whole game accomplishing nothing.

The card powers available in the game are very interesting, and really impact the flavour of the game. Spying the cards that come up that will enhance your engine is key to winning the game (and manipulating turn order so that you are free to pick those cards before other players is therefore also very important). On the other hand, you will be frustrated if you attempt to do the reverse and play the game hoping to make specific card combinations from the start... there are too many factors that prevent this from working (only about half the cards come up in any given game, and many of those will get discarded and therefore be inaccessible to players).

On the surface, the only two ways of ultimately getting VPs are delivering goods and purchasing VPs (some VPs can be gained through purchasing cards and making lines of buildings, but these seem to be small amounts). That said, developing your engine through the various cards that come up will require players to play differently each time. I've only played once, but it seems like there would be huge variety in the way the game would play out between games.

I can't help but compare the game to Agricola in that aspect, but I would say that I found that the card effects in this game were more interesting and had a more pronounced impact on the game. Also, since the cards come out over the course of the game, they aren't as initially overwhelming either. On the whole, however, the feel of the game reminds me mostly of Taj Mahal. That too is a game that has been accused by some as being too random or tactical because of the card draws, but in actuality the player who can plan ahead and use the tools available to mitigate the randomness will win almost every time.

The game is probably best played with 2 or 3, because AP could certainly cause it to go too long with 4 players. With 2 players, I certainly liked it a lot.

We stumbled through the first half not really succeeding to do very much. I selected cards which allowed me to build twice in the city every turn and then earn gold based on the number of cities I had there. It seemed like a good combo I could profit from, but then I got distracted by other things and didn't make it happen early enough. Meanwhile, I managed to acquire all the rice and tea so in a final turn mad dash I spent nearly 10 cubes just crossing the board to make 20 points in deliveries. Shemp, for his part, was purchasing cards which allowed him free cubes and cube conversions. He managed to purchase many more cards than I could because of this advantage, and ended up winning by about 5 points.

1960: The Making of the President

This is a great example of those thematic games that have caught my attention over the years, but since it's only two players I've never had the opportunity to play until now. It's a game about the Kennedy vs Nixon election which uses a "card driven wargame" system similar to many popular wargames (We the People, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, Twilight Struggle, etc).

Because it's a game about elections, it's unsurprising that they chose an area control system to represent the success of the two candidates. Cubes in each player's colour are placed in a state to represent who is leading or carrying that state. In addition to this, cubes can be placed to show who has the "media support" in each region, and cubes can be placed on the three issues to indicate who leads in each of them.

Each player has a hand of cards which are used either as action points (to move the candidate around the country placing cubes to show support, to add influence on issues, etc) or as events (historical events which have a game effect, such as displacing cubes or adding new ones). There is a special turn where normal play is suspended and a new subsystem is introduced to represent the "debates" and at the end the votes are tallied and the winner is elected.

Although I liked it well enough, I have to admit I was somewhat disappointed in the game. There are a few reasons for this:

1) The "area majority" mechanic felt somewhat arbitrary because the board changed so drastically between turns that it sometimes felt futile, or simply an exercise in outlasting the opponent.

2) The events on the cards were almost always more powerful than the number of action points on the card, so there was actually not much of a choice to be made when selecting them. If the event was for your side, you picked it. If it's for the other side, you used the action points. In Hannibal and Wilderness War, other card driven wargames I've played, the choices seemed more difficult... in a good way.

3) For all the uncertainty involved in gaining media support, it didn't seem to matter much.

4) The "rest" mechanic was odd. There would seem to be a tradeoff between playing high AP cards and getting little rest or vice-versa. The thing is, you have to play every card in your hand except one, so ultimately there is no tradeoff... you just get what you were dealt. Also, I kept forgetting to grab the rest cubes, which was annoying.

5) Having to read each event card to the other player in case they wanted to activate the event was a little annoying.

6) The translation of the historical events to actions in the game didn't work for me very well, which lessened the theme for me.

Anyway, it was okay but not a home run. I certainly wouldn't mind playing again. Of course, my opinion may be influenced by the fact that I won...

(truth be told, Shemp was crushing me leading into the debates. At the debates, we both realized that we had kept poor cards for the job, but he fared worse than I did. In the final two turns I managed to grab quite a few seats and won the game).