EASY GO:
Blue Moon City
Phoneicia
Quo Vadis
Pueblo
Betrayal at House on the Hill
Zombies!
Showing posts with label Blue Moon City. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Blue Moon City. Show all posts
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
We Hates it, My Precious... We HATES it.
In the blog entry below this one, Agent Easy mentions some games which he indicates that I dislike. I should clarify that I don't really dislike Carcassonne; I just don't feel it offers much challenge, strategically or tactically, once you've played it often enough. I started this post as a comment in response to that post, but I realized it could be of more value as an actual entry.
Since challenge is part of the fun for me in boardgaming, I don't specifically choose Carcassonne when picking for WAGS; however, I will definitely hold onto it for playing with my kids as they grow up. Once they're past... I dunno... eight or so, I'll probably trade it or give it to a relative's family with school-age children.
I can't really think of any games that I hate off-hand.
What I can do is list games which I don't look forward to playing, but often enjoy while actually playing (I'll call them "Daunting Games"), and then games which I neither look forward to and don't particularly enjoy ("Onerous Games").
I should be very clear that just because I list a game as "Daunting", doesn't mean that I hate it, just that I tend not to want to pick it personally, especially for WAGS. Sometimes they are actually games that I feel I should play (because they are good games or because they would improve my strategic abilities) but just don't feel like playing.
Daunting Games (Don't Look Forward to, Do enjoy playing - generally)
Looking through the worst ranked games at BGG, I can't really find too many I would refuse to play with their age group (for example, though I wouldn't play Candyland or Hungry Hungry Hippos with adults, I wouldn't mind playing it with kids)
Some games I just won't play willingly for one reason or another:
Doctor Who: CCG, which I don't really hate... more just feel sorry for. It's just baaaad. Bad art, bad mechanics, bad gameplay.
Lone Wolf and Cub: This game is random, too tough at times and too easy at others, and downright broken in combat. I dislike it additionally because its theme is one I particularly like and they went and made a crappy game of it.
Dante's Inferno: Overlong, fiddly and boring.
Zombies!!!: Overlong and wastes the theme.
Chainsaw Warrior: Overlong, virtually no significant decisions, too difficult. Feels futile.
Mastermind: I have no interest in playing this game. For some reason, the logic of it (simple as I understand it to be) goes off like a bomb in my head and leaves me with frustration headache. One day I will sit down and figure out why I have so much trouble with it... bad mental wiring for that sort of thinking, I guess.
Finally, there is one special "dislike" category that is pretty specific, games which I enjoy playing but really dislike the artwork. For lack of a more precise term, I call them "Ugly but Lovable Games".
Ugly but Lovable Games
Then there are games which are just... plain... ugly. Neither enjoyable (to me) nor attractive.
Just Plain Ugly Games
We now return you to your regularly scheduled smiles-and-sunshine-filled WAGS postings.
Since challenge is part of the fun for me in boardgaming, I don't specifically choose Carcassonne when picking for WAGS; however, I will definitely hold onto it for playing with my kids as they grow up. Once they're past... I dunno... eight or so, I'll probably trade it or give it to a relative's family with school-age children.
I can't really think of any games that I hate off-hand.
What I can do is list games which I don't look forward to playing, but often enjoy while actually playing (I'll call them "Daunting Games"), and then games which I neither look forward to and don't particularly enjoy ("Onerous Games").
I should be very clear that just because I list a game as "Daunting", doesn't mean that I hate it, just that I tend not to want to pick it personally, especially for WAGS. Sometimes they are actually games that I feel I should play (because they are good games or because they would improve my strategic abilities) but just don't feel like playing.
Daunting Games (Don't Look Forward to, Do enjoy playing - generally)
- El Grande
- Tigris and Euphrates
- Age of Steam
- Paths of Glory
- Advanced Squad Leader
- Dungeon Twister
- OCS-series wargames (eg. Burma)
- Diplomacy
- Empire of the Sun
- Yinsh (... and Dvonn, and other abstracts in this line) - too abstract
- Maharajah - can't seem to win against Bharmer. (I kid... but I don't like this game)
- Bohnanza - random, tedious, negotiation-heavy
- Atlantic Star - dry, theme is badly suited and counter-intuitive
- Phoenicia - major run-away leader issues
- Kill Doctor Lucky - kill the leader, almost exclusively
- Naval Battles - kill the leader, almost exclusively
- 1856 - complex, fiddly, overlong
- Aladdin's Dragons - random, some cards overpowered to the point of game-breaking
- Blue Moon City - ugly, strange theme. actually a decent game, but theme and appearance kill it for me.
- Mille Bornes - random, overlong, kill the leader issues.
- Fluxx - generally, not enough game, not enough challenge, kill the leader issues
- Air War - way too fiddly/complex for the sort of action it purports to try to evoke.
- EastFront - strategically too much to consider
- Space Alert - random, too easily foiled, crew feel like moronic automatons
Looking through the worst ranked games at BGG, I can't really find too many I would refuse to play with their age group (for example, though I wouldn't play Candyland or Hungry Hungry Hippos with adults, I wouldn't mind playing it with kids)
Some games I just won't play willingly for one reason or another:
Doctor Who: CCG, which I don't really hate... more just feel sorry for. It's just baaaad. Bad art, bad mechanics, bad gameplay.
Lone Wolf and Cub: This game is random, too tough at times and too easy at others, and downright broken in combat. I dislike it additionally because its theme is one I particularly like and they went and made a crappy game of it.
Dante's Inferno: Overlong, fiddly and boring.
Zombies!!!: Overlong and wastes the theme.
Chainsaw Warrior: Overlong, virtually no significant decisions, too difficult. Feels futile.
Mastermind: I have no interest in playing this game. For some reason, the logic of it (simple as I understand it to be) goes off like a bomb in my head and leaves me with frustration headache. One day I will sit down and figure out why I have so much trouble with it... bad mental wiring for that sort of thinking, I guess.
Finally, there is one special "dislike" category that is pretty specific, games which I enjoy playing but really dislike the artwork. For lack of a more precise term, I call them "Ugly but Lovable Games".
Ugly but Lovable Games
- Glory to Rome
- Galaxy Trucker
- Ideology
Then there are games which are just... plain... ugly. Neither enjoyable (to me) nor attractive.
Just Plain Ugly Games
- Blue Moon City
We now return you to your regularly scheduled smiles-and-sunshine-filled WAGS postings.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Hello, Goodbye (Elasund, Blue Moon City, Carcassonne)
With Kozure on vacation, and Bharmer not attending this week, we were left with three players: myself, Shemp and Luch. Although Kozure seems to dislike picking for three, I certainly don't mind as there are a number of games for 3 that I love playing. I settled on a new aquisition through the latest Toronto area math trade (Elasund), an game I wanted to play to see if I felt like keeping (Blue Moon City) and an old favorite (Carcassonne, with the Traders and Builders expansion).
Elasund
Elasund is part of the Catan Adventures line by Klaus Teuber. I haven't played the first of the series, Candamir, and I'm decidedly lukewarm to Settlers of Catan, so what would make me want to give this game a chance? Well, I had heard god things from trusted sources (JayWowzer had recommended it, and Chris Farrell likes it). Also, I wasn't aware of it's lineage when I traded for it. I was a little concerned when I read the rules and realized just how much the core mechanics reminded me of Settlers. Oh well, worth a shot anyways...
We set it up, I explained the rules, and we started. Elasund is a game about building up the first city of Catan. The board represents a grid onto which the buidlings that make up the city will be placed (interestingly, before buildings can be built, building permits need to be placed). A wall surrounds the city, and merchant docks line the western edge. Each turn, the acting player rolls two six-sided dice to see which docks the merchants will visit. Any buildings in that row pay the player that built it a reward of either gold or influence cards. Over the course of the game, players will gain victory points by building certain buildings, participating in the construction of the church, building city walls and/or increasing their standing on the windmill track (that's surely not it's name, but whatever). As in Settlers, placing buildings in the spots that increase their chances of paying out is very important. When a "7" is rolled, the merchant becomes a pirate and steals from another player. Another similarity: the winning condition is that the first player to 10 VPs is the winner. There are other similarities, but it's not worth going on about them.
Despite the similar core mechanics, the game doesn't really feel like Settlers at all. Probably the biggest difference is that there is a real mean streak to the game: It is possible over the course of the game to build over other player's buildings, to knock them back on the windmill chart, to interfere with their plans. From this perspective, I would say the game is more similar to Domaine in competitive feel.
As we played through the first few rounds, I wasn't really sure what to make of it. Every round I would take my actions, and then see what happened. It took until the second half of the game, when the board started filling up and buildings started gettting bulldozed, and the church started getting built that I really started getting a feel for the possibilities. Oddly, Shemp suddenly announced that he finally was starting to figure out what was going on at the same time I was thinking it. I'm still a little perplexed about what it was that made us feel this way, because it's not overly complex. I curious to see if Kozure feels the same way.
Anyway, here are a few things that dawned on me as we played:
1) The windmill track is best used to get a few last points at the end of the game. Buildings on those spaces are likely to get built over, so any advancement is temporary at best.
2) There are some other ways of playing offensively other than building over other player's buildings. Placing a building permit that equals or exceeds those of another player can really mess up his/her plans because they no longer control the building site.
3) Money and resources are so tight that any unexpected expense can force a player to re-evaluate his/her plans. If you can put a building permit in an intimidating place, the cost of upgrading it might be enough to make the player lose a couple of turns.
4) The "0" permit is your friend. Sure, it's easy for another player to outgun you, but you avoid spending resources every time you place it. Those can really add up.
In our game I ended up winning by building a big 2vp building along the coast (where the windmills necessary to move up the track are located), along with a number of other buildings, some wall VPs and some windmill track ones. It was fairly exciting, though, because it was down to a matter of turns before myself or Shemp would manage to place our last cube. Luch gave me a setback by placing a strategic building permit, but it wasn't enough to keep me down... Luch unfortunately fell behind because he built a large building within the footprint of the church and it was eventually booted it off the table.
So, in the end I liked it. Not sure it's fantastic, but I felt pretty happy with it near the end. If I had any complaints, it's that it's fairly luck dependent. We'll see how it fares with time.
Blue Moon City
When I first played this game, and for many sessions afterwards, I've really enjoyed it for the clever card play it made possible. Lately, in never comes off the shelf, and I realized that I might have "played it through". I figured we'd try it again to confirm my suspicions... Now I know that even though I do still like it, I won't really miss it if I traded it away.
Shemp won this game by a fair margin.
Carcassonne
It was nice to give some table time to this old classic (which also happens to be a game Kozure dislikes). My favorite way to play is with the Inns and Cathedrals + Traders and Builders, with a handful of tiles removed at the start of the game.
We opted to do "speed play", as we often do. Certain aspects of the game suffer disproportionally when we try this, for example very few farmers get placed and once you start a road or city, it's less likely to get contested.
I got the majority in all three resources, which netted me 30 points. Although I was behind in the overall counting, the little boost those majorities gave me enough points to win.
Elasund
Elasund is part of the Catan Adventures line by Klaus Teuber. I haven't played the first of the series, Candamir, and I'm decidedly lukewarm to Settlers of Catan, so what would make me want to give this game a chance? Well, I had heard god things from trusted sources (JayWowzer had recommended it, and Chris Farrell likes it). Also, I wasn't aware of it's lineage when I traded for it. I was a little concerned when I read the rules and realized just how much the core mechanics reminded me of Settlers. Oh well, worth a shot anyways...
We set it up, I explained the rules, and we started. Elasund is a game about building up the first city of Catan. The board represents a grid onto which the buidlings that make up the city will be placed (interestingly, before buildings can be built, building permits need to be placed). A wall surrounds the city, and merchant docks line the western edge. Each turn, the acting player rolls two six-sided dice to see which docks the merchants will visit. Any buildings in that row pay the player that built it a reward of either gold or influence cards. Over the course of the game, players will gain victory points by building certain buildings, participating in the construction of the church, building city walls and/or increasing their standing on the windmill track (that's surely not it's name, but whatever). As in Settlers, placing buildings in the spots that increase their chances of paying out is very important. When a "7" is rolled, the merchant becomes a pirate and steals from another player. Another similarity: the winning condition is that the first player to 10 VPs is the winner. There are other similarities, but it's not worth going on about them.
Despite the similar core mechanics, the game doesn't really feel like Settlers at all. Probably the biggest difference is that there is a real mean streak to the game: It is possible over the course of the game to build over other player's buildings, to knock them back on the windmill chart, to interfere with their plans. From this perspective, I would say the game is more similar to Domaine in competitive feel.
As we played through the first few rounds, I wasn't really sure what to make of it. Every round I would take my actions, and then see what happened. It took until the second half of the game, when the board started filling up and buildings started gettting bulldozed, and the church started getting built that I really started getting a feel for the possibilities. Oddly, Shemp suddenly announced that he finally was starting to figure out what was going on at the same time I was thinking it. I'm still a little perplexed about what it was that made us feel this way, because it's not overly complex. I curious to see if Kozure feels the same way.
Anyway, here are a few things that dawned on me as we played:
1) The windmill track is best used to get a few last points at the end of the game. Buildings on those spaces are likely to get built over, so any advancement is temporary at best.
2) There are some other ways of playing offensively other than building over other player's buildings. Placing a building permit that equals or exceeds those of another player can really mess up his/her plans because they no longer control the building site.
3) Money and resources are so tight that any unexpected expense can force a player to re-evaluate his/her plans. If you can put a building permit in an intimidating place, the cost of upgrading it might be enough to make the player lose a couple of turns.
4) The "0" permit is your friend. Sure, it's easy for another player to outgun you, but you avoid spending resources every time you place it. Those can really add up.
In our game I ended up winning by building a big 2vp building along the coast (where the windmills necessary to move up the track are located), along with a number of other buildings, some wall VPs and some windmill track ones. It was fairly exciting, though, because it was down to a matter of turns before myself or Shemp would manage to place our last cube. Luch gave me a setback by placing a strategic building permit, but it wasn't enough to keep me down... Luch unfortunately fell behind because he built a large building within the footprint of the church and it was eventually booted it off the table.
So, in the end I liked it. Not sure it's fantastic, but I felt pretty happy with it near the end. If I had any complaints, it's that it's fairly luck dependent. We'll see how it fares with time.
Blue Moon City
When I first played this game, and for many sessions afterwards, I've really enjoyed it for the clever card play it made possible. Lately, in never comes off the shelf, and I realized that I might have "played it through". I figured we'd try it again to confirm my suspicions... Now I know that even though I do still like it, I won't really miss it if I traded it away.
Shemp won this game by a fair margin.
Carcassonne
It was nice to give some table time to this old classic (which also happens to be a game Kozure dislikes). My favorite way to play is with the Inns and Cathedrals + Traders and Builders, with a handful of tiles removed at the start of the game.
We opted to do "speed play", as we often do. Certain aspects of the game suffer disproportionally when we try this, for example very few farmers get placed and once you start a road or city, it's less likely to get contested.
I got the majority in all three resources, which netted me 30 points. Although I was behind in the overall counting, the little boost those majorities gave me enough points to win.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Mommy, let's have a corn wash! (In the Shadow of the Emperor, Blue Moon City)
Ignoring the blog title is probably best.
This is likely my last post until Bharmer returns, because I'll be away next week. I decided to take advantage of this opportunity to play some four player games and chose In the Shadow of the Emperor, Blue Moon City, Pandemic and Wings of War. ItSotE took much longer than I expected, so neither Pandemic or Wings of War made it to the table.
In the Shadow of the Emperor
I'm not sure what I expected from this game, but this wasn't it. For whatever reason, I thought this was going to be a dry, short, abstract middleweight euro. It's not that.
(of course, I shouldn't have expected that Kozure would purchase a game of that description. Those are typically more my thing)
In fact, it's a fairly complex but thematically engaging game. A euro for sure, and abstract enough, but the mechanics work with the subject matter. It's a political struggle that starts in the individual regions of germany and ultimately leads to the choice of emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. A clever series of mechanics which see your nobles age and marry is well integrated and makes it even less likely that you will feel like you are just pushing abstract pieces around a gameboard for victory points.
Despite the fact that the game only lasts through 5 elections, it goes on for quite a while. Our game took 2.5 hours, although it didn't really feel like it. It's a zero luck game, so there is a lot of pondering going on.
The game reminded me somewhat of Agricola (though the rest of the group likened it more to Wallace's Way Out West). In a weird twist of fate, as I was playing the game someone else wrote this at the Toa of Gaming blog: What are the odds of two people making that same observation over a 4 year old game at the same time? Weird. Anyway, my comparison boils down the the action selection mechanism, which feels a lot like Agricola to me (though this game has the added benefit of marrying the efficiency game with area control board play to give it a better sense of interaction).
As an aside, "worker placement" as a named mechanism has been bugging me for a while because it doesn't really feel like an independent mechanic (in the same way that "area control", the "rondel", "Role selection" are distinct from each other). Isn't worker placement simply inverted role selection? Is the distinction that these games typically allow you to increase the number of roles you can take on?
I tried pretty hard early on to take on Shemp and get elected as Emperor right away. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong rival... he had played before (and won). I was barely treading water with my understanding of the intertwined mechanisms at work. He outsmarted me at every turn and I wasted round after round accomplishing very little. He won again, with Luch a relatively close second, Kozure third and me dead last.
In retrospect, I realize I severely undervalued the towers (which is the equivalent of not growing your family in Agricola) and tried too hard to stay in control of the regions I already possessed (which garners no victory points). Lesson learned.
I wasn't totally enamored with the game. I'm not sure if it was my mood, or my preconceived notion of playing several quicker/ simpler games that evening. Still, it's a very intriguing game and will probably get better with familiarity. I just hope the analysis paralysis doesn't become too much of a problem and diminishes with experience rather than worsen.
Blue Moon City
We finished up with Blue Moon City. It's a game I enjoy very much, and is pretty much a poster boy for the type of game I expected In the Shadow of the Emperor would be: relatively short, mechanically engaging, paper thin theme.
I didn't play particularly well. Luch won and I was still several turns away from placing my last cube. Normally, this is a pretty tight game, but in this match I wasn't even close!
Pandemic and Wings of War will have to wait. Until next time, wash your cars with corn!
This is likely my last post until Bharmer returns, because I'll be away next week. I decided to take advantage of this opportunity to play some four player games and chose In the Shadow of the Emperor, Blue Moon City, Pandemic and Wings of War. ItSotE took much longer than I expected, so neither Pandemic or Wings of War made it to the table.
In the Shadow of the Emperor
I'm not sure what I expected from this game, but this wasn't it. For whatever reason, I thought this was going to be a dry, short, abstract middleweight euro. It's not that.
(of course, I shouldn't have expected that Kozure would purchase a game of that description. Those are typically more my thing)
In fact, it's a fairly complex but thematically engaging game. A euro for sure, and abstract enough, but the mechanics work with the subject matter. It's a political struggle that starts in the individual regions of germany and ultimately leads to the choice of emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. A clever series of mechanics which see your nobles age and marry is well integrated and makes it even less likely that you will feel like you are just pushing abstract pieces around a gameboard for victory points.
Despite the fact that the game only lasts through 5 elections, it goes on for quite a while. Our game took 2.5 hours, although it didn't really feel like it. It's a zero luck game, so there is a lot of pondering going on.
The game reminded me somewhat of Agricola (though the rest of the group likened it more to Wallace's Way Out West). In a weird twist of fate, as I was playing the game someone else wrote this at the Toa of Gaming blog: What are the odds of two people making that same observation over a 4 year old game at the same time? Weird. Anyway, my comparison boils down the the action selection mechanism, which feels a lot like Agricola to me (though this game has the added benefit of marrying the efficiency game with area control board play to give it a better sense of interaction).
As an aside, "worker placement" as a named mechanism has been bugging me for a while because it doesn't really feel like an independent mechanic (in the same way that "area control", the "rondel", "Role selection" are distinct from each other). Isn't worker placement simply inverted role selection? Is the distinction that these games typically allow you to increase the number of roles you can take on?
I tried pretty hard early on to take on Shemp and get elected as Emperor right away. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong rival... he had played before (and won). I was barely treading water with my understanding of the intertwined mechanisms at work. He outsmarted me at every turn and I wasted round after round accomplishing very little. He won again, with Luch a relatively close second, Kozure third and me dead last.
In retrospect, I realize I severely undervalued the towers (which is the equivalent of not growing your family in Agricola) and tried too hard to stay in control of the regions I already possessed (which garners no victory points). Lesson learned.
I wasn't totally enamored with the game. I'm not sure if it was my mood, or my preconceived notion of playing several quicker/ simpler games that evening. Still, it's a very intriguing game and will probably get better with familiarity. I just hope the analysis paralysis doesn't become too much of a problem and diminishes with experience rather than worsen.
Blue Moon City
We finished up with Blue Moon City. It's a game I enjoy very much, and is pretty much a poster boy for the type of game I expected In the Shadow of the Emperor would be: relatively short, mechanically engaging, paper thin theme.
I didn't play particularly well. Luch won and I was still several turns away from placing my last cube. Normally, this is a pretty tight game, but in this match I wasn't even close!
Pandemic and Wings of War will have to wait. Until next time, wash your cars with corn!
Friday, February 01, 2008
Every Dog has it's Day (Puerto Rico, Blue Moon City, Zooloretto)
You know how it goes. You bring a particular game time and time again to games night in the hopes of it getting picked. Time and time again, it doesn't. Well, I've been dragging Puerto Rico along with me for quite some time, and I've noticed Zooloretto in Kozure's bag every week since christmas. As if to appease us, Bharmer picked both (coincidence? subtle suggestion? who knows?).
Puerto Rico
Ironically, I often put down Puerto Rico. There's something about the setup which really irks me (all the counting and stacking... it's right up there with Memoir '44 and Hey! That's my fish! for making me want to choose something else just because of the setup to game ratio). I also hate teaching it, as all the subsystems and buildings are hard to condense into anything which will keep new player's attention.
Still, despite all that, it's fun to PLAY. It's been so long, I can't remember the last time we did (cue Shemp: "Y'all got too many games").
I was the first player, so Indigo it was. I usually go for the money route, with markets and coffee OR the corn strategy. This time, I was the beneficiary of a particularly lucrative propector on round three and purchased the University. How often does THAT happen? So, with the hospice in tow I started taking on colonists like crazy with my eye on the 6 building that gives you a bonus victory point for every 3 colonists (oh, and I was brewing coffee and selling it to make ends meet). Wouldn't you know it, I pushed my luck too far and Bharmer bought the 6 building before I could.
Meanwhile, Kozure went the big money route (a new tactic for him), Shemp went Pure Corn (he practically refused to buy any buildings other than a warehouse) and Bharmer did a little bit of everything.
Outcome: Bharmer wins a close game. Kozure 2nd, Shemp 3rd and me last. Still fun, though.
Blue Moon City
I alluded to it in an earlier post, but this is my pick for top game of 2007. With 4, the margin for error is slim. In a repeat performance, Bharmer claimed the top spot with 4 offerings just as most of us were considering our 2nd. Hmmm. I blame the fact that Bharmer had THE ENTIRE DECK'S WORTH OF PILLAR CARDS in his hand, and we wasted precious turns looking for some.
BTW, the standings were entirely the same as in Puerto Rico.
Zooloretto
I've played and enjoyed Zooloretto before, but I'm happy to state that it's much more fun and compelling with 4 competitive players that it was with 3. In my previous games, I was on the verge of getting maximum points every time. With 4, the competition for "stuff" was more intense and decisions seemed to matter more. I actually felt compelled to take an incomplete cart on several occasions! It will never be a favorite of mine, but it definitely is good with 4 and should be entertaining as a family game in particular.
Puerto Rico
Ironically, I often put down Puerto Rico. There's something about the setup which really irks me (all the counting and stacking... it's right up there with Memoir '44 and Hey! That's my fish! for making me want to choose something else just because of the setup to game ratio). I also hate teaching it, as all the subsystems and buildings are hard to condense into anything which will keep new player's attention.
Still, despite all that, it's fun to PLAY. It's been so long, I can't remember the last time we did (cue Shemp: "Y'all got too many games").
I was the first player, so Indigo it was. I usually go for the money route, with markets and coffee OR the corn strategy. This time, I was the beneficiary of a particularly lucrative propector on round three and purchased the University. How often does THAT happen? So, with the hospice in tow I started taking on colonists like crazy with my eye on the 6 building that gives you a bonus victory point for every 3 colonists (oh, and I was brewing coffee and selling it to make ends meet). Wouldn't you know it, I pushed my luck too far and Bharmer bought the 6 building before I could.
Meanwhile, Kozure went the big money route (a new tactic for him), Shemp went Pure Corn (he practically refused to buy any buildings other than a warehouse) and Bharmer did a little bit of everything.
Outcome: Bharmer wins a close game. Kozure 2nd, Shemp 3rd and me last. Still fun, though.
Blue Moon City
I alluded to it in an earlier post, but this is my pick for top game of 2007. With 4, the margin for error is slim. In a repeat performance, Bharmer claimed the top spot with 4 offerings just as most of us were considering our 2nd. Hmmm. I blame the fact that Bharmer had THE ENTIRE DECK'S WORTH OF PILLAR CARDS in his hand, and we wasted precious turns looking for some.
BTW, the standings were entirely the same as in Puerto Rico.
Zooloretto
I've played and enjoyed Zooloretto before, but I'm happy to state that it's much more fun and compelling with 4 competitive players that it was with 3. In my previous games, I was on the verge of getting maximum points every time. With 4, the competition for "stuff" was more intense and decisions seemed to matter more. I actually felt compelled to take an incomplete cart on several occasions! It will never be a favorite of mine, but it definitely is good with 4 and should be entertaining as a family game in particular.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
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.
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.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Let's build cities (Blue Moon City, Carcassonne:The City)
Just Bharmer and myself this night. I brought along a selection of two player games and we each picked one. I did my best to convince him to go with Rommel in the Desert, but he didn't bite.
Blue Moon City
We started out with Blue Moon City (Bharmer's pick). It was an interesting mix of completing each other's buildings and running off and doing our own thing. With only two players, it seemed like cards were more abundant (though I can't explain why that would be). On a couple of occasions, we would complete three section buildings on one turn! (after calling a dragon or two, of course). This obviously led to big swings in position. I had the early lead, building three sections of the obelisk pretty quickly. Bharmer had only one, but late in the game he managed to complete a lot of buildings without giving much to me, so he was winning the crystal race pretty handily. I tried to force a last minute scale payout to get the last few crytals I needed in time... but it wasn't fast enough. He swooped in and placed his last two cubes in the obelisk for the win.
This game continues to be good fun for me. It's typically a very tight race, and the way payouts work keeps everyone in the running while making the leader hard to spot. I noticed once again that Knizia's math was pretty honed in making this game: every time I play a two player game there appears to be JUST ENOUGH crystals on the board to allow both players to win (and then only if they've managed some shared payouts earlier in the game). Very tight indeed.
Looking at your hand and coming up with a clever use of your cards is always satisfying, and is probably my favorite aspect of the game.
Carcassonne: The City
The second (and last) game of the evening was Carcassonne: The City... a game I enjoy but rarely play due to it's similarities to the original (if it weren't such an attractive set, I'd probably trade it away) . Anyway, the session was unfortunately hurt by a number of rules missunderstandings (caused by the overly brief overview I gave Bharmer), which led to moves he wouldn't have made otherwise. Example: thinking he knew that roads split neighbourhoods, I didn't mention it. Boy, that led to an "aha!" moment, and not in a good way! Anyway, I did manage a very lucrative guard which overlooked a loooong section of the city full of public buildings, but I also scored a ton of points from the neighborhoods I won due to the rules mistakes. Anyway, I had a good time... hopefully so did Bharmer!
Oh, and judging by the city we've built, Iwould guess we would make terribly poor city planners. I won't be quitting my day job.
Blue Moon City
We started out with Blue Moon City (Bharmer's pick). It was an interesting mix of completing each other's buildings and running off and doing our own thing. With only two players, it seemed like cards were more abundant (though I can't explain why that would be). On a couple of occasions, we would complete three section buildings on one turn! (after calling a dragon or two, of course). This obviously led to big swings in position. I had the early lead, building three sections of the obelisk pretty quickly. Bharmer had only one, but late in the game he managed to complete a lot of buildings without giving much to me, so he was winning the crystal race pretty handily. I tried to force a last minute scale payout to get the last few crytals I needed in time... but it wasn't fast enough. He swooped in and placed his last two cubes in the obelisk for the win.
This game continues to be good fun for me. It's typically a very tight race, and the way payouts work keeps everyone in the running while making the leader hard to spot. I noticed once again that Knizia's math was pretty honed in making this game: every time I play a two player game there appears to be JUST ENOUGH crystals on the board to allow both players to win (and then only if they've managed some shared payouts earlier in the game). Very tight indeed.
Looking at your hand and coming up with a clever use of your cards is always satisfying, and is probably my favorite aspect of the game.
Carcassonne: The City
The second (and last) game of the evening was Carcassonne: The City... a game I enjoy but rarely play due to it's similarities to the original (if it weren't such an attractive set, I'd probably trade it away) . Anyway, the session was unfortunately hurt by a number of rules missunderstandings (caused by the overly brief overview I gave Bharmer), which led to moves he wouldn't have made otherwise. Example: thinking he knew that roads split neighbourhoods, I didn't mention it. Boy, that led to an "aha!" moment, and not in a good way! Anyway, I did manage a very lucrative guard which overlooked a loooong section of the city full of public buildings, but I also scored a ton of points from the neighborhoods I won due to the rules mistakes. Anyway, I had a good time... hopefully so did Bharmer!
Oh, and judging by the city we've built, Iwould guess we would make terribly poor city planners. I won't be quitting my day job.
Saturday, April 21, 2007
One more time, with feeling! (Goa, Blue Moon City)
We played two games I personally had played once before, but were new to the rest of the group: Goa and Blue Moon City.
Goa worked very well in it's second outing. It was nice to see that turns went by very quickly and everyone caught on to the game system (which seems intimidating at first, but is actually fairly simple).
Near the end of the first half of the game, I came across a few opportunities to grab a number of discovery cards. Lo and behold, 5 of my 6 cards had the same symbol on them! I spent the second round of the game unable to draw or play discovery cards, and I was constantly wondering whether I would fall hopelessly behind because of it. In the end, the 15 points my set got me were the game winners, so I certainly can't complain!
I find the discovery cards somewhat awkward. I've read that many find this particular progress track to be too powerful, and I'm inclined to agree. Drawing cards not only significantly improves your chances of making a move at a greatly reduced price, but the cards themselves are worth MORE points at the end! It could be that familiarity will even out the game, or that every game will feature all players pushing hard on their discovery track.
Blue Moon City was next. I find myself really liking this one, though reaction from other tends to be lukewarm. Can't really explain it, but I do find it satisfying to look at my hand and to figure out my next move. The game moves ultra quickly, and the race for scales and crystals is engaging. It's a Ticket to Ride level strategy game, but this one seems tighter (even if the other is ultimately more approachable to non-gamers in rules complexity and theme).
I started out off on my own to see whether I could make a solo expedition work. The consensus seems to be that in order to win, you have to stay where the group is. There was a couple of single contribution buildings which looked like they might work for me. After a few turns, I gave in and joined the pack. It was a very tight race, with the last space of the obelisk determining the winner. On top of that, all but one building were constructed when it all ended.
Kozure won the game.
I found it interesting how the game evolves. At first, the possibilities for using your hand are rather endless. You need to pick a strategy and go. However, as the options narrow, the card draw becomes more important (so cycling thorugh cards until you get the ones you need becomes critical). Unlike Ticket to Ride, where waiting on the right cards starts pretty much right at the beginning, Blue Moon City allows you to make the best out of what you have for the first 2/3rds of the game.
I like it.
Goa worked very well in it's second outing. It was nice to see that turns went by very quickly and everyone caught on to the game system (which seems intimidating at first, but is actually fairly simple).
Near the end of the first half of the game, I came across a few opportunities to grab a number of discovery cards. Lo and behold, 5 of my 6 cards had the same symbol on them! I spent the second round of the game unable to draw or play discovery cards, and I was constantly wondering whether I would fall hopelessly behind because of it. In the end, the 15 points my set got me were the game winners, so I certainly can't complain!
I find the discovery cards somewhat awkward. I've read that many find this particular progress track to be too powerful, and I'm inclined to agree. Drawing cards not only significantly improves your chances of making a move at a greatly reduced price, but the cards themselves are worth MORE points at the end! It could be that familiarity will even out the game, or that every game will feature all players pushing hard on their discovery track.
Blue Moon City was next. I find myself really liking this one, though reaction from other tends to be lukewarm. Can't really explain it, but I do find it satisfying to look at my hand and to figure out my next move. The game moves ultra quickly, and the race for scales and crystals is engaging. It's a Ticket to Ride level strategy game, but this one seems tighter (even if the other is ultimately more approachable to non-gamers in rules complexity and theme).
I started out off on my own to see whether I could make a solo expedition work. The consensus seems to be that in order to win, you have to stay where the group is. There was a couple of single contribution buildings which looked like they might work for me. After a few turns, I gave in and joined the pack. It was a very tight race, with the last space of the obelisk determining the winner. On top of that, all but one building were constructed when it all ended.
Kozure won the game.
I found it interesting how the game evolves. At first, the possibilities for using your hand are rather endless. You need to pick a strategy and go. However, as the options narrow, the card draw becomes more important (so cycling thorugh cards until you get the ones you need becomes critical). Unlike Ticket to Ride, where waiting on the right cards starts pretty much right at the beginning, Blue Moon City allows you to make the best out of what you have for the first 2/3rds of the game.
I like it.
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Thoughts on some new (to me) games (Dungeon Twister, Hey! That's my Fish!, San Juan, Blue Moon City, Goa)
I won a gift certificate at Thought Hammer recently, and purchased a pile of game as a result. Very few of these are likely to see much play at WAGS, since they are all 2-4 player games, but I think friends and family will enjoy many of them. Luckily, I was able to play all of them with some high school friends which came to visit, and I'm glad to say there isn't a bad game in the bunch.
Dungeon Twister
The idea:
A twisted wizard has created a dungeon and pitted two teams of characters against each other. The first team to escape out of the opposite end of the dungeon, or to eliminate enough enemy characters, wins.
The mechanics
8 tiles, each depicting a section of a maze (complete with walls, doors, traps and miscellaneous other features) is layed out in a 2x4 grid. Each player starts the game with 8 characters and a number of items (rope, speed potion, treasure, etc). Some are chosen as starting characters, and the rest are layed face down on the dungeon tiles and are revealed later. Players are also given 3 "jump" tokens (allowing 3 jumps over pit traps over the course of the game), a set of action cards and a set of combat cards. Every round, a player must choose an action card to play which will determine how many actions he will get that round (2-5). The trick is that the player will only get his cards back once he has played them all, so choosing when to play the high value cards vs the low value cards becomes a a critical aspect of the game. When characters engage in combat, players must choose a combat card from their hand (value 0-6) to add to the combat value of the creature. The highest total wins, but the catch in this instance is that all cards except the "0" can only be used ONCE in the game (if you've played Lord of the Rings: Confrontation, you've seen this system before). The "Twister" gimmick referred to in the title of the game is that each dungeon tile has a "twister mechanism" space which allows a character standing there to rotate the dungeon tile (or a second matching tile elsewhere in the dungeon).
Thoughts:
I was intrigued by this title the moment I heard about it. As an ex-Dungeons and Dragons player, the theme has obvious appeal. However, I have not really been interested in other games of this type (such as Descent, etc) for whatever reason. I think it's because those games are about the dungeon crawl/ combat aspect of rpgs, and have often resulted in long fiddly hack n' slash fests. Dungeon Twister, on the other hand, uses the theme to liven up what is essentially an elaborate game of chess. A player needs to plan ahead to either meet his opponent's characters on his own terms or to successfully escape out of the dungeon. He must therefore carefully manage his resources and create synergy between his characters, items and dungeon tiles. Obviously, this type of game would be horrible to play against analysis paralysis prone players, but barring that I really enjoyed the game. As an added benefit, the game publisher (Asmodee) is releasing a stream of expansions ensuring a wide variety of dungeon tiles, characters and scenarios to keep the game fresh. In fact, one of the expansions is a 3-4 player expansion (which I've purchased, but I haven't yet played a game with more than 2 players). Anyway, I really enjoy this game.
As an aside, I used to rate Duel of Ages in my top 10 games, but it was mostly because I hadn't yet played a better game of that type (team of characters, variable terrain, missions, equipment). Problem is, Duel of Ages has it's fair share of issues. I still enjoy it, and it's wargame-lite character makes it different enough to warrant keeping both, but Dungeon Twister is shorter, looks better and plays cleaner. Looks like Duel of Ages lost it's spot.
Hey! That's my Fish!
The idea:
There penguins on ice floes looking to gather as much fish as they can before the ice dissapears.
The mechanics
Players get 3 or 4 penguins (depending on the number of players) and place them on a modular board (+/- 75 tiles). Each tile shows 1-3 fish. Basically, when you move your penguin you pick up the tile you were standing on, so the board gets smaller with every move. A penguin can go as far as it wants in a straight line, as long as it doesn't go over empty spaces. When all the penguins are unable to move, the game ends and the player who picked up the most fish wins.
Thoughts:
This is a simple and fast abstract game which benefits greatly from it's theme. The exact same game could have belonged to the GIPF series and not been nearly so approachable. Easy to teach, fun to play and supports up to 4 players. Very good game.
San Juan
The idea:
Players are developping the city of San Juan in this card game variation on Puerto Rico.
The mechanics
Much like Puerto Rico, the heart of the game involves choosing from a set of roles every round. Each role is associated with a specific action, such as building, that every player gets to do (though the choosing player gets some type of advantage, such as a reduced cost, etc). However, since this is a card game much of the mechanics have been streamlined and simplified. Building costs are payed by spending cards from your hand. Production buildings produce goods, represented by a face down card, and that card can be sold to draw a number of cards into your hand. The buildings' special powers are similarly all repurposed to be hand management related. The game ends once someone builds his 12th building, at which point everyone counts up their victory points to determine the winner.
Thoughts:
Puerto Rico is a very good game which has always bothered me due to the needlessly tedious setup and finicky rules. Honestly, the game requires me to count out two stacks of tokens which are up to 70-100 pieces EACH, on top of sorting out a large supply of counters and chits. And you can't prepare in advance, because it's all very different according to the number of players! I like it, but if I'm choosing I'll likely go elsewhere. Along comes this neat little card game, and it seems like I might not need to play it's big brother any more. My only worry is that in Puerto Rico, I felt I had more opportunity to passive-aggressively affect the other players. In San Juan, my first few games have not felt very interactive. Time will tell.
Blue Moon City
The idea:
Players are rebuilding Blue Moon City following a great war between the various races of the Blue Moon universe.
The mechanics
This is a hand management game. The cards come in various suits, and each can be played two ways: they have a numbered value which can be used to make donations, and most of them have a special power that can be used instead (the 1 point cards have powers, the 2s have weaker powers and the 3s have none). Essentially, the game is designed so that your hand can almost always be used to do something useful, if not exactly what you had planned. The "board" consists of 16 tiles depicting the blueprints of key buildings semi-randomly distributed in a "+" shape. Each building has 1-4 spaces for "contributions" of different colours. Players move around the board making such contributions, and the building are flipped to show that they are complete once all the "contribution" spaces are filled. When this happens, the player who made the most donations gets a reward, and everyone else who made at least a single donation gets a smaller one. The "twist" here is that neighboring completed buildings give bonus rewards as well, so making a very small donation to the right building in a built up district can yield big rewards. The most common payout is crystals, and these are accumulated and ultimately sacrificed to the obelisk in the center of the board. The first player to make a certain number of offerings is the winner.
Thoughts:
As with many recent Knizia middleweight games, opinions on this one were mixed. I was happy to discover that I really enjoyed it! Once you get a handle on the various special powers of the cards, gameplay is very straightforward (unlike the mindbending Tower of Babel). Coming up with clever uses for your cards is very satisfying, and the game moves pretty quickly. If I had to knock it, I'd say that it could have been livened up a bit with building powers, or something along those lines, to reinforce that it's a city the players are rebuilding. It might have been interesting if the game rules were altered every time a building was constructed, or that the biggest contributer received a new ability related to the building when it is completed. Maybe these are opportunities for expansions...
Goa
The idea:
Trader barons are setting up shop in Goa. By efficiently aquiring goods, making money, founding colonies, etc, players hope to establish themselves as the winner.
The mechanics
The game has 8 turns, and each one starts with an auction. Following the auction, each player has a series of "actions" where they can either found colonies, build ships, tax, produce goods or draw development cards (one last option is to improve an attribute of the colony, allowing to build more ships, make more money taxing, etc). At the end of the game, points are awarded for the number of founded colonies, the level of advancements, etc.
Thoughts:
Goa is a complex game. It's been compared to Princes of Florence by many people, because of the auction/ action game structure (that, and the fact that it's also a "multi-player solitaire" experience. Far moreso than PoF, in fact). I find that the game has a lot in common with Traders of Genoa (also by the same designer). Superficially, there is the trademark "tower". I've only played three Dorn games (Traders of Genoa, Goa and Louis XIV), but they all have used this mechanic! Here it's used to define which items among the grid of available items will be auctioned off. From a gameplay perspective, players must successfully orchestrate lots of disparate elements in order to succeed (plantations and new colonies must be founded in order to produce/ store goods, ships and population must be accumulated to pay for advancements, money must be raised for the auction, etc, etc, etc. ). more than anything, though, I find the games focus on additional actions, game-modifying powers, etc to be right up Dorn's alley. It also makes for a very different experience than PoF, as the powers and cards make for a lot more variety in play.
One thing I found dissapointing was the extreme dullness of the presentation. Unlike most games of this type, the mechanics translate pretty well thematically. If the boards had looked different, I bet the game would be a whole lot "friendlier" (as it is, it looks like accounting). The auctions occur at the shipping yards, money changes hands as the buyers walk amonsgt the crates. Players plant fields for resources, but also go to sea and found colonies (an inherently risky proposition). Boards depicting these scenarios would have been simple to produce, and would have served to ground the game. It's especially a shame since this game brings out a feeling of "civ-building" which few of these types of game can pull off.
Supposedly, this game works very well with 2,3 or 4. Since PoF effectively bottoms out at 4, it's great to have a heavy euro which can be played with fewer players. I really enjoyed my single playing so far.
Dungeon Twister
The idea:
A twisted wizard has created a dungeon and pitted two teams of characters against each other. The first team to escape out of the opposite end of the dungeon, or to eliminate enough enemy characters, wins.
The mechanics
8 tiles, each depicting a section of a maze (complete with walls, doors, traps and miscellaneous other features) is layed out in a 2x4 grid. Each player starts the game with 8 characters and a number of items (rope, speed potion, treasure, etc). Some are chosen as starting characters, and the rest are layed face down on the dungeon tiles and are revealed later. Players are also given 3 "jump" tokens (allowing 3 jumps over pit traps over the course of the game), a set of action cards and a set of combat cards. Every round, a player must choose an action card to play which will determine how many actions he will get that round (2-5). The trick is that the player will only get his cards back once he has played them all, so choosing when to play the high value cards vs the low value cards becomes a a critical aspect of the game. When characters engage in combat, players must choose a combat card from their hand (value 0-6) to add to the combat value of the creature. The highest total wins, but the catch in this instance is that all cards except the "0" can only be used ONCE in the game (if you've played Lord of the Rings: Confrontation, you've seen this system before). The "Twister" gimmick referred to in the title of the game is that each dungeon tile has a "twister mechanism" space which allows a character standing there to rotate the dungeon tile (or a second matching tile elsewhere in the dungeon).
Thoughts:
I was intrigued by this title the moment I heard about it. As an ex-Dungeons and Dragons player, the theme has obvious appeal. However, I have not really been interested in other games of this type (such as Descent, etc) for whatever reason. I think it's because those games are about the dungeon crawl/ combat aspect of rpgs, and have often resulted in long fiddly hack n' slash fests. Dungeon Twister, on the other hand, uses the theme to liven up what is essentially an elaborate game of chess. A player needs to plan ahead to either meet his opponent's characters on his own terms or to successfully escape out of the dungeon. He must therefore carefully manage his resources and create synergy between his characters, items and dungeon tiles. Obviously, this type of game would be horrible to play against analysis paralysis prone players, but barring that I really enjoyed the game. As an added benefit, the game publisher (Asmodee) is releasing a stream of expansions ensuring a wide variety of dungeon tiles, characters and scenarios to keep the game fresh. In fact, one of the expansions is a 3-4 player expansion (which I've purchased, but I haven't yet played a game with more than 2 players). Anyway, I really enjoy this game.
As an aside, I used to rate Duel of Ages in my top 10 games, but it was mostly because I hadn't yet played a better game of that type (team of characters, variable terrain, missions, equipment). Problem is, Duel of Ages has it's fair share of issues. I still enjoy it, and it's wargame-lite character makes it different enough to warrant keeping both, but Dungeon Twister is shorter, looks better and plays cleaner. Looks like Duel of Ages lost it's spot.
Hey! That's my Fish!
The idea:
There penguins on ice floes looking to gather as much fish as they can before the ice dissapears.
The mechanics
Players get 3 or 4 penguins (depending on the number of players) and place them on a modular board (+/- 75 tiles). Each tile shows 1-3 fish. Basically, when you move your penguin you pick up the tile you were standing on, so the board gets smaller with every move. A penguin can go as far as it wants in a straight line, as long as it doesn't go over empty spaces. When all the penguins are unable to move, the game ends and the player who picked up the most fish wins.
Thoughts:
This is a simple and fast abstract game which benefits greatly from it's theme. The exact same game could have belonged to the GIPF series and not been nearly so approachable. Easy to teach, fun to play and supports up to 4 players. Very good game.
San Juan
The idea:
Players are developping the city of San Juan in this card game variation on Puerto Rico.
The mechanics
Much like Puerto Rico, the heart of the game involves choosing from a set of roles every round. Each role is associated with a specific action, such as building, that every player gets to do (though the choosing player gets some type of advantage, such as a reduced cost, etc). However, since this is a card game much of the mechanics have been streamlined and simplified. Building costs are payed by spending cards from your hand. Production buildings produce goods, represented by a face down card, and that card can be sold to draw a number of cards into your hand. The buildings' special powers are similarly all repurposed to be hand management related. The game ends once someone builds his 12th building, at which point everyone counts up their victory points to determine the winner.
Thoughts:
Puerto Rico is a very good game which has always bothered me due to the needlessly tedious setup and finicky rules. Honestly, the game requires me to count out two stacks of tokens which are up to 70-100 pieces EACH, on top of sorting out a large supply of counters and chits. And you can't prepare in advance, because it's all very different according to the number of players! I like it, but if I'm choosing I'll likely go elsewhere. Along comes this neat little card game, and it seems like I might not need to play it's big brother any more. My only worry is that in Puerto Rico, I felt I had more opportunity to passive-aggressively affect the other players. In San Juan, my first few games have not felt very interactive. Time will tell.
Blue Moon City
The idea:
Players are rebuilding Blue Moon City following a great war between the various races of the Blue Moon universe.
The mechanics
This is a hand management game. The cards come in various suits, and each can be played two ways: they have a numbered value which can be used to make donations, and most of them have a special power that can be used instead (the 1 point cards have powers, the 2s have weaker powers and the 3s have none). Essentially, the game is designed so that your hand can almost always be used to do something useful, if not exactly what you had planned. The "board" consists of 16 tiles depicting the blueprints of key buildings semi-randomly distributed in a "+" shape. Each building has 1-4 spaces for "contributions" of different colours. Players move around the board making such contributions, and the building are flipped to show that they are complete once all the "contribution" spaces are filled. When this happens, the player who made the most donations gets a reward, and everyone else who made at least a single donation gets a smaller one. The "twist" here is that neighboring completed buildings give bonus rewards as well, so making a very small donation to the right building in a built up district can yield big rewards. The most common payout is crystals, and these are accumulated and ultimately sacrificed to the obelisk in the center of the board. The first player to make a certain number of offerings is the winner.
Thoughts:
As with many recent Knizia middleweight games, opinions on this one were mixed. I was happy to discover that I really enjoyed it! Once you get a handle on the various special powers of the cards, gameplay is very straightforward (unlike the mindbending Tower of Babel). Coming up with clever uses for your cards is very satisfying, and the game moves pretty quickly. If I had to knock it, I'd say that it could have been livened up a bit with building powers, or something along those lines, to reinforce that it's a city the players are rebuilding. It might have been interesting if the game rules were altered every time a building was constructed, or that the biggest contributer received a new ability related to the building when it is completed. Maybe these are opportunities for expansions...
Goa
The idea:
Trader barons are setting up shop in Goa. By efficiently aquiring goods, making money, founding colonies, etc, players hope to establish themselves as the winner.
The mechanics
The game has 8 turns, and each one starts with an auction. Following the auction, each player has a series of "actions" where they can either found colonies, build ships, tax, produce goods or draw development cards (one last option is to improve an attribute of the colony, allowing to build more ships, make more money taxing, etc). At the end of the game, points are awarded for the number of founded colonies, the level of advancements, etc.
Thoughts:
Goa is a complex game. It's been compared to Princes of Florence by many people, because of the auction/ action game structure (that, and the fact that it's also a "multi-player solitaire" experience. Far moreso than PoF, in fact). I find that the game has a lot in common with Traders of Genoa (also by the same designer). Superficially, there is the trademark "tower". I've only played three Dorn games (Traders of Genoa, Goa and Louis XIV), but they all have used this mechanic! Here it's used to define which items among the grid of available items will be auctioned off. From a gameplay perspective, players must successfully orchestrate lots of disparate elements in order to succeed (plantations and new colonies must be founded in order to produce/ store goods, ships and population must be accumulated to pay for advancements, money must be raised for the auction, etc, etc, etc. ). more than anything, though, I find the games focus on additional actions, game-modifying powers, etc to be right up Dorn's alley. It also makes for a very different experience than PoF, as the powers and cards make for a lot more variety in play.
One thing I found dissapointing was the extreme dullness of the presentation. Unlike most games of this type, the mechanics translate pretty well thematically. If the boards had looked different, I bet the game would be a whole lot "friendlier" (as it is, it looks like accounting). The auctions occur at the shipping yards, money changes hands as the buyers walk amonsgt the crates. Players plant fields for resources, but also go to sea and found colonies (an inherently risky proposition). Boards depicting these scenarios would have been simple to produce, and would have served to ground the game. It's especially a shame since this game brings out a feeling of "civ-building" which few of these types of game can pull off.
Supposedly, this game works very well with 2,3 or 4. Since PoF effectively bottoms out at 4, it's great to have a heavy euro which can be played with fewer players. I really enjoyed my single playing so far.
Labels:
Blue Moon City,
Dungeon Twister,
Goa,
Hey That's my Fish,
San Juan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
