Small Games that Feel Big (Small World, Dominion: Intrigue)

Despite the unfortunate absence of Bharmer and Agent Easy this week, we managed to make it together on a *gasp* Tuesday.

We played two of this year's hot ticket games - Small World and Dominion: Intrigue.

I don't have time to go into a full length rules summary and critique of either, but both games are quick and relatively easy to learn. The kerfuffle on BGG about ambiguous rules in Small World is overblown - the only major rule omission (in my opinion) was the definition of what order you place survivors of attacks (active player first, then left from there). The rest can be worked out with common sense, though the clarification document at BGG does help.

We played Dominion first. I was hoping it would catch on well with our group and by post-game discussion with Luch and Shemp, it's a hit. I was reflecting that it actually combines many of the addictive qualities of CCGs in an even more compressed time-frame - like getting a faster buzz from a drink or *ahem* "pharmaceutical". You get deck-building, deck-optimization, shuffling, card-collection, power-combos (frequently every turn) and a number of other aspects of already addictive CCGs like Magic and Jyhad all rolled into a single 30-40 minute package. It is like a crack version of Magic... can you can make concentrated crack out of crack? Meth? Whatever.

We played two games in two hours, including set-up and rules explanation. Future games should go even more quickly. Our first game was a little extended because although we could have ended it much earlier, no one was quite sure who was winning, so we kept playing a number of turns after somone could have ended it.

Having played Dominion (the "vanilla" base set, that is) on Saturday, it was fresh in my mind for comparison. Base Dominion is faster, but with less choices. Intrigue gives you more choices and more complex card interactions. Both are good on their own merits and it would definitely be good to own both.

A note on teaching Dominion - the suggested "Victory Dance" deck in the Intrigue rulebook is a good teaching deck. However you choose to teach Dominion, try to have a relatively non-punishing deck to teach with - preferably one without curses or too many agonizing decision cards.

The first game was very close: Luch 45 (or was it 47?), Shemp 43 and me with 41. I actually ended it thinking I was ahead. Shemp scored 15 points with Dukes (five duchies times three dukes).

The second game was less close: Luch 63, Kozure 37, Shemp 29. Luch ran away with it after striking the 8 treasure goal line early and snapping up six of the twelve provinces to my three.

Small World is a polished up and tricked-out version of the Vinci rules, (previously discussed) with a cute fantasy theme. I bought it mostly for my high school friends for when we get together monthly, since they tend to prefer conquest-y games. Iwas actually thinking the game would be denser than it turned out, but there's definitely strategy. The reinforcement die does add in a little randomizing spice. The components (as usual from a Days of Wonder published game) are gorgeous, the insert is 90% well done (the unit counter tray could have been done better, counters still flip over and get stuck in the bottom and are subsequently hard to dig out).

Gameplay is fun and quick. We got through rules explanation and a full three player game in 50 minutes. Not as much of a hit as Dominion, but still liked enough.

Both good games in my book - I'm sorry Bharmer and Agent Easy had to miss them.

Next time!

Beauty and the Beast (Shogun x 1 and Phoenicia x1)

Clever Production Design vs. Poor Production Design in Games

Phoenicia and Shogun were the games of choice this week. We've tentatively adopted a new format where we play one game from the previous week each week, so as to allow a better exploration of the strategic depth and other subtleties of the game.

Phoenicia on second playing has improved in terms of speed and smoothness of play, but, for me at least, some of the initial interest has worn off. Although it seemed intriguing at first, this system seems to suffer from a marked runaway-leader aspect, a sameness of play and a inevitability of a certain winner which I can't really see any remedy to without major rules changes.

As mentioned in the previous review, the person who leads each auction is the VP leader from the previous round; in case of tied high scores the first player marker (in this case called the Overseer) is passed to the closest tied player to the left of the current Overseer. The benefits of being the auctioneer are that if you have the money, (which you often will, if you are leading in production) you can buy what you need right away without much interference from the other players. Since you control the auction until you give it up, you can conceivable buy a number of low cost items all in your turn if one or two of the other players already have bought an item or are otherwise out of cards or coins.

If you are the last player, you can often buy the one (or choose from the cards remaining) and buy it at cost. However, at that point, your selection is usually so limited as to severely limit your tech path options.

If you get the right combination early and grab the VP lead, you can more or less race to the end and leave the other players wallowing in the 18-24 point range.

Then again, maybe my two wins were a fluke… I'm not certain. I recently read a criticism of Agricola (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/307192 )which, although I cannot comment on the accuracy of it in relation to Agricola, I can apply some of the same criticism of specific feelings about the game to Phoenicia here.

To quote the review:

"There is a whole class of games where the opening setup determines the likely winner. Card games. They have a few other characteristics (at least for good ones): 1) they are short, 2) you play many hands to reduce the luck (or determine the better player). Good players will win more than their ‘fair’ share of games, but won’t win every hand.

Agricola is a single deal card game that takes 90+ minutes to resolve."

…

A good game should take as long as required to determine the winner, and no longer. Bridge (a great game) would be farcical if you spent 30 minutes playing a hand. Agricola is chess between even players where you may be randomly up a knight or down a queen, but don’t know until halfway through the game."

In Phoenicia's case, although you aren't dealt a secret hand of cards for asymmetrical player ability purposes, once one player pulls away, it seems to have a definite snowball effect. The winner seems to be determined early. Add to this the fact that attempting to block another player's strategy by purchasing the card he/she most likely wants is often either impossible or not viable as a strategy. If you did, you'd most likely torpedo your own strategic path, so the prospect of blocking another player by spending your own much-needed resources to stop her/him from getting it is the gaming equivalent of suicide bombing: you may (or may not) stop your intended target, but you'll almost certain kill yourself in the process.

Given that the only direct player interaction is the auction and everything else is player mat optimization, you're left with a game where everyone is left doing their own thing. If you buy the right card combo (often by virtue of where you're sitting for the first auction) early on, you win by snowball effect and the outcome seems pretty fixed. Though I do think I made some savvy choices early on, and shifted production strategy (from improved hunting to improved mining) at the right time to maximize my returns, it really didn't feel tense after the third or fourth round. Once I had money coming in, it wasn't much of a stretch to get more.

Specifically, getting the tracker allows improved hunting, which is a pretty cheap production path for points and production, (tools 2 vs. farming 5) and also affords reduction on the caravan, which is a great boost for points and production. I then gunned for the shipyards (and bid high), which gave me increased hand size, VPs, production and discounts on future improvements. Moving from there to Fort, Smelter, Shipping Fleet and City Walls just sealed the deal.

Easy's observation that the second and third seat players seem to have a definite disadvantage in the auction set-up also seems quite accurate.

Combined with the well-documented graphic design problems (shared VP/production track, poor iconography, low visibility for some critical icons and values) and poor rules-as-written ruleset, this makes for some very difficult obstacles for the enjoyment of the game. However, and this is a big however, it still seems worth playing again for some reason, at least one more time. Faint praise, but one feels like playing Phoenicia because it's a simple, relatively quick playing civilization game with some modicum of theme and tech development - not overlong like the sprawling Civilization or Through the Ages games, but not overly abstracted like Vinci or Tempus. At the same time, it's not a very good quick medium-lightweight civ game, it's just that there's not many successful ones out there. Even Antike, which is in my mind one of the more successful medium-weight civ games, is quite long by comparison.

Does Phoenicia just boil down to a straightforward auction game with tech tree and resource optimization? Pretty much, but it's quick. It lacks other components which (to me) are important to a successful-feeling civ game - exploration/discovery and direct competition. Plus, the art and iconography are mediocre at best, and confusing at worst.

Compared with Phoenicia's graphic layout, Shogun seems positively sparkling. Cleverly thought out balancing factors and a number of very interesting mechanics - cube tower, turn planning, bluff, hidden auction, etc. - remind one what a well thought through system can feel like by comparison to one which feels both graphically and mechanically unpolished. In Phoenicia's defence, Shogun has had one previous incarnation (as Wallenstein) to work out kinks, so it's like comparing a concept car to the fifth or sixth year version/model of a proven car design. The polish of Shogun's art and design definitely makes this the "beauty" of this pairing of beauty and beast.

Shogun balances powerbase-type strategies by awarding points for building types spread across several regions, allowing for players with scattered region cards to benefit. The cube tower also mitigates randomness in attacks and defense that might otherwise result from dice or table-based combat. Overall it is a nicely balanced game, but it still fails to engage me on some level - there isn't much "movement", if you know what I mean.

Last night's game has also underscored for me the concept that it's often better to focus taxation/rice unrest markers in one well garrisoned province rather than trying to spread your forces thin to quell potential unrest across your holdings (the old "You can't make all of the people happy all of the time," maxim). It also reminded me of the possible combination punches of getting reinforce, move and attack orders during a turn.

This game was much closer, and it was near to impossible to predict the winner. It feels like you're more in control, but there is much less movement. One minor criticism I have of this game is that it seems to end just as you're getting going - despite the fact that "getting going" has required 90 minutes already.

I like Shogun, but it remains a game that I don't really look forward to playing when it's selected. I don't dread it, or groan when it's mentioned, but it's still not something that I look forward to playing, like Railroad Tycoon or many of my other highly rated games. I did enjoy this game, as it was pretty close and required attention and careful strategy, but perhaps for the lack of dynamic movement that I previously mentioned, it's never quite as exciting as some other of my favourite games - it lacks as many highs and lows.

One day we'll find a civ game and a waro (weuro) that I like. For now, the search continues.

Vinci. Vinki. Winky. Bananas. (Vinci, Santiago)

Sonja joined us again, and brought 2 new (to us) games in tow... Vinci and Santiago. These are two of her favorite games, so I was quite curious to try them (For Sale!, though a very different game, was a favorite of hers which has gone over extremely well).

We started with Vinci (pronounced "Vinky" or "Winky", depending on who you ask). It means "to be conquered", and the name is fitting! The gameboard shows Europe as unamed territories defined by their major resource (mountains, fields, etc). In addition, a few other descriptors, "ports" and "mines", are identified. A series of "characteristics" are randomly drawn and layed out in pairs along the top of the board. In turn, players must choose a pair of characteristics which will define their emerging civilization and then begin to spread their influence across the board (a focus on military and farming, for ex.). Points are earned acording to the size of the civ, and for how well the civ matches up with some of the characteristics the player chose for it (a nation of farmers gets bonus points for controlling fields, for example). As the game progresses, players must decide when their civilization has reached it's zenith, and then decide to put it into "decline". This allows the player to pick a new pair of characteristics and start a new nation. The old nation continues to provide points until it is wiped of the board. This keeps going until the game ends. The whole thing is pretty abstracted, as the capacity for a nation to expand is the only thing which is described, and that is represented solely by a supply of little wooden discs. Seeing a game of Vinci is very similar to watching a number of coloured ameoba rather rapidly growing and contracting across the board.

The game was definitely interesting. Sonja, having played several times before, was much better at choosing her nation's characteristics, and cycling them for maximum VPs. She took over the center of the board and held it for quite a while. Kozure was last in turn order, and had a difficult start since the board was already pretty congested by his turn. I played my timing pretty badly, and at one point I was completely eliminated from the board! (I took solace in the fact that I was still in 3rd place, but with no source of points that was pretty short lived). Lucky for me, this is not a player elimination game... On my turn, I just selected another pair of characteristics and started a new civilization (I beleive my last one was defined by "Barbarians" and "Espionage"... an advantage in numbers and the ability to take out a large army with few soldiers). Luch got a good run out of some "Port" territories and came very close to catching up to Sonja, but ultimately Kozure had a very lucrative last turn and came in second. I was dead last.

I thought that Vinci was a very good game. The twin characteristics encourage players to look at the board differently for each combination they play. The expansion mechanics are simple enough that things move quickly for a game of such "scope". "Kill the Leader" tactics dominate the second half of the game, but the fact that players start new civs whenever they want and score their points immediately ensures that the game can't help but move forward. A minor issue I have is that things are SO abstracted and simplified that I never really felt I had time to identify with any of my nations. For a game with such a compelling topic, that's a bit of a shame. Still, the game was fun, so I can't fault it too badly!

I'm pretty sure it was well liked by the group. Kozure said he preferred it to El Grande! I don't see the connection, myself (and I definitely prefer El Grande)...

Santiago was next.

This is a game where players auction for goods to plant in a field (banana plants, potato seeds, etc), and ultimately win for producing the most valuable crops. A valuable crop is defined by it's size (a continuous set of 7 banana plants is worth more than 7 plants spread out across the board). The twist is that every turn, the player who bid the LEAST is in charge of determining which plants will get watered (termed "the overseer"). Predictably, plants without water eventually dry up and die. The game, therefore, revolves around evaluating the opportunities for various crops on the board, bidding accordingly to pick the right crops at the right time, and then bribing the "overseer" enough to make sure your efforts don't go to waste.

It's a simple enough system, and the bribing aspect makes the play interesting (it provides cash to the cash poor, and keeps runaway leaders in check... unless they are very persuasive!). Nothing groundbreaking, but player interaction was good and things moved along well (and any game with a built in screwage factor is always fun). For whatever reason, I lump this game with "China"... a modest game , but one that does what it's trying to do simply, cleanly and effectively (I'm not saying they are similar games, just that I associate them in this way). Not the kind of thing that would ever be in my top 10, but I could see them getting lots of play.

Unfortunately, my game was cut short (had to leave early). I wasn't able to finish the game, but what I played seemed promising enough. The next day, I was told I managed to virtually tie Shemp despite my absence for the second half of the game! Not sure what went so horribly wrong for him, and he's not offering to tell me....

Vinci: 8
Santiago: 7.5 (though not based on a full game)