A few weeks ago, we played High Frontier. This was my second play, but Kozure and Bharmer have played 3-4 times now and Shemp was playing for the first time.
Shemp struggled through the game in much the same way I did the first time out. I came in thinking that it would be much easier this time but I had a hard time getting started anyway. The game simply requires such precise planning that it's hard to wrap your head around when you are not sure what's going on.
I was playing the group that gave a bonus to thrust, so I took the solar sails and went to Mercury. I had forgotten that it was necessary to exceed the planet's rating to land/ take off for free and had to really be creative when I got there to avoid wasting the whole trip. I did manage it, though (I had a second thruster). I developed a better thruster and things became much easier. I managed a second factory, a first for me. Meanwhile, Kozure had a tragic accident and lost all his early progress to an explosion. Bharmer similarly suffered an explosion and suffered a setback, but his was later. Thanks to being explosion free, I managed to beat the more experienced players by a few points (otherwise, I am sure I would have been a distant third).
High Frontiers was much more enjoyable this time. The early game feels kind of pointlessly lengthy (lots of purchasing/ reselling just to get water supplies up), which is a bit irritating in a game that is so long. It also still feels like the dramatic drop in game difficulty once advanced techs are developed could have been softened somewhat. From Kozure's description of the advanced game, there is a bit more granularity to the progress in that version, so it could be a case of seeing the concessions made to simplify the system. Either way, it continues to be a very intriguing game that I look forward to playing again.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Sunday, January 02, 2011
2010 WAGS Year in Review
2010 has drawn to a close. Here's a quick look at what we played this year.
10 plays
Dominion
7 plays
Mr. Jack
6 plays
Macao
4 plays
Bacchus' Banquet
Chaos in the Old World
3 plays
Cyclades
Mexica
Ra
Steam
Warrior Knights
2 plays
A Game of Thrones
Beowulf: The Legend
Carcassonne: the City
Dice Town
Glory to Rome
I'm the Boss!`
Jungle Speed
Ra: the Dice game
Small World
The End of the Triumvirate
Tikal
1 play
Dungeon twister
1960: The making of the President
Alien Frontier
Battle Line
Boomtown
China
Cutthroat Caverns
Die Macher
Dominant Species
Dungeon Lords
Galaxy Trucker
Goa
Guerilla
High Frontier
In the Year of the Dragon
Le havre
Lords of Vegas
Louis XIV
Mare Nostrum
Pandemic
Perikles
Race for the Galaxy
Roll Through the Ages
Santiago
The Fires of Midway
Through the Ages
Thunderstone
Way Out West
So, that's 96 plays of 49 different games, a little below average for us.
2010 was a very peculiar year at WAGS. We unfortunately lost a core member as Luch could no longer attend. We also dealt with some life/ work conflicts which shortened most of our game nights to 2-3 hours instead of the usual 4. The end result was that we played fewer games than past years, and most of them at 3 players. Although our collections are large, and we thankfully do have quite a selection of games that work well at 3, it's definitely not the sweet spot for games. With 3, there is very little opportunity to play negotiation games, bidding games or conflict games. Worst of all, El Grande doesn't play well at three, and this will be the first year in WAGS history that it didn't get to the table even once. Awful, I know.
Game of the Year
For me, 2010 had two distinct phases: Before the fall, and after the fall. For 3/4 of the year, very little of the new crop of games interested me. Since September, suddenly quite a few games were announced that I found very interesting (7 Wonders, Civilization, Lords of Vegas, Dominant Species, High Frontier, Space Frontiers, Earth Reborn, Death Angel, Luna, D&D Castle Ravenloft, etc) , but most were only available just too late in the year to get purchased/ played. During the early dry period, I picked up Cyclades and Macao, and liked both quite a bit. Over the course of the year, Macao was played several times and my interest in the game has only grown. It's hard to say whether the scarcity of interesting games was the cause for the repeat plays, but it's quite unusual for us to play a single game this often in a year. Although it's been criticized by others as being a bland and soulless euro, to me the boring theme and presentation are an unfortunate veneer on a very interesting game system. It's a solid mid/ heavy euro that plays really well from 2-4 players, that mixes efficiency engine with card drafting and luck in a really novel way. Macao is an easy game of the year for me.
Most innovative/ Interesting game of the Year
Although I didn't particularly enjoy my single play of it, High Frontier wins as the most original and interesting game I played this year. The map is so incredibly cool and nerdy that I almost want to buy it just to have that. I really enjoyed the different tech cards with their sketchbook illustrations of how the technologies are supposed to work. I'd like to play this one again since I discovered that I didn't really understand how to play, and I think it would be much more fun played correctly (though it wouldn't exactly be easy, as it is supposed to be a tough game).
A close runner up could have been Earth Reborn. The theme not the greatest (the designer, based on his character development in Dungeon Twister: Prison and Earth Reborn, isn't particularly gifted at creating compelling characters without falling into silly stereotypes and tired clichés). Still, from reading the rules I am very excited about what this game has to offer. It looks like a miniature/ dungeon crawl/ scenario game like Descent or the like, but there appears to be a very clever and flexible game system underneath which will allow varied game play with short sessions. The terrain and rooms can be interacted with, character actions are quite flexible yet still simple to manage, missions are story-like can be much more engaging than simple "kill everyone and get to the boss", etc, etc. It appears to be everything I loved about Duel of Ages, Dungeon Twister and Conflict of Heroes all wrapped up into one well produced and lavish game that works for 2-4 players. I am quite excited to play, but until I do I will reserve judgement.
Lords of Vegas also deserves to be mentioned. Although it's too early to tell, this may well be the Monopoly replacement I've been looking for. A few more plays with the group and hopefully a try or two with the extended family should confirm. It's got the trading, the negotiating and the speculating I've been looking for without all the things that drag down Monopoly (game length and arbitrary roll n' move/ cards, mostly). If it can prove as re-playable and accessible as I think it is, i'd be really happy.
Thoughts on 2010
Fewer games were purchased, and consequently fewer new games were played in 2010. Despite my game of the year, WAGS seemed to take a distinct lean away from pure euros this year and embraced more american style games. I suppose it's natural that as game design evolves some schools of games borrow from each other. Whereas american style games have always had compelling and well integrated theme, euros have always prided themselves on streamlined play and reasonable game length and collectible card games offered nearly endless variety, many recent games have managed to integrate elements of all of them. Two great examples are Cyclades and Chaos in the Old World, but other games such as the recently released D&D game, Earth Reborn and Death Angel show that games heavy in theme don't have to be overlong, clunky and random. Although my favorite games continue to be mid-heavy strategy euros, fewer of them feel vital enough to warrant being added to my collection. For whatever reason, these new hybrids catch my eye a little better and I'm more compelled to give them a try. Even many of the euros we did purchase this year featured a distinct increase in randomness and confrontation (Dominant Species and Lords of Vegas come to mind)
Also, Iphone games seemed to come out of the woodwork this year. I have purchased and played Ra, Carcassonne, Keltis, Medici and many others. I don't really see these as replacements for their boardgame equivalents as I don't really like playing hotseat style with other people, but when no human gaming opponents are present I quite enjoy playing a game against AI (or, occasionally, against a networked opponent).
On a personal note, gaming with my eldest son has been awesome this year. We are playing a lot of Thunderstone (this would easily be his game of the year, I'm sure). We've also played several games of Fresco, Agricola, Pandemic and others. Life is good!
10 plays
Dominion
7 plays
Mr. Jack
6 plays
Macao
4 plays
Bacchus' Banquet
Chaos in the Old World
3 plays
Cyclades
Mexica
Ra
Steam
Warrior Knights
2 plays
A Game of Thrones
Beowulf: The Legend
Carcassonne: the City
Dice Town
Glory to Rome
I'm the Boss!`
Jungle Speed
Ra: the Dice game
Small World
The End of the Triumvirate
Tikal
1 play
Dungeon twister
1960: The making of the President
Alien Frontier
Battle Line
Boomtown
China
Cutthroat Caverns
Die Macher
Dominant Species
Dungeon Lords
Galaxy Trucker
Goa
Guerilla
High Frontier
In the Year of the Dragon
Le havre
Lords of Vegas
Louis XIV
Mare Nostrum
Pandemic
Perikles
Race for the Galaxy
Roll Through the Ages
Santiago
The Fires of Midway
Through the Ages
Thunderstone
Way Out West
So, that's 96 plays of 49 different games, a little below average for us.
2010 was a very peculiar year at WAGS. We unfortunately lost a core member as Luch could no longer attend. We also dealt with some life/ work conflicts which shortened most of our game nights to 2-3 hours instead of the usual 4. The end result was that we played fewer games than past years, and most of them at 3 players. Although our collections are large, and we thankfully do have quite a selection of games that work well at 3, it's definitely not the sweet spot for games. With 3, there is very little opportunity to play negotiation games, bidding games or conflict games. Worst of all, El Grande doesn't play well at three, and this will be the first year in WAGS history that it didn't get to the table even once. Awful, I know.
Game of the Year
For me, 2010 had two distinct phases: Before the fall, and after the fall. For 3/4 of the year, very little of the new crop of games interested me. Since September, suddenly quite a few games were announced that I found very interesting (7 Wonders, Civilization, Lords of Vegas, Dominant Species, High Frontier, Space Frontiers, Earth Reborn, Death Angel, Luna, D&D Castle Ravenloft, etc) , but most were only available just too late in the year to get purchased/ played. During the early dry period, I picked up Cyclades and Macao, and liked both quite a bit. Over the course of the year, Macao was played several times and my interest in the game has only grown. It's hard to say whether the scarcity of interesting games was the cause for the repeat plays, but it's quite unusual for us to play a single game this often in a year. Although it's been criticized by others as being a bland and soulless euro, to me the boring theme and presentation are an unfortunate veneer on a very interesting game system. It's a solid mid/ heavy euro that plays really well from 2-4 players, that mixes efficiency engine with card drafting and luck in a really novel way. Macao is an easy game of the year for me.
Most innovative/ Interesting game of the Year
Although I didn't particularly enjoy my single play of it, High Frontier wins as the most original and interesting game I played this year. The map is so incredibly cool and nerdy that I almost want to buy it just to have that. I really enjoyed the different tech cards with their sketchbook illustrations of how the technologies are supposed to work. I'd like to play this one again since I discovered that I didn't really understand how to play, and I think it would be much more fun played correctly (though it wouldn't exactly be easy, as it is supposed to be a tough game).
A close runner up could have been Earth Reborn. The theme not the greatest (the designer, based on his character development in Dungeon Twister: Prison and Earth Reborn, isn't particularly gifted at creating compelling characters without falling into silly stereotypes and tired clichés). Still, from reading the rules I am very excited about what this game has to offer. It looks like a miniature/ dungeon crawl/ scenario game like Descent or the like, but there appears to be a very clever and flexible game system underneath which will allow varied game play with short sessions. The terrain and rooms can be interacted with, character actions are quite flexible yet still simple to manage, missions are story-like can be much more engaging than simple "kill everyone and get to the boss", etc, etc. It appears to be everything I loved about Duel of Ages, Dungeon Twister and Conflict of Heroes all wrapped up into one well produced and lavish game that works for 2-4 players. I am quite excited to play, but until I do I will reserve judgement.
Lords of Vegas also deserves to be mentioned. Although it's too early to tell, this may well be the Monopoly replacement I've been looking for. A few more plays with the group and hopefully a try or two with the extended family should confirm. It's got the trading, the negotiating and the speculating I've been looking for without all the things that drag down Monopoly (game length and arbitrary roll n' move/ cards, mostly). If it can prove as re-playable and accessible as I think it is, i'd be really happy.
Thoughts on 2010
Fewer games were purchased, and consequently fewer new games were played in 2010. Despite my game of the year, WAGS seemed to take a distinct lean away from pure euros this year and embraced more american style games. I suppose it's natural that as game design evolves some schools of games borrow from each other. Whereas american style games have always had compelling and well integrated theme, euros have always prided themselves on streamlined play and reasonable game length and collectible card games offered nearly endless variety, many recent games have managed to integrate elements of all of them. Two great examples are Cyclades and Chaos in the Old World, but other games such as the recently released D&D game, Earth Reborn and Death Angel show that games heavy in theme don't have to be overlong, clunky and random. Although my favorite games continue to be mid-heavy strategy euros, fewer of them feel vital enough to warrant being added to my collection. For whatever reason, these new hybrids catch my eye a little better and I'm more compelled to give them a try. Even many of the euros we did purchase this year featured a distinct increase in randomness and confrontation (Dominant Species and Lords of Vegas come to mind)
Also, Iphone games seemed to come out of the woodwork this year. I have purchased and played Ra, Carcassonne, Keltis, Medici and many others. I don't really see these as replacements for their boardgame equivalents as I don't really like playing hotseat style with other people, but when no human gaming opponents are present I quite enjoy playing a game against AI (or, occasionally, against a networked opponent).
On a personal note, gaming with my eldest son has been awesome this year. We are playing a lot of Thunderstone (this would easily be his game of the year, I'm sure). We've also played several games of Fresco, Agricola, Pandemic and others. Life is good!
Saturday, January 01, 2011
2 (Dungeon Twister, Carcassonne: The City, Mr. Jack x2)
A little late, but here it is.
We ended the year with a two player games night, as others needed to attend to christmas preparations. It was just Shemp and I .
Dungeon Twister
I hadn't realized it, but Shemp had never played Dungeon Twister. Way back in 2007 DT was played this a couple of times, but apparently he wasn't at either session. Since no one present seemed to particularly like the game back then, I had relegated it to something I played outside of WAGS and never suggested it. Glad I brought it, because Shemp wanted to try it out and seemed to quite enjoy it!
I haven't ever handicapped my play against inexperienced players, though sometimes I think I should to avoid turning opponents off from the game. Luckily, Shemp is a very good player and I didn't really have to. There was an blunder made in the first few turns where he allowed me to get my goblin out unopposed, but after that the game was quite competitive... I did win but the score was close (maybe I would have lost if my goblin hadn't made it!). The game was unusually combat heavy, and both of us made good use of the rotation gears, speed potions, etc. All in all, it was a lot of fun and I'm very happy to have a willing opponent at WAGS! (as an aside, this continues to be one of my favorite games. I purchased the Prison set just to get the solo rules, which I had heard very good things about. I'm sorry to say that it has fallen flat with me. Buyer beware! I received Earth Reborn by the same designer over Christmas, and I'm very much looking forward to giving that a try. It looks very ambitious)
Carcassonne: The City
We played a quick game of Carc: The City afterwards. The game was characterized by ridiculously long corridors of city, caused by both of us lining up the purple buildings with the soldiers on the walls. In the end, the city walls didn't come anywhere close to closing and the game ended due to lack of tiles. I won this game as well because I paid more attention to the "farmers" (what are they in the City?), but Shemp's loooong lines of purple buildings gave him huge points as well.
Mr. Jack
When me and Shemp have a two player session, Mr. Jack always makes an appearance. We continue to find it difficult to win as Jack, but it's fun giving it a shot. The light side won on both occasions (once as me, once as Shemp).
We ended the year with a two player games night, as others needed to attend to christmas preparations. It was just Shemp and I .
Dungeon Twister
I hadn't realized it, but Shemp had never played Dungeon Twister. Way back in 2007 DT was played this a couple of times, but apparently he wasn't at either session. Since no one present seemed to particularly like the game back then, I had relegated it to something I played outside of WAGS and never suggested it. Glad I brought it, because Shemp wanted to try it out and seemed to quite enjoy it!
I haven't ever handicapped my play against inexperienced players, though sometimes I think I should to avoid turning opponents off from the game. Luckily, Shemp is a very good player and I didn't really have to. There was an blunder made in the first few turns where he allowed me to get my goblin out unopposed, but after that the game was quite competitive... I did win but the score was close (maybe I would have lost if my goblin hadn't made it!). The game was unusually combat heavy, and both of us made good use of the rotation gears, speed potions, etc. All in all, it was a lot of fun and I'm very happy to have a willing opponent at WAGS! (as an aside, this continues to be one of my favorite games. I purchased the Prison set just to get the solo rules, which I had heard very good things about. I'm sorry to say that it has fallen flat with me. Buyer beware! I received Earth Reborn by the same designer over Christmas, and I'm very much looking forward to giving that a try. It looks very ambitious)
Carcassonne: The City
We played a quick game of Carc: The City afterwards. The game was characterized by ridiculously long corridors of city, caused by both of us lining up the purple buildings with the soldiers on the walls. In the end, the city walls didn't come anywhere close to closing and the game ended due to lack of tiles. I won this game as well because I paid more attention to the "farmers" (what are they in the City?), but Shemp's loooong lines of purple buildings gave him huge points as well.
Mr. Jack
When me and Shemp have a two player session, Mr. Jack always makes an appearance. We continue to find it difficult to win as Jack, but it's fun giving it a shot. The light side won on both occasions (once as me, once as Shemp).
Labels:
Carcassonne: The City,
Dungeon Twister,
Mr. Jack
Friday, December 17, 2010
Vegas Baby!, Yeah! (Lords of Vegas, Boomtown)
I'm always searching for a great negotiation game. Although Monopoly has it's flaws, I still haven't found a game that I think does negotiation better. I think that ultimately it boils down to the fact that I find negotiating more fun when there is latitude to deal and returns are based on speculation. This means that I inherently prefer negotiation games that have an element of luck, games where a calculated risk can pay off or go bad. The problems with Monopoly are numerous, but unfortunately all the euro games I've played since starting this hobby solve many of the mechanical problems but also strip the negotiation aspect of much of it's interest.
The three games that I have played that came closest where Traders of Genoa, Chinatown and I'm the Boss!. ToG is a great strategy/ negotiation game but it's too heavy for most and there is little financial latitude in most cases. Chinatown is a nice, pure negotiation game but the value of a trade can be calculated and that sucks some of the fun out of it. I'm the Boss is a lot of fun, but it's almost a party game.
So, how does Lords of Vegas fare in the field? First impressions are quite good.
Lords of Vegas
Lords of Vegas has a few surface similarities to Chinatown. Both feature a gameboard showing city blocks that are organized into labelled grids. Both see players drawing lots at random, thus seeding the board and giving everyone a starting point for negotiation. Of course, this is a vegas game, so it makes sense that risk and reward figure prominently in how the game actually plays out. And dice. Lords of Vegas has lots of dice.
Each turn, after a player draws his/ her random lot, the game pays out a small amount to anyone who has unbuilt lots in play and a larger amount to anyone who has built portions of casinos matching the colour of the drawn card. Next, victory points are scored by the players who are "the boss" of the casinos that paid out. Clearly, the aim of the game is to be the beneficiary of as many pay outs as possible and be the boss of casinos that will generate victory points!
With the unbuilt lots as a starting point, players have the following options:
1) Build casinos on lots: Players choose to build a section of a casino on a lot he owns. There are several colours of casinos that can be built. The colour is completely up to the player (as long as pieces are available). The choice of colours depends on two things; a) two casinos of the same colour that grow into each other merge, and b) you can see which casino cards have been drawn so far and therefore which casino colours are likely to pay out in the future (there are only 9 of each colour). The lot will have a picture of a die with a number on it. The player will take one of his dice and place it on the space with the appropriate number facing up. This is important because if two casinos merge, the player with the highest number is the boss.
2) Sprawl: Players can expand an existing casino into an adjacent lot. This is beneficial because casinos generate VPs based on size. This is risky because if a player later draws that lot, he immediately becomes the owner. Not all cards come out, though, so it's a gamble.
3) Renovate: Change the colour of a casino. This can be a defensive move to prevent a merger or an offensive move to create one.
4) Reorganize: Any player that owns at least one section of a casino can "shake up the establishement" by re-rolling all the dice in that casino. Whoever has the highest numbered die after the re-roll is the new boss. Obviously, this costs money so it can't be done on a whim, but it is a way for a player to take a risk and try to take over a casino that was previously someone else's.
5) Gamble: Any player can go to someone else's casino and gamble. They place a sum of money on the line and roll the dice. If the roll the right numbers, they double (or triple!) their money FROM THAT PLAYER'S MONEY. If they fail, they give the player the money.
In addition to all this, players are encouraged to negotiate at all times. Don't like the lot you drew? Trade it with someone else. Create a deal to free up some yellow tiles so you can renovate your casino and merge with the one next to you, becoming the boss in the process. There are a lot of possibilities.
The fact that so much of this is dependent on speculation is just icing on the cake. You can expand you casino to increase you VPs, but how long will that investment pay off before it's taken away from you? You can pay a princely sum to get that last red casino tile and anticipate scoring big when it comes up, but what if it doesn't?
The one last item I didn't mention is that players MUST be bosses of ever growing casinos in order to win, because the VP track does an interesting thing where bigger and bigger casino VPs are required to advance a single step. This single design decision provides all the incentive necessary to keep players from sitting on single tile casinos forever.
Overall, Lords of Vegas does everything I wish a trading/ negotiation game did. In our first play I had some concerns about the pacing (due to all the options available on a player's turn, even a quick player can take a little while). Chinatown definitely has the edge as far as feeling like a pure negotiation game, but I see this one having longer legs because it merges interesting boardplay with negotiation and speculation. We'll see after a few plays.
In our game, we started trading early and I was able to consolidate a couple of casinos early. Before long, I had a large one developing in the center of the board and Shemp and Chris found it difficult to stop me. I think in future games, we will all be hanging onto our lots a little more strongly! Along the way, there were some interesting upsets through reorganizations, and a couple of critical merges that swung control of the casinos involved. We also gambled a lot, and it was observed that gambling has strategic opportunities as well by reducing that player's ability to do actions on his turn.
Chinatown should start sweating right about now...
Boomtown
I won't go into much detail, but Boomtown is a card game that mixes auctions with the resource production of Settlers of Catan and cards that are reminiscent of Bang! You have to bid for mining prospects in order to generate money, or try to get cards that can help you or hinder you opponent. One clever mechanism I hadn't seen before was that whoever won the auction picked first and selection proceeded clockwise but the winning bid was distributed to players counter-clockwise. In other words, if you got last pick, you got more money. It's an interesting balancing mechanism.
I enjoyed the game, but it's not stellar. I'll try it again with a different crowd and see how it goes. My only concern is that auction games don't tend to fare well with people who don't game enough to be able to evaluate such things.
The three games that I have played that came closest where Traders of Genoa, Chinatown and I'm the Boss!. ToG is a great strategy/ negotiation game but it's too heavy for most and there is little financial latitude in most cases. Chinatown is a nice, pure negotiation game but the value of a trade can be calculated and that sucks some of the fun out of it. I'm the Boss is a lot of fun, but it's almost a party game.
So, how does Lords of Vegas fare in the field? First impressions are quite good.
Lords of Vegas
Lords of Vegas has a few surface similarities to Chinatown. Both feature a gameboard showing city blocks that are organized into labelled grids. Both see players drawing lots at random, thus seeding the board and giving everyone a starting point for negotiation. Of course, this is a vegas game, so it makes sense that risk and reward figure prominently in how the game actually plays out. And dice. Lords of Vegas has lots of dice.
Each turn, after a player draws his/ her random lot, the game pays out a small amount to anyone who has unbuilt lots in play and a larger amount to anyone who has built portions of casinos matching the colour of the drawn card. Next, victory points are scored by the players who are "the boss" of the casinos that paid out. Clearly, the aim of the game is to be the beneficiary of as many pay outs as possible and be the boss of casinos that will generate victory points!
With the unbuilt lots as a starting point, players have the following options:
1) Build casinos on lots: Players choose to build a section of a casino on a lot he owns. There are several colours of casinos that can be built. The colour is completely up to the player (as long as pieces are available). The choice of colours depends on two things; a) two casinos of the same colour that grow into each other merge, and b) you can see which casino cards have been drawn so far and therefore which casino colours are likely to pay out in the future (there are only 9 of each colour). The lot will have a picture of a die with a number on it. The player will take one of his dice and place it on the space with the appropriate number facing up. This is important because if two casinos merge, the player with the highest number is the boss.
2) Sprawl: Players can expand an existing casino into an adjacent lot. This is beneficial because casinos generate VPs based on size. This is risky because if a player later draws that lot, he immediately becomes the owner. Not all cards come out, though, so it's a gamble.
3) Renovate: Change the colour of a casino. This can be a defensive move to prevent a merger or an offensive move to create one.
4) Reorganize: Any player that owns at least one section of a casino can "shake up the establishement" by re-rolling all the dice in that casino. Whoever has the highest numbered die after the re-roll is the new boss. Obviously, this costs money so it can't be done on a whim, but it is a way for a player to take a risk and try to take over a casino that was previously someone else's.
5) Gamble: Any player can go to someone else's casino and gamble. They place a sum of money on the line and roll the dice. If the roll the right numbers, they double (or triple!) their money FROM THAT PLAYER'S MONEY. If they fail, they give the player the money.
In addition to all this, players are encouraged to negotiate at all times. Don't like the lot you drew? Trade it with someone else. Create a deal to free up some yellow tiles so you can renovate your casino and merge with the one next to you, becoming the boss in the process. There are a lot of possibilities.
The fact that so much of this is dependent on speculation is just icing on the cake. You can expand you casino to increase you VPs, but how long will that investment pay off before it's taken away from you? You can pay a princely sum to get that last red casino tile and anticipate scoring big when it comes up, but what if it doesn't?
The one last item I didn't mention is that players MUST be bosses of ever growing casinos in order to win, because the VP track does an interesting thing where bigger and bigger casino VPs are required to advance a single step. This single design decision provides all the incentive necessary to keep players from sitting on single tile casinos forever.
Overall, Lords of Vegas does everything I wish a trading/ negotiation game did. In our first play I had some concerns about the pacing (due to all the options available on a player's turn, even a quick player can take a little while). Chinatown definitely has the edge as far as feeling like a pure negotiation game, but I see this one having longer legs because it merges interesting boardplay with negotiation and speculation. We'll see after a few plays.
In our game, we started trading early and I was able to consolidate a couple of casinos early. Before long, I had a large one developing in the center of the board and Shemp and Chris found it difficult to stop me. I think in future games, we will all be hanging onto our lots a little more strongly! Along the way, there were some interesting upsets through reorganizations, and a couple of critical merges that swung control of the casinos involved. We also gambled a lot, and it was observed that gambling has strategic opportunities as well by reducing that player's ability to do actions on his turn.
Chinatown should start sweating right about now...
Boomtown
I won't go into much detail, but Boomtown is a card game that mixes auctions with the resource production of Settlers of Catan and cards that are reminiscent of Bang! You have to bid for mining prospects in order to generate money, or try to get cards that can help you or hinder you opponent. One clever mechanism I hadn't seen before was that whoever won the auction picked first and selection proceeded clockwise but the winning bid was distributed to players counter-clockwise. In other words, if you got last pick, you got more money. It's an interesting balancing mechanism.
I enjoyed the game, but it's not stellar. I'll try it again with a different crowd and see how it goes. My only concern is that auction games don't tend to fare well with people who don't game enough to be able to evaluate such things.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Better than El Grande? (Dominant Species)
Kozure purchased Dominant Species recently, and Shemp made it his pick this week.
In Dominant Species, each player represents a type of creature in the animal kingdom (reptile, mammals, birds, insects, arachnids or amphibian). The world slowly expands to reveal various types of terrain while simultaneously the ice age creeps up and turns a subset of the terrain to inhospitable tundra. The various types of creatures struggle to evolve and adapt themselves to the available terrain while simultaneously trying to outnumber the others.
At it's core, Dominant Species is a worker placement/ area majority game. There are a large number of options each turn, from selecting from an available list of adaptations, to exploring the land, to migrating and attacking other creatures. Players select where to place their 3 action pawns (to start) amongst the available options. Afterwards, the actions are resolved. The board play itself felt very much like playing El Grande EXTREME edition... Various mechanisms are pushing many coloured cubes around the board, all in a contest to gain majorities. What sets this game apart is the vast array of options and intertwined mechanics. In particular, the area majority has two facets which must be managed simultaneously: Who has the largest number of animals present, and who is the most adapted to the environment. When scoring occurs, the player with the most animals gets the most points (similar to El Grande), but the player with the best adapted animal gets to draw from several face up cards which can confer powerful bonuses to that player.
With all these extra layers of stuff comes the inevitable longer playtime. in our game, we played a shortened version (Kozure removed a number of cards. 10?) and it still clocked in at 3hrs. Honestly, I didn't really see what would have improved with the full game. There doesn't seem to be long term strategies that would only come to fruition after a certain amount of play (as opposed to Through the Ages, where "idea" strategies take longer to compared to the short term military strategy). Personally, I would probably choose to play the same way next time.
In our session, I played the arachnids, who's special ability is that they can kill one animal (one cube) of their choice every round for free. I took a domination card called "Blight" (I think) which allowed me to eliminate certain resources from the board. The intended effect was to slow down Kozure, the leader at the time. The actual effect was nearly wiping him off the board when extinction was checked. He was reduced to a single cube! Over the course of the game, Kozure saw his early fortunes fall and Shemp took the lead. I managed a comeback, and when the end game points were calculated I won by a handful of points. It was very close.
Overall, I quite enjoyed the game. The theme is well executed, there appears to be multiple players of strategy, there is a good amount of player interaction, etc. It's long though. And it's a thinker, open to definite analysis paralysis. Given the similar feeling to El Grande, I'd likely choose to play that game most of the time just because it's so much shorter. Still, there is lots of depth to explore here, so I'd be happy to play again!
In Dominant Species, each player represents a type of creature in the animal kingdom (reptile, mammals, birds, insects, arachnids or amphibian). The world slowly expands to reveal various types of terrain while simultaneously the ice age creeps up and turns a subset of the terrain to inhospitable tundra. The various types of creatures struggle to evolve and adapt themselves to the available terrain while simultaneously trying to outnumber the others.
At it's core, Dominant Species is a worker placement/ area majority game. There are a large number of options each turn, from selecting from an available list of adaptations, to exploring the land, to migrating and attacking other creatures. Players select where to place their 3 action pawns (to start) amongst the available options. Afterwards, the actions are resolved. The board play itself felt very much like playing El Grande EXTREME edition... Various mechanisms are pushing many coloured cubes around the board, all in a contest to gain majorities. What sets this game apart is the vast array of options and intertwined mechanics. In particular, the area majority has two facets which must be managed simultaneously: Who has the largest number of animals present, and who is the most adapted to the environment. When scoring occurs, the player with the most animals gets the most points (similar to El Grande), but the player with the best adapted animal gets to draw from several face up cards which can confer powerful bonuses to that player.
With all these extra layers of stuff comes the inevitable longer playtime. in our game, we played a shortened version (Kozure removed a number of cards. 10?) and it still clocked in at 3hrs. Honestly, I didn't really see what would have improved with the full game. There doesn't seem to be long term strategies that would only come to fruition after a certain amount of play (as opposed to Through the Ages, where "idea" strategies take longer to compared to the short term military strategy). Personally, I would probably choose to play the same way next time.
In our session, I played the arachnids, who's special ability is that they can kill one animal (one cube) of their choice every round for free. I took a domination card called "Blight" (I think) which allowed me to eliminate certain resources from the board. The intended effect was to slow down Kozure, the leader at the time. The actual effect was nearly wiping him off the board when extinction was checked. He was reduced to a single cube! Over the course of the game, Kozure saw his early fortunes fall and Shemp took the lead. I managed a comeback, and when the end game points were calculated I won by a handful of points. It was very close.
Overall, I quite enjoyed the game. The theme is well executed, there appears to be multiple players of strategy, there is a good amount of player interaction, etc. It's long though. And it's a thinker, open to definite analysis paralysis. Given the similar feeling to El Grande, I'd likely choose to play that game most of the time just because it's so much shorter. Still, there is lots of depth to explore here, so I'd be happy to play again!
Monday, December 06, 2010
Crowns, Glory and NERDS!!! (Warrior Knights: Crown and Glory, High Frontier)
I've neglected the blog for a few weeks, so I'll play catch-up on our last two gaming sessions.
Two weeks ago, we added the "Crown and Glory" expansion to Warrior Knights and last week we played a game that is so obviously and joyfully nerdy that it's almost cool: High Frontier.
Warrior Knights: Crown and Glory
We've played and enjoyed Warrior Knights a couple of times already, and I've been surprised at how much the "flaws" I had read about the game didn't bother me. Specifically, many people complain that the game's title is misleading and the lack of combat is disappointing. Personally I liked the mix of politics, religion and territory control that the game offered and felt the lessening of combat was a fair trade-off for the additional facets the game offered. Still, there were a few issues that bothered me somewhat. The two biggest ones were the movement limits and the anti-climactic endgame. Actually, the two are related... The lack of movement ability makes the endgame predictable under some circumstances. This means the winner can be obvious going into the last turn and the last little while can be kind of boring.
The new expansion introduces new elements that address both these issues and more. For the movement issue, a new action card allows a player to refresh and re-use an exhausted noble. For the endgame issue, hidden missions are dealt out at the beginning of the game and points are awarded for completing the objective at the end. Both these additions work very well and I wouldn't want to play the game again without them.
Other additions: Technology can be researched and developed. The mercenaries have a few special units that confer powers to the controlling noble. The mercenary track comes into play more frequently due to a tweaked rule. Town levies and fortifications have been added. All good, in my opinion. Tech is probably my favorite due to the special powers they confer and the impact that can have on the game.
The final addition is the "King" variant which grants one player the title of "King" partway through the game. This title comes with a considerable army, an advantage in gaining influence... and a huge target on your head. Suddenly, all players are out to get you to prevent you from getting the bonus influence (and to get it themselves). It's an interesting way to focus attention and keep the game from being a free-for-all. This aspect of our first play through was disappointing because the "quick game" suggested setup is too short. The game ends the turn after someone becomes the King.
In our game, I took a slight lead early and grabbed the title of King. Kozure was doing a great job of generally matching my influence totals but doing it in such a way to not attract attention. Shemp was struggling with the all the new options and had a hard time focussing his strategy. On the last turn of the game, Kozure was banned from the assembly by me and Shemp, and I took to the field with my new kingly army. My lead in influence was not great, but it didn't seem likely that anyone could catch-up. I made a mistake trying to steal a kingdom from Kozure and he exploited it... taking one of mine on his turn while I was on the road. This had the double whammy effect of losing me an influence and making me fail my secret objective. Kozure had met his goal and the game ended with a Kozurian victory. The missions had their intended effect, the last turn was NOT boring!
High Frontier
High Frontier was designed by someone who is clearly passionate about scientific space exploration. And someone nerdy. Definitely nerdy. It's about building rockets out of futuristic technologies and going out to space to explore/ research and claim planets. The map is fantastic. It's a depiction of the solar system and further galaxies and planets, and the routes to get there. A large number of 'futuristic technologies" actually researched for space travel are depicted in the available components for rocket construction. The cards feature little sketch diagrams with explanations of the way these things should work. It's all crazy and geeky and somehow awesome.
But how does it play? Well, I'm not sure. I played the game for 4 hours or so and still didn't really understand all that was going on. This is odd, because there doesn't APPEAR to be anything complicated in the rules, but the tolerances are low and it all felt somewhat opaque. You have to accumulate water tokens to purchase rocket thrusters, robonauts and factories and send them to space. The thrusters are necessary to fly, but the robonauts and factories are necessary to settle a planet. What initially makes the game hard is that you have to build your ship out of parts, and the parts have a certain weight. The better engines are heavy. Getting to where you want to go means balancing fuel capacity, fuel consumption, weight and trajectory... all the while making sure you have enough to get back! Planning your route felt a little like Power Grid to me. Lots of calculating and recalculating... only here if you get it wrong you are stuck floating back from space (this happened to BHarmer at least once). The destinations are laid out such that there are precious few, if any, easy routes. Very precise calculating is necessary. This works for simulating space travel but it's somewhat taxing in a game. Over the course of the game it's possible to develop technologies which make the game suddenly significantly easier. We may have been playing wrong, but it felt to me fairly heavy handed how dramatically the game shifts once a player has one of those advanced components. Once I developed one myself I was quite surprised how all my difficult number crunching became unnecessary. Does this mean the game is all about who gets that first tech? Hard to say... I still think we were doing something wrong. There is also a concept of producing tech from an established colony and selling it back to earth which I never did understand.
My first reaction is that the theme is executed brilliantly, the map is fantastic and the abstraction of scientific info into a playable game fascinating BUT the gameplay itself is frustrating. Is it really possible that the player that gets a particular thruster has THAT great of an advantage over the others? Are we correct that there are only a few viable early game planets? Does the first player to develop an advanced tech have such an advantage that they will automatically win the game?
I continuously felt like I was missing something. Like something wasn't quite adding up. How can the game possibly work with 4-5 players if the viable options are so few? We'll have to explore this one further, if only to see how the whole thing gels together. I confess I didn't really enjoy our first game, but I find the game fascinating nonetheless. I really WANT to like it. The map alone makes me want to OWN it. I find it mind boggling that what we played was the SIMPLE game and that an ADVANCED game ships with it right in the box!
Two weeks ago, we added the "Crown and Glory" expansion to Warrior Knights and last week we played a game that is so obviously and joyfully nerdy that it's almost cool: High Frontier.
Warrior Knights: Crown and Glory
We've played and enjoyed Warrior Knights a couple of times already, and I've been surprised at how much the "flaws" I had read about the game didn't bother me. Specifically, many people complain that the game's title is misleading and the lack of combat is disappointing. Personally I liked the mix of politics, religion and territory control that the game offered and felt the lessening of combat was a fair trade-off for the additional facets the game offered. Still, there were a few issues that bothered me somewhat. The two biggest ones were the movement limits and the anti-climactic endgame. Actually, the two are related... The lack of movement ability makes the endgame predictable under some circumstances. This means the winner can be obvious going into the last turn and the last little while can be kind of boring.
The new expansion introduces new elements that address both these issues and more. For the movement issue, a new action card allows a player to refresh and re-use an exhausted noble. For the endgame issue, hidden missions are dealt out at the beginning of the game and points are awarded for completing the objective at the end. Both these additions work very well and I wouldn't want to play the game again without them.
Other additions: Technology can be researched and developed. The mercenaries have a few special units that confer powers to the controlling noble. The mercenary track comes into play more frequently due to a tweaked rule. Town levies and fortifications have been added. All good, in my opinion. Tech is probably my favorite due to the special powers they confer and the impact that can have on the game.
The final addition is the "King" variant which grants one player the title of "King" partway through the game. This title comes with a considerable army, an advantage in gaining influence... and a huge target on your head. Suddenly, all players are out to get you to prevent you from getting the bonus influence (and to get it themselves). It's an interesting way to focus attention and keep the game from being a free-for-all. This aspect of our first play through was disappointing because the "quick game" suggested setup is too short. The game ends the turn after someone becomes the King.
In our game, I took a slight lead early and grabbed the title of King. Kozure was doing a great job of generally matching my influence totals but doing it in such a way to not attract attention. Shemp was struggling with the all the new options and had a hard time focussing his strategy. On the last turn of the game, Kozure was banned from the assembly by me and Shemp, and I took to the field with my new kingly army. My lead in influence was not great, but it didn't seem likely that anyone could catch-up. I made a mistake trying to steal a kingdom from Kozure and he exploited it... taking one of mine on his turn while I was on the road. This had the double whammy effect of losing me an influence and making me fail my secret objective. Kozure had met his goal and the game ended with a Kozurian victory. The missions had their intended effect, the last turn was NOT boring!
High Frontier
High Frontier was designed by someone who is clearly passionate about scientific space exploration. And someone nerdy. Definitely nerdy. It's about building rockets out of futuristic technologies and going out to space to explore/ research and claim planets. The map is fantastic. It's a depiction of the solar system and further galaxies and planets, and the routes to get there. A large number of 'futuristic technologies" actually researched for space travel are depicted in the available components for rocket construction. The cards feature little sketch diagrams with explanations of the way these things should work. It's all crazy and geeky and somehow awesome.
But how does it play? Well, I'm not sure. I played the game for 4 hours or so and still didn't really understand all that was going on. This is odd, because there doesn't APPEAR to be anything complicated in the rules, but the tolerances are low and it all felt somewhat opaque. You have to accumulate water tokens to purchase rocket thrusters, robonauts and factories and send them to space. The thrusters are necessary to fly, but the robonauts and factories are necessary to settle a planet. What initially makes the game hard is that you have to build your ship out of parts, and the parts have a certain weight. The better engines are heavy. Getting to where you want to go means balancing fuel capacity, fuel consumption, weight and trajectory... all the while making sure you have enough to get back! Planning your route felt a little like Power Grid to me. Lots of calculating and recalculating... only here if you get it wrong you are stuck floating back from space (this happened to BHarmer at least once). The destinations are laid out such that there are precious few, if any, easy routes. Very precise calculating is necessary. This works for simulating space travel but it's somewhat taxing in a game. Over the course of the game it's possible to develop technologies which make the game suddenly significantly easier. We may have been playing wrong, but it felt to me fairly heavy handed how dramatically the game shifts once a player has one of those advanced components. Once I developed one myself I was quite surprised how all my difficult number crunching became unnecessary. Does this mean the game is all about who gets that first tech? Hard to say... I still think we were doing something wrong. There is also a concept of producing tech from an established colony and selling it back to earth which I never did understand.
My first reaction is that the theme is executed brilliantly, the map is fantastic and the abstraction of scientific info into a playable game fascinating BUT the gameplay itself is frustrating. Is it really possible that the player that gets a particular thruster has THAT great of an advantage over the others? Are we correct that there are only a few viable early game planets? Does the first player to develop an advanced tech have such an advantage that they will automatically win the game?
I continuously felt like I was missing something. Like something wasn't quite adding up. How can the game possibly work with 4-5 players if the viable options are so few? We'll have to explore this one further, if only to see how the whole thing gels together. I confess I didn't really enjoy our first game, but I find the game fascinating nonetheless. I really WANT to like it. The map alone makes me want to OWN it. I find it mind boggling that what we played was the SIMPLE game and that an ADVANCED game ships with it right in the box!
Saturday, November 20, 2010
What's that, rustling in the bushes? (Alien Frontiers, Guerilla
It was Kozure's pick this week and he selected a 20 year old Avalon Hill game called Guerilla. As we waited around for the group to be ready to start. we also had a chance to play a two player game of my new copy of Alien Frontiers.
Alien Frontiers
The Boardgame industry appears to have gone through a slump recently as far as interesting new games are concerned. This time last year I would have struggled to name 5 new games that interested me, and for most of this year the situation was the same (this explains why we have actually been playing our back catalogue recently!). Suddenly, though, a number of games are being released which have picked my interest. One of these was Alien Frontiers.
Alien Frontiers is a dice rolling and placing game similar to "To Court the King" or (apparently) "Kingsburg". Each player is given 8 colony tokens and must attempt to make as many VPs as possible, mostly by placing colonies on the planet. On a turn, players roll the dice they have (their "ships") and place the dice according to the space they are trying to activate. For example, it's possible to gather ore or fuel, to learn an alien technology, etc. Learning the alien techs allows players to manipulate their dice, and gaining dominance in an area gives game changing bonuses as well.
To Court the King ultimately fell flat for me, but so far Alien Frontiers has been quite fun. Dice allocation games are not my favorite, but this one I have enjoyed. At first, I felt the game was fun but lacked a certain dynamic necessary to push it over the top. Now, I've played a few more games with my son and we are starting to use the second type of action available on the alien tech cards: when players discard it and a player can move colonies around, exchange, them, etc. Suddenly the game becomes much more interactive and interesting. A fun game, and unique in my collection.
Guerrilla
This is a card game attempting to recreate guerrilla warfare between government and rebels. Unlike many wargame recreations, Guerilla features a couple of game mechanics which makes for a very interesting game without relying on the theme. Before getting into the specifics of the game, it's important to understand at it's heart this is a simple game that involves playing cards that represent government or rebel units to your tableau and using them to attack other players. It's also necessary to understand that all players may control units from both sides and that a player's actual loyalties are secret. There are three possible loyalties: To the government, to the rebels and to no one (meaning that you benefit from having the war and therefore want neither to gain a clear advantage). The mechanic which really makes the game is that as players conduct attacks on other players, the winner of the battle scores points AND the faction of the winning units score the same amount of points. This is important because at the end of the game, if your faction isn't leading (or if the spread in points is too large if you are the mercenaries) your points are HALVED. This means that you will sometimes plan attacks that fail simply so that the faction you want to win gains points. Aside from the units, there are various buildings which grant special powers and VPs to the owner, cards that can be played for "take that" style effects (cutting off supply, assassinations, air raids, etc). The cards are thematic without being overly complex, and the rebels and government factions get different cards which each give them their own feel. It's a well executed combat/ take that style game which is made much more interesting by it's innovative scoring system (not bad for a 20 year old game!).
My main complaints are 1) it's way to long for what it is. The deck should definitely be pruned before we play next. 2) Once you start falling behind, it's hard to get back in... and kinda boring as you watch the others do stuff while you wait. Solving #1 also happens to alleviate #2 so it's not that big of a deal to get over these issues.
As mentioned above, despite my strong start as the government I was beaten down and never really made it back. Some assassinations, cut supplies and a few bad die rolls took me out of contention about midway through the game and I floundered afterwards, knowing it was impossible for me to be a contender. I can point to many errors I made, however, so I'm not blaming the game for my poor showing. I'm sure our next session will be even more fun now that we understand how it works.
Vive la révolution!
Alien Frontiers
The Boardgame industry appears to have gone through a slump recently as far as interesting new games are concerned. This time last year I would have struggled to name 5 new games that interested me, and for most of this year the situation was the same (this explains why we have actually been playing our back catalogue recently!). Suddenly, though, a number of games are being released which have picked my interest. One of these was Alien Frontiers.
Alien Frontiers is a dice rolling and placing game similar to "To Court the King" or (apparently) "Kingsburg". Each player is given 8 colony tokens and must attempt to make as many VPs as possible, mostly by placing colonies on the planet. On a turn, players roll the dice they have (their "ships") and place the dice according to the space they are trying to activate. For example, it's possible to gather ore or fuel, to learn an alien technology, etc. Learning the alien techs allows players to manipulate their dice, and gaining dominance in an area gives game changing bonuses as well.
To Court the King ultimately fell flat for me, but so far Alien Frontiers has been quite fun. Dice allocation games are not my favorite, but this one I have enjoyed. At first, I felt the game was fun but lacked a certain dynamic necessary to push it over the top. Now, I've played a few more games with my son and we are starting to use the second type of action available on the alien tech cards: when players discard it and a player can move colonies around, exchange, them, etc. Suddenly the game becomes much more interactive and interesting. A fun game, and unique in my collection.
Guerrilla
This is a card game attempting to recreate guerrilla warfare between government and rebels. Unlike many wargame recreations, Guerilla features a couple of game mechanics which makes for a very interesting game without relying on the theme. Before getting into the specifics of the game, it's important to understand at it's heart this is a simple game that involves playing cards that represent government or rebel units to your tableau and using them to attack other players. It's also necessary to understand that all players may control units from both sides and that a player's actual loyalties are secret. There are three possible loyalties: To the government, to the rebels and to no one (meaning that you benefit from having the war and therefore want neither to gain a clear advantage). The mechanic which really makes the game is that as players conduct attacks on other players, the winner of the battle scores points AND the faction of the winning units score the same amount of points. This is important because at the end of the game, if your faction isn't leading (or if the spread in points is too large if you are the mercenaries) your points are HALVED. This means that you will sometimes plan attacks that fail simply so that the faction you want to win gains points. Aside from the units, there are various buildings which grant special powers and VPs to the owner, cards that can be played for "take that" style effects (cutting off supply, assassinations, air raids, etc). The cards are thematic without being overly complex, and the rebels and government factions get different cards which each give them their own feel. It's a well executed combat/ take that style game which is made much more interesting by it's innovative scoring system (not bad for a 20 year old game!).
My main complaints are 1) it's way to long for what it is. The deck should definitely be pruned before we play next. 2) Once you start falling behind, it's hard to get back in... and kinda boring as you watch the others do stuff while you wait. Solving #1 also happens to alleviate #2 so it's not that big of a deal to get over these issues.
As mentioned above, despite my strong start as the government I was beaten down and never really made it back. Some assassinations, cut supplies and a few bad die rolls took me out of contention about midway through the game and I floundered afterwards, knowing it was impossible for me to be a contender. I can point to many errors I made, however, so I'm not blaming the game for my poor showing. I'm sure our next session will be even more fun now that we understand how it works.
Vive la révolution!
Thursday, November 11, 2010
The deal is done (I'm the Boss! x2, Santiago)
The are two categories of games that get shelved almost immediately when our numbers dwindle to 3 players: Multiplayer conflict games and negotiation games. With Bharmer joining us in recent weeks, we've had a chance to fix that and play a couple of sessions of Warrior Knights. This week Shemp once again took advantage of the foursome and selected I'm the Boss! and Santiago.
I'm the Boss!
Shemp purchased a shrink wrapped copy of I'm the Boss earlier this year but we haven't been able to get it to the table until today. I was curious if the game would be as much fun the second time around and I'm happy to say that it was. The game started with a bang as Bharmer and I made a deal before he had even selected the starting space (technically illegal, I now know). He placed the marker on a deal that needed exactly our two investors and he proclaimed that the deal was done before anyone could react. It was fun, and it set the tone for the next few deals, but it became somewhat boring after a while. We then made a house rule (or began respecting the game rules, possibly) and mandated that all cards needed to be on the table before the Boss could claim that a deal was done. The game then turned into the "flurry of cards and yelling" kind of bargaining we all remembered and it became fun again. I was particularly proud of landing a deal where I had no cards to contribute (the deal required two investors and I had neither, I offered one share to Shemp and Bharmer for their contribution and it was accepted). Good times.
We played two games, with Kozure sneakily pulling a win in the first game (seriously, no one thought he had that much money) and then me winning the second (but with Kozure once again coming a close second though no one saw it coming).
Santiago
We finished off the evening with Santiago. The highlight of the game was the turn where Bharmer was the overseer and there was little incentive for anyone to bribe him for anything in particular (there were open canals already). He was offered "a punch in the face", "yo ass" and something about his mother. We are normally a respectable group, but apparently we slipped a little there.
In the end, he had the last laugh because he won the game!
I'm the Boss!
Shemp purchased a shrink wrapped copy of I'm the Boss earlier this year but we haven't been able to get it to the table until today. I was curious if the game would be as much fun the second time around and I'm happy to say that it was. The game started with a bang as Bharmer and I made a deal before he had even selected the starting space (technically illegal, I now know). He placed the marker on a deal that needed exactly our two investors and he proclaimed that the deal was done before anyone could react. It was fun, and it set the tone for the next few deals, but it became somewhat boring after a while. We then made a house rule (or began respecting the game rules, possibly) and mandated that all cards needed to be on the table before the Boss could claim that a deal was done. The game then turned into the "flurry of cards and yelling" kind of bargaining we all remembered and it became fun again. I was particularly proud of landing a deal where I had no cards to contribute (the deal required two investors and I had neither, I offered one share to Shemp and Bharmer for their contribution and it was accepted). Good times.
We played two games, with Kozure sneakily pulling a win in the first game (seriously, no one thought he had that much money) and then me winning the second (but with Kozure once again coming a close second though no one saw it coming).
Santiago
We finished off the evening with Santiago. The highlight of the game was the turn where Bharmer was the overseer and there was little incentive for anyone to bribe him for anything in particular (there were open canals already). He was offered "a punch in the face", "yo ass" and something about his mother. We are normally a respectable group, but apparently we slipped a little there.
In the end, he had the last laugh because he won the game!
Thursday, November 04, 2010
God is jam, and the apostles are jelly! (Warrior Knights)
This week we played Warrior Knights for a second time. Since I didn't really give a very good overview of the game last week, I'll do a quick one now:
Warrior Knights is a very ambitious conquest game that attempts to weave many facets into a single game. In addition to the typical combat for territory, players must also consider religion, politics, mercenaries and expeditions!
On the surface, things seem very much like a RISK clone. There is a map with regions and some castles. Players place between 1 and 4 Knights on the board and start trying to expand their territory.
The structure of the game cleverly manages to reign in the complexity and makes the game play surprisingly simple. Players have 2 copies of 6 different cards in their hand, each representing an action they can take (gaining votes, gaining faith, moving units, hiring mercenaries, etc) . Each game turn, they must select 3 pairs of cards and put them in three different piles. After everyone has selected their three pairs of cards, "neutral actions" are added to each pile and each pile is then individually shuffled. Once this is done, the cards are resolved one by one. In other words, players know that they will get two actions in each "pile" but they don't know in what order they will come up.
When the neutral cards come up, different kinds of things can happen. An expedition to a far away land might be launched, and players have an opportunity to invest in it. A random event might be drawn from a deck (often assigned to a player by the current leader of the church). An opportunity might come up to reinforce the cities on the board or recover some casualties. etc, etc.
A third important mechanic is that one a card is used, it goes to one of three special discard stacks, either "taxation", "assembly" or "wages". When these discard stacks equal twice the number of players, they triggers special phases such as gaining money from your cities, having to pay your troops or having to gather at an assembly in order to vote on issues.
All together, there is a lot going on but the gameplay is not that complex (as long as at least one player knows how to handle the administration of the game). On the flipside, having so many different things going on at once means that each individual aspect of the game sees little development in a session. The game has a significant luck/ chaos factor to it (events can have a big impact, combat is decided by card draws, turn order is decided by card draws, the items to vote on at the assembly can favour one player more than another). Still, there are typically ways to mitigate the luck so it's up to the players to put the odds on their side.
Overall, I felt the game was quite engaging and fun. My biggest complaint would be that the last turn feels quite anticlimactic because there is very little worth doing except conquering yet only a fraction of the cards you have allow you to do that. Further, the limited development in the game means that if you are not close to winning there is very little that can be done to come back in the game.
In this session, Shemp and I managed to get into a spat before we had even placed all our pieces. I had placed at a port town near his fortress so he placed near mine. He attacked my knight on the first round and destroyed him and his army. In retribution, I attacked the town he was holding and won. Luckily for both of us we decided to put our differences behind us and try to focus on the two others that were benefiting from our combat.
As the religious leader for most of the game, I was able to direct several bad events to the players that displeased me. Before we had made our truce, I had Shemp declared a heretic (apparently because he said that God was made of jam) and then declared again (because he said the apostles were made of jelly). Shemp controlled the assembly for much of the game. Meanwhile, Kozure and Bharmer were accumulating influence faster than we could because they hadn't yet suffered any losses.
As the game drew to a close, we all decided that Kozure was going to win and tried to take him down. We hurt him, but not bad enough... Kozure won by a point.
If I had to compare Warrior Knights to another game we have played I would tend to pick Conquest of the Empire. The gameplay is quite different, but that game has also made an effort to incorporate events, politics and combat. Between the two, I'd say I prefer this one. The political aspect work much better, for one.
Anyway, looking forward to playing it again, hopefully not too far into the future!
Warrior Knights is a very ambitious conquest game that attempts to weave many facets into a single game. In addition to the typical combat for territory, players must also consider religion, politics, mercenaries and expeditions!
On the surface, things seem very much like a RISK clone. There is a map with regions and some castles. Players place between 1 and 4 Knights on the board and start trying to expand their territory.
The structure of the game cleverly manages to reign in the complexity and makes the game play surprisingly simple. Players have 2 copies of 6 different cards in their hand, each representing an action they can take (gaining votes, gaining faith, moving units, hiring mercenaries, etc) . Each game turn, they must select 3 pairs of cards and put them in three different piles. After everyone has selected their three pairs of cards, "neutral actions" are added to each pile and each pile is then individually shuffled. Once this is done, the cards are resolved one by one. In other words, players know that they will get two actions in each "pile" but they don't know in what order they will come up.
When the neutral cards come up, different kinds of things can happen. An expedition to a far away land might be launched, and players have an opportunity to invest in it. A random event might be drawn from a deck (often assigned to a player by the current leader of the church). An opportunity might come up to reinforce the cities on the board or recover some casualties. etc, etc.
A third important mechanic is that one a card is used, it goes to one of three special discard stacks, either "taxation", "assembly" or "wages". When these discard stacks equal twice the number of players, they triggers special phases such as gaining money from your cities, having to pay your troops or having to gather at an assembly in order to vote on issues.
All together, there is a lot going on but the gameplay is not that complex (as long as at least one player knows how to handle the administration of the game). On the flipside, having so many different things going on at once means that each individual aspect of the game sees little development in a session. The game has a significant luck/ chaos factor to it (events can have a big impact, combat is decided by card draws, turn order is decided by card draws, the items to vote on at the assembly can favour one player more than another). Still, there are typically ways to mitigate the luck so it's up to the players to put the odds on their side.
Overall, I felt the game was quite engaging and fun. My biggest complaint would be that the last turn feels quite anticlimactic because there is very little worth doing except conquering yet only a fraction of the cards you have allow you to do that. Further, the limited development in the game means that if you are not close to winning there is very little that can be done to come back in the game.
In this session, Shemp and I managed to get into a spat before we had even placed all our pieces. I had placed at a port town near his fortress so he placed near mine. He attacked my knight on the first round and destroyed him and his army. In retribution, I attacked the town he was holding and won. Luckily for both of us we decided to put our differences behind us and try to focus on the two others that were benefiting from our combat.
As the religious leader for most of the game, I was able to direct several bad events to the players that displeased me. Before we had made our truce, I had Shemp declared a heretic (apparently because he said that God was made of jam) and then declared again (because he said the apostles were made of jelly). Shemp controlled the assembly for much of the game. Meanwhile, Kozure and Bharmer were accumulating influence faster than we could because they hadn't yet suffered any losses.
As the game drew to a close, we all decided that Kozure was going to win and tried to take him down. We hurt him, but not bad enough... Kozure won by a point.
If I had to compare Warrior Knights to another game we have played I would tend to pick Conquest of the Empire. The gameplay is quite different, but that game has also made an effort to incorporate events, politics and combat. Between the two, I'd say I prefer this one. The political aspect work much better, for one.
Anyway, looking forward to playing it again, hopefully not too far into the future!
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Kenigets (Warrior Knights)
Last week we played Warrior Knights for the first time. This is a game I received in a math trade, and a stellar example of what I look for in such a trade: lose a game you don't like for a game you are interested in but would never buy. Warrior Knights was too long and opinion is too divided for me to spend money on it, but a trade was perfect.
We are playing again tomorrow evening, so I will wait until the next post to go into detail but I will say this: Warrior Knights is an extremely ambitious design. It mixes RISK like conquest with religion, politics, negotiation, drafting armies, events, exploration, and I'm sure I'm missing a few. The obvious downfall of this design direction is that there can be too little of any one thing to feel satisfying. In our first play, I'd characterize my opinion as mixed. It does everything more successfully than I expected, but there is a sense that some aspects of the game feel underdeveloped (not in a game design sense, but in a game development sense... though I suppose one leads into the other). There is significant chaos in the game, but some design choices help to minimize it's impact. All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic that this game will find a permanent place in my collection.
In this session, Bharmer started with all four of his knights, whereas Kozure and Shemp had three and I only played two. All approaches seemed feasible, and in the end Kozure and I were tied for influence and Kozure won on the tiebreaker.
We are playing again tomorrow evening, so I will wait until the next post to go into detail but I will say this: Warrior Knights is an extremely ambitious design. It mixes RISK like conquest with religion, politics, negotiation, drafting armies, events, exploration, and I'm sure I'm missing a few. The obvious downfall of this design direction is that there can be too little of any one thing to feel satisfying. In our first play, I'd characterize my opinion as mixed. It does everything more successfully than I expected, but there is a sense that some aspects of the game feel underdeveloped (not in a game design sense, but in a game development sense... though I suppose one leads into the other). There is significant chaos in the game, but some design choices help to minimize it's impact. All in all, I'm cautiously optimistic that this game will find a permanent place in my collection.
In this session, Bharmer started with all four of his knights, whereas Kozure and Shemp had three and I only played two. All approaches seemed feasible, and in the end Kozure and I were tied for influence and Kozure won on the tiebreaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
