BEGIN GAMING SESSION SUMMARY
Played at Bharmer's. Domaine to start. Everyone knew rules. Ouch won. Played Tikal second. Everyone knew rules. Kozure won, via careful treasure-grabbing strategy. Many pyramids capped early at 5-6 point range. Ouch finished close second place with lots of capped pyramids. We still forget to place tiles sometimes. Must fix. Played Domaine again third - already there, everyone knew rules. Kozure won.
Lesson learned: you can play three medium to medium-heavy games in an evening if everyone already knows the rules.
END GAMING SESSION SUMMARY
Showing posts with label Kramer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kramer. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Friday, February 09, 2007
Lucrative Shizzle Coming Up!
This week LUCH! was the dictator; this week he also was on crack. Well, he definitely was the dictator -- the being on crack part is an assumption, albeit a well-founded one.
Our beloved dictator decreed that we would play RA, Wildlife, and Railroad Tycoon, in untried, previously undisclosed variant versions. Seeing as our typical game session is 4 hours, and the named games would not be playable in that period of time, we were all intrigued. Easy waggishly suggested that the Railroad Tycoon variant must be to not play it at all. I hypothesized that LUCH! was going to bring 20 giant eggtimers to the session, to better realize his mad variants! THEN, our dictator was late, further compressing things - how would this work?
Well, Agent Easy was correct. The Railroad Tycoon variant was, indeed, to not play it at all. Having said that, we still got a couple of rounds of Ra in, as well as a nice session of Wildlife.
The first round of Ra was 4 player, Bharmer/Easy/Tilli/Shemp, and did not vary from the standard rules of the game in any way. It was a fairly uneventful play; I had decided to call Ra everytime play came around to me and there were more than 3 tiles on the board before play started, and it payed off. In the first epoch I was the only one that was able to use all three of my sun tiles, and built up a fair lead. Tilli had a monster 3rd epoch, but it wasn't quite enough to catch up. I ended up winning w/ 59 points, which I only note for the purposes of comparison with the next game of Ra we played.
The next game of Ra we played was (drumroll ...) LUCH's variant. Players were Bharmer/Easy/Kozure/LUCH/Shemp. It was very confusing, and someone else will need to recap in comments. I didn't understand it. This is most assuredly because of my own lack of brainpower, but there it is. (Alternate explanation: LUCH IS ON CRACK.) The variant involved mummies and upkeep. Ra tiles were repeatedly drawn. In the whole first Epoch, I think a total of all players scores was less than ten. We were thinking that was OK - surely, a cruddy first age would result in even better subsequent ages, right? Of course! We were hyped for some LUCRATIVE SHIZZLE COMING UP!!. Only, it didn't. Not in the second epoch. Not in the third epoch. Somehow, nothing good was ever on the board when Ra was called. It seems impossible, but there it was. Wholly disappointing. Bharmer and I raced to the bottom, but disappointingly, neither of us finished at zero. Final scores were 12 for Bharmer and I, with LUCH! winning his own variant, with a score of something or other that was higher. Easy and Kozure had less than that, but more than 12. While we were packing up the game, the board attacked Bharmer. I think that may have tipped this over into the category of Most Farcical Session of Ra, EVAR. [ PLEASE NOTE: I don't think that necessarily condemns LUCH's variant. It was too weird to tell if it works out or not. Might need more crack. Or less. ]
On to a game of Wildlife, which we've played before. Second play of this for Human Easy and Eagle Bharmer; Third for Crocodile LUCH and Snake Shemp; Bear Kozure has played more frequently. I'm enjoying this game a lot - it feels very open ended, as if there are many possible strategies and tactics to pursue; as a group, we are clearly still crawling at this point. I don't think I'll get too much into the play by play, other than to note that the Snakes quickly evolved and were able to quickly create a large herd across four regions, opening up a large lead in the first scoring round. The other players remembered that there is no tunnel and took steps to prevent serpentine hegemony from winning out, while keeping a close eye on each other. End result? A three way tie for first until the final points for remaining food were scored, handing a narrow victory to the snakes, with eagles and humans close behind, and the crocodiles only a couple of additional points back. Very close!
I think the balancing mechanisms incorporated into the game are extremely clever, particularly the way that it becomes quite difficult for the player in the lead to hold on to advancements, which not only confer advantages in gameplay, but are also potentially worth points during scoring rounds. Some numbered points to ponder, hopefully to further our own evolution as players:
1. The Movement Ability: What would be an effective way to use this? What strategies need to be implemented?
2. How practical is it to co-ordinate actions between players to negate certain advantages? What level of "table talk" is acceptable? [ example: Player A holds a Defense ability. Player B steals the Defense ability. This is only useful if Player C, D, or E then attack A. ]
3. Roughly how many actions, total, occur before the game is completed? Does this vary to a greater or lesser degree? Would this information be useful in formulating a strategy?
4. To what extent would a strategy be useful in this game? Is it largely strategic or largely tactical?
5. Is this an area control game, or do the other methods of scoring turn this into something else? Rephrased, is there any real value in holding areas? Monopolies are worth only slightly more than leads, remember.
6. Should we change LUCH!'s name to Lucrative? I say yes.
7. What other factors in Wildlife could bear fruit if analyzed?
DISCUSS.
Our beloved dictator decreed that we would play RA, Wildlife, and Railroad Tycoon, in untried, previously undisclosed variant versions. Seeing as our typical game session is 4 hours, and the named games would not be playable in that period of time, we were all intrigued. Easy waggishly suggested that the Railroad Tycoon variant must be to not play it at all. I hypothesized that LUCH! was going to bring 20 giant eggtimers to the session, to better realize his mad variants! THEN, our dictator was late, further compressing things - how would this work?
Well, Agent Easy was correct. The Railroad Tycoon variant was, indeed, to not play it at all. Having said that, we still got a couple of rounds of Ra in, as well as a nice session of Wildlife.
The first round of Ra was 4 player, Bharmer/Easy/Tilli/Shemp, and did not vary from the standard rules of the game in any way. It was a fairly uneventful play; I had decided to call Ra everytime play came around to me and there were more than 3 tiles on the board before play started, and it payed off. In the first epoch I was the only one that was able to use all three of my sun tiles, and built up a fair lead. Tilli had a monster 3rd epoch, but it wasn't quite enough to catch up. I ended up winning w/ 59 points, which I only note for the purposes of comparison with the next game of Ra we played.
The next game of Ra we played was (drumroll ...) LUCH's variant. Players were Bharmer/Easy/Kozure/LUCH/Shemp. It was very confusing, and someone else will need to recap in comments. I didn't understand it. This is most assuredly because of my own lack of brainpower, but there it is. (Alternate explanation: LUCH IS ON CRACK.) The variant involved mummies and upkeep. Ra tiles were repeatedly drawn. In the whole first Epoch, I think a total of all players scores was less than ten. We were thinking that was OK - surely, a cruddy first age would result in even better subsequent ages, right? Of course! We were hyped for some LUCRATIVE SHIZZLE COMING UP!!. Only, it didn't. Not in the second epoch. Not in the third epoch. Somehow, nothing good was ever on the board when Ra was called. It seems impossible, but there it was. Wholly disappointing. Bharmer and I raced to the bottom, but disappointingly, neither of us finished at zero. Final scores were 12 for Bharmer and I, with LUCH! winning his own variant, with a score of something or other that was higher. Easy and Kozure had less than that, but more than 12. While we were packing up the game, the board attacked Bharmer. I think that may have tipped this over into the category of Most Farcical Session of Ra, EVAR. [ PLEASE NOTE: I don't think that necessarily condemns LUCH's variant. It was too weird to tell if it works out or not. Might need more crack. Or less. ]
On to a game of Wildlife, which we've played before. Second play of this for Human Easy and Eagle Bharmer; Third for Crocodile LUCH and Snake Shemp; Bear Kozure has played more frequently. I'm enjoying this game a lot - it feels very open ended, as if there are many possible strategies and tactics to pursue; as a group, we are clearly still crawling at this point. I don't think I'll get too much into the play by play, other than to note that the Snakes quickly evolved and were able to quickly create a large herd across four regions, opening up a large lead in the first scoring round. The other players remembered that there is no tunnel and took steps to prevent serpentine hegemony from winning out, while keeping a close eye on each other. End result? A three way tie for first until the final points for remaining food were scored, handing a narrow victory to the snakes, with eagles and humans close behind, and the crocodiles only a couple of additional points back. Very close!
I think the balancing mechanisms incorporated into the game are extremely clever, particularly the way that it becomes quite difficult for the player in the lead to hold on to advancements, which not only confer advantages in gameplay, but are also potentially worth points during scoring rounds. Some numbered points to ponder, hopefully to further our own evolution as players:
1. The Movement Ability: What would be an effective way to use this? What strategies need to be implemented?
2. How practical is it to co-ordinate actions between players to negate certain advantages? What level of "table talk" is acceptable? [ example: Player A holds a Defense ability. Player B steals the Defense ability. This is only useful if Player C, D, or E then attack A. ]
3. Roughly how many actions, total, occur before the game is completed? Does this vary to a greater or lesser degree? Would this information be useful in formulating a strategy?
4. To what extent would a strategy be useful in this game? Is it largely strategic or largely tactical?
5. Is this an area control game, or do the other methods of scoring turn this into something else? Rephrased, is there any real value in holding areas? Monopolies are worth only slightly more than leads, remember.
6. Should we change LUCH!'s name to Lucrative? I say yes.
7. What other factors in Wildlife could bear fruit if analyzed?
DISCUSS.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Among Royalty (Maharaja, Princes of Florence)
4 Players this week, and what's a WAGS session without a new game?
This week's newest aquisition is Maharaja: Palace building in India. Bharmer bought it this weekend and was eager to try it out.
Maharaja is a Kramer and Kiesling collaboration (the same team which brought us Tikal, Torres, Pueblo, Mexica, etc). The board depicts 7 walled cities interconnected by paths and small villages. Each player is trying to be the first to build 7 palaces.
Each player will enlist the help of a noble on the first turn (though nobles will change hands over the course of a game). The noble confers a special power to the player and determines turn order. On a turn, players must choose 2 actions on a wheel (similar to the wheels in El Grande). There is a wide range of actions, some of them affect the acting player (building houses/ palaces, earning gold), others might impact other players (such as changing the order that the Maharaja will visit the cities, or exchanging character cards with another player).
Some things I liked:
1) Players are building houses and palaces in the various cities in order to gain majorities, so that when the Maharaja visits it they are rewarded with money (which is, in turn, used to build houses and palaces). However, houses are 12x less expensive to build than palaces, yet are worth the same when counting majorities! This leads to a very interesting balancing act as players try to get their palaces on the board yet still win majorities.
2) In our group, turn seemed to go by quickly. I suspect that is because the actions are determined in advance and are quite specific. However, there is real possibility of analysis paralysis if a player tries to think through every possibility and permutation when actually choosing their actions. In the end, though, there is too much chaos in the system to actually have that level of control, so it's ultimately not worth doing anyway.
3) It's nice to play a game which doesn't rely on tallying up victory points.
Some things I liked less:
1) The chaos, after one play, seemed a little high to me. I found it a little frustrating to have to plan 2 actions ahead of time, only to find out (repeatedly) that the Maharaja wasn't were I expected him to be, or that I was no longer the character I started with. As I alluded to in an earlier point, I find this to be an odd combination with the amount of potential analysis in planning out your turn.
2) It seems very difficult to do anything to stop a leader. Other players can't be directly affected, other than stealing their character card, so I kind of watched Brian coast to victory 3 rounds ahead of the end of the game... unable to do anything about it. I guess the idea would be to work together and try to prevent that player from gaining the majorities needed to raise cash and build palaces... but I suspect that's pretty hard to actually do.
3) On the surface, it seemed like there was at least two strategies available for earning income: Gaining majorities inthe cities, and placing houses on the roads to collect tolls. At least in our game, the houses on the roads were far too easy to circumvent, and did not really earn their keep. If they weren't necessary in order to get anywhere, I suspect players would soon stop playing them at all. I wonder if this will eventually lead to a game of "chicken" as players wait and see who will make the sacrifice and useup their turn to build there.
In the end, I felt like I was playing a combination of El Grande and Aladdin's Dragons. The area majority mechanic occupied most of my thoughts during the game, but I found myself constantly trying to guess what other players might do, and what I had to do in order to avoid getting messed up. I's a weird combination of deep strategy and guesswork. I made the wrong decisions far more often than I should have!
I did notice that Bharmer made extensive use of the character card trading mechanic, and that he made a point of building a palace on all but one turn. I lost sight of the goal of the game early on (building palaces), focusing too much on gaining majorities. This was despite Bharmer's warning at the beginning of the game not to do that! He won quite easily, but I would expect much stiffer competition in a second game.
In the end, Maharaja strikes me as potentially a very good strategy game. It seems to be aiming for depth of strategy combined with enough chaos to keep it from being dry/ predictable. Time will tell if it succeeds!
We followed up with a game of Princes of Florence, which Bharmer hadn't played yet. In my mind, there is no game which so much about optimization of resources, and that's why I love it. It also means that it's nearly impossible for a new player to compete. I went for a "jester + lots of works" strategy, but I faltered and produced at least 1 work too few to win the game. Shemp, who isn't a huge fan of the game and often does poorly, used a very well balanced strategy of a little bit of everything and won the game! Bharmer? He did come in last, but not by much. It was quite a tight game, and I'd say he did really well.
This week's newest aquisition is Maharaja: Palace building in India. Bharmer bought it this weekend and was eager to try it out.
Maharaja is a Kramer and Kiesling collaboration (the same team which brought us Tikal, Torres, Pueblo, Mexica, etc). The board depicts 7 walled cities interconnected by paths and small villages. Each player is trying to be the first to build 7 palaces.
Each player will enlist the help of a noble on the first turn (though nobles will change hands over the course of a game). The noble confers a special power to the player and determines turn order. On a turn, players must choose 2 actions on a wheel (similar to the wheels in El Grande). There is a wide range of actions, some of them affect the acting player (building houses/ palaces, earning gold), others might impact other players (such as changing the order that the Maharaja will visit the cities, or exchanging character cards with another player).
Some things I liked:
1) Players are building houses and palaces in the various cities in order to gain majorities, so that when the Maharaja visits it they are rewarded with money (which is, in turn, used to build houses and palaces). However, houses are 12x less expensive to build than palaces, yet are worth the same when counting majorities! This leads to a very interesting balancing act as players try to get their palaces on the board yet still win majorities.
2) In our group, turn seemed to go by quickly. I suspect that is because the actions are determined in advance and are quite specific. However, there is real possibility of analysis paralysis if a player tries to think through every possibility and permutation when actually choosing their actions. In the end, though, there is too much chaos in the system to actually have that level of control, so it's ultimately not worth doing anyway.
3) It's nice to play a game which doesn't rely on tallying up victory points.
Some things I liked less:
1) The chaos, after one play, seemed a little high to me. I found it a little frustrating to have to plan 2 actions ahead of time, only to find out (repeatedly) that the Maharaja wasn't were I expected him to be, or that I was no longer the character I started with. As I alluded to in an earlier point, I find this to be an odd combination with the amount of potential analysis in planning out your turn.
2) It seems very difficult to do anything to stop a leader. Other players can't be directly affected, other than stealing their character card, so I kind of watched Brian coast to victory 3 rounds ahead of the end of the game... unable to do anything about it. I guess the idea would be to work together and try to prevent that player from gaining the majorities needed to raise cash and build palaces... but I suspect that's pretty hard to actually do.
3) On the surface, it seemed like there was at least two strategies available for earning income: Gaining majorities inthe cities, and placing houses on the roads to collect tolls. At least in our game, the houses on the roads were far too easy to circumvent, and did not really earn their keep. If they weren't necessary in order to get anywhere, I suspect players would soon stop playing them at all. I wonder if this will eventually lead to a game of "chicken" as players wait and see who will make the sacrifice and useup their turn to build there.
In the end, I felt like I was playing a combination of El Grande and Aladdin's Dragons. The area majority mechanic occupied most of my thoughts during the game, but I found myself constantly trying to guess what other players might do, and what I had to do in order to avoid getting messed up. I's a weird combination of deep strategy and guesswork. I made the wrong decisions far more often than I should have!
I did notice that Bharmer made extensive use of the character card trading mechanic, and that he made a point of building a palace on all but one turn. I lost sight of the goal of the game early on (building palaces), focusing too much on gaining majorities. This was despite Bharmer's warning at the beginning of the game not to do that! He won quite easily, but I would expect much stiffer competition in a second game.
In the end, Maharaja strikes me as potentially a very good strategy game. It seems to be aiming for depth of strategy combined with enough chaos to keep it from being dry/ predictable. Time will tell if it succeeds!
We followed up with a game of Princes of Florence, which Bharmer hadn't played yet. In my mind, there is no game which so much about optimization of resources, and that's why I love it. It also means that it's nearly impossible for a new player to compete. I went for a "jester + lots of works" strategy, but I faltered and produced at least 1 work too few to win the game. Shemp, who isn't a huge fan of the game and often does poorly, used a very well balanced strategy of a little bit of everything and won the game! Bharmer? He did come in last, but not by much. It was quite a tight game, and I'd say he did really well.
Labels:
Kiesling,
Kramer,
Maharaja,
Princes of Florence,
Session
Friday, October 14, 2005
Passive Aggressive vs. Aggressive Aggressive
"This just in… it seems a number of… creatures… have started menacing the U.S. and Southern Canada. Reports are scattered, but apparently there are… What? A giant gorilla, squid and a floating eyeball?"
Dave… is this for real?
"Okay, we're going to connect with our correspondent in Chicago to get a better idea of what's happening over there. Stan, can you hear me?"
"Yes, I can. Thank you. Carl, I have to say, I can't believe what I'm seeing. There's this giant ape just… wrecking… everything. It's about a half mile away from me. I'm hiding at the mouth of a parking garage and watching it swat the army jets out of the sky like flies. Oh, it looks like one of the rockets scored a hit! Wait a minute… IT'S A ROBOT INSIDE. Sparks are flying everywhere. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Stan?"
"…umm, do we have anyone else? OK, Helmut. OK."
"Allo, I am here vith ze giant creatures. There is a big noise here, ze gorilla is literally MASHING the eyeball. Now he has the squid by the neck. Oooh, that wasn't pretty. Uh-Oh. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Helmut?"
"Ughhh"
Okay, enough of that. This Wednesday we played Monsters Menace America and Tikal. (Sadly Shemp couldn't make it due to possible illness).
Monsters Menace America is a straight up aggression fest. Players take the role of large monsters inspired by B-Movies (as well as the role of a branch of the US Military). The goal is to "Stomp" as many sites as possible with your monster, accumulating strength and mutation powers along the way, until a point were a climactic battle occurs between all the monsters. Players also use their military units to attack other player's monsters in order to try to weaken them (the monsters can't attack each other until the final battle).
The game is simple fun. On the good side, the graphic presentation is quite good and the theme is captured quite well by the game. On the bad side, the rules of the game don't feel like their as good as they could have been. For example, it's odd that the creatures can't interact for most of the game. Also, for all the time they take up in the game in deployment, combat, movement and upkeep, the military units don't feel as useful or integrated as they need to be.
These are all relatively minor criticisms. If you are looking for another Puerto Rico, look elsewhere, but if you are looking for big monsters to go out and fight, it fits the bill. There is carnage. Players have fun. It's just not a very sophisticated game (they don't all have to be!)
Next was Tikal.
Tikal is a game I kept hearing about (along with it's cousins Torres, Java and Mexica) but despite the fact that Kramer designed them I never felt compelled to investigate… This is particularly odd considering that two of my favorite games (EL Grande and Princes of Florence) where designed by him. However, when Kozure mentioned he had bought it, I got very excited to play.
Tikal is game involving the discovery and exploration of ancient temples. Players send out teams of explorers into the jungle, hoping to claim the greatest of the discoveries for themselves. There is a distinct "Indiana Jones" feel to the theme.
The gameboard is a very attractive depiction of a jungle. The canopy of trees prevents players from seeing what is underneath, but in one corner a jeep and base camp indicates that the exploration has begun… 2 temples and an empty field have already been uncovered. The first order of any player's turn is to draw a tile to place on the board (the tile is designed to look like the canopy of trees has been cleared, revealing either an empty space, a temple or a treasure site). The remainder of the turn involves spending 10 action points on various potential… ummm… actions. Introducing a researcher at the base camp costs 1, for example. Other actions include moving the researchers, searching for treasure, delving into temples, etc. On occasion, a volcano turns up as the tile to be placed, and players must score their position. Points are awarded for temples which have been claimed, for unclaimed temples where a player has a majority and for treasures acquired. The game ends once all jungle tiles have been placed on the board and a final scoring takes place.
The result is an excellent, excellent game. It's not nearly as abstract as most German games, the play is strategic, and the theme is so accessible (and the rules so natural to the action), that I can't think of a medium weight game I would rather first introduce to new gamers. Carcassonne, High Society, For Sale!, Ticket to Ride, etc are all great gateway games but are decidedly "light". I much prefer this to Settlers of Catan, the medium weight "intro" game most would suggest.
The game does have one rather significant potential downfall… those 10 points can take a while to spend if you are not careful about analysis paralysis. On top of that, there isn't much to do when it's not your turn (I'm sure it's no coincidence, but these are also criticisms often leveled at El Grande and Princes of Florence). I'm perfectly happy to live with it as it is, however, because the number of points allows for some surprising comebacks and clever play. I think 3 players is probably the sweet spot for this one to keep downtime manageable (2 player might also be good, but I'm afraid that 4 player might drag).
I think my excitement for the game is partially due to a bit of Knizia overload. I REALLY enjoy those games, and have even purchased Tower of Babel recently because I think he is an amazing designer, but they have a very different feel than Kramer's games… Knizia games seem to revolve around a clever mechanic or two, with a theme applied (sometimes appropriate and well reflected by the system, sometimes not). Players must come to grips with the challenge and turn the system to their advantage against the other players. As much as they are intellectually challenging, the are a bit mechanical and often mathematical (the only Knizia game I find thematically engaging is LotR, although I consider that to be a huge achievement). Kramer's games avoid this… Elegance is found by tying theme to gameplay with innovative mechanics. The results can be abstract (Princes of Florence), Literal (Tikal) or in between (El Grande), but the results definitely have more "soul" than Knizia's games.
Not surprisingly, in my opinion the "Perfect" game (Ra) has been designed by the exact and calculating mind of Knizia, while the rest of the top 4… those I love playing but are each imperfect in one way or another, are all Kramers (El Grande, Princes of Florence and now Tikal).
For the record, as Konk in Monsters Menace America I CRUSHED Luch and Kozure, while Luch beat us both handily at Tikal.
Ratings:
Monsters Menace America: 6
Tikal: 9
Dave… is this for real?
"Okay, we're going to connect with our correspondent in Chicago to get a better idea of what's happening over there. Stan, can you hear me?"
"Yes, I can. Thank you. Carl, I have to say, I can't believe what I'm seeing. There's this giant ape just… wrecking… everything. It's about a half mile away from me. I'm hiding at the mouth of a parking garage and watching it swat the army jets out of the sky like flies. Oh, it looks like one of the rockets scored a hit! Wait a minute… IT'S A ROBOT INSIDE. Sparks are flying everywhere. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Stan?"
"…umm, do we have anyone else? OK, Helmut. OK."
"Allo, I am here vith ze giant creatures. There is a big noise here, ze gorilla is literally MASHING the eyeball. Now he has the squid by the neck. Oooh, that wasn't pretty. Uh-Oh. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Helmut?"
"Ughhh"
Okay, enough of that. This Wednesday we played Monsters Menace America and Tikal. (Sadly Shemp couldn't make it due to possible illness).
Monsters Menace America is a straight up aggression fest. Players take the role of large monsters inspired by B-Movies (as well as the role of a branch of the US Military). The goal is to "Stomp" as many sites as possible with your monster, accumulating strength and mutation powers along the way, until a point were a climactic battle occurs between all the monsters. Players also use their military units to attack other player's monsters in order to try to weaken them (the monsters can't attack each other until the final battle).
The game is simple fun. On the good side, the graphic presentation is quite good and the theme is captured quite well by the game. On the bad side, the rules of the game don't feel like their as good as they could have been. For example, it's odd that the creatures can't interact for most of the game. Also, for all the time they take up in the game in deployment, combat, movement and upkeep, the military units don't feel as useful or integrated as they need to be.
These are all relatively minor criticisms. If you are looking for another Puerto Rico, look elsewhere, but if you are looking for big monsters to go out and fight, it fits the bill. There is carnage. Players have fun. It's just not a very sophisticated game (they don't all have to be!)
Next was Tikal.
Tikal is a game I kept hearing about (along with it's cousins Torres, Java and Mexica) but despite the fact that Kramer designed them I never felt compelled to investigate… This is particularly odd considering that two of my favorite games (EL Grande and Princes of Florence) where designed by him. However, when Kozure mentioned he had bought it, I got very excited to play.
Tikal is game involving the discovery and exploration of ancient temples. Players send out teams of explorers into the jungle, hoping to claim the greatest of the discoveries for themselves. There is a distinct "Indiana Jones" feel to the theme.
The gameboard is a very attractive depiction of a jungle. The canopy of trees prevents players from seeing what is underneath, but in one corner a jeep and base camp indicates that the exploration has begun… 2 temples and an empty field have already been uncovered. The first order of any player's turn is to draw a tile to place on the board (the tile is designed to look like the canopy of trees has been cleared, revealing either an empty space, a temple or a treasure site). The remainder of the turn involves spending 10 action points on various potential… ummm… actions. Introducing a researcher at the base camp costs 1, for example. Other actions include moving the researchers, searching for treasure, delving into temples, etc. On occasion, a volcano turns up as the tile to be placed, and players must score their position. Points are awarded for temples which have been claimed, for unclaimed temples where a player has a majority and for treasures acquired. The game ends once all jungle tiles have been placed on the board and a final scoring takes place.
The result is an excellent, excellent game. It's not nearly as abstract as most German games, the play is strategic, and the theme is so accessible (and the rules so natural to the action), that I can't think of a medium weight game I would rather first introduce to new gamers. Carcassonne, High Society, For Sale!, Ticket to Ride, etc are all great gateway games but are decidedly "light". I much prefer this to Settlers of Catan, the medium weight "intro" game most would suggest.
The game does have one rather significant potential downfall… those 10 points can take a while to spend if you are not careful about analysis paralysis. On top of that, there isn't much to do when it's not your turn (I'm sure it's no coincidence, but these are also criticisms often leveled at El Grande and Princes of Florence). I'm perfectly happy to live with it as it is, however, because the number of points allows for some surprising comebacks and clever play. I think 3 players is probably the sweet spot for this one to keep downtime manageable (2 player might also be good, but I'm afraid that 4 player might drag).
I think my excitement for the game is partially due to a bit of Knizia overload. I REALLY enjoy those games, and have even purchased Tower of Babel recently because I think he is an amazing designer, but they have a very different feel than Kramer's games… Knizia games seem to revolve around a clever mechanic or two, with a theme applied (sometimes appropriate and well reflected by the system, sometimes not). Players must come to grips with the challenge and turn the system to their advantage against the other players. As much as they are intellectually challenging, the are a bit mechanical and often mathematical (the only Knizia game I find thematically engaging is LotR, although I consider that to be a huge achievement). Kramer's games avoid this… Elegance is found by tying theme to gameplay with innovative mechanics. The results can be abstract (Princes of Florence), Literal (Tikal) or in between (El Grande), but the results definitely have more "soul" than Knizia's games.
Not surprisingly, in my opinion the "Perfect" game (Ra) has been designed by the exact and calculating mind of Knizia, while the rest of the top 4… those I love playing but are each imperfect in one way or another, are all Kramers (El Grande, Princes of Florence and now Tikal).
For the record, as Konk in Monsters Menace America I CRUSHED Luch and Kozure, while Luch beat us both handily at Tikal.
Ratings:
Monsters Menace America: 6
Tikal: 9
Saturday, July 16, 2005
Working poorly as a team
An interesting session this week...
We played two new games, and they both shared a common theme: Making it look like you are cooperating while in fact pursuing your own goals.
First up, the "blockbuster" release of the summer: Shadows over Camelot by Days of Wonder. For a guy who started off unimpressed by Days of Wonder (after Ticket to Ride and Mystery of the Abbey), I've gone on to purchasing and enjoying quite a few titles! (Ticket to Ride: Europe, Memoir '44, Pirate's Cove and Shadows over Camelot). does this one live up to the hype? I say yes.
Shadows over Camelot belongs in a very small niche: cooperative boardgames. After you remove hack and slash type miniature games (Doom, Betrayal at House on the Hill, etc), the only other game of this type that I know of is Lord of the Rings by Reiner Knizia. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the game is held up against it's famous cousin as it gets reviewed. In fact, as we sat down to play Shemp commented on how he was looking forward to playing this one particularly to see if it was cooperative games he hated, or just Lord of the Rings (I don't share his opinion on LotR, as you'll see below).
The production values for the game are quite high. The boards are nicely illustrated and lots of little plastic miniatures are included. A few minor issues: The boards are unecessarily different sizes, making their layout on a table a little messy. Also, the grail quest board doesn't actually fit in the box... an odd oversight; The way the main board folds has already caused creases at the inside corners; The rules could have been better organized, making it difficult to locate certain pieces of information. In addition, certain design decisions are questionable, like listing all but one abilities of Merlin cards on the card... making it extremely likely to miss.
Game play takes a bit of explaining, but once it starts it's fairly straightforward. I'm undecided about the types of groups I'd be looking to introduce this one to... It would likely take an enthusiastic group of non-gamers to want to take this on, but it shouldn't be too difficult if they wanted to learn.
The basics are simple: Do something bad (draw and play an evil card, add a seige engine to the attack against Camelot or lose a life point) and follow it with something good (Go to a quest, play a good card, etc). That's pretty much it. What makes this game hard to win (really hard, as it turns out), is that the sheer number of quests, and the speed at which the odds stack against the players, is quite difficult to manage. To top it off, one of the players MIGHT be a traitor, purposely making bad moves and wasting resources to make it even less likely that good will triumph. The inclusion of the POSSIBILITY of a traitor in any individual session seems to be the game's defining characteristic (along with the cooperative play), and it truly does add an interesting dimension to the game.
Most quests revolve around playing "fight" cards in the requested order or combination (a straight for the saxons and picts, two pairs for the Jousting tournament, etc), with the hopes of completing the required set in time. The quests themselves are an interesting mix of solo and group quests, quests which happen once and then dissapear and those to reoccur endlessly until the game ends. A few quests lead to items which can aid the characters (such as excalibur, which makes a knights attacks more powerful). There are many difficult decisions here: The grail quest is very difficult once evil starts making progress, so initially it seemed that completing these typess of quests early made sense. However, a completed quest increases the danger of the seige assault on Camelot dramatically since any evil cards drawn which would have added to a completed quest turns into a new seige engine instead! It will take a few more games to figure out a winning strategy...
For the curious, Shemp's final analysis was that he quite enjoyed this game (as did the whole group, I think). Therefore, it was Lord of the Rings he hated, not cooperative games! Me... as much as I like Shadows over Camelot, I still prefer Lord of the Rings. The corruption track from that game remains one of the most elegant, thematic and clever mechanics in any of my games (standing a few steps away from Sauron near the end of the game creates a wonderful tension and sense of impending doom). Also, the episodic nature of the system, with various scenarios and much needed reinforcements which need to be aquired along the way make the quet truly feel epic and daunting (and fosters a unique sense of camaraderie and cooperation along the way).
As good as Shadows over Camelot is, I find it less exciting to accumulate white swords at the round table... despite the fact that it is the most important quest on the board, it is the least memorable and quite disjointed from the action going on. The quests themselves are a little underwhelming since they boil down to playing a poker hand over a series of turns (an odd mechanic which doesn't tie in very well with the theme of the game, in my opinion). Also, the fact that all hell breaks loose on all fronts at the same time means that there is no "progression" to the game... it's all one long episode. Luckily, the mix of perpetual quests vs one offs changes the feeling of the game as it goes (mostly in the sense that as the one time quests are finished, the seige engines start coming fast and furious). Also, the Traitor throws a very interesting psychological twist to the game (maybe at the expense of the group camraderie, but that's okay)
The group didn't fare too well in our first two attempts... Although I was the traitor in the first game I can't claim any responsibility for the win... the knights ran from quest to quest in a fruitless attempt to stem the tide of evil. Ultimetely, the dragon did us in. In the second game, we agreed to focus more and finish of quests early. We complete Excalibur right away, and got quite far on the grail quest... but then we realized that the price of completing a quest early is quite high: seige engines began overunning the kingdom and we could not keep up. Had a great time trying, though!
The second game of the night was a "new to us" game called Pueblo. I picked this up because two of my favorite games are by Wolfgang Kramer, and Blokus has been a big hit with just about everyone I've introduced it to. Obviously, I was hoping that the two would mesh well in this game and produce another hit. Pueblo is a much simpler game than SoC, where players are supposedly working toghether to build a Pueblo under the watchful eye of the tribe's chief. Everyone has a number of blocks of their colour, and one less neutral blocks. Each turn a block is played from the players supply. The chief is looking for signs of the builders pride (blocks of the player's colour) and will punish that player every time he sees it! the strategy, therefore, is to hide your coloured blocks behind neutral ones or other player's blocks. Pretty straightforward, and quite fun. It can be a bit of a mind bender to figure out how to place the blocks, but it's not exactly a brain burner either. Shemp demonstrated his superior grasp of spatial logic and soundly trounced us (although Luch was in the running until the Chief's final walkaround...). I played this with my mom when I first bought it and she thought is was very good as well, so I think it will have a wide appeal.
Shadows over Camelot: 8
Pueblo: 7
We played two new games, and they both shared a common theme: Making it look like you are cooperating while in fact pursuing your own goals.
First up, the "blockbuster" release of the summer: Shadows over Camelot by Days of Wonder. For a guy who started off unimpressed by Days of Wonder (after Ticket to Ride and Mystery of the Abbey), I've gone on to purchasing and enjoying quite a few titles! (Ticket to Ride: Europe, Memoir '44, Pirate's Cove and Shadows over Camelot). does this one live up to the hype? I say yes.
Shadows over Camelot belongs in a very small niche: cooperative boardgames. After you remove hack and slash type miniature games (Doom, Betrayal at House on the Hill, etc), the only other game of this type that I know of is Lord of the Rings by Reiner Knizia. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that the game is held up against it's famous cousin as it gets reviewed. In fact, as we sat down to play Shemp commented on how he was looking forward to playing this one particularly to see if it was cooperative games he hated, or just Lord of the Rings (I don't share his opinion on LotR, as you'll see below).
The production values for the game are quite high. The boards are nicely illustrated and lots of little plastic miniatures are included. A few minor issues: The boards are unecessarily different sizes, making their layout on a table a little messy. Also, the grail quest board doesn't actually fit in the box... an odd oversight; The way the main board folds has already caused creases at the inside corners; The rules could have been better organized, making it difficult to locate certain pieces of information. In addition, certain design decisions are questionable, like listing all but one abilities of Merlin cards on the card... making it extremely likely to miss.
Game play takes a bit of explaining, but once it starts it's fairly straightforward. I'm undecided about the types of groups I'd be looking to introduce this one to... It would likely take an enthusiastic group of non-gamers to want to take this on, but it shouldn't be too difficult if they wanted to learn.
The basics are simple: Do something bad (draw and play an evil card, add a seige engine to the attack against Camelot or lose a life point) and follow it with something good (Go to a quest, play a good card, etc). That's pretty much it. What makes this game hard to win (really hard, as it turns out), is that the sheer number of quests, and the speed at which the odds stack against the players, is quite difficult to manage. To top it off, one of the players MIGHT be a traitor, purposely making bad moves and wasting resources to make it even less likely that good will triumph. The inclusion of the POSSIBILITY of a traitor in any individual session seems to be the game's defining characteristic (along with the cooperative play), and it truly does add an interesting dimension to the game.
Most quests revolve around playing "fight" cards in the requested order or combination (a straight for the saxons and picts, two pairs for the Jousting tournament, etc), with the hopes of completing the required set in time. The quests themselves are an interesting mix of solo and group quests, quests which happen once and then dissapear and those to reoccur endlessly until the game ends. A few quests lead to items which can aid the characters (such as excalibur, which makes a knights attacks more powerful). There are many difficult decisions here: The grail quest is very difficult once evil starts making progress, so initially it seemed that completing these typess of quests early made sense. However, a completed quest increases the danger of the seige assault on Camelot dramatically since any evil cards drawn which would have added to a completed quest turns into a new seige engine instead! It will take a few more games to figure out a winning strategy...
For the curious, Shemp's final analysis was that he quite enjoyed this game (as did the whole group, I think). Therefore, it was Lord of the Rings he hated, not cooperative games! Me... as much as I like Shadows over Camelot, I still prefer Lord of the Rings. The corruption track from that game remains one of the most elegant, thematic and clever mechanics in any of my games (standing a few steps away from Sauron near the end of the game creates a wonderful tension and sense of impending doom). Also, the episodic nature of the system, with various scenarios and much needed reinforcements which need to be aquired along the way make the quet truly feel epic and daunting (and fosters a unique sense of camaraderie and cooperation along the way).
As good as Shadows over Camelot is, I find it less exciting to accumulate white swords at the round table... despite the fact that it is the most important quest on the board, it is the least memorable and quite disjointed from the action going on. The quests themselves are a little underwhelming since they boil down to playing a poker hand over a series of turns (an odd mechanic which doesn't tie in very well with the theme of the game, in my opinion). Also, the fact that all hell breaks loose on all fronts at the same time means that there is no "progression" to the game... it's all one long episode. Luckily, the mix of perpetual quests vs one offs changes the feeling of the game as it goes (mostly in the sense that as the one time quests are finished, the seige engines start coming fast and furious). Also, the Traitor throws a very interesting psychological twist to the game (maybe at the expense of the group camraderie, but that's okay)
The group didn't fare too well in our first two attempts... Although I was the traitor in the first game I can't claim any responsibility for the win... the knights ran from quest to quest in a fruitless attempt to stem the tide of evil. Ultimetely, the dragon did us in. In the second game, we agreed to focus more and finish of quests early. We complete Excalibur right away, and got quite far on the grail quest... but then we realized that the price of completing a quest early is quite high: seige engines began overunning the kingdom and we could not keep up. Had a great time trying, though!
The second game of the night was a "new to us" game called Pueblo. I picked this up because two of my favorite games are by Wolfgang Kramer, and Blokus has been a big hit with just about everyone I've introduced it to. Obviously, I was hoping that the two would mesh well in this game and produce another hit. Pueblo is a much simpler game than SoC, where players are supposedly working toghether to build a Pueblo under the watchful eye of the tribe's chief. Everyone has a number of blocks of their colour, and one less neutral blocks. Each turn a block is played from the players supply. The chief is looking for signs of the builders pride (blocks of the player's colour) and will punish that player every time he sees it! the strategy, therefore, is to hide your coloured blocks behind neutral ones or other player's blocks. Pretty straightforward, and quite fun. It can be a bit of a mind bender to figure out how to place the blocks, but it's not exactly a brain burner either. Shemp demonstrated his superior grasp of spatial logic and soundly trounced us (although Luch was in the running until the Chief's final walkaround...). I played this with my mom when I first bought it and she thought is was very good as well, so I think it will have a wide appeal.
Shadows over Camelot: 8
Pueblo: 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
