Kozure picked an oldie this week, Way Out West, to accompany one of his trusty standbys... Small World.
Way Out West
Way Out West has the distinction of being one of the very few Worker Placement games that Shemp likes. I made a concerted effort to buy the stage coaches in all the towns as they were available (it mostly worked. Kozure got the one in Abylene). This gave me a substantial amount of income, and counterbalanced the fact that I have a tendency to overspend in this game. Early in the game, Shemp attacked me in Kansas City (shooting pretend guns in the air, yelling "Cocktail Weenie! Pew Pew!". He would go on to repeat this frequently over the course of the evening). He had good odds (5-3, I think). I crushed him, losing only a single cowboy. This, too, would be repeated frequently over the evening. I grabbed my first improbable wanted poster and Shemp licked his wounds.
It's not that I was invincible... against Kozure the odds generally dictated the outcome. With Shemp, however, my dice were ON FIRE. I had a lot of wanted posters.
Shemp did eventually lock down the entirety of Kansas City. In the last round, he stole the majority in San Antonio from me. Kozure held the majority in Abilene. I had a few buildings spread around and some cattle, but my ace in the hole was my majorities in wanted posters and money. When the dust settled, it was a tie between me and Shemp, with Kozure close behind. There is no tie-breaker in WOW, but we awarded the win to Shemp, since the luck I had against him should have put him dead last so he must have been playing "real well-like".
Small World
This session of Small World was characterized by frequent declines. I started with Wealthy Halflings, grabbed the 7 gold and put them in decline in round 2. Shemp had the Stout Dwarves, which also went into decline in round 2 (since he keeps their bonus in decline). Kozure played the Merchant Ghouls(?), and as usual the merchant ability proved lucrative. My Tritons stayed in the West, fearing the spreading horde of Kozure's Commando Skeletons. Shemp had the Flying Giants, but they did not prove as fearsome as when Luch had played them last. I spent my last two turns with the Swamp Sorcerers, but I Shemp went into decline and so I was unable to convert man of his tokens (Kozure came along with his Diplomat Ratmen, but he made the truce with me so no dice there either). I only managed one conversion. Bah.
Small World is a game of maximizing small differences. Kozure made good use of the Merchant ability and also went into decline once less than me and Shemp, and I think this was the recipe for his success. Hard to say for sure, but if there was one power I'd say was slightly out of balance, it would be Merchant. Still, fun game.
Showing posts with label Way Out West. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Way Out West. Show all posts
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Monday, August 18, 2008
Eleven O'Clock Shadow (Pillars of the Earth, In the Shadow of the Emperor)
In a satisfying Western Middle Ages-themed evening, we played two games new to the group: Pillars of the Earth and In the Shadow of the Emperor.
Pillars of the Earth is a game for 2-4 which evokes the trials and tribulations of building a late Romanesque/Early Gothic cathedral in 12th Century England.
Based on the novel by writer Ken Follett, players need not have read the source material to enjoy the game. I'll skip exacting details of the rules, but here's a general overview:
Players seem to be competing teams of craftsmen and workers trying to contribute most successfully to the construction of a cathedral. Turn order is determined initially by random selection.
Players then draft resource and craftsmen cards from a common market in turn order from the start player, which determines which craftsmen are hired (at a cost) and which resources their workers (labourers) will harvest in the upcoming turn.
Subsequent "round order" is determined by a fairly original blind draw method, which gives each player the option to select their action when their pawn is drawn from a bag by paying a set cost or passing. The cost decreases with each draw, each player having three pawns in the bag and selection (followed by payment or passing) continuing until all pawns of all players have accounted for an action. Players who pass on the opportunity to pay for an action select an action for the pawn much later in the round for no cost
The rest of the game is a sort of resource management and task optimization game - you need X number of Y type of material to get Z number of victory points - different craftsmen deliver different ratios of material (or gold) to VP (or occasionally gold) conversion. Other action/locations confer other benefits (gold for each worker at the Wool house, 1 or 2 VP at the Priory, skip random events at the Abbot's house, and so on).
After determining play order, the players conduct 17 (!) steps in each round - at each "stop" along the path, taking the actions in the order indicated by the placement of the pawns during the action draw mechanic. You resolve events, get paid, take VP, harvest resources, draw new craftsmen, gain temporary workers, sell or buy materials and convert said materials (as desired) into VPs, then determine the start player for the next round.
The game is fun and thematic but has a number of random elements which can significantly alter player success quite independently of their skill in playing the game. The pawn draw action order mechanic is the first heavily random element. Second is the material selection cards. Third is the craftsman cards, a fourth is privilege cards and the event cards also insert a considerable amount of luck to play. Now, I'm not against randomness on principal and in this case it seems to fit well with the theme, but it does get to be a little much. Balancing against the randomness (and in the designer's defence) you can select actions or use strategy to avoid being hurt drastically by either random events or the craftsmen/resource/privileges which you either receive or manage to miss. However, you cannot escape the fact that luck can be a major factor in your success or failure.
I like the look and general feel of the game. The round timer (a miniature, stylized wooden cathedral) is overdone but fun to use and gives a good sense of progress. Play is relatively quick (once you get the general concepts down) despite the drawn-out action selection process.
Overall, a decent game (if not something which grabbed me like Imperial did) with good production values and solid gameplay. Looking forward to additional plays.
From very random to not so random at all, In the Shadow of the Emperor is an area-influence game with some aspects of Way Out West, Intrige and a number of other area-influence games.
Players are powerful aristocratic families in Mediaeval Germany, vying for power and high political office in the Elector states of the Holy Roman Empire. One player is chosen at random as starting Emperor, but from that point onward, no randomness intrudes. Players place barons and knights into positions, and then have the option to conduct actions which move, negate, age, marry, promote (and so on) the barons and knights so as to achieve enough power in each of the three ecclesiastical states and four secular states to elect the emperor. Various machinations affect their positioning, along with an interesting mechanic for aging nobles, essentially putting a timer on how long you can hold onto power in each state.
The game suffers to some degree from a rulebook with some bad translations and oversights, but generally it's a challenging and very strategic game with a lot of direct player competition and intrigue. Some might criticize the clockwise-from-the-Emperor turn order mechanic, as seating position and initial Emperor selection can have a great effect on the outcome, but you can't complain about randomness in the game itself. Play continued past the 11:30 PM mark in order for us to be able to finish the game, but no one seemed anxious to abort the game early, which is always a promising sign.
Since the strategic depth is so great (and the gameplay mechanics relatively light) this is a game where multiple plays are possible and desirable for best appreciation. I hope this one gets that privilege.
In non-WAGS news but still game-related, I managed to get in a game of 1960: The Making of the President which is only two-player but worth mentioning. I had traded a few of my older and seldom-played wargames for 1960, which is an area influence game with a card-driven strategy mechanic and a wargame-y feel. Players take the roles of Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in the American presidential election of 1960. It's sort of a re-themed version of the designer's earlier game, Twilight Struggle, but the games differ enough to be different games, while being similar enough to make transition from one to the other quite smooth.
I like Twilight Struggle more, of the two, but 1960 is no slouch either, and well worth owning, if only for its gorgeous production values, clear rules and concise player references.
Pillars of the Earth is a game for 2-4 which evokes the trials and tribulations of building a late Romanesque/Early Gothic cathedral in 12th Century England.
Based on the novel by writer Ken Follett, players need not have read the source material to enjoy the game. I'll skip exacting details of the rules, but here's a general overview:
Players seem to be competing teams of craftsmen and workers trying to contribute most successfully to the construction of a cathedral. Turn order is determined initially by random selection.
Players then draft resource and craftsmen cards from a common market in turn order from the start player, which determines which craftsmen are hired (at a cost) and which resources their workers (labourers) will harvest in the upcoming turn.
Subsequent "round order" is determined by a fairly original blind draw method, which gives each player the option to select their action when their pawn is drawn from a bag by paying a set cost or passing. The cost decreases with each draw, each player having three pawns in the bag and selection (followed by payment or passing) continuing until all pawns of all players have accounted for an action. Players who pass on the opportunity to pay for an action select an action for the pawn much later in the round for no cost
The rest of the game is a sort of resource management and task optimization game - you need X number of Y type of material to get Z number of victory points - different craftsmen deliver different ratios of material (or gold) to VP (or occasionally gold) conversion. Other action/locations confer other benefits (gold for each worker at the Wool house, 1 or 2 VP at the Priory, skip random events at the Abbot's house, and so on).
After determining play order, the players conduct 17 (!) steps in each round - at each "stop" along the path, taking the actions in the order indicated by the placement of the pawns during the action draw mechanic. You resolve events, get paid, take VP, harvest resources, draw new craftsmen, gain temporary workers, sell or buy materials and convert said materials (as desired) into VPs, then determine the start player for the next round.
The game is fun and thematic but has a number of random elements which can significantly alter player success quite independently of their skill in playing the game. The pawn draw action order mechanic is the first heavily random element. Second is the material selection cards. Third is the craftsman cards, a fourth is privilege cards and the event cards also insert a considerable amount of luck to play. Now, I'm not against randomness on principal and in this case it seems to fit well with the theme, but it does get to be a little much. Balancing against the randomness (and in the designer's defence) you can select actions or use strategy to avoid being hurt drastically by either random events or the craftsmen/resource/privileges which you either receive or manage to miss. However, you cannot escape the fact that luck can be a major factor in your success or failure.
I like the look and general feel of the game. The round timer (a miniature, stylized wooden cathedral) is overdone but fun to use and gives a good sense of progress. Play is relatively quick (once you get the general concepts down) despite the drawn-out action selection process.
Overall, a decent game (if not something which grabbed me like Imperial did) with good production values and solid gameplay. Looking forward to additional plays.
From very random to not so random at all, In the Shadow of the Emperor is an area-influence game with some aspects of Way Out West, Intrige and a number of other area-influence games.
Players are powerful aristocratic families in Mediaeval Germany, vying for power and high political office in the Elector states of the Holy Roman Empire. One player is chosen at random as starting Emperor, but from that point onward, no randomness intrudes. Players place barons and knights into positions, and then have the option to conduct actions which move, negate, age, marry, promote (and so on) the barons and knights so as to achieve enough power in each of the three ecclesiastical states and four secular states to elect the emperor. Various machinations affect their positioning, along with an interesting mechanic for aging nobles, essentially putting a timer on how long you can hold onto power in each state.
The game suffers to some degree from a rulebook with some bad translations and oversights, but generally it's a challenging and very strategic game with a lot of direct player competition and intrigue. Some might criticize the clockwise-from-the-Emperor turn order mechanic, as seating position and initial Emperor selection can have a great effect on the outcome, but you can't complain about randomness in the game itself. Play continued past the 11:30 PM mark in order for us to be able to finish the game, but no one seemed anxious to abort the game early, which is always a promising sign.
Since the strategic depth is so great (and the gameplay mechanics relatively light) this is a game where multiple plays are possible and desirable for best appreciation. I hope this one gets that privilege.
In non-WAGS news but still game-related, I managed to get in a game of 1960: The Making of the President which is only two-player but worth mentioning. I had traded a few of my older and seldom-played wargames for 1960, which is an area influence game with a card-driven strategy mechanic and a wargame-y feel. Players take the roles of Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy in the American presidential election of 1960. It's sort of a re-themed version of the designer's earlier game, Twilight Struggle, but the games differ enough to be different games, while being similar enough to make transition from one to the other quite smooth.
I like Twilight Struggle more, of the two, but 1960 is no slouch either, and well worth owning, if only for its gorgeous production values, clear rules and concise player references.
Friday, November 30, 2007
I'll be waiting... with a gun and a pack of sandwiches (Flying colours, Way Out West)
Lots of gunfire this evening.
Luch, Kozure and I opened with Flying Colours, a naval war game from GMT. We played an introductory scenario which boils down the conflict to a simple 2 vs 1 fight. Luch and I teamed up as the British and Kozure played the lone (but much larger) french ship. It's a basic hex and counter war game, played on a large paper map of the ocean. Rules, for our scenario at least, were quite simple for a wargame. Movement factors in wind direction in a simple way, and other than that the rest of the rules involved combat (choosing to shoot the hull or the sails, arc of fire restrictions, dice result tables, etc). In our brief session, Luch and I sped along to the back of Kozure's ship. Along the way, I took a shot just as I was rounding the bend and started a fire onboard his ship. Then, I took a perfect shot right down the length of his hull and cleared the way for Luch to do the same. We both rolled high, and the French sunk like rocks.
We got pretty lucky, and I'd say the scenario felt pretty heavily weighted in our favour (Kozure confirmed this later). Still, it seemed like the system would be fun enough to play a more fleshed out scenario next time.
Next, we played Way Out West. JayWowzer and Shemp had arrived. I think it's the first time we've played with five.
Full disclosure: I always feel lost when I play this game. Although eurogames frequently make you feel like there are all sorts of things you'd like to do, and very few actions to do them, WoW takes is a few steps further and I never feel like I'm being effective. In fact, I was convinced that I'd never even come close to winning before (though, apparently I won our last game. I'll have to re-read that post to remember it).
True to form, the game started and I was perpetually broke, never in possession of the store or hotel where it was usefull (or the wagon, for that matter). I decided to build the jail everywhere, and see if I could take other buildings over later on. I also decided I'd try to start fights when the odds were approximately 3 to 4 against me (since the weaker side shoots first, it seems like an advantage to go in weaker). Whether it's an ill advised plan to start with, or luck just wasn't on my side, all I can say is I tried to put that plan in action on 2 occasions in Abalene and both times I lost everything. I was down to 1 cowboy on the board (in Kansas) and it was protecting the last 4 cows I had on the board. I thought I was sunk. Then, something funny happened... everybody started fighting each other around me and THEY lost everything. My cows in Kansas city stayed safe (giving me the majority) and Dodge City went from raging metropolis to ghost town. I had since placed 2 cowboys there and had my pick of the buildings to take over. Having gained the majority (through buildings, I still had no cows outside of Abalene) I scored big at the endgame and won.
On my ride home, I was thinking about how my win was mostly a result of other people misfortune, and how JayWowser wound up with very little to do on his final few turns. It occurred to me that these are similar "issues" we've had with Conquest of the Empire... another Wallace game (more or less). The limit of 2 actions per turn in both games force players to make things happen over a series of moves, and the fact that certain items must be in place (cowboys, in this instance) and that they are easily lost, can easily lead to situations where players have nothing to do. I think I called this a problem of "inertia" in CotE. Anyway, it's just an observation. I'll lump Way Out West into the same category as Shogun... games I always find fun for the experience, despite the fact they ... might not work exactly right as a strategy game. They are also similar in the sense that they FEEL heavy and strategy oriented in most of their mechanics, but are then sent kareening in the other direction by one or two aspects of the game.
But really, could the Wild West and strategy REALLY be found in the same game and feel right? Probably not.
edit: I re-read the last Way Out West post, to see if I had really won. I did. Unsurprisingly, the reason was similar: the leading player was undone, and I spied an opportunity in the aftermath. Who knew the cowboy way favoured the sneaky?
2nd edit: a quick trip to BGG shows me we are not the only ones that want to redo the board. There are already a number of alternates there for download!
Luch, Kozure and I opened with Flying Colours, a naval war game from GMT. We played an introductory scenario which boils down the conflict to a simple 2 vs 1 fight. Luch and I teamed up as the British and Kozure played the lone (but much larger) french ship. It's a basic hex and counter war game, played on a large paper map of the ocean. Rules, for our scenario at least, were quite simple for a wargame. Movement factors in wind direction in a simple way, and other than that the rest of the rules involved combat (choosing to shoot the hull or the sails, arc of fire restrictions, dice result tables, etc). In our brief session, Luch and I sped along to the back of Kozure's ship. Along the way, I took a shot just as I was rounding the bend and started a fire onboard his ship. Then, I took a perfect shot right down the length of his hull and cleared the way for Luch to do the same. We both rolled high, and the French sunk like rocks.
We got pretty lucky, and I'd say the scenario felt pretty heavily weighted in our favour (Kozure confirmed this later). Still, it seemed like the system would be fun enough to play a more fleshed out scenario next time.
Next, we played Way Out West. JayWowzer and Shemp had arrived. I think it's the first time we've played with five.
Full disclosure: I always feel lost when I play this game. Although eurogames frequently make you feel like there are all sorts of things you'd like to do, and very few actions to do them, WoW takes is a few steps further and I never feel like I'm being effective. In fact, I was convinced that I'd never even come close to winning before (though, apparently I won our last game. I'll have to re-read that post to remember it).
True to form, the game started and I was perpetually broke, never in possession of the store or hotel where it was usefull (or the wagon, for that matter). I decided to build the jail everywhere, and see if I could take other buildings over later on. I also decided I'd try to start fights when the odds were approximately 3 to 4 against me (since the weaker side shoots first, it seems like an advantage to go in weaker). Whether it's an ill advised plan to start with, or luck just wasn't on my side, all I can say is I tried to put that plan in action on 2 occasions in Abalene and both times I lost everything. I was down to 1 cowboy on the board (in Kansas) and it was protecting the last 4 cows I had on the board. I thought I was sunk. Then, something funny happened... everybody started fighting each other around me and THEY lost everything. My cows in Kansas city stayed safe (giving me the majority) and Dodge City went from raging metropolis to ghost town. I had since placed 2 cowboys there and had my pick of the buildings to take over. Having gained the majority (through buildings, I still had no cows outside of Abalene) I scored big at the endgame and won.
On my ride home, I was thinking about how my win was mostly a result of other people misfortune, and how JayWowser wound up with very little to do on his final few turns. It occurred to me that these are similar "issues" we've had with Conquest of the Empire... another Wallace game (more or less). The limit of 2 actions per turn in both games force players to make things happen over a series of moves, and the fact that certain items must be in place (cowboys, in this instance) and that they are easily lost, can easily lead to situations where players have nothing to do. I think I called this a problem of "inertia" in CotE. Anyway, it's just an observation. I'll lump Way Out West into the same category as Shogun... games I always find fun for the experience, despite the fact they ... might not work exactly right as a strategy game. They are also similar in the sense that they FEEL heavy and strategy oriented in most of their mechanics, but are then sent kareening in the other direction by one or two aspects of the game.
But really, could the Wild West and strategy REALLY be found in the same game and feel right? Probably not.
edit: I re-read the last Way Out West post, to see if I had really won. I did. Unsurprisingly, the reason was similar: the leading player was undone, and I spied an opportunity in the aftermath. Who knew the cowboy way favoured the sneaky?
2nd edit: a quick trip to BGG shows me we are not the only ones that want to redo the board. There are already a number of alternates there for download!
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Where's the Sheriff hidin'? (El Grande, Way Out West)
Luch's pick this week. JayWowzer was along for the ride.
El Grande
We started out with El Grande... one of my all time favorite games (and oldest... it's the second Euro I purchased, right after Puerto Rico...). I like puzzles more than I like math, so I tend to favor games where I'm trying to work out the best move rather than constanly adding. El Grande has a bit of both (as you weigh the pros and cons of various moves), but I beleive that winning the game has more to do with intuitively manipulating the board and second guessing your opponents than with min/maxing every individual move. Either way, the end result is extremely fun for me. It's definitely a thinker, though, and not what I'd call a lively game. Thank goodness there is enough chaos in the game that thinking too far ahead simply isn't possible.
In this particular session I came out with an early lead thanks to good scoring positions in various regions and a solid string of "special scoring: choose one region" actions. In fact, leading into the last third of the game, I was ahead by a good 20 points. Of course, as everyone knows El Grande is not the game where you want to be identified as the leader, and the last three rounds saw my position on the board chiselled away rather quickly (by the way, from a design perspective one of the things I apreciate most about El Grande is the way that the action cards permit leader bashing but in an oblique way... a player is free to determine how an action will be used, but he/she is limited to the actions available).
As the final scoring occured, I saw the entire pack of players come screaming towards me on the scoring track. Luch, Bharmer and JayWowzer all came within striking distance but in the end I held on by 1-2 points. Fun.
Way Out West
Up next was Way Out West, the very interesting brain buster by Martin Wallace. Every single time I play this I fail to fully comprehend the way the endgame scoring works. For whatever reason, I am attracted to going for the town bonuses but largely through cattle. I never seem to finish a game with much BUILT. Then, I watch helplessly as the other players rake in the building VPs. This game should have played out similarly, since I did the same things I always do, except that this time it led to a surprise victory! Here is the long list of unlikely events which conspired to make a losing strategy the winner:
1) Luch, the player with the most building leading into the final rounds, had several buildings stolen from him. This resulted in no players having a significant lead in buildings... an unusual end condition which diluted their scoring power
2) Luch was also the most combatitive player. By all rights, he should have had 2-3 times the amount of wanted posters the rest of us had. Unfortunatley (for him) he lost FAR more times than he won... even when the odds were well on his side.
3) In my last turn, I saw two opportunities to gain majorities in various towns. I had to win to gunfights, and the best odds I had were 50%. Although according to the odds I should have won 1 or none of the conflicts, I won both and grabbed the majorities (largely from JayWowzer).
4) The Sherrif afforded to a player for owning the Jail proved to be a curse throughout the game. Luch owned most of the jails, and he lost just about every battle he used him in. I could have used my sherrif in one of my two final battles with JayWowzer, but accepted a 50/50 battle instead of throwing him in, suspecting the corruption would undo me as well!
Anyway, it's a fun game (this is a game where the heavy luck factor seems in keeping with the theme, so despite the fact that the strategy it demands can easily be undone by a few bad gunfights the whole thing seems to work anyway).
A stats expert might know this for sure, but I have a strong feeling that a slight numeric superiority in a Way Out West gun battle is a dissadvantage when there are a lot of participants. For example, if the battle is 2 vs 1, there is only a 33% chance that the single gunman will score a hit before the others can react. However, in a 5 vs 4 battle, the odds are quite high that 1-2 hits will occur before the other side shoots back (meaning that 4 vs 4 might have been a safer option).
El Grande
We started out with El Grande... one of my all time favorite games (and oldest... it's the second Euro I purchased, right after Puerto Rico...). I like puzzles more than I like math, so I tend to favor games where I'm trying to work out the best move rather than constanly adding. El Grande has a bit of both (as you weigh the pros and cons of various moves), but I beleive that winning the game has more to do with intuitively manipulating the board and second guessing your opponents than with min/maxing every individual move. Either way, the end result is extremely fun for me. It's definitely a thinker, though, and not what I'd call a lively game. Thank goodness there is enough chaos in the game that thinking too far ahead simply isn't possible.
In this particular session I came out with an early lead thanks to good scoring positions in various regions and a solid string of "special scoring: choose one region" actions. In fact, leading into the last third of the game, I was ahead by a good 20 points. Of course, as everyone knows El Grande is not the game where you want to be identified as the leader, and the last three rounds saw my position on the board chiselled away rather quickly (by the way, from a design perspective one of the things I apreciate most about El Grande is the way that the action cards permit leader bashing but in an oblique way... a player is free to determine how an action will be used, but he/she is limited to the actions available).
As the final scoring occured, I saw the entire pack of players come screaming towards me on the scoring track. Luch, Bharmer and JayWowzer all came within striking distance but in the end I held on by 1-2 points. Fun.
Way Out West
Up next was Way Out West, the very interesting brain buster by Martin Wallace. Every single time I play this I fail to fully comprehend the way the endgame scoring works. For whatever reason, I am attracted to going for the town bonuses but largely through cattle. I never seem to finish a game with much BUILT. Then, I watch helplessly as the other players rake in the building VPs. This game should have played out similarly, since I did the same things I always do, except that this time it led to a surprise victory! Here is the long list of unlikely events which conspired to make a losing strategy the winner:
1) Luch, the player with the most building leading into the final rounds, had several buildings stolen from him. This resulted in no players having a significant lead in buildings... an unusual end condition which diluted their scoring power
2) Luch was also the most combatitive player. By all rights, he should have had 2-3 times the amount of wanted posters the rest of us had. Unfortunatley (for him) he lost FAR more times than he won... even when the odds were well on his side.
3) In my last turn, I saw two opportunities to gain majorities in various towns. I had to win to gunfights, and the best odds I had were 50%. Although according to the odds I should have won 1 or none of the conflicts, I won both and grabbed the majorities (largely from JayWowzer).
4) The Sherrif afforded to a player for owning the Jail proved to be a curse throughout the game. Luch owned most of the jails, and he lost just about every battle he used him in. I could have used my sherrif in one of my two final battles with JayWowzer, but accepted a 50/50 battle instead of throwing him in, suspecting the corruption would undo me as well!
Anyway, it's a fun game (this is a game where the heavy luck factor seems in keeping with the theme, so despite the fact that the strategy it demands can easily be undone by a few bad gunfights the whole thing seems to work anyway).
A stats expert might know this for sure, but I have a strong feeling that a slight numeric superiority in a Way Out West gun battle is a dissadvantage when there are a lot of participants. For example, if the battle is 2 vs 1, there is only a 33% chance that the single gunman will score a hit before the others can react. However, in a 5 vs 4 battle, the odds are quite high that 1-2 hits will occur before the other side shoots back (meaning that 4 vs 4 might have been a safer option).
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Western Expansion vs Waistline Expansion (Transamerica, Way Out West, High Society)
Three games and too much food.
July 21st saw a round of Transamerica, followed by the return of Way Out West and an evening capping play of High Society.
None of these games are new to us, so I won't get into the mechanics. Also, it's been a few weeks so my memory is getting hazy already! (I'd forget my own name if I didn't hear it often enough)
[Shemp Sez: (Click here for our previous discussion of Way Out West, including rules recap.)]
The only thing I remember about Transamerica is that I led the game by finishing first for 3 or 4 rounds. This never happens! I normally do very poorly at the game, so it was no wonder that the following round I was short by 6 (I think), and then again by 4 on the last round. I didn't LOSE, but I definitely didn't win. At least I know all is right in the universe.
Way Out West was fun as usual. Bharmer locked up San Antonia, while I concentrated on Kansas (with some opposition from Luch). Luch and Shemp sewed up Abalone and Dodge City, making solid money and looking like the leaders. Kozure saw the most movement, getting hammered on and booted out of a number of locations. Still, he made a solid comeback and really looked like a contender. I tried to branch out to Deadwood, and did reasonably well at that, but it wasn't enough. After the dust had settled, Shemp emerged victorious.
The game was also characterised by a number of particularly bloody gunfights, which would come down to each player's last man standing. I lost such a battle with Shemp in Kansas and it cost me the Store (though not the majority, thankfully).
I constantly underestimate the value of cattle during the game (by focusing too much thought on getting buildings on the table), and not enough on those buildings at the endgame. I'll have to work on that.
July 21st saw a round of Transamerica, followed by the return of Way Out West and an evening capping play of High Society.
None of these games are new to us, so I won't get into the mechanics. Also, it's been a few weeks so my memory is getting hazy already! (I'd forget my own name if I didn't hear it often enough)
[Shemp Sez: (Click here for our previous discussion of Way Out West, including rules recap.)]
The only thing I remember about Transamerica is that I led the game by finishing first for 3 or 4 rounds. This never happens! I normally do very poorly at the game, so it was no wonder that the following round I was short by 6 (I think), and then again by 4 on the last round. I didn't LOSE, but I definitely didn't win. At least I know all is right in the universe.
Way Out West was fun as usual. Bharmer locked up San Antonia, while I concentrated on Kansas (with some opposition from Luch). Luch and Shemp sewed up Abalone and Dodge City, making solid money and looking like the leaders. Kozure saw the most movement, getting hammered on and booted out of a number of locations. Still, he made a solid comeback and really looked like a contender. I tried to branch out to Deadwood, and did reasonably well at that, but it wasn't enough. After the dust had settled, Shemp emerged victorious.
The game was also characterised by a number of particularly bloody gunfights, which would come down to each player's last man standing. I lost such a battle with Shemp in Kansas and it cost me the Store (though not the majority, thankfully).
I constantly underestimate the value of cattle during the game (by focusing too much thought on getting buildings on the table), and not enough on those buildings at the endgame. I'll have to work on that.
Labels:
High Society,
Session,
Transamerica,
Way Out West
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Get out of Town you Yellow-Bellied Galoot!
‘Chinaman’ Choy narrowed his already squinty eyes and spoke in gravely tones.
“Get out of my town,” he said evenly, without fear.
The notorious Baker gang stood unflinching, hands poised over Colt Peacemakers and Winchester triggers.
“This here’s our turf now, Chinaman. Best you go on back to San Antonia and take up laundrywarshing.”
Choy surveyed the quartet of gunslingers arrayed against him, “Abilene’s mine, Baker. You and your kin ain’t welcome.”
“Then I reckon this comes to shootin’ irons,” Jeb Baker growled. He went for his gun.
A fusillade of pistol fire rang out. At the end, only the Chinaman still stood, short-shadowed in the noon-day sun.
“I told you to get out of my town,” he spat.
* * *
This week’s theme was “Cowboys and Cutthroats: 19th Century American Capitalism”. In keeping with the theme, dinner was beef burritos and pork and beans, supplemented by jalapeno chips and gummy worms (worms – tequila – get it?). The game for the evening was Way out West. A session of US Patent Number 1 had also been planned, but a late start and enthusiasm for our first game put the nix on that idea.
Way out West is typically described as a tile placement game. It is, in a sense, but it also has a strong wargame-lite element to it which gives it a bit more kick than your average session of Puerto Rico or Tigris and Euphrates. The concept is that the players are robber barons / gang leaders / venture capitalists in the gunslinging, cattle-rustling Wild West. The board depicts five old west towns (San Antonia, Kansas City, Abilene, Dodge City, and Deadwood) of various maximum sizes, each with a upper limit on the number of ranches and buildings that can be placed there. The players begin with $25 and three cowboys. The cowboys are placed one at a time in turn order determined randomly at the beginning, and then the game begins.
The game mechanics seem dense at first, but after an initial hump, they come across (to me, at least) as rather elegantly refined to allow for interesting strategies but also reflect the theme very well.
There are 12 turns (9 in 5 or 6 player games), and every third turn is a money-making turn. The round begins with a short bidding round, beginning with the first player of the last round. The bids proceed until a player does not bid, at which point the player puts in any money already bid (if any) and places his turn order marker on the turn order track. Bidding continues until all the players drop out and the turn order for the turn is determined.
In turn order, each player selects one of several actions: build, hire a cowboy, buy cattle, move cowboys, start a gunfight, drive cattle, or place a farmer. After one round of selecting actions, in turn order, the players select again in turn order for their second action.
Building involves placing one of several types of building, all of which either earn money/VP, multiply money/VP earned, or provide additional security (Jail). Hotels earn $1 for every cowboy belonging to an opponent in the town during a money making turn. Stores earn $1 for each cow belonging to an opponent and $2 for each farmer. Stagecoaches earn $1 each time a cowboy comes into town from out East or leaves the town. Banks earn $2 for every other building or transport belonging to an opponent in the town. Trains double the income from all cattle in the town, not just those belonging to the player. Jails provide a sheriff which can fight for or against inhabitants of a town during a gunfight.
Hiring a cowboy brings in one or two cowboys at a cost of $1 each. Each player has a limited number of cowboys (and buildings, for that matter). Buying cattle works similarly, save that there are restrictions on where cattle can be placed – the towns are numbered 1 to 5, and lower numbered-towns must be more than half full before cattle can be placed in the next higher numbered town.
Moving cowboys involves moving cowboys already on a map, and is usually a precursor (or a result) of a gunfight.
Gunfights involve a simple dice-combat, with the side with the lower number of cowboys firing first, each die roll of 5 or 6 killing an opponent cowboy. When numbers are equal, combat is simultaneous. Cowboys have the option to retreat after the first round of combat, losing the round. This is the principle random / tactical element of the game; everything else is pure strategy. Winners of gunfights steal cattle, take over businesses, burn down jails, rob banks or kill farmers, depending on the target of the showdown.
Driving cattle involves moving a cow from one corral to any other empty corral on a map (useful to get your cattle out of a town with a farmer, or if your control needs shoring up elsewhere).
Placing a farmer is essentially a “screw your neighbour” mechanic. Farmers reduce income (and VP) from cattle in the same town. They also have the ability to displace a cow from the corral they are placed in.
The game is won by a tally of victory points. Buildings count for VP equal to the total number of buildings in town, as do cattle (1 VP) and the special “train” transport, which adds one VP to each cow. Players also earn 5 VP for the most money and 4 VP for being the most notorious. There is also a town bonus (equal to the size of the town) given to the player who “controls” a town by having the highest total of buildings and cattle in a town. Farmers subtract 1 VP per cow in the same town.
I find the theme of this game irresistible, and the integration of theme with game mechanic is very well done. Theme aside, however, this is also a clever little game of strategy and tactics, with a dollop of diplomacy and alliances thrown in for good measure. The only dodgy element of the game is the sometimes frustratingly random results of combat. Despite comments from other reviewers on BGG, I found that most combats, with one or two exceptions, resolved about how one would expect – the outnumbered cowboys usually lost, and when numbers were close or equal, it could go either way. I really enjoyed both games, and felt that despite a serious strategic blunder in the first game, I was having fun throughout.
I did note that Easy suffered what amounted to a two turn dearth of actions due to a daring bank robbery by the Shemp clan. I suppose one could blame Easy for leaving such a juicy target undefended, but we’re still learning. Hopefully that dry spell was not too painful for Easy.
As always, in re-reading the rules after a play through, I did discover two minor things which we did wrong – fortunately, I don’t believe that in either case that it had much effect on our game. First, all cowboys involved in a bank robbery must leave town and disperse to different towns (max one each) if there is a jail in the town that was robbed. I think the bank robbery only happened once, and I don’t think the dispersal of Shemp’s cowboys would have had much effect on the remainder of the game. It’s possible that there was no jail in the robbed town, so the issue may be moot. Second, you must have MORE than half of the corrals full before you can place in the next higher town - we played with if there IS half, you can place them in the next higher town (always when you have a cowboy there). That might have had a larger effect. We'll have to remember that rule for next time.
I thought after playing that I had gotten the “you always roll at least one die in defence” rule incorrect, but after a careful re-reading, it seems we had it right. This seems a little strange to me in that it’s just as safe to leave cattle undefended as to have a cowboy in the same town, but if you had a bank or a jail in town as well, it would be safer to have cowboys rather than depend on the intrinsic defence.
One thing that was not covered in the rules, FAQ or errata as far as I can tell, is what happens when all of the cowboys are killed in a simultaneous combat. We played it as if the defender won in this case. I will check on BGG for confirmation.
This is not a perfect game by any means, but I do find it very successful in a number of areas in which I rate “The Perfect Game”. I also found it fun, which is a key factor for me, at least. Another interesting twist in this game is that it is not economically smart to have a stranglehold on a town - you have to let the other hombres in to get a piece of their action. The various things that can happen in a turn do technically make this a little more dense than would be understandable for most non-gamers, but for me, I found this to be just the right combination of simplicity with diversity of options.
Hapi ran away with the first game (due in no small part to some spectacular gunplay by some of his cowboys) and Easy won the second. I suspect additional games will be closer, and I look forward to paying another visit to the Wild West very soon.
“Get out of my town,” he said evenly, without fear.
The notorious Baker gang stood unflinching, hands poised over Colt Peacemakers and Winchester triggers.
“This here’s our turf now, Chinaman. Best you go on back to San Antonia and take up laundrywarshing.”
Choy surveyed the quartet of gunslingers arrayed against him, “Abilene’s mine, Baker. You and your kin ain’t welcome.”
“Then I reckon this comes to shootin’ irons,” Jeb Baker growled. He went for his gun.
A fusillade of pistol fire rang out. At the end, only the Chinaman still stood, short-shadowed in the noon-day sun.
“I told you to get out of my town,” he spat.
* * *
This week’s theme was “Cowboys and Cutthroats: 19th Century American Capitalism”. In keeping with the theme, dinner was beef burritos and pork and beans, supplemented by jalapeno chips and gummy worms (worms – tequila – get it?). The game for the evening was Way out West. A session of US Patent Number 1 had also been planned, but a late start and enthusiasm for our first game put the nix on that idea.
Way out West is typically described as a tile placement game. It is, in a sense, but it also has a strong wargame-lite element to it which gives it a bit more kick than your average session of Puerto Rico or Tigris and Euphrates. The concept is that the players are robber barons / gang leaders / venture capitalists in the gunslinging, cattle-rustling Wild West. The board depicts five old west towns (San Antonia, Kansas City, Abilene, Dodge City, and Deadwood) of various maximum sizes, each with a upper limit on the number of ranches and buildings that can be placed there. The players begin with $25 and three cowboys. The cowboys are placed one at a time in turn order determined randomly at the beginning, and then the game begins.
The game mechanics seem dense at first, but after an initial hump, they come across (to me, at least) as rather elegantly refined to allow for interesting strategies but also reflect the theme very well.
There are 12 turns (9 in 5 or 6 player games), and every third turn is a money-making turn. The round begins with a short bidding round, beginning with the first player of the last round. The bids proceed until a player does not bid, at which point the player puts in any money already bid (if any) and places his turn order marker on the turn order track. Bidding continues until all the players drop out and the turn order for the turn is determined.
In turn order, each player selects one of several actions: build, hire a cowboy, buy cattle, move cowboys, start a gunfight, drive cattle, or place a farmer. After one round of selecting actions, in turn order, the players select again in turn order for their second action.
Building involves placing one of several types of building, all of which either earn money/VP, multiply money/VP earned, or provide additional security (Jail). Hotels earn $1 for every cowboy belonging to an opponent in the town during a money making turn. Stores earn $1 for each cow belonging to an opponent and $2 for each farmer. Stagecoaches earn $1 each time a cowboy comes into town from out East or leaves the town. Banks earn $2 for every other building or transport belonging to an opponent in the town. Trains double the income from all cattle in the town, not just those belonging to the player. Jails provide a sheriff which can fight for or against inhabitants of a town during a gunfight.
Hiring a cowboy brings in one or two cowboys at a cost of $1 each. Each player has a limited number of cowboys (and buildings, for that matter). Buying cattle works similarly, save that there are restrictions on where cattle can be placed – the towns are numbered 1 to 5, and lower numbered-towns must be more than half full before cattle can be placed in the next higher numbered town.
Moving cowboys involves moving cowboys already on a map, and is usually a precursor (or a result) of a gunfight.
Gunfights involve a simple dice-combat, with the side with the lower number of cowboys firing first, each die roll of 5 or 6 killing an opponent cowboy. When numbers are equal, combat is simultaneous. Cowboys have the option to retreat after the first round of combat, losing the round. This is the principle random / tactical element of the game; everything else is pure strategy. Winners of gunfights steal cattle, take over businesses, burn down jails, rob banks or kill farmers, depending on the target of the showdown.
Driving cattle involves moving a cow from one corral to any other empty corral on a map (useful to get your cattle out of a town with a farmer, or if your control needs shoring up elsewhere).
Placing a farmer is essentially a “screw your neighbour” mechanic. Farmers reduce income (and VP) from cattle in the same town. They also have the ability to displace a cow from the corral they are placed in.
The game is won by a tally of victory points. Buildings count for VP equal to the total number of buildings in town, as do cattle (1 VP) and the special “train” transport, which adds one VP to each cow. Players also earn 5 VP for the most money and 4 VP for being the most notorious. There is also a town bonus (equal to the size of the town) given to the player who “controls” a town by having the highest total of buildings and cattle in a town. Farmers subtract 1 VP per cow in the same town.
I find the theme of this game irresistible, and the integration of theme with game mechanic is very well done. Theme aside, however, this is also a clever little game of strategy and tactics, with a dollop of diplomacy and alliances thrown in for good measure. The only dodgy element of the game is the sometimes frustratingly random results of combat. Despite comments from other reviewers on BGG, I found that most combats, with one or two exceptions, resolved about how one would expect – the outnumbered cowboys usually lost, and when numbers were close or equal, it could go either way. I really enjoyed both games, and felt that despite a serious strategic blunder in the first game, I was having fun throughout.
I did note that Easy suffered what amounted to a two turn dearth of actions due to a daring bank robbery by the Shemp clan. I suppose one could blame Easy for leaving such a juicy target undefended, but we’re still learning. Hopefully that dry spell was not too painful for Easy.
As always, in re-reading the rules after a play through, I did discover two minor things which we did wrong – fortunately, I don’t believe that in either case that it had much effect on our game. First, all cowboys involved in a bank robbery must leave town and disperse to different towns (max one each) if there is a jail in the town that was robbed. I think the bank robbery only happened once, and I don’t think the dispersal of Shemp’s cowboys would have had much effect on the remainder of the game. It’s possible that there was no jail in the robbed town, so the issue may be moot. Second, you must have MORE than half of the corrals full before you can place in the next higher town - we played with if there IS half, you can place them in the next higher town (always when you have a cowboy there). That might have had a larger effect. We'll have to remember that rule for next time.
I thought after playing that I had gotten the “you always roll at least one die in defence” rule incorrect, but after a careful re-reading, it seems we had it right. This seems a little strange to me in that it’s just as safe to leave cattle undefended as to have a cowboy in the same town, but if you had a bank or a jail in town as well, it would be safer to have cowboys rather than depend on the intrinsic defence.
One thing that was not covered in the rules, FAQ or errata as far as I can tell, is what happens when all of the cowboys are killed in a simultaneous combat. We played it as if the defender won in this case. I will check on BGG for confirmation.
This is not a perfect game by any means, but I do find it very successful in a number of areas in which I rate “The Perfect Game”. I also found it fun, which is a key factor for me, at least. Another interesting twist in this game is that it is not economically smart to have a stranglehold on a town - you have to let the other hombres in to get a piece of their action. The various things that can happen in a turn do technically make this a little more dense than would be understandable for most non-gamers, but for me, I found this to be just the right combination of simplicity with diversity of options.
Hapi ran away with the first game (due in no small part to some spectacular gunplay by some of his cowboys) and Easy won the second. I suspect additional games will be closer, and I look forward to paying another visit to the Wild West very soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
