When speaking of analysis paralysis in boardgames, the compliment must be paid to Ouch that he is the one least frequently affected.
We have a term in our group for choosing actions/moves with a minimum of thought; to act on instinct and gut feeling rather than belaboured machinations:
The term we use is "Conan Brain" or "Conan Play".
Like the loinclothed, bulgy barbarian of Ron E. Howard's creation, Conan brain-based play is direct, straightforward and accomplished with a minimum of fuss. It is often helped by an egg-timer.
This week, Ouch (as dictator) declared that we would attempt to play two games at once with Conan brain-style play. The games he chose were Power Grid and Imperial. I'll pause a moment for all the alarmed gasps from hardcore hobby gamers to die down.
The WAGSters Code (currently unwritten) demands that we try as gamely (pun intended) as possible to follow the dictat of the dictator. So, we gamely set up both Power Grid and Imperial adjacent to each other on the same table and gave it a shot.
We abandoned the concept after one turn. Neither game lends itself well to long pauses between turns - Power Grid in particular requires player interaction from every player in every phase. Imperial is only somewhat better, given the nature of the investor card and keeping track of bonds. We decided that this concept of simultaneous play, while interesting as a thought exercise, might be better conducted in practice with games that are more suitable - games that have long periods of downtime while one player decides actions and the others are doing nothing.
The idea of simultaneous play is not without merit. Certainly it would give our brains a good work out. We should attempt it again in the future with games that are famous for downtime - Tikal, perhaps, maybe paired with multi-player wargame like Shogun or Conquest of the Empire.
In any case, we played a relatively rapid game of Imperial. I did my best to think with Conan Brain. I had originally planned to try a three power strategy of trying to get Germany, England and Russia, but somewhere along the line I lost any chance of England and ended up with a bumper crop of Austria-Hungary and Russia.
Using both nations together to split up the Balkans, Greece and Turkey guarantees a huge development base, and their position on the map allows for simple, one front wars, unlike Germany, which often gets sandwiched between France and Russia (occasionally Italy) .
I made one attempt at taking over England but was promptly slapped down, so I shrugged and gobbled up Russian and Austria-Hungarian bonds like they were hotcakes. Ouch and Shemp seemed content to steal countries from each other, so aside from a pre-emptive invasion of Northern Italy (which they both held bonds for), I did very little but build up my two empires and snatch small snacking portions (Sweden, North Sea, Baltic) from England and Germany when I could.
By the time they noticed that I had two powerhouse empires which weren't constantly attacking each other and made a play for higher bonds to wrest control from me, I had enough capital to buy 50%+ of the available bonds in both nations and cement my control. I then made threatening overtures toward Germany (I had no German bond) and Italy, which kept things hopping on my warfronts, while simultaneously taxing and building factories as often as possible.
Although I had pulled fairly far ahead in the endgame both Ouch and Shemp made a creditable effort to catch up. I think the final scores were 181 for Kozure, ~155 for Shemp and ~120 (?) for Ouch. I ended the game with Russian pegging the 25 power point x5 spot, with a lot of nations still languishing in the x2 range.
Strangely, this ended up being almost the opposite of my intended "three separated nations with a smattering of other investments strategy".
I'm liking Imperial more and more with each play. It may displace Power Grid and Tikal from my number 2 and 3 positions in my favourite Euro game rankings. I appreciate that the turn order is mutable but straightforward, and even the initial starting player is determined by bid. I also enjoy the limited wargame nature of the game combined with the economic aspect.
This also marked the first time I have destroyed a factory during an invasion of Italy. In this case, both my opponents several held bonds in Italy, while I only owned a 1 or a 2. As destruction of a factory can slow down the power point progress of a nation, it can be very useful to use against nations where you have no investment.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Mommy, let's have a corn wash! (In the Shadow of the Emperor, Blue Moon City)
Ignoring the blog title is probably best.
This is likely my last post until Bharmer returns, because I'll be away next week. I decided to take advantage of this opportunity to play some four player games and chose In the Shadow of the Emperor, Blue Moon City, Pandemic and Wings of War. ItSotE took much longer than I expected, so neither Pandemic or Wings of War made it to the table.
In the Shadow of the Emperor
I'm not sure what I expected from this game, but this wasn't it. For whatever reason, I thought this was going to be a dry, short, abstract middleweight euro. It's not that.
(of course, I shouldn't have expected that Kozure would purchase a game of that description. Those are typically more my thing)
In fact, it's a fairly complex but thematically engaging game. A euro for sure, and abstract enough, but the mechanics work with the subject matter. It's a political struggle that starts in the individual regions of germany and ultimately leads to the choice of emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. A clever series of mechanics which see your nobles age and marry is well integrated and makes it even less likely that you will feel like you are just pushing abstract pieces around a gameboard for victory points.
Despite the fact that the game only lasts through 5 elections, it goes on for quite a while. Our game took 2.5 hours, although it didn't really feel like it. It's a zero luck game, so there is a lot of pondering going on.
The game reminded me somewhat of Agricola (though the rest of the group likened it more to Wallace's Way Out West). In a weird twist of fate, as I was playing the game someone else wrote this at the Toa of Gaming blog: What are the odds of two people making that same observation over a 4 year old game at the same time? Weird. Anyway, my comparison boils down the the action selection mechanism, which feels a lot like Agricola to me (though this game has the added benefit of marrying the efficiency game with area control board play to give it a better sense of interaction).
As an aside, "worker placement" as a named mechanism has been bugging me for a while because it doesn't really feel like an independent mechanic (in the same way that "area control", the "rondel", "Role selection" are distinct from each other). Isn't worker placement simply inverted role selection? Is the distinction that these games typically allow you to increase the number of roles you can take on?
I tried pretty hard early on to take on Shemp and get elected as Emperor right away. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong rival... he had played before (and won). I was barely treading water with my understanding of the intertwined mechanisms at work. He outsmarted me at every turn and I wasted round after round accomplishing very little. He won again, with Luch a relatively close second, Kozure third and me dead last.
In retrospect, I realize I severely undervalued the towers (which is the equivalent of not growing your family in Agricola) and tried too hard to stay in control of the regions I already possessed (which garners no victory points). Lesson learned.
I wasn't totally enamored with the game. I'm not sure if it was my mood, or my preconceived notion of playing several quicker/ simpler games that evening. Still, it's a very intriguing game and will probably get better with familiarity. I just hope the analysis paralysis doesn't become too much of a problem and diminishes with experience rather than worsen.
Blue Moon City
We finished up with Blue Moon City. It's a game I enjoy very much, and is pretty much a poster boy for the type of game I expected In the Shadow of the Emperor would be: relatively short, mechanically engaging, paper thin theme.
I didn't play particularly well. Luch won and I was still several turns away from placing my last cube. Normally, this is a pretty tight game, but in this match I wasn't even close!
Pandemic and Wings of War will have to wait. Until next time, wash your cars with corn!
This is likely my last post until Bharmer returns, because I'll be away next week. I decided to take advantage of this opportunity to play some four player games and chose In the Shadow of the Emperor, Blue Moon City, Pandemic and Wings of War. ItSotE took much longer than I expected, so neither Pandemic or Wings of War made it to the table.
In the Shadow of the Emperor
I'm not sure what I expected from this game, but this wasn't it. For whatever reason, I thought this was going to be a dry, short, abstract middleweight euro. It's not that.
(of course, I shouldn't have expected that Kozure would purchase a game of that description. Those are typically more my thing)
In fact, it's a fairly complex but thematically engaging game. A euro for sure, and abstract enough, but the mechanics work with the subject matter. It's a political struggle that starts in the individual regions of germany and ultimately leads to the choice of emperor for the Holy Roman Empire. A clever series of mechanics which see your nobles age and marry is well integrated and makes it even less likely that you will feel like you are just pushing abstract pieces around a gameboard for victory points.
Despite the fact that the game only lasts through 5 elections, it goes on for quite a while. Our game took 2.5 hours, although it didn't really feel like it. It's a zero luck game, so there is a lot of pondering going on.
The game reminded me somewhat of Agricola (though the rest of the group likened it more to Wallace's Way Out West). In a weird twist of fate, as I was playing the game someone else wrote this at the Toa of Gaming blog: What are the odds of two people making that same observation over a 4 year old game at the same time? Weird. Anyway, my comparison boils down the the action selection mechanism, which feels a lot like Agricola to me (though this game has the added benefit of marrying the efficiency game with area control board play to give it a better sense of interaction).
As an aside, "worker placement" as a named mechanism has been bugging me for a while because it doesn't really feel like an independent mechanic (in the same way that "area control", the "rondel", "Role selection" are distinct from each other). Isn't worker placement simply inverted role selection? Is the distinction that these games typically allow you to increase the number of roles you can take on?
I tried pretty hard early on to take on Shemp and get elected as Emperor right away. Unfortunately, I picked the wrong rival... he had played before (and won). I was barely treading water with my understanding of the intertwined mechanisms at work. He outsmarted me at every turn and I wasted round after round accomplishing very little. He won again, with Luch a relatively close second, Kozure third and me dead last.
In retrospect, I realize I severely undervalued the towers (which is the equivalent of not growing your family in Agricola) and tried too hard to stay in control of the regions I already possessed (which garners no victory points). Lesson learned.
I wasn't totally enamored with the game. I'm not sure if it was my mood, or my preconceived notion of playing several quicker/ simpler games that evening. Still, it's a very intriguing game and will probably get better with familiarity. I just hope the analysis paralysis doesn't become too much of a problem and diminishes with experience rather than worsen.
Blue Moon City
We finished up with Blue Moon City. It's a game I enjoy very much, and is pretty much a poster boy for the type of game I expected In the Shadow of the Emperor would be: relatively short, mechanically engaging, paper thin theme.
I didn't play particularly well. Luch won and I was still several turns away from placing my last cube. Normally, this is a pretty tight game, but in this match I wasn't even close!
Pandemic and Wings of War will have to wait. Until next time, wash your cars with corn!
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Every plane is a little different. One's just right for you! (A Game of Thrones, Wings of War)
Shemp was an indecisive dictator this week, so we brought a number of games to choose from ("we'll bring the games we damn well please", I believe, was the wording). He picked Kozure's A Game of Thrones, a game I've been trying unsuccessfully to get to the table for months... so no complaints here. We were one player short of the ideal 5, but we aren't good enough at the game to tell the difference yet.
A Game of Thrones
In order to avoid getting the same starting setup as last game, we chose the factions randomly instead of getting our traditional colours. I ended up with white (House Stark), Shemp was red (House Lannister), Kozure was yellow (House Baratheon) and Luch was green (House Tyrell).
House Stark is this game's version of Russia. Huge northern territory, mostly empty. It looks like a good starting position, because there is lots of land to expand to unchallenged. The downside, however, is that it's very hard to defend.
Very early in the game, Kozure gave me an ultimatum to exit the eastern sea. Outnumbered, I headed north. Once north, I realized there was no where left to go. Later on, when Kozure came followed me, I had nowhere left to go and was eliminated from the sea. My eastern border was wide open for attack, and there wasn't much I could do about it.
Problem was, to the south Shemp was also creeping towards me. We struck a deal to divide the regions a particular way, and then out of the blue Luch comes and takes one of mine by sea. Luckily, Shemp sank his ships which allowed my attacks on his units to eliminate rather than allow retreat. There was substantial border tension between myself and Shemp after that, as it was clear we were lining up to attack. I made what I thought was a shrewd move: Shemp had a considerable force (3 knights) in a region I wanted. He prepared for my attack, but instead I defeated the region to the south, cutting off any possibility of retreat when I would eventually turn my attention to the knights. It didn't work, though, because I passed up an opportunity to attack at bad odds and wound up having to defend at impossible ones instead. It was a stupid move on my part. Oh well.
The real problem, however, was that all this distracted us all from the real threat: Kozure was expanding unchecked. Before we knew it, he won. Did I mention that he waltzed in and took my starting province from under my nose? I knew that undefended border would come back to haunt me...
A Game of Thrones is a very good game. Even though there are large swings of luck due to the events that come up, they affect all players equally. In fact, it's biggest impact seems to be to make each session different (last game was characterized by a total lack of supply, whereas this one had one muster all game... keeping unit count low.) Another odd thing: The barbarians attack 2-3 times at 0 strength!
It had been nearly two years since we last played. I think we'll be playing again next week. Looking forward to it.
Wings of War
We had about 20 minutes left, and Shemp indulged me by picking Wings of War. I recently acquired a number of the miniatures and the Burning Drachens set.
As far as finding a wargame which is easy, attractive and fun enough to play with non-wargamers, this one hits it out of the park. When I first brought it home, I played a game with my 5 year old son. We had a great time, and I bought a few more miniatures a few days later.
Gameplay couldn't be simpler. Each plane has a deck of cards representing areal maneuvers (hard turn right, straight, swoop to the left, etc). Each deck is different and approximates the flying characteristics of the the real plane.
- Choose three maneuvers and places them face down on the table.
- Simultaneously reveal them one at a time.
- For each card, line up the "start point" identified on the card with your miniature, then pick it up and set it down at the end of the flight path symbol.
- If a plane is within shooting range of another plane, the targeted player draws a card from a damage deck and keeps the result secret.
- Once the total adds up to the damage capacity of the plane, it's shot down.
That's it. It all comes down to a 20-30 minute session of maneuvering around the table, trying to line up shots and avoid getting hit in return. It's fast and fun, and looks really nice. The game ships with a large number of optional rules for special damage, altitude, zeppelins, tailing, etc. Of these, we only played with a few of the special damage types (fire, gun jams and damaged rudders). It took about 1.5 minutes to explain the rules and we were dogfighting.
I played the red baron in his signature red Fokker DR.I. Shemp joined me as the german Albatros D.Va. Luch and Kozure teamed up with the SPAD XIII and the Sopwith Camel, respectively.
Well, the Fokker lived up it's reputation as a fragile but agile plane... but the Red Baron did not live up to his reputation as a pilot capable of flying it. I was shot down by the Kozure's Sopwith rather quickly (I drew a 5, a 4, a 3 and a 1). Shemp managed to last a while longer, but ultimately succumbed to a concerted attack by the good guys (he drew a ton of zeros and ones and therefore managed to survive several hails of bullets).
I think it went over quite well. I'm not typically into miniatures because they often end up being clunky and complicated. I'm happy to say that Wings of War is an exception, and I like it very much. I'd like to try a balloon busting scenario next time, maybe with more/ newer planes.
Now, I just have to figure out how to store these things...
A Game of Thrones
In order to avoid getting the same starting setup as last game, we chose the factions randomly instead of getting our traditional colours. I ended up with white (House Stark), Shemp was red (House Lannister), Kozure was yellow (House Baratheon) and Luch was green (House Tyrell).
House Stark is this game's version of Russia. Huge northern territory, mostly empty. It looks like a good starting position, because there is lots of land to expand to unchallenged. The downside, however, is that it's very hard to defend.
Very early in the game, Kozure gave me an ultimatum to exit the eastern sea. Outnumbered, I headed north. Once north, I realized there was no where left to go. Later on, when Kozure came followed me, I had nowhere left to go and was eliminated from the sea. My eastern border was wide open for attack, and there wasn't much I could do about it.
Problem was, to the south Shemp was also creeping towards me. We struck a deal to divide the regions a particular way, and then out of the blue Luch comes and takes one of mine by sea. Luckily, Shemp sank his ships which allowed my attacks on his units to eliminate rather than allow retreat. There was substantial border tension between myself and Shemp after that, as it was clear we were lining up to attack. I made what I thought was a shrewd move: Shemp had a considerable force (3 knights) in a region I wanted. He prepared for my attack, but instead I defeated the region to the south, cutting off any possibility of retreat when I would eventually turn my attention to the knights. It didn't work, though, because I passed up an opportunity to attack at bad odds and wound up having to defend at impossible ones instead. It was a stupid move on my part. Oh well.
The real problem, however, was that all this distracted us all from the real threat: Kozure was expanding unchecked. Before we knew it, he won. Did I mention that he waltzed in and took my starting province from under my nose? I knew that undefended border would come back to haunt me...
A Game of Thrones is a very good game. Even though there are large swings of luck due to the events that come up, they affect all players equally. In fact, it's biggest impact seems to be to make each session different (last game was characterized by a total lack of supply, whereas this one had one muster all game... keeping unit count low.) Another odd thing: The barbarians attack 2-3 times at 0 strength!
It had been nearly two years since we last played. I think we'll be playing again next week. Looking forward to it.
Wings of War
We had about 20 minutes left, and Shemp indulged me by picking Wings of War. I recently acquired a number of the miniatures and the Burning Drachens set.
As far as finding a wargame which is easy, attractive and fun enough to play with non-wargamers, this one hits it out of the park. When I first brought it home, I played a game with my 5 year old son. We had a great time, and I bought a few more miniatures a few days later.
Gameplay couldn't be simpler. Each plane has a deck of cards representing areal maneuvers (hard turn right, straight, swoop to the left, etc). Each deck is different and approximates the flying characteristics of the the real plane.
- Choose three maneuvers and places them face down on the table.
- Simultaneously reveal them one at a time.
- For each card, line up the "start point" identified on the card with your miniature, then pick it up and set it down at the end of the flight path symbol.
- If a plane is within shooting range of another plane, the targeted player draws a card from a damage deck and keeps the result secret.
- Once the total adds up to the damage capacity of the plane, it's shot down.
That's it. It all comes down to a 20-30 minute session of maneuvering around the table, trying to line up shots and avoid getting hit in return. It's fast and fun, and looks really nice. The game ships with a large number of optional rules for special damage, altitude, zeppelins, tailing, etc. Of these, we only played with a few of the special damage types (fire, gun jams and damaged rudders). It took about 1.5 minutes to explain the rules and we were dogfighting.
I played the red baron in his signature red Fokker DR.I. Shemp joined me as the german Albatros D.Va. Luch and Kozure teamed up with the SPAD XIII and the Sopwith Camel, respectively.
Well, the Fokker lived up it's reputation as a fragile but agile plane... but the Red Baron did not live up to his reputation as a pilot capable of flying it. I was shot down by the Kozure's Sopwith rather quickly (I drew a 5, a 4, a 3 and a 1). Shemp managed to last a while longer, but ultimately succumbed to a concerted attack by the good guys (he drew a ton of zeros and ones and therefore managed to survive several hails of bullets).
I think it went over quite well. I'm not typically into miniatures because they often end up being clunky and complicated. I'm happy to say that Wings of War is an exception, and I like it very much. I'd like to try a balloon busting scenario next time, maybe with more/ newer planes.
Now, I just have to figure out how to store these things...
Friday, September 19, 2008
Thursday, September 11, 2008
On Winning (Glory to Rome, Agricola, Race for the Galaxy)
One thing that this blog doesn't really focus on is who wins and "winning strategies". I think that is largely due to the fact that we're a pretty laid-back group and it's not really the main intent of our play - that is, although we do our best and definitely are competitive, we're not aggressively (or ridiculously) so. I've read a lot of horror stories on BGG and even witnessed a few games playing with other people or groups where it was obvious that winning was the main goal of a particular player. I've seen people storm away from a gaming table; I've seen Paris Hilton-level pouts and sulks and seriously obnoxious rules-lawyers, know-it-alls and "gotta-wins".
Generally speaking, and in fact with probably 97% of boardgamers, they're nice, well-balanced people. That percentage may be a little lower with RPGers (not to knock RPGers, since I am one, but the weirdness factor definitely is a little higher in that social circle).
I do want to comment on what a pleasure it is to play with this gaming group. It's one of the highlights of my week and I always look forward to it, as much as a day or two beforehand. Agent Easy, Bharmer, our occasional visitor Jaywowzer, Ouch, and Shemp are all pleasant opponents and good friends.
That said, (and at the risk of sounding obnoxious) it does feel awfully good to win all three games in an game night. I guess the victory is somewhat sweeter knowing that you're up against decent opponents and often coming in a close second in some tight games the previous three evenings I've attended.
The first game of the evening was Glory to Rome, one of the triumvirate of similar card-based resource optimization games started by San Juan and continued by Race for the Galaxy. I like the theme and general mechanics of this game, but I still have trouble with the powers of some of the building cards, which occasionally seem unbalanced/overpowered or somewhat... I don't know the best word... arbitrary?
The Catacombs - for example. A card which ends the game at the whim of the builder? Or the Forum, which wins the game regardless of influence if you have one of each clientèle (not a difficult situation, with some combos - like the one which lets you perform a patron action for each influence on completion of the building). Another, whose name I've forgotten, lets you perform an action twice for each of your clientèle if you lead or follow an action. The Ludus Magna (allows client Merchants to act as any other occupation) in combination with a few Merchant clients can also be a killer combination. Similarly, the Temple, although difficult to build, can give an amazing advantage to a player (nine card hand!).
The game seems more interesting than San Juan, but simultaneously less balanced, so I'm not sure if one is better than the other as a game design. Given the choice, I'd still pick Glory to Rome, but San Juan is probably a "tighter" design. Glory to Rome also lacks one outstanding characteristic of its two brethren games, brevity.
Since I had missed out on vaulting materials in previous plays, I made sure I did so about mid-way through the game, instead of scrambling at the end. I also built a temple early on as my first building, which helped immensely when I did the thinker action. The combo of decent buildings with a lot of marble and brick in the vault put me well in the lead. It also helped that Jaywowzer was struggling a little with the rules, so his usually savvy play wasn't interfering with my nefarious plans.
Agricola is also a somewhat overlong game in which the deal of certain cards (occupations and minor improvements) singly or in combination can give a player a secret and fairly distinct advantage. This is a different criticism than the imbalance of individual cards which are available to everyone as in Glory to Rome. Inasmuch as that is true, you can still lose with poor play even with the best of card combinations. I think (though I must have at least ten or more plays of the basic game to be sure) that the best way to play this game would be to have a common pool of available occupations and minor improvements dealt at the beginning, with players using coloured markers to indicate which have been purchased. This way, each player has the same opportunity to use and benefit from the same occupations and minor improvements, and the replay value is retained through the cycling of cards (the family game, though interesting and good as a learning tool, does seem like it would become repetitive after a dozen plays).
I pursued my usual strategy of a balanced approach with a slight focus on planting/sowing. This time I did manage to get more animals earlier in the game, which helped with feeding my family and with end-game scoring. Once again, however, I lost out on a fifth family member and a five room house. I also have yet to upgrade to a stone house in this game. I had actually been trying for a build strategy this time around, since I had the master builder card in my hand, but it didn't pan out.
A nice combo appeared for me in the form of the berry picker, mushroom picker, and reed gatherer occupations plus the basket minor improvements. They are relatively short term gain occupations, but can make the difference between begging and not begging when grabbing a lot of wood.
I think a lot of what helped me to victory is managing a third family member early on. The number of extra actions helped me a lot.
As happy as I was with my play, I still only managed a very narrow victory over Agent Easy with 38 points. Easy was super-close with 37, as was Jaywowzer with 34 and Ouch managed one of his higher scores in the game, 24. Ouch did get some nice card combos initially (master baker, potato dibber, grocer(?) and something else) but didn't quite translate them into a higher score, unfortunately.
Race for the Galaxy continues to be one of my more enjoyed light euros. It's quick, competitive and well-themed. One drawback is that it is a less interactive game than Glory to Rome (while still being more interactive than San Juan) which does lend a sense of not really having to pay much attention to the gameplay of others. That's a dangerous habit to fall into, though, because failure to notice strategies, especially produce/consume timing, can make or break a winning bid.
I drew New Sparta, but had a dearth of hostile worlds, so I had to pursue a mixed economy strategy initially. Early play of the Interstellar Bank bankrolled a lot of later purchases and once I did start getting military power in combination with the usual New Galactic Order (I think that's the one, the one with VPs for military power), I was feeling good about my chances. Jaywowzer ended the game a little earlier than I expected, though, with the play of his twelfth tableau card. Ouch and I tied for VPs with 28 apiece, but I squeaked the win with one more card in hand and one more resource in my tableau. Jaywowzer was in the 24-26 range (I've forgotten) and I believe that Easy was in the 20-24 range.
So, I won Race for the Galaxy, but narrowly. Hat Trick... woo hoo! USA! USA! USA!
I'll be quiet now.
Generally speaking, and in fact with probably 97% of boardgamers, they're nice, well-balanced people. That percentage may be a little lower with RPGers (not to knock RPGers, since I am one, but the weirdness factor definitely is a little higher in that social circle).
I do want to comment on what a pleasure it is to play with this gaming group. It's one of the highlights of my week and I always look forward to it, as much as a day or two beforehand. Agent Easy, Bharmer, our occasional visitor Jaywowzer, Ouch, and Shemp are all pleasant opponents and good friends.
That said, (and at the risk of sounding obnoxious) it does feel awfully good to win all three games in an game night. I guess the victory is somewhat sweeter knowing that you're up against decent opponents and often coming in a close second in some tight games the previous three evenings I've attended.
The first game of the evening was Glory to Rome, one of the triumvirate of similar card-based resource optimization games started by San Juan and continued by Race for the Galaxy. I like the theme and general mechanics of this game, but I still have trouble with the powers of some of the building cards, which occasionally seem unbalanced/overpowered or somewhat... I don't know the best word... arbitrary?
The Catacombs - for example. A card which ends the game at the whim of the builder? Or the Forum, which wins the game regardless of influence if you have one of each clientèle (not a difficult situation, with some combos - like the one which lets you perform a patron action for each influence on completion of the building). Another, whose name I've forgotten, lets you perform an action twice for each of your clientèle if you lead or follow an action. The Ludus Magna (allows client Merchants to act as any other occupation) in combination with a few Merchant clients can also be a killer combination. Similarly, the Temple, although difficult to build, can give an amazing advantage to a player (nine card hand!).
The game seems more interesting than San Juan, but simultaneously less balanced, so I'm not sure if one is better than the other as a game design. Given the choice, I'd still pick Glory to Rome, but San Juan is probably a "tighter" design. Glory to Rome also lacks one outstanding characteristic of its two brethren games, brevity.
Since I had missed out on vaulting materials in previous plays, I made sure I did so about mid-way through the game, instead of scrambling at the end. I also built a temple early on as my first building, which helped immensely when I did the thinker action. The combo of decent buildings with a lot of marble and brick in the vault put me well in the lead. It also helped that Jaywowzer was struggling a little with the rules, so his usually savvy play wasn't interfering with my nefarious plans.
Agricola is also a somewhat overlong game in which the deal of certain cards (occupations and minor improvements) singly or in combination can give a player a secret and fairly distinct advantage. This is a different criticism than the imbalance of individual cards which are available to everyone as in Glory to Rome. Inasmuch as that is true, you can still lose with poor play even with the best of card combinations. I think (though I must have at least ten or more plays of the basic game to be sure) that the best way to play this game would be to have a common pool of available occupations and minor improvements dealt at the beginning, with players using coloured markers to indicate which have been purchased. This way, each player has the same opportunity to use and benefit from the same occupations and minor improvements, and the replay value is retained through the cycling of cards (the family game, though interesting and good as a learning tool, does seem like it would become repetitive after a dozen plays).
I pursued my usual strategy of a balanced approach with a slight focus on planting/sowing. This time I did manage to get more animals earlier in the game, which helped with feeding my family and with end-game scoring. Once again, however, I lost out on a fifth family member and a five room house. I also have yet to upgrade to a stone house in this game. I had actually been trying for a build strategy this time around, since I had the master builder card in my hand, but it didn't pan out.
A nice combo appeared for me in the form of the berry picker, mushroom picker, and reed gatherer occupations plus the basket minor improvements. They are relatively short term gain occupations, but can make the difference between begging and not begging when grabbing a lot of wood.
I think a lot of what helped me to victory is managing a third family member early on. The number of extra actions helped me a lot.
As happy as I was with my play, I still only managed a very narrow victory over Agent Easy with 38 points. Easy was super-close with 37, as was Jaywowzer with 34 and Ouch managed one of his higher scores in the game, 24. Ouch did get some nice card combos initially (master baker, potato dibber, grocer(?) and something else) but didn't quite translate them into a higher score, unfortunately.
Race for the Galaxy continues to be one of my more enjoyed light euros. It's quick, competitive and well-themed. One drawback is that it is a less interactive game than Glory to Rome (while still being more interactive than San Juan) which does lend a sense of not really having to pay much attention to the gameplay of others. That's a dangerous habit to fall into, though, because failure to notice strategies, especially produce/consume timing, can make or break a winning bid.
I drew New Sparta, but had a dearth of hostile worlds, so I had to pursue a mixed economy strategy initially. Early play of the Interstellar Bank bankrolled a lot of later purchases and once I did start getting military power in combination with the usual New Galactic Order (I think that's the one, the one with VPs for military power), I was feeling good about my chances. Jaywowzer ended the game a little earlier than I expected, though, with the play of his twelfth tableau card. Ouch and I tied for VPs with 28 apiece, but I squeaked the win with one more card in hand and one more resource in my tableau. Jaywowzer was in the 24-26 range (I've forgotten) and I believe that Easy was in the 20-24 range.
So, I won Race for the Galaxy, but narrowly. Hat Trick... woo hoo! USA! USA! USA!
I'll be quiet now.
Saturday, September 06, 2008
Yum. Aminals. (Agricola, Colossal Arena x2)
Bharmer is out for the month, so we were four.
Luch chose an animal theme (sorry, aminal), and asked that we lead with Agricola. We set up outside in Kozure's backyard and launched into our first advanced game as a group (it eventually started raining, so we ended inside)
Note to self: Agricola is a difficult game to bring inside quickly when it starts raining.
From my hand, I saw a number of cards which had great potential. Of note, I had a card which let me instantly go from 5 rooms to 6 for free and another which let me get a free stone room. I figured I'd try to build a seven stone room mansion on my little farm!
Trouble is, I got distracted by the pastor card which gave me a ton of goods if i could only manage to be the last player with only two rooms. Considering our last game saw everyone go to three rather quickly, I didn't think it would be too difficult. Unfortunately for me, the cards had a distracting effect on everyone else and the desire to play minor improvements and occupations led to a slower than usual path to a bigger house. Shemp, in particular, was sticking to two rooms forever. By the time I decided I couldn't wait any longer, it was already too late to achieve my goal. I did still manage 6 stone rooms, but the seven would have taken another 2-3 actions to gather the necessary goods for the minor improvement. Meanwhile, I managed a rather lucrative animal based farm which kept my family comfortably fed throughout the game. In the end, despite losing several points for empty pastures and a complete lack of plowed fields, corn or vegetables I snuck past Kozure for the win.
With four players, the game feels significantly less constricted than with five. Of course, as I mentioned earlier the cards were distracting us from the basic actions, so that may have had a lot to do with this feeling (in fact, 50% of our scores were lower with the cards than without, so clearly they take some getting used to).
I think the addition of the advanced game is a necessary thing to keep Agricola fresh, so the added complexity is worth it in the long run. The family game is more or less scripted (not to say that there aren't multiple workable strategies within that framework, just that much of the grain of the gameplay will need to follow the same basic order every game). The cards I've played with don't fundamentally change much that is going on, but it does encourage you to see the value of things differently. It also makes predicting other player's moves more difficult (in a good way).
Shemp and Luch asked that we go back to the family game a few times so that they can get a better grasp of the fundamentals, so we are unlikely to play with the cards for a while. Agricola continues to be a fun game that keeps me thinking, but like Shemp said "It's a good game, but I don't really understand all the love it's getting on BGG"
We finished up the evening with two games of Colossal Arena. We even played with the character powers! Luch proved to be quite the shark in this betting match and won both games. I'm happy to say that both games went much quicker than other games of this we've played and therefore felt much better. If we can keep the length to +/- half an hour, it's a fine game.
Luch chose an animal theme (sorry, aminal), and asked that we lead with Agricola. We set up outside in Kozure's backyard and launched into our first advanced game as a group (it eventually started raining, so we ended inside)
Note to self: Agricola is a difficult game to bring inside quickly when it starts raining.
From my hand, I saw a number of cards which had great potential. Of note, I had a card which let me instantly go from 5 rooms to 6 for free and another which let me get a free stone room. I figured I'd try to build a seven stone room mansion on my little farm!
Trouble is, I got distracted by the pastor card which gave me a ton of goods if i could only manage to be the last player with only two rooms. Considering our last game saw everyone go to three rather quickly, I didn't think it would be too difficult. Unfortunately for me, the cards had a distracting effect on everyone else and the desire to play minor improvements and occupations led to a slower than usual path to a bigger house. Shemp, in particular, was sticking to two rooms forever. By the time I decided I couldn't wait any longer, it was already too late to achieve my goal. I did still manage 6 stone rooms, but the seven would have taken another 2-3 actions to gather the necessary goods for the minor improvement. Meanwhile, I managed a rather lucrative animal based farm which kept my family comfortably fed throughout the game. In the end, despite losing several points for empty pastures and a complete lack of plowed fields, corn or vegetables I snuck past Kozure for the win.
With four players, the game feels significantly less constricted than with five. Of course, as I mentioned earlier the cards were distracting us from the basic actions, so that may have had a lot to do with this feeling (in fact, 50% of our scores were lower with the cards than without, so clearly they take some getting used to).
I think the addition of the advanced game is a necessary thing to keep Agricola fresh, so the added complexity is worth it in the long run. The family game is more or less scripted (not to say that there aren't multiple workable strategies within that framework, just that much of the grain of the gameplay will need to follow the same basic order every game). The cards I've played with don't fundamentally change much that is going on, but it does encourage you to see the value of things differently. It also makes predicting other player's moves more difficult (in a good way).
Shemp and Luch asked that we go back to the family game a few times so that they can get a better grasp of the fundamentals, so we are unlikely to play with the cards for a while. Agricola continues to be a fun game that keeps me thinking, but like Shemp said "It's a good game, but I don't really understand all the love it's getting on BGG"
We finished up the evening with two games of Colossal Arena. We even played with the character powers! Luch proved to be quite the shark in this betting match and won both games. I'm happy to say that both games went much quicker than other games of this we've played and therefore felt much better. If we can keep the length to +/- half an hour, it's a fine game.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Games with rules and components (Entdecker, Pillars of the Earth, Fairy Tale)
Kozure was camping, so it was a foursome.
Entdecker
Before Shemp arrived, we started with Entdecker, a game we pretty much massacred the rules to last time. What is it about Teuber games, anyway?... We keep mangling the rules to Domaine as well (I should say "kept", as we haven't played Domaine in a really long time... hmmm... we should fix that)
We managed to correctly play the exploration rules, and we filled in the areas correctly. Unfortunately, we completely screwed up the in game scoring because we were only giving points to the first place player! Lucky for us, we noticed well before the game was over and gave back the points to the players who should have received them. I'm pretty sure we got it right, too.
The starting scenario we used had the 4 bonus tiles set up in 2 pairs on either side of a wall of water. Obviously, it was a race to set up two huge, high scoring islands. I snagged the first one, but I poured a lot of effort into it and Bharmer and Luch both received points for it. Luch and Bharmer worked together to develop and close the second island, and I got shut out. Bharmer was way out front in points, so I started closing lots of little islands to get my scouts onto the village tracks and tried to secure a couple of high scoring huts. In the end, it all came down to a single tile draw... if I could flip a tile that closed the second last space on the board, I would be able to send the last scout I needed to secure a pivotal majority. If the tile I drew didn't fit, Bharmer would do it. I got the tile I needed, and won the game by a slim margin. It was close all around (Luch, who was behind most of the game, got a lot of points off the scouts and nearly overtook us).
Entdecker and Domaine actually share a similar space for me in the game landscape. I really enjoy both, but they are somehow unspectacular. Between the two, Domaine is the tighter game, but the late land grab that usually determines the winner is a big problem. If Entdecker was a little shorter, and if it did a little more to differentiate itself from other exploration games (like the superior Tikal), I'd probably want to play it more often. The luck involved may rub some the wrong way, but it fits the theme well in my opinion.
Anyway, I don't intend on trading it or anything. It' a fun game to play once in a while.
Pillars of the Earth
The latest "new" and/or "hot" game mechanic is "worker placement". It was featured in last year's Caylus (which I've never played) and in this year's phenomenon Agricola. Pillars of the Earth was released between those two, features similar gameplay mechanics and has been well received in it's own right.
If you watch Oprah, or if (like me) you have a spouse that does, you know that Pillars is based on a novel that somehow involves the building of a cathedral. Bharmer has read the book but claims not to watch Oprah. Whatever, I have my eye on him. Anyway, here the cathedral simply acts as an elaborate timer: after each round one section of the cathedral is added. When the cathedral is complete, the game ends. As an aside, we all disliked the cathedral design proposed by the game. The one we built with the pieces was decidedly more... deconstructionist.
These worker placement games have certain similarities: There are a lot of options laid out at once, and players must find the most efficient order to choose them in. However, small differences can have a big effect:
-The mechanism used to determine turn order in Pillars is slightly wonky (each player has three token in a bag and they are pulled at random. If you get picked early you have to pay or go to the back of the line). I'm not sure that the cost makes up for getting screwed out of turn order, but is it really worse than Agricola, where placement is simply clockwise?
- Whereas Agricola is fairly devoid of interrelated mechanics, Pillars has several interesting tradeoffs inherent in the system. The resource mini-auction at the beginning has to be weighed against the gold provided by unused resource workers. The resources are converted into victory points at different rates according to the different professionals you've hired. Etc.
- This may sound petty, but the presentation in Pillars is several leagues better than in Agricola. Instead of multiple awkwardly organized boards in the middle and piles of wooden tokens with no place to go, Pillars has a single board with a place for everything. Even money is handled with a track (a system which works remarkably well, and yet I can't think of another game that does it). Also, despite the fact that there is a similar seeding of the board that occurs every round, it's far more reasonable.
Anyway, I thought it was a pretty good game. There is a good amount of push and pull, tough decisions, etc, etc. I'm still wrestling with my feelings over Agricola, because although I can point to several things that Pillars does better I can't deny that it feels more generic than Agricola does. When I played Agricola, it felt like a rather different animal than the other games I've played, Pillars doesn't. Agricola also has the obvious advantage that it's entirely modular design allows it to be more variable and therefore (theoretically) stay entertaining longer. I say theoretically because after five games I've noticed a sameness developping in each game potentially due to the semi-ordered presentation of the action spaces, the need to do things in a certain order to get your farm going, and needing a little bit of everything in order to do well. Keep in mind that I've only played one advanced game and only one multiplayer game, so the sameness issue may not be real (and if it is, the modularity would make it very easy for an expansion to completely turn the sameness on it's head). So, while Agricola lacks severely in the elegance dept., it feels like it breaks new ground.
In our session, I first tried to go long on sand, acquiring a prince that gave it to me for free every round fairly early. I overspent in the second round and bought myself a lead that was already erased by the third. The others where manipulating turn order and stealing all the sand contracts before I could get them, so I switched to stone. I couldn't get it together, though, and placed last. It was a tight race between Bharmer and Shemp for first, but I can't remember who won in the end (I think it was Shemp).
Fairy Tale
This has been a long post, so I'll keep this short: Fairy Tale was much more fun with four players than it was with two. It felt more like I remembered, so it's nice to see it wasn't a worthless trade. I actually think four might be ideal, if only because during the draft you know one of the cards in your original deal will come back to you.
I was doing pretty well until Shemp hunted the card I was using to unflip two cards that would have triggered lots of points on the table. I didn't recover. Still, Bharmer had a huge score on the table and won... I don't think any of us where even within striking distance.
Fun filler.
Entdecker
Before Shemp arrived, we started with Entdecker, a game we pretty much massacred the rules to last time. What is it about Teuber games, anyway?... We keep mangling the rules to Domaine as well (I should say "kept", as we haven't played Domaine in a really long time... hmmm... we should fix that)
We managed to correctly play the exploration rules, and we filled in the areas correctly. Unfortunately, we completely screwed up the in game scoring because we were only giving points to the first place player! Lucky for us, we noticed well before the game was over and gave back the points to the players who should have received them. I'm pretty sure we got it right, too.
The starting scenario we used had the 4 bonus tiles set up in 2 pairs on either side of a wall of water. Obviously, it was a race to set up two huge, high scoring islands. I snagged the first one, but I poured a lot of effort into it and Bharmer and Luch both received points for it. Luch and Bharmer worked together to develop and close the second island, and I got shut out. Bharmer was way out front in points, so I started closing lots of little islands to get my scouts onto the village tracks and tried to secure a couple of high scoring huts. In the end, it all came down to a single tile draw... if I could flip a tile that closed the second last space on the board, I would be able to send the last scout I needed to secure a pivotal majority. If the tile I drew didn't fit, Bharmer would do it. I got the tile I needed, and won the game by a slim margin. It was close all around (Luch, who was behind most of the game, got a lot of points off the scouts and nearly overtook us).
Entdecker and Domaine actually share a similar space for me in the game landscape. I really enjoy both, but they are somehow unspectacular. Between the two, Domaine is the tighter game, but the late land grab that usually determines the winner is a big problem. If Entdecker was a little shorter, and if it did a little more to differentiate itself from other exploration games (like the superior Tikal), I'd probably want to play it more often. The luck involved may rub some the wrong way, but it fits the theme well in my opinion.
Anyway, I don't intend on trading it or anything. It' a fun game to play once in a while.
Pillars of the Earth
The latest "new" and/or "hot" game mechanic is "worker placement". It was featured in last year's Caylus (which I've never played) and in this year's phenomenon Agricola. Pillars of the Earth was released between those two, features similar gameplay mechanics and has been well received in it's own right.
If you watch Oprah, or if (like me) you have a spouse that does, you know that Pillars is based on a novel that somehow involves the building of a cathedral. Bharmer has read the book but claims not to watch Oprah. Whatever, I have my eye on him. Anyway, here the cathedral simply acts as an elaborate timer: after each round one section of the cathedral is added. When the cathedral is complete, the game ends. As an aside, we all disliked the cathedral design proposed by the game. The one we built with the pieces was decidedly more... deconstructionist.
These worker placement games have certain similarities: There are a lot of options laid out at once, and players must find the most efficient order to choose them in. However, small differences can have a big effect:
-The mechanism used to determine turn order in Pillars is slightly wonky (each player has three token in a bag and they are pulled at random. If you get picked early you have to pay or go to the back of the line). I'm not sure that the cost makes up for getting screwed out of turn order, but is it really worse than Agricola, where placement is simply clockwise?
- Whereas Agricola is fairly devoid of interrelated mechanics, Pillars has several interesting tradeoffs inherent in the system. The resource mini-auction at the beginning has to be weighed against the gold provided by unused resource workers. The resources are converted into victory points at different rates according to the different professionals you've hired. Etc.
- This may sound petty, but the presentation in Pillars is several leagues better than in Agricola. Instead of multiple awkwardly organized boards in the middle and piles of wooden tokens with no place to go, Pillars has a single board with a place for everything. Even money is handled with a track (a system which works remarkably well, and yet I can't think of another game that does it). Also, despite the fact that there is a similar seeding of the board that occurs every round, it's far more reasonable.
Anyway, I thought it was a pretty good game. There is a good amount of push and pull, tough decisions, etc, etc. I'm still wrestling with my feelings over Agricola, because although I can point to several things that Pillars does better I can't deny that it feels more generic than Agricola does. When I played Agricola, it felt like a rather different animal than the other games I've played, Pillars doesn't. Agricola also has the obvious advantage that it's entirely modular design allows it to be more variable and therefore (theoretically) stay entertaining longer. I say theoretically because after five games I've noticed a sameness developping in each game potentially due to the semi-ordered presentation of the action spaces, the need to do things in a certain order to get your farm going, and needing a little bit of everything in order to do well. Keep in mind that I've only played one advanced game and only one multiplayer game, so the sameness issue may not be real (and if it is, the modularity would make it very easy for an expansion to completely turn the sameness on it's head). So, while Agricola lacks severely in the elegance dept., it feels like it breaks new ground.
In our session, I first tried to go long on sand, acquiring a prince that gave it to me for free every round fairly early. I overspent in the second round and bought myself a lead that was already erased by the third. The others where manipulating turn order and stealing all the sand contracts before I could get them, so I switched to stone. I couldn't get it together, though, and placed last. It was a tight race between Bharmer and Shemp for first, but I can't remember who won in the end (I think it was Shemp).
Fairy Tale
This has been a long post, so I'll keep this short: Fairy Tale was much more fun with four players than it was with two. It felt more like I remembered, so it's nice to see it wasn't a worthless trade. I actually think four might be ideal, if only because during the draft you know one of the cards in your original deal will come back to you.
I was doing pretty well until Shemp hunted the card I was using to unflip two cards that would have triggered lots of points on the table. I didn't recover. Still, Bharmer had a huge score on the table and won... I don't think any of us where even within striking distance.
Fun filler.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
All that, and a bag of chips? (Civilization, Agricola, High Society x2)
We all gathered once again to conclude our latest game of Sid Meier's Civilization. In our last session, I had managed to stay under the radar and gain a significant lead through the purchase of a large amount of technology. If I was permitted to survive until the end of the game, I would surely win. The players all agreed that they would cooperate to take me out. I fully expected to be obliterated tonight, but something else happened... the other players conceeded the game and we played Agricola instead! (Bharmer wasn't enjoying the game, and successfully stopping me meant that I would be eliminated and they would likely have to spend a fourth evening determining the new winner. My success was far from assured, but I had a real shot so we called it a game)
Agricola
Agricola is the new "it" boardgame. So much so that it has currently unseated Puerto Rico as the number 1 game on BGG, a feat no other game has yet managed to do (I have no idea if it will stay there, but I wouldn't pick either game as my favorite so whatever).
The theme here, predictably, is farming. The implementation is more literal than most, however... each player actually gets a board depicting a little plot of land and over the course of the game they have to till the land, grow crops and raise animals while trying to improve the house, raise a family and... you know... keep everyone fed.
The mechanics involve a central board depicting a plethora of available actions, each of which can only be chosen once a round. Players start with a two room house and a husband and wife team, and each of those can choose to do one of the available actions every round. As the house grows, babies can be had and they can grow up and take actions themselves. Meanwhile, gathering food becomes tougher and tougher. Predictably, not having to resort to begging is a prime motivator in the game.
In the end, the farm is scored and almost every aspect is graded: from the number of wasted plots of land, to the number of children, the amount of food on hand and the variety of livestock being raised. Because there are way more things that need doing than there is time to do them, Agricola is a capital "E" efficiency game.
Prior to this evening, I had tried the solo family game a few times. It actually works fairly well as a sort of optimisation puzzle, so that was good. Sadly, the rulebook could have been significantly better... it works as a reference but a new player will be lost for a little while. As an example, there is a simplified "family" game which is recommended as the first game. Wouldn't it be logical then to make the instructions prominent and simple to follow? Instead, the advanced rules are described first, then a paragraph explaining how to convert the rules for a family game can be found eight pages in. In other words, those the least familiar with the game are asked to first read and understand the complex rules and then to modify them according to a few paragraphs at the end. Also, on a number of occasions the rules refer to a board by name without actually ever identifying them anywhere AND they include a number of alternate boards without explanation, leaving a beginning player trying to sort out all these components fairly confused (at least, I was). Once you know what everything is, it's all fairly obvious, but new players DON"T know what everything is by definition. There is more, but you get the idea.
Luckily, the game itself is quite good, and play is pretty smooth and intuitive once things get going. The only direct interaction between players is in the action selection, but since competition for certain spaces can be fierce I don't expect anyone to start talking about "multi player solitaire". If I had a gripe, it would be that reloading the board every round gets a little tedious.
Bharmer proved he is the efficiency king by winning with a farm that was completely built up through a balanced approach that left him with five family members in a clay mansion with just about every scoring category covered. By contrast, I had four empty spaces, only three family members and several blanks in the scoring sheet. I honestly thought that my previous experience with the solo games would give me a significant advantage, but since I came in second-last I think we can forget that. Having so many other players competing for the same actions really changes the dynamics of the game... I spent the last five rounds trying to build fences, but the option was always snagged before I could. Goods rarely accumulated. etc, etc. It's very different playing an efficiency game by yourself than trying to be efficient when the thing you want to do is frequently unavailable.
I guess I can't really talk about Agricola without mentioning the huge amount of cards that can be used in the advanced game. By dealing out a hand of 14 cards to every player, each game is slightly different. We didn't play with them, however, so I can't really comment much.
I actually really like Agricola. I find myself thinking about it quite a bit afterwards, trying to think of a better way to get things done next time. I'm also really looking forward to trying out the decks of cards and seeing how they impact the game. It's not my favorite game. In fact, like Puerto Rico, I'm not sure it's in my top 10. Still, it's good and definitely worth trying out.
Bharmer and Kozure left for the evening. We finished up with two quick rounds of High Society. Shemp rocked us in both games, but at least Luch put up a fight.
Agricola
Agricola is the new "it" boardgame. So much so that it has currently unseated Puerto Rico as the number 1 game on BGG, a feat no other game has yet managed to do (I have no idea if it will stay there, but I wouldn't pick either game as my favorite so whatever).
The theme here, predictably, is farming. The implementation is more literal than most, however... each player actually gets a board depicting a little plot of land and over the course of the game they have to till the land, grow crops and raise animals while trying to improve the house, raise a family and... you know... keep everyone fed.
The mechanics involve a central board depicting a plethora of available actions, each of which can only be chosen once a round. Players start with a two room house and a husband and wife team, and each of those can choose to do one of the available actions every round. As the house grows, babies can be had and they can grow up and take actions themselves. Meanwhile, gathering food becomes tougher and tougher. Predictably, not having to resort to begging is a prime motivator in the game.
In the end, the farm is scored and almost every aspect is graded: from the number of wasted plots of land, to the number of children, the amount of food on hand and the variety of livestock being raised. Because there are way more things that need doing than there is time to do them, Agricola is a capital "E" efficiency game.
Prior to this evening, I had tried the solo family game a few times. It actually works fairly well as a sort of optimisation puzzle, so that was good. Sadly, the rulebook could have been significantly better... it works as a reference but a new player will be lost for a little while. As an example, there is a simplified "family" game which is recommended as the first game. Wouldn't it be logical then to make the instructions prominent and simple to follow? Instead, the advanced rules are described first, then a paragraph explaining how to convert the rules for a family game can be found eight pages in. In other words, those the least familiar with the game are asked to first read and understand the complex rules and then to modify them according to a few paragraphs at the end. Also, on a number of occasions the rules refer to a board by name without actually ever identifying them anywhere AND they include a number of alternate boards without explanation, leaving a beginning player trying to sort out all these components fairly confused (at least, I was). Once you know what everything is, it's all fairly obvious, but new players DON"T know what everything is by definition. There is more, but you get the idea.
Luckily, the game itself is quite good, and play is pretty smooth and intuitive once things get going. The only direct interaction between players is in the action selection, but since competition for certain spaces can be fierce I don't expect anyone to start talking about "multi player solitaire". If I had a gripe, it would be that reloading the board every round gets a little tedious.
Bharmer proved he is the efficiency king by winning with a farm that was completely built up through a balanced approach that left him with five family members in a clay mansion with just about every scoring category covered. By contrast, I had four empty spaces, only three family members and several blanks in the scoring sheet. I honestly thought that my previous experience with the solo games would give me a significant advantage, but since I came in second-last I think we can forget that. Having so many other players competing for the same actions really changes the dynamics of the game... I spent the last five rounds trying to build fences, but the option was always snagged before I could. Goods rarely accumulated. etc, etc. It's very different playing an efficiency game by yourself than trying to be efficient when the thing you want to do is frequently unavailable.
I guess I can't really talk about Agricola without mentioning the huge amount of cards that can be used in the advanced game. By dealing out a hand of 14 cards to every player, each game is slightly different. We didn't play with them, however, so I can't really comment much.
I actually really like Agricola. I find myself thinking about it quite a bit afterwards, trying to think of a better way to get things done next time. I'm also really looking forward to trying out the decks of cards and seeing how they impact the game. It's not my favorite game. In fact, like Puerto Rico, I'm not sure it's in my top 10. Still, it's good and definitely worth trying out.
Bharmer and Kozure left for the evening. We finished up with two quick rounds of High Society. Shemp rocked us in both games, but at least Luch put up a fight.
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.
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Imperial Ambition (Imperial)
We played Imperial again this past week. It was good with three players, a little different, mostly because you end up controlling more countries, so you have more chances to interfere with your own plans if you buy too many bonds.
Somehow I managed to get shut out of country ownership again for a few turns (far fewer than last time). Stupid. I think I bought too many high value bonds too early in too few countries. It really is quite crippling to not control a country. Anyhow... I can't remember who won - I think it was Ouch, with Shemp being very close, and I wasn't too far behind. I actually thought I was close to winning, but I peaked a little early and Ouch(?) ended the game before I recovered.
We had an interesting situation in which Ouch pumped up the power of two nations quite quickly (Germany and Austria-Hungary), effectively killing interest in their bonds for a fair portion of the game, since the possibility of increasing their power without considerable expansion or investment was difficult. That didn't stop me and the others making a last minute bid for Austria-Hungary bonds when it made a end-game factory expansion.
I enjoyed it as much or more on the second play... and it's a faster game with three.
Somehow I managed to get shut out of country ownership again for a few turns (far fewer than last time). Stupid. I think I bought too many high value bonds too early in too few countries. It really is quite crippling to not control a country. Anyhow... I can't remember who won - I think it was Ouch, with Shemp being very close, and I wasn't too far behind. I actually thought I was close to winning, but I peaked a little early and Ouch(?) ended the game before I recovered.
We had an interesting situation in which Ouch pumped up the power of two nations quite quickly (Germany and Austria-Hungary), effectively killing interest in their bonds for a fair portion of the game, since the possibility of increasing their power without considerable expansion or investment was difficult. That didn't stop me and the others making a last minute bid for Austria-Hungary bonds when it made a end-game factory expansion.
I enjoyed it as much or more on the second play... and it's a faster game with three.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
