We tried to play another session of Hannibal. People say it can be played in two hours, but we would be happy if we could just get it down to three. This time we made it further into the game than ever before, but after four hours our time was up.
I took the role of Hannibal for the second time, and so Kozure was Rome. Early naval advantages (Allied with Syracuse, allied with Macedonians) allowed me to enter into Sicily right away. Hannibal went north as always, and made it through the Alps relatively unscathed. Kozure met me in the north and the result was a bloodbath; Hannibal died after a couple of combats (I unfortunately was not able to pull off any "hail Mary" unlikely wins like I did last game). I would have to find out if a Carthage win without Hannibal was possible...
Mago had been sent to accompany Hasdrubal in Sicily early on. As reinforcements accumulated in New Carthage, the seaworthy general ferried back and sailed to eastern Italy with a full 10 point army. Scipio Africanus soon arrived in Rome with his force of 5. I thought if Mago could confront him my numerical advantage might beat him. Instead, I chose to do a quick rampage along the eastern coast, dropping off soldiers as I went with an eye to converting political power, winning two provinces in the process just before winter. It was reckless and stupid, though. Kozure played a minor campaign and brought Scipio to me overrunning all the units I left behind and then hit me on both flanks with his consul (don't remember the name). Mago and his army were decimated, along with Carthage's hopes of winning the game. Oh well.
We had to call it, but given another turn or so Rome's win was all but inevitable..
Pretty close to a full game, yet a real complete game eludes us. I plan to keep trying. I am very much enjoying the game, and I like how it feels both like a war game and unlike one. The flow of events has a distinct impact on the game, and the best course of action changes along with them. The balance between using the cards as events vs action points is often a difficult choice. Fun, fun, fun.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Ra, Ra, Mexica! (Ra: The dice game, Mexica, Ra)
My sister's husband, Pablo, recently immigrated to Canada and since he enjoys boardgames we invited him to join us. Although he isn't familiar with many of our games, he had previously played and enjoyed Tikal and Memoir '44 so I felt he'd have no problem. Four players at WAGS? Fantastic!
Ra: The Dice Game
This was my second time playing this game, but for Shemp and Pablo it was a first. Still a fun game, but this is definitely a shallower experience than the original. I won on the strength of a game long dominance of Pharaohs and a huge score from pyramids.
Mexica
The first half of this session saw a far more structured development pattern than we've seen in recent games. The two extremities of the island where being planned with southern Ontario like regularity (rectangular zones, each stacked side by side). When the second stage began, good planning fell by the wayside... strange and impractical districts popped up and made movement very difficult. There was a large unfounded area on one side of the island that I seeded with a number of buildings, hoping for a points grab as other players would enclose them for me (i.e. the Shemp tactic). Unfortunately, my placement left much of the area undevelopable so the game ended with unplaced Calpuli tiles... a first for us. Shemp won by a significant margin, with Kozure in second place.
Ra
For the sake of compare and contrast, we ended with Ra. I often go for a quick grab of anything that looks valuable when playing with more than 3 players, so I found myself with a decent haul quickly in the first era. This left me with no bidding tiles before most had even spent one, but it worked... the other players did not manage to get much in the remaining time before the Ra tiles ended the era. I had a similarly successful second era and despite a weak third I won the game.
Pablo says he preferred the dice game. Personally, I feel the original has a lot more going for it and probably has much longer legs. That said, the dice version is certainly more accessible since auction games are typically not forgiving to new players who don't yet know how to evaluate the worth of each tile.
Ra: The Dice Game
This was my second time playing this game, but for Shemp and Pablo it was a first. Still a fun game, but this is definitely a shallower experience than the original. I won on the strength of a game long dominance of Pharaohs and a huge score from pyramids.
Mexica
The first half of this session saw a far more structured development pattern than we've seen in recent games. The two extremities of the island where being planned with southern Ontario like regularity (rectangular zones, each stacked side by side). When the second stage began, good planning fell by the wayside... strange and impractical districts popped up and made movement very difficult. There was a large unfounded area on one side of the island that I seeded with a number of buildings, hoping for a points grab as other players would enclose them for me (i.e. the Shemp tactic). Unfortunately, my placement left much of the area undevelopable so the game ended with unplaced Calpuli tiles... a first for us. Shemp won by a significant margin, with Kozure in second place.
Ra
For the sake of compare and contrast, we ended with Ra. I often go for a quick grab of anything that looks valuable when playing with more than 3 players, so I found myself with a decent haul quickly in the first era. This left me with no bidding tiles before most had even spent one, but it worked... the other players did not manage to get much in the remaining time before the Ra tiles ended the era. I had a similarly successful second era and despite a weak third I won the game.
Pablo says he preferred the dice game. Personally, I feel the original has a lot more going for it and probably has much longer legs. That said, the dice version is certainly more accessible since auction games are typically not forgiving to new players who don't yet know how to evaluate the worth of each tile.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Ships & Shipping (Cyclades, Macao)
Very late on this one.
We played Cyclades and Macao.
Cyclades
I take back everything I said about Cyclades and Risk. I hope no one actually read this and used that comparison to make a purchasing decision (highly unlikely, I know). I was trying to communicate that it was an approachable and simple conquest game but I took the comparison too far. The game is simple enough, there is rolling of dice and the theme is conquest, but the gameplay is all about auctions, timing and combos.
We've now played three times, and have each tried the three different starting positions. They seem balanced enough. Kozure surprised us all and was within one round of winning quite quickly (having built a metropolis and owning three philosopher cards). He won the bid for Athena and built the last metropolis... but could he make it to the end of the round intact?
No.
Shemp won Mars and swept in to steal one of Kozure's metropolises. In a subsequent turn, I stole the other (leaving Kozure with none). I was able to sneak in and build my last building for the win.. Since I was last, no one could stop me and won.
This is a great game. For the first half, players are trying to get their income going and get into position. Then, suddenly everyone is on the verge of winning and all players must carefully keep an eye on each other, the order that the gods are coming up and the creatures which are available. Some pretty crafty sequences can be pulled off, and much of the fun I have with the game is derived from this aspect. As an example, this is how I played my last turn for the win (more or less, it's been a while):
I had no metropolises, and only three buildings. I bid on Aries. I purchased the Griffon to steal half of Shemp's gold (which was a lot), I then used Polyphemus to "scare" my boats away from an island, allowing me to create a chain of ships to an island containing a metropolis. I purchased a number of units, crossed to the other island and conquered it. I purchased the red building, but it was not the one I needed to get my second metropolis so I used the Chimera to activate Cyclops's ability to change a building's colour, giving me the second metropolis for the win. That was fun.
Macao
Another game about timing and combos, Macao has seen a lot of table time recently (which is fine by me). I snagged a couple of ware doublers early on and made it my goal to gain the lion's share of my points this way. I was a distant first place for much of the game, but I suffered a late game stall as I ran out of things to deliver. I only had a few other activated buildings, a couple of baronesses, so I was not sure what to do. Shemp was coming on strong and on my last turn I simply took a quick delivery and the game was over. As bonus points were tallied, Shemp overtook me by +/- 10 points for the win (AGAIN). He then pointed out that a different move would have won me the game! (I could have built a different building, thus given me a different ware, which would have truncated his chain in the city and robbed him of some points in his last delivery. I guess he got me back for pointing out a similar missed opportunity in Cyclades a few months ago!
Another great game. This and Cyclades could very well be my picks for best games this year.
We played Cyclades and Macao.
Cyclades
I take back everything I said about Cyclades and Risk. I hope no one actually read this and used that comparison to make a purchasing decision (highly unlikely, I know). I was trying to communicate that it was an approachable and simple conquest game but I took the comparison too far. The game is simple enough, there is rolling of dice and the theme is conquest, but the gameplay is all about auctions, timing and combos.
We've now played three times, and have each tried the three different starting positions. They seem balanced enough. Kozure surprised us all and was within one round of winning quite quickly (having built a metropolis and owning three philosopher cards). He won the bid for Athena and built the last metropolis... but could he make it to the end of the round intact?
No.
Shemp won Mars and swept in to steal one of Kozure's metropolises. In a subsequent turn, I stole the other (leaving Kozure with none). I was able to sneak in and build my last building for the win.. Since I was last, no one could stop me and won.
This is a great game. For the first half, players are trying to get their income going and get into position. Then, suddenly everyone is on the verge of winning and all players must carefully keep an eye on each other, the order that the gods are coming up and the creatures which are available. Some pretty crafty sequences can be pulled off, and much of the fun I have with the game is derived from this aspect. As an example, this is how I played my last turn for the win (more or less, it's been a while):
I had no metropolises, and only three buildings. I bid on Aries. I purchased the Griffon to steal half of Shemp's gold (which was a lot), I then used Polyphemus to "scare" my boats away from an island, allowing me to create a chain of ships to an island containing a metropolis. I purchased a number of units, crossed to the other island and conquered it. I purchased the red building, but it was not the one I needed to get my second metropolis so I used the Chimera to activate Cyclops's ability to change a building's colour, giving me the second metropolis for the win. That was fun.
Macao
Another game about timing and combos, Macao has seen a lot of table time recently (which is fine by me). I snagged a couple of ware doublers early on and made it my goal to gain the lion's share of my points this way. I was a distant first place for much of the game, but I suffered a late game stall as I ran out of things to deliver. I only had a few other activated buildings, a couple of baronesses, so I was not sure what to do. Shemp was coming on strong and on my last turn I simply took a quick delivery and the game was over. As bonus points were tallied, Shemp overtook me by +/- 10 points for the win (AGAIN). He then pointed out that a different move would have won me the game! (I could have built a different building, thus given me a different ware, which would have truncated his chain in the city and robbed him of some points in his last delivery. I guess he got me back for pointing out a similar missed opportunity in Cyclades a few months ago!
Another great game. This and Cyclades could very well be my picks for best games this year.
Tuesday, July 06, 2010
Try the left flank (Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage)
Years after I purchased the edition of Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, I still haven't played a full game. I've tried a few times, but each time we run long and abort. I even received the fabled pre-order bonus, the general miniatures (all off their bases, but otherwise intact)... and haven't played since.
I was therefore surprised and thrilled when Kozure called me up on saturday and suggested that he drop by and we give the game another try.
We set up and I drew Carthage (in our previous games I've always played Rome). It's obviously a whole different ballgame playing this faction: The Carthaginians receive all their generals up front, including the formidable Hannibal, whereas the Romans only have 2-3 generals at a time (and the quality of these varies considerably). When I played Rome, I felt that I had to wait for Carthage to act first, since it seemed to easy for them to overwhelm me if I struck first. I therefore played it safe and spent my time converting the tribe markers as I waited. Carthage, on the other hand, feels more "wide open" strategically... though obviously their restrictions on sea movement and sieging create their own kinds of limits.
Early on, Kozure played an event which prevented me from moving any units out of Africa. Slightly hobbled, I took Mago to Sicily and Hannibal north. Kozure landed a beachhead at Massilia. Things started to go badly for Kozure as Hannibal won several battles against the Romans there. My secret was attacking Kozure's left flank. No matter his hand size, I would go left and penetrate his defense before long (shouldn't have worked, but hey). Further disaster struck as Kozure holed up a significant force in Syracuse and I played the event that hands Cathage that city and destroys everyone in it...
Other fortuitous draws on my part and a dearth of 3 OP cards for Kozure meant that I was making steady ground. We did call the game before it was over, but at that time Sicily was almost entirely in Carthaginian control and Hannibal had brought a rag-tag band across the alps and was busy converting political control across the north and east of Italy.
It was looking good for me, but Kozure was not out yet. All my forces were paper thin by this point. I would have been unable to do much further damage, except for more political conversion. In the next turn, the Romans could take their reinforcements at Rome and potentially steamroll over me. There was still another game turn before Scipio Africanus was destined to arrive on the scene.
We promised ourselves that we would play again within a few weeks and actually finish a game. Here's hoping.
I was therefore surprised and thrilled when Kozure called me up on saturday and suggested that he drop by and we give the game another try.
We set up and I drew Carthage (in our previous games I've always played Rome). It's obviously a whole different ballgame playing this faction: The Carthaginians receive all their generals up front, including the formidable Hannibal, whereas the Romans only have 2-3 generals at a time (and the quality of these varies considerably). When I played Rome, I felt that I had to wait for Carthage to act first, since it seemed to easy for them to overwhelm me if I struck first. I therefore played it safe and spent my time converting the tribe markers as I waited. Carthage, on the other hand, feels more "wide open" strategically... though obviously their restrictions on sea movement and sieging create their own kinds of limits.
Early on, Kozure played an event which prevented me from moving any units out of Africa. Slightly hobbled, I took Mago to Sicily and Hannibal north. Kozure landed a beachhead at Massilia. Things started to go badly for Kozure as Hannibal won several battles against the Romans there. My secret was attacking Kozure's left flank. No matter his hand size, I would go left and penetrate his defense before long (shouldn't have worked, but hey). Further disaster struck as Kozure holed up a significant force in Syracuse and I played the event that hands Cathage that city and destroys everyone in it...
Other fortuitous draws on my part and a dearth of 3 OP cards for Kozure meant that I was making steady ground. We did call the game before it was over, but at that time Sicily was almost entirely in Carthaginian control and Hannibal had brought a rag-tag band across the alps and was busy converting political control across the north and east of Italy.
It was looking good for me, but Kozure was not out yet. All my forces were paper thin by this point. I would have been unable to do much further damage, except for more political conversion. In the next turn, the Romans could take their reinforcements at Rome and potentially steamroll over me. There was still another game turn before Scipio Africanus was destined to arrive on the scene.
We promised ourselves that we would play again within a few weeks and actually finish a game. Here's hoping.
Sunday, July 04, 2010
N.D.A. (unplublished prototype, Ra: The dice game)
This week, we played a game that Kozure designed. Since it's for a competition I won't talk about the details.
We ended the evening with a few rounds of Ra: The dice game... a father's day gift Kozure had recently received.
Ra: The dice game
From the recent craze that saw a number of boardgames get dice versions, we've previously played and enjoyed Roll through the ages. Ra is one of my favorite games, so how did I like the dice game? In short, I thought it was quite good. It's funny, though... the game goes through great lengths to replicate many aspects of the original, from the elements to the scoring, and yet it doesn't feel anything like it. That shouldn't be surprising, though; the original is a pure auction game and this has none. Anyway, the game feels closer to traditional dice games than Roll through the Ages does because the scoring is really based on getting certain set combinations (ex: If you are accumulating rivers, you need to get a triple river on a turn to "flood" it, you need at least three "civilization" results to satisfy the civ. requirement, etc). There are some board elements, and of course every time RA comes up the era is nearing it's close. Anyway, it works well and is quite fun for a 10-15 minute dice game.
We ended the evening with a few rounds of Ra: The dice game... a father's day gift Kozure had recently received.
Ra: The dice game
From the recent craze that saw a number of boardgames get dice versions, we've previously played and enjoyed Roll through the ages. Ra is one of my favorite games, so how did I like the dice game? In short, I thought it was quite good. It's funny, though... the game goes through great lengths to replicate many aspects of the original, from the elements to the scoring, and yet it doesn't feel anything like it. That shouldn't be surprising, though; the original is a pure auction game and this has none. Anyway, the game feels closer to traditional dice games than Roll through the Ages does because the scoring is really based on getting certain set combinations (ex: If you are accumulating rivers, you need to get a triple river on a turn to "flood" it, you need at least three "civilization" results to satisfy the civ. requirement, etc). There are some board elements, and of course every time RA comes up the era is nearing it's close. Anyway, it works well and is quite fun for a 10-15 minute dice game.
Friday, June 18, 2010
More More Martin and Macao (Steam, Macao)
I've signed up to playtest some new Steam maps, and this week I brought a new three player map to the group. I also brought along Macao, since I'm finding that game quite intriguing at the moment.
In an email exchange prior to games night, I discovered that Kozure wasn't particularly enamoured with the game. Shemp also confessed that his enitial enthusiasm for the game had waned. I was pretty surprised, because I still love the game. It pushes many of the same buttons as El Grande (the puzzle aspect of most effectively pushing wooden cubes around) but it plays with a wider number of players and has lots of expansions to keep it fresh. Shemp mentioned he wasn't thrilled with all the quirky new rules that come along with each expansion board, and Kozure prefers Railroad Tycoon's more forgiving and less constrained feel. Both said they like it enough to play it, but there was definitely little actual enthusiasm.
Isn't it funny how differently players can feel about games. We've been playing together for over 6 years and although we all enjoy a broad section of games together, I wonder if we were to make top 10 lists how many games would end up on all three.
I won't dwell long on how the games played. The Steam map played very well for three players, which is not really the case with the boards included with the game. I consider it a success and would choose to play this one again if we were three. Macao was characterized by dice that rolled very high, all the time. I recovered from a shaky start and managed to come within ONE POINT of Shemp. So. Close.
Kozure does not appear to be terribly enamoured with Macao either (though he says he thinks it's a good game, just not one of his favorited). I'll certainly grant that the theme is rather weak in this one (though still better than some). Probably on par with Puerto Rico theme-wise. I continue to be very interested in the way you have to plan ahead, all the while behaving tactically every turn and trying to get combos going. Very engaging.
In an email exchange prior to games night, I discovered that Kozure wasn't particularly enamoured with the game. Shemp also confessed that his enitial enthusiasm for the game had waned. I was pretty surprised, because I still love the game. It pushes many of the same buttons as El Grande (the puzzle aspect of most effectively pushing wooden cubes around) but it plays with a wider number of players and has lots of expansions to keep it fresh. Shemp mentioned he wasn't thrilled with all the quirky new rules that come along with each expansion board, and Kozure prefers Railroad Tycoon's more forgiving and less constrained feel. Both said they like it enough to play it, but there was definitely little actual enthusiasm.
Isn't it funny how differently players can feel about games. We've been playing together for over 6 years and although we all enjoy a broad section of games together, I wonder if we were to make top 10 lists how many games would end up on all three.
I won't dwell long on how the games played. The Steam map played very well for three players, which is not really the case with the boards included with the game. I consider it a success and would choose to play this one again if we were three. Macao was characterized by dice that rolled very high, all the time. I recovered from a shaky start and managed to come within ONE POINT of Shemp. So. Close.
Kozure does not appear to be terribly enamoured with Macao either (though he says he thinks it's a good game, just not one of his favorited). I'll certainly grant that the theme is rather weak in this one (though still better than some). Probably on par with Puerto Rico theme-wise. I continue to be very interested in the way you have to plan ahead, all the while behaving tactically every turn and trying to get combos going. Very engaging.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
More Martin (Perikles, Bacchus Banquet x2)
A.K.A. or good games that are best with more than 3.
Perikles
Perikles was well loved when we first played it. That was a four player game, and we have sinced played it 5 player and 3 player. In my opinion, 4 player was the best.
With three players, there are too many cities to vie for. It's not a huge problem, because they are not all equal (some have better armies, others are worth more VPs). Still, there was definitely less tension.
I did very poorly. I was getting neither the nominations to rule, nor the victories in battle. On many occasions, I realized I should have spread my forces to be in a position to get the VPs as the prime attacker/ defender, but didn't. I don't know.
It was much closer between Shemp and Kozure, but I don't remember who won.
I still liked it, but I wish we had been four.
Bacchus' Banquet
We played two hands of this odd little game. I started out as Caligula and won by getting the food and wine necessary to fulfill my goal. I also won the second hand as one of the characters that require 3 daggers. We had some nice doublethink going on with the gifting, and a few good uses of special cards messing up people's plans.
One of the issues with this game, other than it is yet another game better with 4 than 3 (probably even better with 5) is that the game length varies wildly between plays. If you are looking for daggers, you might have to wait a while if all that comes out is food.
Fun enough. Definitely different.
Perikles
Perikles was well loved when we first played it. That was a four player game, and we have sinced played it 5 player and 3 player. In my opinion, 4 player was the best.
With three players, there are too many cities to vie for. It's not a huge problem, because they are not all equal (some have better armies, others are worth more VPs). Still, there was definitely less tension.
I did very poorly. I was getting neither the nominations to rule, nor the victories in battle. On many occasions, I realized I should have spread my forces to be in a position to get the VPs as the prime attacker/ defender, but didn't. I don't know.
It was much closer between Shemp and Kozure, but I don't remember who won.
I still liked it, but I wish we had been four.
Bacchus' Banquet
We played two hands of this odd little game. I started out as Caligula and won by getting the food and wine necessary to fulfill my goal. I also won the second hand as one of the characters that require 3 daggers. We had some nice doublethink going on with the gifting, and a few good uses of special cards messing up people's plans.
One of the issues with this game, other than it is yet another game better with 4 than 3 (probably even better with 5) is that the game length varies wildly between plays. If you are looking for daggers, you might have to wait a while if all that comes out is food.
Fun enough. Definitely different.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Cocktail Weenie! Pew Pew! (Way Out West, Small World)
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.
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.
Friday, June 04, 2010
Popular opinion wins (Mare Nostrum: Mythlogy expansion, Galaxy Trucker)
Last week, there was a brief exchange in the comments section about other games that might be better points of comparison for Cyclades than RISK. Although the commenter suggested Antike, I felt that ultimately it was Mare Nostrum w/ mythology expansion. Mare Nostrum is a game that was well liked when we played it a few times in the fall, but now with only three players it wasn’t getting any table time. For the sake of comparison and contrast, I suggested we try it out despite BGG’s unanimous warnings against it.
Mare Nostrum: Mythology expansion
On the surface, Mare Nostrum with the Mythology expansion is extremely similar to Cyclades. They are both wargame and euro hybrids, both set in the Mediterranean and both concerning themselves with the gods and mythological creatures of that era. The similarities end there, however… the ways the games are treated make quite a difference (of course, I could list many games set in renaissance Italy about trading goods and managing resources too).
We had never actually played the mythlogy expansion, so even though I was aware the game might not work that well with three players, I WAS looking forward to giving the new stuff a test drive. The mythology expansion adds four main things to the game:
1) The Atlantis faction for a 6th player, along with an add-on board to accommodate it (not used in our game).
2) A new Role card, the Priest, and +/- 8 gods. The Priest adds a new step to each round where players can choose to make an offering to a single god that will give them a one time use power that round. The cost is a 3 card set.
3) New military units: Mythological creatures. Each faction has a specific mythological creature that can be purchased and placed on the board like any other military unit. It always rolls 6s in combat, and grants an additional ability depending on the creature. The cost is a 6 card set.
4) New heroes. There is a huge variety of heroes in this expansion. In fact, there are so many that I ignored them because it was too much reading to know what they all did.
I liked the mythological creatures. They are a simple addition that further differentiates the factions. I hope that the game doesn’t become too focused on them, but that’s just a worry… I have no specific reason to think they would.
I liked the Priest role and the associated gods as well, but as Kozure pointed out there is a very real possibility that they would grind the game to a halt. They have abilities like “destroy any City on the Board” , which seems quite powerful considering the effort that needs to be expended to do the same thing using the military route. Although it’s true that there is a god that exists solely to defend yourself against the other gods, it means spending a 3 card set every time and that would extend the game as well.
The session we played demonstrated why Mare Nostrum is not recommended with 3 players. Without the crowded board, it’s too easy for all three players to just keep exploring until one of them wins the game. Trading is wonky, too.
I was Carthage, Shemp was Greece and Kozure was Babylon. As we explored and grew our empires, it became clear that Shemp’s engine was winding up faster than ours. I purchased a behemoth and went after him just as he was about to win. Although he made my life difficult crossing the sea, I did get to Athens and took his richest province. Problem was, going after Shemp in this way simultaneously weakened me and therefore the victory was handed to Kozure (who had spread out to form a monstrously large empire in the meantime). Unfortunately, I don’t think this was an isolated incident… it’s just not meant to be played with three players.
Galaxy Trucker
We finished the evening with Galalxy Trucker. We tried the “Evil Machinations” expansion for the first time. The idea is that each player is dealt four cards at the start of the game. Each card is a particularly nasty/powerful event , and players must choose one to go into each event deck. In other words, each player knows about one of the bad things that is going to happen, and can therefore plan for it. I had been holding back on this one because it sounded particularly nasty, but having played it now… it seems easier than the Rough Road expansion.
One thing that happened: Shemp’s ship got hit by large cannon fire in such a way that the ship broke into three pieces!
Maybe next time, we’ll try with Rough Roads AND Evil Machinations… Galaxy Trucker is more fun when things go wrong anyway! This game has legs. Lots of fun.
Mare Nostrum: Mythology expansion
On the surface, Mare Nostrum with the Mythology expansion is extremely similar to Cyclades. They are both wargame and euro hybrids, both set in the Mediterranean and both concerning themselves with the gods and mythological creatures of that era. The similarities end there, however… the ways the games are treated make quite a difference (of course, I could list many games set in renaissance Italy about trading goods and managing resources too).
We had never actually played the mythlogy expansion, so even though I was aware the game might not work that well with three players, I WAS looking forward to giving the new stuff a test drive. The mythology expansion adds four main things to the game:
1) The Atlantis faction for a 6th player, along with an add-on board to accommodate it (not used in our game).
2) A new Role card, the Priest, and +/- 8 gods. The Priest adds a new step to each round where players can choose to make an offering to a single god that will give them a one time use power that round. The cost is a 3 card set.
3) New military units: Mythological creatures. Each faction has a specific mythological creature that can be purchased and placed on the board like any other military unit. It always rolls 6s in combat, and grants an additional ability depending on the creature. The cost is a 6 card set.
4) New heroes. There is a huge variety of heroes in this expansion. In fact, there are so many that I ignored them because it was too much reading to know what they all did.
I liked the mythological creatures. They are a simple addition that further differentiates the factions. I hope that the game doesn’t become too focused on them, but that’s just a worry… I have no specific reason to think they would.
I liked the Priest role and the associated gods as well, but as Kozure pointed out there is a very real possibility that they would grind the game to a halt. They have abilities like “destroy any City on the Board” , which seems quite powerful considering the effort that needs to be expended to do the same thing using the military route. Although it’s true that there is a god that exists solely to defend yourself against the other gods, it means spending a 3 card set every time and that would extend the game as well.
The session we played demonstrated why Mare Nostrum is not recommended with 3 players. Without the crowded board, it’s too easy for all three players to just keep exploring until one of them wins the game. Trading is wonky, too.
I was Carthage, Shemp was Greece and Kozure was Babylon. As we explored and grew our empires, it became clear that Shemp’s engine was winding up faster than ours. I purchased a behemoth and went after him just as he was about to win. Although he made my life difficult crossing the sea, I did get to Athens and took his richest province. Problem was, going after Shemp in this way simultaneously weakened me and therefore the victory was handed to Kozure (who had spread out to form a monstrously large empire in the meantime). Unfortunately, I don’t think this was an isolated incident… it’s just not meant to be played with three players.
Galaxy Trucker
We finished the evening with Galalxy Trucker. We tried the “Evil Machinations” expansion for the first time. The idea is that each player is dealt four cards at the start of the game. Each card is a particularly nasty/powerful event , and players must choose one to go into each event deck. In other words, each player knows about one of the bad things that is going to happen, and can therefore plan for it. I had been holding back on this one because it sounded particularly nasty, but having played it now… it seems easier than the Rough Road expansion.
One thing that happened: Shemp’s ship got hit by large cannon fire in such a way that the ship broke into three pieces!
Maybe next time, we’ll try with Rough Roads AND Evil Machinations… Galaxy Trucker is more fun when things go wrong anyway! This game has legs. Lots of fun.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Release the Kraken! (Cyclades x2)
Birthday money and a Paypal miss-hap has led me to owning a few new games. Most prominent among them is Cyclades.
Cyclades
A bit of trivia: Cyclades is correctly pronounced "KEYK-laTHayz" (Κυκλάδες) and not "Sigh-klayds". Who knew?
(Kozure, did. Apparently)
Cyclades is yet another game about civilizations rising and falling in the Mediterranean, though with Gods and mythological creatures in the mix. So, is it just another Mare Nostrum (w/ mythology expansion)?
No. It really isn't.
If I had to describe it in a nutshell, I'd say it's a kind of euro/ Risk lovechild with mythological creatures and fantastic production quality.
The board shows a map of a generic expanse of water filled with little islands. There are predetermined setups for 2-5 players (and a clever board which offers different combinations of islands for each player count). Each player starts with 2 armies and 2 fleets. The goal is to be the first to acquire two metropolis, either through building your own or conquering someone else's.
Five gods are overseeing the action. Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Athena and Apollon:
Each game turn has two main phases, an auction to determine which god's favour you have won this turn (i.e. which ability you can use) followed by an action phase where the actual turn is played out.
1) The player who wins Zeus gets a priest which gives a discount on future bidding and can purchase a temple.
2) The player who wins Athena gets a philosopher which gives a player a metropolis if a set of four can be turned in and can purchase a university.
3) Ares allows a player to purchase and move armies and purchase a fortress.
4) Poseidon allows a player to purchase and move fleets and purchase a port.
5) Apollon gives a player gold and a cornucopia that increases future income.
The auction is Amun-Re/ Vegas Showdown style, and the outcome determines turn order in addition to the specific actions available to the player. Three mythological creatures are available for purchase each turn (from a deck of 20 or so), each giving the purchaser a game-bending one use power.
Over the course of the game, players build up their armies, build buildings, acquire priests and philosophers. Invasions happen. Krakens are released.
So, is it RISK? It's certainly more complex than RISK, but it's still fundamentally a relatively simple game about building up armies and beating each other up. It's like RISK, but moving armies and attacking is only possible if you win the auction for the favour of Aries. It's RISK, but a mythological creature can swoop in a turn someone else's plan on it's head. It's RISK, but there are multiple paths to victory, not just conquest. It's RISK, but it plays in about 2 hours.
In truth, these changes makes Cyclades very little like RISK, but then again... it somehow scratches a similar itch. I'd say it's quite a successful hybrid of euro and american design. You have to adjust to the tempo of bidding on the gods you need at the right time, figure out how to best take advantage of the creatures available, set up opportunities to threaten and/or defeat your neighboring islands, etc. It works well, and I liked it a lot. Playing with three players there is an adjustment to the normal god auctions that alternates which ones are available on a given round. Knowing that a particular auction won't come back for a turn or two gives me the feeling similar to the order selection in Mr. Jack.
We played two sessions. In the first, we were just getting a sense of how things worked together and really didn't capitalize on the creatures much. While others were floating large fleets and amassing great armies, I was quietly building buildings. I used the power of the cyclops to convert one of my buildings to the last one I needed to build my second metropolis and won the game.
The second was much more hard fought. Shemp made a move about 30 minutes in and stole a metropolis from Kozure. He was bringing in +/- 10 gold a round and seemed unstoppable. Just as he was about to build his last building, Kozure stole half his money using the Griffon and unleashed the Kraken on his massive fleet and reduced it to kindling. Kozure also managed to steal a large, profitable island from him. Shemp was not close to winning anymore.
Lucky for me, I was. I needed either one last philosopher or a university. Trouble was, both of those need Athena and between Kozure and Shemp there was always someone with enough money to outbid me. Earlier in the game, Kozure had been forced to abandon an island with a few buildings. If I could get there, I would have the university I needed and therefore win the game. They set Medusa on me (troops are frozen on the island, and cannot leave), but I knew I would get my second metropolis shortly (then again, Shemp's earlier near annihilation reminded me that nothing is assured) . On the turn I made it, Shemp had managed a second metropolis we were therefore tied. I had more gold, and won the tiebreaker.
Shemp could have won if he had noticed that Polyphemus could have been purchased to make my fleets scatter and prevent access to the island I stole to win the game. I record this purely for posterity. Honest.
Oh, and "Don't s*** f*** my bowl noodle".
Update 2010 05 25
A few additional thoughts:
1) One of the critical game design improvements this has over Mare Nostrum is a built in timer to force the end-game. Each round, someone gets a philosopher. 4 philosophers = 1 metropolis. Mare Nostrum has other advantages, not the least of which is greater depth of play, but it requires more players, it's longer and less aproachable.
2) One of the major advantages Cyclades has over most games of this type is that it apparently plays well across it's entire range of players. Most seem to require the maximum to work well (Mare Nostrum, A Game of Thrones, etc), and finding that many players is not always easy.
3) I worry the game length will go up to high with more players, though. I can't think of anything that would counterbalance the added time required for a 4 player game compared to a 3 player game, for example. Given that our 3 player games this week took 2 hours each, this could be an issue.
Cyclades
A bit of trivia: Cyclades is correctly pronounced "KEYK-laTHayz" (Κυκλάδες) and not "Sigh-klayds". Who knew?
(Kozure, did. Apparently)
Cyclades is yet another game about civilizations rising and falling in the Mediterranean, though with Gods and mythological creatures in the mix. So, is it just another Mare Nostrum (w/ mythology expansion)?
No. It really isn't.
If I had to describe it in a nutshell, I'd say it's a kind of euro/ Risk lovechild with mythological creatures and fantastic production quality.
The board shows a map of a generic expanse of water filled with little islands. There are predetermined setups for 2-5 players (and a clever board which offers different combinations of islands for each player count). Each player starts with 2 armies and 2 fleets. The goal is to be the first to acquire two metropolis, either through building your own or conquering someone else's.
Five gods are overseeing the action. Zeus, Poseidon, Ares, Athena and Apollon:
Each game turn has two main phases, an auction to determine which god's favour you have won this turn (i.e. which ability you can use) followed by an action phase where the actual turn is played out.
1) The player who wins Zeus gets a priest which gives a discount on future bidding and can purchase a temple.
2) The player who wins Athena gets a philosopher which gives a player a metropolis if a set of four can be turned in and can purchase a university.
3) Ares allows a player to purchase and move armies and purchase a fortress.
4) Poseidon allows a player to purchase and move fleets and purchase a port.
5) Apollon gives a player gold and a cornucopia that increases future income.
The auction is Amun-Re/ Vegas Showdown style, and the outcome determines turn order in addition to the specific actions available to the player. Three mythological creatures are available for purchase each turn (from a deck of 20 or so), each giving the purchaser a game-bending one use power.
Over the course of the game, players build up their armies, build buildings, acquire priests and philosophers. Invasions happen. Krakens are released.
So, is it RISK? It's certainly more complex than RISK, but it's still fundamentally a relatively simple game about building up armies and beating each other up. It's like RISK, but moving armies and attacking is only possible if you win the auction for the favour of Aries. It's RISK, but a mythological creature can swoop in a turn someone else's plan on it's head. It's RISK, but there are multiple paths to victory, not just conquest. It's RISK, but it plays in about 2 hours.
In truth, these changes makes Cyclades very little like RISK, but then again... it somehow scratches a similar itch. I'd say it's quite a successful hybrid of euro and american design. You have to adjust to the tempo of bidding on the gods you need at the right time, figure out how to best take advantage of the creatures available, set up opportunities to threaten and/or defeat your neighboring islands, etc. It works well, and I liked it a lot. Playing with three players there is an adjustment to the normal god auctions that alternates which ones are available on a given round. Knowing that a particular auction won't come back for a turn or two gives me the feeling similar to the order selection in Mr. Jack.
We played two sessions. In the first, we were just getting a sense of how things worked together and really didn't capitalize on the creatures much. While others were floating large fleets and amassing great armies, I was quietly building buildings. I used the power of the cyclops to convert one of my buildings to the last one I needed to build my second metropolis and won the game.
The second was much more hard fought. Shemp made a move about 30 minutes in and stole a metropolis from Kozure. He was bringing in +/- 10 gold a round and seemed unstoppable. Just as he was about to build his last building, Kozure stole half his money using the Griffon and unleashed the Kraken on his massive fleet and reduced it to kindling. Kozure also managed to steal a large, profitable island from him. Shemp was not close to winning anymore.
Lucky for me, I was. I needed either one last philosopher or a university. Trouble was, both of those need Athena and between Kozure and Shemp there was always someone with enough money to outbid me. Earlier in the game, Kozure had been forced to abandon an island with a few buildings. If I could get there, I would have the university I needed and therefore win the game. They set Medusa on me (troops are frozen on the island, and cannot leave), but I knew I would get my second metropolis shortly (then again, Shemp's earlier near annihilation reminded me that nothing is assured) . On the turn I made it, Shemp had managed a second metropolis we were therefore tied. I had more gold, and won the tiebreaker.
Shemp could have won if he had noticed that Polyphemus could have been purchased to make my fleets scatter and prevent access to the island I stole to win the game. I record this purely for posterity. Honest.
Oh, and "Don't s*** f*** my bowl noodle".
Update 2010 05 25
A few additional thoughts:
1) One of the critical game design improvements this has over Mare Nostrum is a built in timer to force the end-game. Each round, someone gets a philosopher. 4 philosophers = 1 metropolis. Mare Nostrum has other advantages, not the least of which is greater depth of play, but it requires more players, it's longer and less aproachable.
2) One of the major advantages Cyclades has over most games of this type is that it apparently plays well across it's entire range of players. Most seem to require the maximum to work well (Mare Nostrum, A Game of Thrones, etc), and finding that many players is not always easy.
3) I worry the game length will go up to high with more players, though. I can't think of anything that would counterbalance the added time required for a 4 player game compared to a 3 player game, for example. Given that our 3 player games this week took 2 hours each, this could be an issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
