So Taco Bell has offered to give a lifetime of tacos to anyone who is willing to give the company their Playstation 3 (so they can give it to charity). It's an odd story, and not one that affects us (since we don't have one). Still, it inspired Luch, our dictator for the week, to sugeest tacos for the evening. Mmmmm. Tacos.
First game was Maharaja. From the get-go things were going poorly for me... I just couldn't manage to place higher than 4th or 5th, and therefore couldn't really build any palaces. Bharmer, on the other hand, is extremely good at it. Each game, he seems untouchable, but what is interesting is that he uses a different strategy each game. In the first, he was swapping characters all the time. In this one, he manipulated the nobles (?) track endlessly, and continuously built palaces one turn ahead of time (getting the central position with little competition). It's a little weird, but it seems that despite the fact that there is little variety in what actually happens on the board, the way to get there appears to have many options. I don't remember how Tili managed in her first game, but she was very good in her second game, narrowly losing the game to Brian by a single palace (and providing him with the only real competition that game).
My opinion on the game is wavering. There are good things going on, but it moves slowly and the ending can almost be predicted halfway throught he game. That may be because we are not good enough competition for bharmer! It does bother me that he manages first or second in almost every city, even in a 5 player game. Shouldn't that be difficult to do? What are we missing?
Anyway, congrats to Bharmer (and Tili). You are clearly very good at this game.
Next was Puerto Rico. Wow, it had been a long time since we've played. None of us have ever really played this extensively, so it remains a largely "off the cuff" experience (no rote strategies, here). Anyway, I started with an indigo and went straight into tobacco. I was hoping to focus on making money, so I bought the two markets and then added an office. I never did get to use the office (and didn't get much use out of the factory, either). Still, things were going okay. I was hoping to pick up 3 large buildings but bharmer bought one much earlier than I expected anyone to... sparking a rush to buy them. I managed 2.
When the scores were tallied, kozure and I finished quite close: his 52 to my 54.
It was fun to get that out again!
We finished up with Formula: Motor Racing. I'm really enjoying this game right now. Not much to say, except that we managed to beat the bots, and that's an achievement for us.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Monday, November 20, 2006
An evening of Deviance (Diamant, Zombies 4, El Grande, Quo Vadis?)
I thought it would be fun to play a number of games we've played many times before, but with house rules or official variants.
First up was Diamant. We played with a variant I found on BGG which suggested that caves with only 1 ruby in it be replaced with an idol worth 10. This turned out to be a great alternative to the base rules! The idol can't be split, so the only way to pick it up is to be the only one in the cave, or the only one leaving them. When one of these turns up, the tension regarding the otherwise simple stay or go mechanic is brought up a notch. I won the game by being lucky and picking up a couple of idols and lots of diamonds. Very enjoyable... I might never play with the base rules again.
Next was Zombies 4: the end. I didn't actually mean to play this with a variant, I just wanted to give it a spin since it didn't get to play it on Halloween. This is a very silly game which involves searching a forest which grows as the game goes on in search of an old cabin. Zombie dogs are everywhere and the idea is to cast a spell in the old cabin once it is found, in order to dispel the evil. I enjoyed the original Zombies as a funny, silly dicefest. i thought it was worth getting a copy when Kozure decided to sell his... though for variety I tried this standalone expansion set instead since it got good reviews. Sadly, we unwittingly introduced a variant I will term "The boring version of an already questionable game". In the standard rules, when a blank forest tile is brought up, up to 6 zombie dogs are meant to be placed on it. We didn't. Therefore, the only dogs on the board were those specifically called for on the "named" tiles... leaving a rather empty and boring forest for us to explore. Oh well, Luch eventually cast the spell in the old cabin and ended the curse. Good for him (and for us since it finally ended the game). i really didn't enjoy the session much. I think this is partly due to the incorrectly played rules, but I suspect that this is inferior to the original set (the cards didn't seem conducive to a fun game, anyway).
Next was El Grande. In an effort to try to reduce the amount of time between turns, I thought it would be interesting to split the player's actions into two phases. In other words, where a player normally takes an action card and then activates the card's power and/or places caballeros from the court to the board, in this vairant the player chooses one of these two things and then waits for it to come around again before executing his/her second action. The verdict? Suffice it to say that we played the last third of the game using the classic rules. Things didn't seem faster at all! It's quite possible that the major contributor to downtime int his game is analysis, so having two mini-turns simply introduced another round of "thinking". Also, splitting the two phases had the unfortunate effect of broadcasting your intentions to the other plays (the King, in particular, becomes much less usefull).
Last,but not least, was Quo Vadis?. I thought it would be interesting to introduce a set collecting element, so I took out all the chips valued above two and added the lillypads from Knizia'a children game "Leapin' Lilly Pads". We decided to score each lillypad as 1 point, each pair as 3 and each triple as 5. Though it seemed to add a certain amount of analysis paralysis to the game, it was pretty cool to see the tiles turn up and be worth different amounts to different people. This led to some creative deal-making, exactly as I had hoped! Sadly, the one aspect missing is variable income. Picking up a 3 is worth 3. Unlike in, say, Monopoly, the value of a token is pretty easy to measure (in monopoly, the present value must be considered against future potential income). Still, I'd say it was an improvement.
First up was Diamant. We played with a variant I found on BGG which suggested that caves with only 1 ruby in it be replaced with an idol worth 10. This turned out to be a great alternative to the base rules! The idol can't be split, so the only way to pick it up is to be the only one in the cave, or the only one leaving them. When one of these turns up, the tension regarding the otherwise simple stay or go mechanic is brought up a notch. I won the game by being lucky and picking up a couple of idols and lots of diamonds. Very enjoyable... I might never play with the base rules again.
Next was Zombies 4: the end. I didn't actually mean to play this with a variant, I just wanted to give it a spin since it didn't get to play it on Halloween. This is a very silly game which involves searching a forest which grows as the game goes on in search of an old cabin. Zombie dogs are everywhere and the idea is to cast a spell in the old cabin once it is found, in order to dispel the evil. I enjoyed the original Zombies as a funny, silly dicefest. i thought it was worth getting a copy when Kozure decided to sell his... though for variety I tried this standalone expansion set instead since it got good reviews. Sadly, we unwittingly introduced a variant I will term "The boring version of an already questionable game". In the standard rules, when a blank forest tile is brought up, up to 6 zombie dogs are meant to be placed on it. We didn't. Therefore, the only dogs on the board were those specifically called for on the "named" tiles... leaving a rather empty and boring forest for us to explore. Oh well, Luch eventually cast the spell in the old cabin and ended the curse. Good for him (and for us since it finally ended the game). i really didn't enjoy the session much. I think this is partly due to the incorrectly played rules, but I suspect that this is inferior to the original set (the cards didn't seem conducive to a fun game, anyway).
Next was El Grande. In an effort to try to reduce the amount of time between turns, I thought it would be interesting to split the player's actions into two phases. In other words, where a player normally takes an action card and then activates the card's power and/or places caballeros from the court to the board, in this vairant the player chooses one of these two things and then waits for it to come around again before executing his/her second action. The verdict? Suffice it to say that we played the last third of the game using the classic rules. Things didn't seem faster at all! It's quite possible that the major contributor to downtime int his game is analysis, so having two mini-turns simply introduced another round of "thinking". Also, splitting the two phases had the unfortunate effect of broadcasting your intentions to the other plays (the King, in particular, becomes much less usefull).
Last,but not least, was Quo Vadis?. I thought it would be interesting to introduce a set collecting element, so I took out all the chips valued above two and added the lillypads from Knizia'a children game "Leapin' Lilly Pads". We decided to score each lillypad as 1 point, each pair as 3 and each triple as 5. Though it seemed to add a certain amount of analysis paralysis to the game, it was pretty cool to see the tiles turn up and be worth different amounts to different people. This led to some creative deal-making, exactly as I had hoped! Sadly, the one aspect missing is variable income. Picking up a 3 is worth 3. Unlike in, say, Monopoly, the value of a token is pretty easy to measure (in monopoly, the present value must be considered against future potential income). Still, I'd say it was an improvement.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Drain You (Traders of Genoa, Formula: Motor Racing)
Two games this week.
Traders of Genoa
A five player game of Traders of Genoa tends to be a fairly draining affair. As this was Bharmer's first game, we explained the rules and got underway. After our last game, I had read a strategy article on BGG positing that a player who gets the most actions, even though he might be overbidding much of the time, is likely to win. I didn't quite beleive it, but I figured I'd give it a try...
Clearly this guy hadn't played with our group.
WAGS members are a skeptical bunch. You bid high, and everyone figures you want it because you're going to score big, so you get nothing.
At the beginning, with no particulr goal in mind other than bidding high on the actions which became available in the hopes of securing an action every turn, things were looking grim. "I'll bid 20 on the post office" was met with "Easy is going for a messages strategy, don't let him". On the next player's turn, "I'll bid 20 on the cathedral". Predictably, "Easy is going for an ownership marker strategy, don't let him". (that last example isn't entirely fair... I almost always go for an ownership marker strategy, even when I don't start off that way. They were right to be suspicious). Either way, in the first go around the table, I only got one action.
I kept trying, though. As the game wore on, I stayed agressive and went out of my way to outbid other players in order to secure turns for myself. I think they eventually decided I was digging my own grave, because they did eventually start accepting my offers. If I hadn't actually BEEN digging my own grave, things would have been looking up. I spent too much of my earnings, and only managed a third place finish. I think that in the end Shemp managed the strategy I was trying more effectively. He bid high when it mattered, but not every time. He also had a very interesting stretch where he collected the goods we didn't want in high numbers. At the time, it seemed he was standing still, but in the end he was able to accomplish more in his final turns than we did. Bharmer showed a knack for this game... in his first outing he managed a close second place through a solid and straightforward small/ large order + messages strategy.
Someone noted that ToG has a tendency to "peter out" near the end. Not sure what it is, but we all have a tendency to "peak" a little early... fulfilling all our orders, etc, a little too early and not having enough time to start the process again. I"m sure there's some ineffiviency on our parts here. Better planning would probably solve this, but why does it seem to happen everytime?
We capped things off with a game of Formula: Motor Racing. Not a whole lot to say about this, except that it continues to be very enjoyable, fluffy entertainment. I tend to laugh more playing this than many of the supposed "humourous" games, so that's good. Luch wiped the floor with us, which is actually a nice change from consistently loosing to the non-player cars.
Traders of Genoa
A five player game of Traders of Genoa tends to be a fairly draining affair. As this was Bharmer's first game, we explained the rules and got underway. After our last game, I had read a strategy article on BGG positing that a player who gets the most actions, even though he might be overbidding much of the time, is likely to win. I didn't quite beleive it, but I figured I'd give it a try...
Clearly this guy hadn't played with our group.
WAGS members are a skeptical bunch. You bid high, and everyone figures you want it because you're going to score big, so you get nothing.
At the beginning, with no particulr goal in mind other than bidding high on the actions which became available in the hopes of securing an action every turn, things were looking grim. "I'll bid 20 on the post office" was met with "Easy is going for a messages strategy, don't let him". On the next player's turn, "I'll bid 20 on the cathedral". Predictably, "Easy is going for an ownership marker strategy, don't let him". (that last example isn't entirely fair... I almost always go for an ownership marker strategy, even when I don't start off that way. They were right to be suspicious). Either way, in the first go around the table, I only got one action.
I kept trying, though. As the game wore on, I stayed agressive and went out of my way to outbid other players in order to secure turns for myself. I think they eventually decided I was digging my own grave, because they did eventually start accepting my offers. If I hadn't actually BEEN digging my own grave, things would have been looking up. I spent too much of my earnings, and only managed a third place finish. I think that in the end Shemp managed the strategy I was trying more effectively. He bid high when it mattered, but not every time. He also had a very interesting stretch where he collected the goods we didn't want in high numbers. At the time, it seemed he was standing still, but in the end he was able to accomplish more in his final turns than we did. Bharmer showed a knack for this game... in his first outing he managed a close second place through a solid and straightforward small/ large order + messages strategy.
Someone noted that ToG has a tendency to "peter out" near the end. Not sure what it is, but we all have a tendency to "peak" a little early... fulfilling all our orders, etc, a little too early and not having enough time to start the process again. I"m sure there's some ineffiviency on our parts here. Better planning would probably solve this, but why does it seem to happen everytime?
We capped things off with a game of Formula: Motor Racing. Not a whole lot to say about this, except that it continues to be very enjoyable, fluffy entertainment. I tend to laugh more playing this than many of the supposed "humourous" games, so that's good. Luch wiped the floor with us, which is actually a nice change from consistently loosing to the non-player cars.
Saturday, November 04, 2006
You did your part, little 50 year old boy (Mall of Horror, Betrayal at House on the Hill)
Another Halloween has come and gone, and with it another session of horror themed games.
It's the first time in a month and a half for all five of us to be playing at the same time. The honour of the first game went to Mall of Horror, an impulse Hallowe'en buy on Kozure's part. I was excited to play it, because the concept is pretty interesting...
Mall of Horror
Mall of Horror is a rather innovative take on the zombie boardgame genre. Every player controls 3 characters who are trapped in a mall. There are five stores where the characters can barricade themselves, and a parking lot which is extremely dangerous but where valuable equipment can be found. Every round, zombies arrive and try to break into the stores. As long as the characters outnumber the zombies, they are safe... but the zombies keep coming and numerical superiority doesn't last forever. If characters find themselves outnumbered, somebody will die. This is where the true colours of the game reveal themselves... Rather than resort to combat, players must VOTE to pick the victim! Loser gets eaten (I'm guessing this is meant to simulate the characters pushing someone to the front). When the game ends, the winner is the player who has the most valuable characters left in the game.
So, basically, this is Survivor: Zombie edition. It's quite a fun game.
There are a number of additional details which enrich the gaming experience:
1) The three characters are not equal. There is a "hot babe" worth 7 points at the end of the game, a "tough guy" worth 5 and a "guy with a gun" worth 3. The girl has no special ability, other than being worth the most. The tough guy counts as two characters when determining if the zombies can break a barricade. The guy with the gun gets two votes when determining who gets sacked (because he's got a gun, which makes him convincing).
2) Every round, each player must secretely choose a destination for one of their characters. Staying in place is NOT an option. This creates very interesting dynamics because a location which was safe last round (because the characters outnumbered the zombies) can suddenly become deadly if a few characters leave. Also, there is a maximum number of characters in each location, which causes a lot of tension as areas become overriden with Zombies and the remaining available spaces in other stores are full. If a player chooses a destination which ultimately cannot accomodate a character, it winds up in the parking lot. Ouch.
3) One player is voted "Head of Security" each round. Normally, players don't know where the zombies will arrive every round. A newly elected head of security has a big advantage because he/she gets to see, through his short-circuit cameras, where the zombies will be going and he/she can act accordingly.
4) The parking lot is very dangerous because every single zombie in the area eats a victim (i.e. they don't need to outnumber the victims). The reason characters would go there is that the parking lot is home to life-saving equipment, such as guns and barricading materials. In game terms, any survivors vote one player to draw 3 cards. That player chooses one, then MUST give a second card to another player and then discard the third. Ass-kissing typically ensues.
The game manages to create a very interesting atmosphere of tension and desperation as the zombies start piling on the board and the player's characters start dwindling. Negotiating skills are put to the test. Promises for future consideration and "watching each other's backs" can mean the difference between making it to the end and... not. If I were to fault the game it would be that in the absence of any real currency, the creativity of negotiations is somewhat limited. Also, player elimination could easily force a player to watch from the sidelines early on... a potential problem in a game of this length (1-1.5 hours). This is easily the best zombie game I've played, and the game mechanics capture the theme very well. Despite this, the game is more in the "Intrigue" and "Quo Vadis?" camp of cut-throat negotation games. Less nasty than Intrigue, but still nasty.
Shemp ran away with the game, teaming up with Kozure early on and generally out-maneuvering and out-negotiating the rest of us throughout the game. He backstabbed Kozure at just the right time, knocking him out of contention for the lead. Bharmer was nearly eliminated early on. Luch and I did our best, but we couldn't change the pecking order. Interestingly, on the last round it became clear how fragile any lead in the game can be... Shemp found himself with his two remaining characters in the parking lot on the last round. There were two zombies there. He had a "hide" card which allowed one of his characters to survive, but if he hadn't he would have been wiped off the board and out of contention. Fortunatly for him, he had prepared for such an event and was holding onto that card for quite some time. Kozure did finish second, and the rest of us lost all our characters.
We finished off the evening with our yearly game of Betrayal at House on the Hill. The scenario which came up saw me, as a little girl, be the traitor. The story goes that the house is alive and likes to feed on humans. In return for eternal youth, I led the other players here as a sacrifice. Every round, the other player's character could potentially age dramatically. I simply needed to wait and let them die fo old age, or get directly involved and "help move things along". Meanwhile, the other players were running around and trying to cast spells in various rooms of the house in order to remove the enchantment and save themselves. Predictably, the old priest died quickly. The dynamite I lobbed at the little boy helped me eliminate him (though he had aged to his 50s by then, and had successfully cast 1 or 2 spells... leading to the blog entry's title). Shortly thereafter, the woman also succumbed to old age. Only the jock remained, and he had hardly aged at all due to exceptional rolling on Shemp's part. Just as I thought to myself that things were looking good for me, the dumb thug stumbled across the last room they needed to find and succesfully cast the final spell. I lost.
It's a stupid game, but I enjoy it. The variety of the scenarios continues to impress.
It's the first time in a month and a half for all five of us to be playing at the same time. The honour of the first game went to Mall of Horror, an impulse Hallowe'en buy on Kozure's part. I was excited to play it, because the concept is pretty interesting...
Mall of Horror
Mall of Horror is a rather innovative take on the zombie boardgame genre. Every player controls 3 characters who are trapped in a mall. There are five stores where the characters can barricade themselves, and a parking lot which is extremely dangerous but where valuable equipment can be found. Every round, zombies arrive and try to break into the stores. As long as the characters outnumber the zombies, they are safe... but the zombies keep coming and numerical superiority doesn't last forever. If characters find themselves outnumbered, somebody will die. This is where the true colours of the game reveal themselves... Rather than resort to combat, players must VOTE to pick the victim! Loser gets eaten (I'm guessing this is meant to simulate the characters pushing someone to the front). When the game ends, the winner is the player who has the most valuable characters left in the game.
So, basically, this is Survivor: Zombie edition. It's quite a fun game.
There are a number of additional details which enrich the gaming experience:
1) The three characters are not equal. There is a "hot babe" worth 7 points at the end of the game, a "tough guy" worth 5 and a "guy with a gun" worth 3. The girl has no special ability, other than being worth the most. The tough guy counts as two characters when determining if the zombies can break a barricade. The guy with the gun gets two votes when determining who gets sacked (because he's got a gun, which makes him convincing).
2) Every round, each player must secretely choose a destination for one of their characters. Staying in place is NOT an option. This creates very interesting dynamics because a location which was safe last round (because the characters outnumbered the zombies) can suddenly become deadly if a few characters leave. Also, there is a maximum number of characters in each location, which causes a lot of tension as areas become overriden with Zombies and the remaining available spaces in other stores are full. If a player chooses a destination which ultimately cannot accomodate a character, it winds up in the parking lot. Ouch.
3) One player is voted "Head of Security" each round. Normally, players don't know where the zombies will arrive every round. A newly elected head of security has a big advantage because he/she gets to see, through his short-circuit cameras, where the zombies will be going and he/she can act accordingly.
4) The parking lot is very dangerous because every single zombie in the area eats a victim (i.e. they don't need to outnumber the victims). The reason characters would go there is that the parking lot is home to life-saving equipment, such as guns and barricading materials. In game terms, any survivors vote one player to draw 3 cards. That player chooses one, then MUST give a second card to another player and then discard the third. Ass-kissing typically ensues.
The game manages to create a very interesting atmosphere of tension and desperation as the zombies start piling on the board and the player's characters start dwindling. Negotiating skills are put to the test. Promises for future consideration and "watching each other's backs" can mean the difference between making it to the end and... not. If I were to fault the game it would be that in the absence of any real currency, the creativity of negotiations is somewhat limited. Also, player elimination could easily force a player to watch from the sidelines early on... a potential problem in a game of this length (1-1.5 hours). This is easily the best zombie game I've played, and the game mechanics capture the theme very well. Despite this, the game is more in the "Intrigue" and "Quo Vadis?" camp of cut-throat negotation games. Less nasty than Intrigue, but still nasty.
Shemp ran away with the game, teaming up with Kozure early on and generally out-maneuvering and out-negotiating the rest of us throughout the game. He backstabbed Kozure at just the right time, knocking him out of contention for the lead. Bharmer was nearly eliminated early on. Luch and I did our best, but we couldn't change the pecking order. Interestingly, on the last round it became clear how fragile any lead in the game can be... Shemp found himself with his two remaining characters in the parking lot on the last round. There were two zombies there. He had a "hide" card which allowed one of his characters to survive, but if he hadn't he would have been wiped off the board and out of contention. Fortunatly for him, he had prepared for such an event and was holding onto that card for quite some time. Kozure did finish second, and the rest of us lost all our characters.
We finished off the evening with our yearly game of Betrayal at House on the Hill. The scenario which came up saw me, as a little girl, be the traitor. The story goes that the house is alive and likes to feed on humans. In return for eternal youth, I led the other players here as a sacrifice. Every round, the other player's character could potentially age dramatically. I simply needed to wait and let them die fo old age, or get directly involved and "help move things along". Meanwhile, the other players were running around and trying to cast spells in various rooms of the house in order to remove the enchantment and save themselves. Predictably, the old priest died quickly. The dynamite I lobbed at the little boy helped me eliminate him (though he had aged to his 50s by then, and had successfully cast 1 or 2 spells... leading to the blog entry's title). Shortly thereafter, the woman also succumbed to old age. Only the jock remained, and he had hardly aged at all due to exceptional rolling on Shemp's part. Just as I thought to myself that things were looking good for me, the dumb thug stumbled across the last room they needed to find and succesfully cast the final spell. I lost.
It's a stupid game, but I enjoy it. The variety of the scenarios continues to impress.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
Hi
I haven't been posting things lately because I haven't been attending game night. I'll post the games played for the last few weeks once I know what they are.
In the meantime, if you are a regular reader, why don't you leave a comment and say hi ? I'm really curious to know who reads this other than us.
In the meantime, if you are a regular reader, why don't you leave a comment and say hi ? I'm really curious to know who reads this other than us.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
The LUCH factor (Quo Vadis? x2, PowerGrid: Italy)
Some games have a lot of luck, and others do not. However, some would argue that the actions of other players is a form of luck in and of itself, regardless of the game played. I have always agreed with that idea, but last night really brought it home.
Luch, a member of WAGS, has always been a bit of a wildcard. He plays to win, but "winning" sometimes involves achieving goals which the rest of us don't understand. Maybe it's entertainment value, maybe it's blocking a particular player, maybe it's winning in the traditional sense (i.e. according to the rules of the games). We never really know what he's planning at any given time.
It's pretty interesting. I only mention it because the game of PowerGrid had a pretty surprising moment. More on that later.
The evening started with 2 sessions of Quo Vadis? With 5 players, the game started to show it's true potential. The board was quite constrained... we came to realize that there are exactly enough spots for each player to have two politicians in the low committees. Getting on the board after the second round was pretty tough! Quite a few deals brokered during the game involved simply trading votes for openings in committees. Surprisingly, the laurels seemed to take a back seat to movement on the board. Blocking committees, scratching each other's back in order to get into the senate, etc, seemed to be the prime motivators.
In our first game, I tried to crowd the 5 seat low committee in the hope of getting a good amount of bribes and "vote laurels" from other players as they went through. Along the way, I pushed up a loner to the central committee so that he could use Ceasar's favour to enter the senate. It was working out, but the Ceasar marker was moved just before I could use it. As that committee filled in, I had to give up on that route. I worked up the left side of the board with JayWowzer's help, and just as the game seemed about to end, I made a very risky deal with Shemp to have him vote me to the senate for the hefty price of 10 laurels. The move would freeze Kozure out of the senate entirely, and he seemed to have a fair bit of laurels so I went for it. I won over Shemp by 3. Close.
In our second game, Shemp seemed in control from the beginning. He absolutely dominated the 5 person low committee (4 politicians!) at one point. He, too, was blocked out of the central committee for a time until he and Kozure traded favours to vote each other into the senate. JayWowzer had sneakily amassed quite a few laurels himself, so I really had no idea who would win (other than the fact that it wouldn't be me). JayWowzer and Shemp wound up tied! Jaywowzer had entered the senate first, so he won the tie-breaker.
Quo Vadis? has turned out to be a pretty good game. I'm pretty sure there is opportunity here for good, fast and creative negotiation fun. It still doesn't capture the level of "Wheeling and Dealing" that we used to do in our Monopoly sessions back in the day, though. For all the faults of that game, I still haven't come across a negotiation game which had as much opportunity for creative deal making (I've tried Traders of Genoa, bohnanza, Intrige, and many others). In fact, I'm curious if introducing a set collecting mechanic in Quo Vadis would help to give the laurels different valuations for different people. Maybe the laurels come in colours and their value increases if mulitples of a colour are owned at the endgame? That might be fun to try.
PowerGrid, using the super cool Italy map, was next. For those out there who know PowerGrid but haven't yet played on the expansion maps, let me just say this: This board changes the game considerably (France, in comparison, seemed pretty tame. We haven't played it, however) The north is literally choked with extremely inexpensive connections. The south is sparsely populated and expensive to build on. The dynamic this creates is pretty predictable... fierce competition in the north, overflow to the south. The only change to the game other than the map is a greater scarcity of starting resources and slightly different "restocking" rates.
Sicily was out of play, making the south unviable as a starting location. All bunched up in the north, it looked like it was going to be quite a fight. I thought it was interesting that with so many connection fees set at 2 or 3 the cost of jumping cities was negligeable. Having been surrounded immediately in my starting position, I thought it would be most useful to establish beachheads in a few directions a few cities away (for future expansion) rather than snap up the closer ones which would ultimately leave me with few/no options in a couple of rounds. I headed south first, since there wasn't going to be as much competition there (and because it put me close to a double city). I had to leap Kozure to get there. Kozure didn't like that. It seemed I inadvertedly robbed him of his turn (he only had enough money to get to the city I built on, so he had to pass).
Improved my prospects and screwed over a competitor. This was going well.
Before long, we were approaching "step 2". Everyone had exactly 6 cities, and just about everthing north of Rome was purchased. Shemp and I were the only ones with a presence in the south, and Shemp had no incentive to build because he had gone green and would accumulate money faster than I if we just sat and waited. I figured I would be forced to take a hit and buy an expensive connection to get myself to 7, breaking the logjam. For whatever reason, Kozure thought otherwise and leaped over me and built up the 3 remaining cities in the south (it was quite expensive to do). That was a lucky break for me, since I could save the money and build 2nd cities in the north next round. I passed.
I was going second, with only Luch before me. I had a fair bit of cash. My power plants had power, and resources in reserve for the next round (which I was sure would be the last if I couldn't end it now). I just needed to see if Luch would build anything, but he had not been particularly aggressive to this point, so I figured I was safe.
Remember I said he was unpredictable?
Luch had been saving money, apparently, and no one noticed. On his turn, he decided to spend it all in order to block me from winning. He built 10 cities (going from 6 to 16) in as many spots as he could to make it impossible for me to finish. He subsequently removed a few when he realized that this would end the game and he could only power 8 cities, but the fact remains that the board went from empty to nearly full in a flash and all by a player who wasn't planning on winning! I responded by building 5 cities were I could. JayWowzer and Kozure put a few down. Shemp passed on building, maybe in protest, I don't know. All told, we went from 30 to 55 houses in one round. It was really cool and very surprising. In retrospect, it doesn't sound like much, but at the time I was just staring at Luch placing houses on the board and thinking "OMG, when is he going to STOP?"
Still in Step 2, we all knew we were going into our last round. It came down to Shemp and I. He built to 15, and had enough fuel to power all of them. I had a capacity of 16, but couldn't muster enough cash to build that many. With 15 plants of my own on the table, it came down to money... and I had 3 dollars more that he did! Close. Again.
That was easily the most fun I've had playing Power Grid. The Italy map was a blast to play on since it was so unique (however, I think in the long run it might get stale faster than the original boards exactly because the experience is so unique. Gameplay might wind up being a little too constrained to stay interesting. Time will tell, I suppose). Ironically, Shannon Appelcline recently posted that games which are overtly mathematical (as PowerGrid is) suffer to a certain extent when players with different perspectives play together since the calculation-type players will likely win over those playing "with their gut". My track record with PowerGrid is pretty good... is my winning streak due to the fact that I'm taking more time to do the math? Is it unfair that others play by instinct and I spend time adding up all the values to make sure I buy only the cheapest connections, or strictly the resources I can afford? Am I the only one who does that? Am I taking too long as a result? It would be ironic that one of my main complaints about the game is that it's too calculational and it turned out that no else but me was bothering to do all this constant (and somewhat unpleasant) adding.
Anyway, like I said, it was quite a bit of fun. Thanks to JayWowzer for brigning the expansion!
Luch, a member of WAGS, has always been a bit of a wildcard. He plays to win, but "winning" sometimes involves achieving goals which the rest of us don't understand. Maybe it's entertainment value, maybe it's blocking a particular player, maybe it's winning in the traditional sense (i.e. according to the rules of the games). We never really know what he's planning at any given time.
It's pretty interesting. I only mention it because the game of PowerGrid had a pretty surprising moment. More on that later.
The evening started with 2 sessions of Quo Vadis? With 5 players, the game started to show it's true potential. The board was quite constrained... we came to realize that there are exactly enough spots for each player to have two politicians in the low committees. Getting on the board after the second round was pretty tough! Quite a few deals brokered during the game involved simply trading votes for openings in committees. Surprisingly, the laurels seemed to take a back seat to movement on the board. Blocking committees, scratching each other's back in order to get into the senate, etc, seemed to be the prime motivators.
In our first game, I tried to crowd the 5 seat low committee in the hope of getting a good amount of bribes and "vote laurels" from other players as they went through. Along the way, I pushed up a loner to the central committee so that he could use Ceasar's favour to enter the senate. It was working out, but the Ceasar marker was moved just before I could use it. As that committee filled in, I had to give up on that route. I worked up the left side of the board with JayWowzer's help, and just as the game seemed about to end, I made a very risky deal with Shemp to have him vote me to the senate for the hefty price of 10 laurels. The move would freeze Kozure out of the senate entirely, and he seemed to have a fair bit of laurels so I went for it. I won over Shemp by 3. Close.
In our second game, Shemp seemed in control from the beginning. He absolutely dominated the 5 person low committee (4 politicians!) at one point. He, too, was blocked out of the central committee for a time until he and Kozure traded favours to vote each other into the senate. JayWowzer had sneakily amassed quite a few laurels himself, so I really had no idea who would win (other than the fact that it wouldn't be me). JayWowzer and Shemp wound up tied! Jaywowzer had entered the senate first, so he won the tie-breaker.
Quo Vadis? has turned out to be a pretty good game. I'm pretty sure there is opportunity here for good, fast and creative negotiation fun. It still doesn't capture the level of "Wheeling and Dealing" that we used to do in our Monopoly sessions back in the day, though. For all the faults of that game, I still haven't come across a negotiation game which had as much opportunity for creative deal making (I've tried Traders of Genoa, bohnanza, Intrige, and many others). In fact, I'm curious if introducing a set collecting mechanic in Quo Vadis would help to give the laurels different valuations for different people. Maybe the laurels come in colours and their value increases if mulitples of a colour are owned at the endgame? That might be fun to try.
PowerGrid, using the super cool Italy map, was next. For those out there who know PowerGrid but haven't yet played on the expansion maps, let me just say this: This board changes the game considerably (France, in comparison, seemed pretty tame. We haven't played it, however) The north is literally choked with extremely inexpensive connections. The south is sparsely populated and expensive to build on. The dynamic this creates is pretty predictable... fierce competition in the north, overflow to the south. The only change to the game other than the map is a greater scarcity of starting resources and slightly different "restocking" rates.
Sicily was out of play, making the south unviable as a starting location. All bunched up in the north, it looked like it was going to be quite a fight. I thought it was interesting that with so many connection fees set at 2 or 3 the cost of jumping cities was negligeable. Having been surrounded immediately in my starting position, I thought it would be most useful to establish beachheads in a few directions a few cities away (for future expansion) rather than snap up the closer ones which would ultimately leave me with few/no options in a couple of rounds. I headed south first, since there wasn't going to be as much competition there (and because it put me close to a double city). I had to leap Kozure to get there. Kozure didn't like that. It seemed I inadvertedly robbed him of his turn (he only had enough money to get to the city I built on, so he had to pass).
Improved my prospects and screwed over a competitor. This was going well.
Before long, we were approaching "step 2". Everyone had exactly 6 cities, and just about everthing north of Rome was purchased. Shemp and I were the only ones with a presence in the south, and Shemp had no incentive to build because he had gone green and would accumulate money faster than I if we just sat and waited. I figured I would be forced to take a hit and buy an expensive connection to get myself to 7, breaking the logjam. For whatever reason, Kozure thought otherwise and leaped over me and built up the 3 remaining cities in the south (it was quite expensive to do). That was a lucky break for me, since I could save the money and build 2nd cities in the north next round. I passed.
I was going second, with only Luch before me. I had a fair bit of cash. My power plants had power, and resources in reserve for the next round (which I was sure would be the last if I couldn't end it now). I just needed to see if Luch would build anything, but he had not been particularly aggressive to this point, so I figured I was safe.
Remember I said he was unpredictable?
Luch had been saving money, apparently, and no one noticed. On his turn, he decided to spend it all in order to block me from winning. He built 10 cities (going from 6 to 16) in as many spots as he could to make it impossible for me to finish. He subsequently removed a few when he realized that this would end the game and he could only power 8 cities, but the fact remains that the board went from empty to nearly full in a flash and all by a player who wasn't planning on winning! I responded by building 5 cities were I could. JayWowzer and Kozure put a few down. Shemp passed on building, maybe in protest, I don't know. All told, we went from 30 to 55 houses in one round. It was really cool and very surprising. In retrospect, it doesn't sound like much, but at the time I was just staring at Luch placing houses on the board and thinking "OMG, when is he going to STOP?"
Still in Step 2, we all knew we were going into our last round. It came down to Shemp and I. He built to 15, and had enough fuel to power all of them. I had a capacity of 16, but couldn't muster enough cash to build that many. With 15 plants of my own on the table, it came down to money... and I had 3 dollars more that he did! Close. Again.
That was easily the most fun I've had playing Power Grid. The Italy map was a blast to play on since it was so unique (however, I think in the long run it might get stale faster than the original boards exactly because the experience is so unique. Gameplay might wind up being a little too constrained to stay interesting. Time will tell, I suppose). Ironically, Shannon Appelcline recently posted that games which are overtly mathematical (as PowerGrid is) suffer to a certain extent when players with different perspectives play together since the calculation-type players will likely win over those playing "with their gut". My track record with PowerGrid is pretty good... is my winning streak due to the fact that I'm taking more time to do the math? Is it unfair that others play by instinct and I spend time adding up all the values to make sure I buy only the cheapest connections, or strictly the resources I can afford? Am I the only one who does that? Am I taking too long as a result? It would be ironic that one of my main complaints about the game is that it's too calculational and it turned out that no else but me was bothering to do all this constant (and somewhat unpleasant) adding.
Anyway, like I said, it was quite a bit of fun. Thanks to JayWowzer for brigning the expansion!
Sunday, October 08, 2006
3 Players. 3 Games. (Quo Vadis? x2, Antike, Carcassonne x2)
It was just Shemp, luch and I this Wednesday. I picked Antike and Quo Vadis? since they were recent acquisitions... though I wasn't at all sure that either would work well at that number.
Quo Vadis?
Quo Vadis? is a pure negotiation game from Reiner Knizia... not his usual style of game. Roman politicians are vying for election into the senate, and only sharp negotiation and good positional strategy can get them there.
The board is a rather bland depiction of a series of committees, each between 1 and 5 "seats" large. Players have a series of politicians, which they must place in low committees in the hopes of getting promoted into higher ones... ultimately leading to the senate. Along the path to the higher committees, "laurel" tokens are acquired by politicians. The winner is the player who has the most laurels at once the senate is full, so long as that player has at least one politician in the senate.
The meat of the game lies in getting your politicians promoted. The only way for anyone to move ahead is to be voted up, so either that player must already have a majority in the committee or he/she must convince others to vote in their favour. Laurel tokens can be used as a bribe, promises to vote another player's politician up in a different committee can be made, or any other arrangement that can be conceived of can be proposed. As an additional sweetener, anyone who votes for another player gets a free laurel.
The result is a very quick game of negotiation and positional strategy which I found quite engaging despite the fact that it's quite likely to be much better at 4 or 5 players than it was at 3.
We played two rounds. In the both games, Shemp displayed much better negotiation skills than ours and won. Not only did he manage to gain the upper hand in most of the deals, but he did an excellent job of situating himself in chains of committees which ensured him good pathways to the top (not to mention getting many of those "free laurels" by being at the right place at the right time and lending a vote to another player). The deals never got terribly creative (most involved simple laurel payments or promises of votes), but I'm looking forward to seeing how a full group plays out.
Antike
This was our first play of Antike at 3. I've got the second edition, which lowered the winning conditions from 12 to 10 for three players. I'm glad that rule got changed, because getting to 10 seemed about right (it would otherwise grind to a halt as all players armed up for some sort of enormous temple bashing escapade).
We played on the english board, and I started near the center with Luch at the West and Shemp in the South-East. I tried to get boats out and a few temples early on. It always seemed that Luch and Shemp were ahead of me, as both were sending masses of boats and troops out while I seemed to accomplish little. Luch was crowding my areas pretty quickly, and I was forced to abandon my aim to get 2 points in ships early... . After getting my first 7 sea zones, I started focusing on marble and temple building. Shemp's empire was vast and pretty much unchallenged, with a few temples well guarded at the back. It became clear at the end of the game that Luch was going to win on a particular round by building the last temple he needed. I tried to fan out my boats in order to finally get to 14 sea zones and score my last point but didn't succeed. Shemp was nearly resigned to a loss, since he was down 2 points, when he realized he had he was able to knock out two temples I had built previously. He did exactly that and snatched victory from under Luch's nose.
I thought three player Antike was quite good (using the 2nd edition rules). The board is definitely more open, but there was still no time to waste in grabbing the VPs... I felt continuously under the gun to be efficient and grab what I needed as soon as I could. As in our previous sessions, combat didn't play a major role until the very end of the game. Turns go by extremely quickly, and the game continues to fulfill it's promise to deliver a satisfying civilization building experience in approximately 1 1/2 hours.
We finished up the evening with two quick games of Carcasssonne. Base Carc can easily be played in 15 minutes if players draw their tiles ahead of time, and is quite enjoyable this way. Not much to say except that the second game probably had the fewest completed cities that I've ever seen (three?). I won both games, denying Shemp the clean sweep for the evening.
Quo Vadis?
Quo Vadis? is a pure negotiation game from Reiner Knizia... not his usual style of game. Roman politicians are vying for election into the senate, and only sharp negotiation and good positional strategy can get them there.
The board is a rather bland depiction of a series of committees, each between 1 and 5 "seats" large. Players have a series of politicians, which they must place in low committees in the hopes of getting promoted into higher ones... ultimately leading to the senate. Along the path to the higher committees, "laurel" tokens are acquired by politicians. The winner is the player who has the most laurels at once the senate is full, so long as that player has at least one politician in the senate.
The meat of the game lies in getting your politicians promoted. The only way for anyone to move ahead is to be voted up, so either that player must already have a majority in the committee or he/she must convince others to vote in their favour. Laurel tokens can be used as a bribe, promises to vote another player's politician up in a different committee can be made, or any other arrangement that can be conceived of can be proposed. As an additional sweetener, anyone who votes for another player gets a free laurel.
The result is a very quick game of negotiation and positional strategy which I found quite engaging despite the fact that it's quite likely to be much better at 4 or 5 players than it was at 3.
We played two rounds. In the both games, Shemp displayed much better negotiation skills than ours and won. Not only did he manage to gain the upper hand in most of the deals, but he did an excellent job of situating himself in chains of committees which ensured him good pathways to the top (not to mention getting many of those "free laurels" by being at the right place at the right time and lending a vote to another player). The deals never got terribly creative (most involved simple laurel payments or promises of votes), but I'm looking forward to seeing how a full group plays out.
Antike
This was our first play of Antike at 3. I've got the second edition, which lowered the winning conditions from 12 to 10 for three players. I'm glad that rule got changed, because getting to 10 seemed about right (it would otherwise grind to a halt as all players armed up for some sort of enormous temple bashing escapade).
We played on the english board, and I started near the center with Luch at the West and Shemp in the South-East. I tried to get boats out and a few temples early on. It always seemed that Luch and Shemp were ahead of me, as both were sending masses of boats and troops out while I seemed to accomplish little. Luch was crowding my areas pretty quickly, and I was forced to abandon my aim to get 2 points in ships early... . After getting my first 7 sea zones, I started focusing on marble and temple building. Shemp's empire was vast and pretty much unchallenged, with a few temples well guarded at the back. It became clear at the end of the game that Luch was going to win on a particular round by building the last temple he needed. I tried to fan out my boats in order to finally get to 14 sea zones and score my last point but didn't succeed. Shemp was nearly resigned to a loss, since he was down 2 points, when he realized he had he was able to knock out two temples I had built previously. He did exactly that and snatched victory from under Luch's nose.
I thought three player Antike was quite good (using the 2nd edition rules). The board is definitely more open, but there was still no time to waste in grabbing the VPs... I felt continuously under the gun to be efficient and grab what I needed as soon as I could. As in our previous sessions, combat didn't play a major role until the very end of the game. Turns go by extremely quickly, and the game continues to fulfill it's promise to deliver a satisfying civilization building experience in approximately 1 1/2 hours.
We finished up the evening with two quick games of Carcasssonne. Base Carc can easily be played in 15 minutes if players draw their tiles ahead of time, and is quite enjoyable this way. Not much to say except that the second game probably had the fewest completed cities that I've ever seen (three?). I won both games, denying Shemp the clean sweep for the evening.
Labels:
Antike,
Carcassonne,
Knizia,
Quo Vadis,
Session
Friday, September 29, 2006
Have we met before? (Vegas showdown, Wildlife)
Kozure purchased two new games recently, so we gathered Wednesday night and gave them a spin... both were strikingly reminiscent of other games we've already played while also being good enough to stand on their own.
Vegas Showdown
The first game was Vegas Showdown, a recent Avalon Hill title which got some pretty good reviews at BGG. The board, bits and title suggest that gambling is involved, but in fact there is none. Players are actually building casinos piece by piece, trying to earn victory points along the way. In practice, the game is essentially a cross between Princes of Florence and Amun-Re (but with a few elements which introduce chaos which is more akin to an american game). From PoF, the game borrows a grided map which players must fill with various "rooms" in a puzzle like fashion and from Amun-Re Vegas Showdown borrows the peculiar auction mechanism (for purchasing the "rooms"). Luckily, where the game falls down on originality it makes up in delivery... the game works and there is enough new in the mechanics that it stands on it's own. The biggest change is a deck of cards which is drawn from every time a "Room" is purchased. Each card will force an event, such as a monetary bonus for each "slots" room in your hotel, etc. Once the effect is applied, a symbol on the card determines which type of "room" will fill the empty space on the auction block. Since the game ends when one of the three types of rooms is exhausted, the result is a variable endgame which added a nice level of tension in our session. Other minor, but well received changes include: a "renovate" action which allows a player to replan their casino at the cost of a turn; a mechanic which reduces the price of items which aren't purchased at their existing price; a progression tree which prevents a player from building a premium room before purchasing the basic version (like the technology tree in Civilization); lastly, the casino layout is divided into three portions (the hotel, middle and restaurant) and points are awarded for certain layouts of rooms.
In our game, Kozure had the winning casino. His lead was padded by an event card which gave him an enormous amount of points for restaurants, but even without it he had enough to win. Shemp was aggressive in trying to connect the hotel portion of his casino to the restaurant, and Luch was the king of slots. JayWowzer and I had very similar casinos, but I made a critical error midway through the game and purchased a "premium" room I couldn't place since I didn't have the require "basic" room. I spent too long trying to get that back on the board and missed out on the income I would have earned if I had been able to place it. Ooops.
Vegas Showdown walks a fine line. It's heavy enough to require a certain amount of forward planning, money management and tactics, but the random events can swing the result in fairly significant ways. Despite my poor showing (tied for last), I enjoyed the game and would look forward to playing it again soon. Oh yeah, I just wanted to mention that the player mats are made of the same flimsy paper Avalon Hill used for the RoboRally mats. It's really too bad, because it really cheapens the overall appearance of the game.
Wildlife
A new Kramer title, which I'd never even heard of, was the second game of the evening. The setting is a small island where a variety of creatures attempt to become the dominant species. Each player plays a specific creature, from crocodile to eagle to human. The island is divided into several types of terrain, and each creature has different levels of ability in each terrain (for example, humans can migrate and expand into plains, but get no actions in deserts). Over the course of the game, players will have several opportunities to improve the lot of their creature type: expand territory, increase their abilties, aquire special powers, etc.
When regions are completely filled with creatures they are scored according to majorities, but every 3rd such scoring a "general scoring" occurs where quite a few other factors are taken into account (such as largest continuous chain of creatures, most advanced creatures, creatures with the most food, etc). As you may have already surmised, this game has more than a passing resemblance to another of Kramer's games: El Grande. However, where El Grande has chaos, Wildlife has bite. In this game, it's perfectly common for another player to come eat your creatures, to steal your card, etc.There is a level of direct competition here which is quite uncommon in german games. The expansion of territory, the conflict and the advancements opportunities for creature skills lend a "civilization" type feel to the game.
I played the humans. I started out in two corners of the board, not really knowing how to play the game. I was quickly threatened by Kozure's mammoths in both my starting areas. This, combined with a hand of cards completely devoid of the types I needed, forced me to play a game of opportunism rather than strategy. I was in last place while Luch's bears, Shemp's crocodiles and, particularly, JayWowzer's eagles were taking commanding leads. Lucky for me, I stumbled into a way to bring me back into contention: I was focussing on securing presences in a variety of territories (a common and generally successful strategy in area control games) while aggressively growing continuous chains of control. When the first "general" scoring occurred, we came to realize that chains were enormous sources of points (the largest chain is worth 10 points, whereas a monopoly in a region is only worth 5). In my case, I had two chains which netted me 1st AND a tie for 2nd longest chain (15 points, I beleive). I was suddenly back in the ballgame. As the game progressed, Shemp and Luch were locked in continuous back and forth struggles in the water, forest and desert zones, hurting both their chances. JayWowzer looked untouchable with a large lead and no obvious weakness on the board. In the end, my continuing success with chains and 2nd or 3rd place points in a variety of regions vaulted me towards the lead! As the final points were tallied, JayWowzer and I ended in a tie...
and so it came to pass that humans and eagles became the dominant species on earth.
Wildlife, like Vegas Showdown before it, turned out to be quite a bit heavier than expected. There are SO MANY options to consider on your turn that analysis paralysis can easily occur. Luckily, downtime is minimized through a clever auction mechanic which forces every player to auction one of their actions every turn (giving each player the opportunity to get actions on other player's turns!). In the end, Wildlife is a meaty game which seems like a cross between Civilization and El Grande... not a bad thing at all. for whatever reason, it didn't stand out for me though. Like Knizia's Tower of Babel, which also blends a number of disparate mechanics into one game, Wildlife is missing the "hook" which somehow distinguishes it from the pack and makes the whole thing click as more than the sum of it's parts (though I think I liked Wildlife more than Tower of Babel, but then again ToB is a much shorter game).
Vegas Showdown
The first game was Vegas Showdown, a recent Avalon Hill title which got some pretty good reviews at BGG. The board, bits and title suggest that gambling is involved, but in fact there is none. Players are actually building casinos piece by piece, trying to earn victory points along the way. In practice, the game is essentially a cross between Princes of Florence and Amun-Re (but with a few elements which introduce chaos which is more akin to an american game). From PoF, the game borrows a grided map which players must fill with various "rooms" in a puzzle like fashion and from Amun-Re Vegas Showdown borrows the peculiar auction mechanism (for purchasing the "rooms"). Luckily, where the game falls down on originality it makes up in delivery... the game works and there is enough new in the mechanics that it stands on it's own. The biggest change is a deck of cards which is drawn from every time a "Room" is purchased. Each card will force an event, such as a monetary bonus for each "slots" room in your hotel, etc. Once the effect is applied, a symbol on the card determines which type of "room" will fill the empty space on the auction block. Since the game ends when one of the three types of rooms is exhausted, the result is a variable endgame which added a nice level of tension in our session. Other minor, but well received changes include: a "renovate" action which allows a player to replan their casino at the cost of a turn; a mechanic which reduces the price of items which aren't purchased at their existing price; a progression tree which prevents a player from building a premium room before purchasing the basic version (like the technology tree in Civilization); lastly, the casino layout is divided into three portions (the hotel, middle and restaurant) and points are awarded for certain layouts of rooms.
In our game, Kozure had the winning casino. His lead was padded by an event card which gave him an enormous amount of points for restaurants, but even without it he had enough to win. Shemp was aggressive in trying to connect the hotel portion of his casino to the restaurant, and Luch was the king of slots. JayWowzer and I had very similar casinos, but I made a critical error midway through the game and purchased a "premium" room I couldn't place since I didn't have the require "basic" room. I spent too long trying to get that back on the board and missed out on the income I would have earned if I had been able to place it. Ooops.
Vegas Showdown walks a fine line. It's heavy enough to require a certain amount of forward planning, money management and tactics, but the random events can swing the result in fairly significant ways. Despite my poor showing (tied for last), I enjoyed the game and would look forward to playing it again soon. Oh yeah, I just wanted to mention that the player mats are made of the same flimsy paper Avalon Hill used for the RoboRally mats. It's really too bad, because it really cheapens the overall appearance of the game.
Wildlife
A new Kramer title, which I'd never even heard of, was the second game of the evening. The setting is a small island where a variety of creatures attempt to become the dominant species. Each player plays a specific creature, from crocodile to eagle to human. The island is divided into several types of terrain, and each creature has different levels of ability in each terrain (for example, humans can migrate and expand into plains, but get no actions in deserts). Over the course of the game, players will have several opportunities to improve the lot of their creature type: expand territory, increase their abilties, aquire special powers, etc.
When regions are completely filled with creatures they are scored according to majorities, but every 3rd such scoring a "general scoring" occurs where quite a few other factors are taken into account (such as largest continuous chain of creatures, most advanced creatures, creatures with the most food, etc). As you may have already surmised, this game has more than a passing resemblance to another of Kramer's games: El Grande. However, where El Grande has chaos, Wildlife has bite. In this game, it's perfectly common for another player to come eat your creatures, to steal your card, etc.There is a level of direct competition here which is quite uncommon in german games. The expansion of territory, the conflict and the advancements opportunities for creature skills lend a "civilization" type feel to the game.
I played the humans. I started out in two corners of the board, not really knowing how to play the game. I was quickly threatened by Kozure's mammoths in both my starting areas. This, combined with a hand of cards completely devoid of the types I needed, forced me to play a game of opportunism rather than strategy. I was in last place while Luch's bears, Shemp's crocodiles and, particularly, JayWowzer's eagles were taking commanding leads. Lucky for me, I stumbled into a way to bring me back into contention: I was focussing on securing presences in a variety of territories (a common and generally successful strategy in area control games) while aggressively growing continuous chains of control. When the first "general" scoring occurred, we came to realize that chains were enormous sources of points (the largest chain is worth 10 points, whereas a monopoly in a region is only worth 5). In my case, I had two chains which netted me 1st AND a tie for 2nd longest chain (15 points, I beleive). I was suddenly back in the ballgame. As the game progressed, Shemp and Luch were locked in continuous back and forth struggles in the water, forest and desert zones, hurting both their chances. JayWowzer looked untouchable with a large lead and no obvious weakness on the board. In the end, my continuing success with chains and 2nd or 3rd place points in a variety of regions vaulted me towards the lead! As the final points were tallied, JayWowzer and I ended in a tie...
and so it came to pass that humans and eagles became the dominant species on earth.
Wildlife, like Vegas Showdown before it, turned out to be quite a bit heavier than expected. There are SO MANY options to consider on your turn that analysis paralysis can easily occur. Luckily, downtime is minimized through a clever auction mechanic which forces every player to auction one of their actions every turn (giving each player the opportunity to get actions on other player's turns!). In the end, Wildlife is a meaty game which seems like a cross between Civilization and El Grande... not a bad thing at all. for whatever reason, it didn't stand out for me though. Like Knizia's Tower of Babel, which also blends a number of disparate mechanics into one game, Wildlife is missing the "hook" which somehow distinguishes it from the pack and makes the whole thing click as more than the sum of it's parts (though I think I liked Wildlife more than Tower of Babel, but then again ToB is a much shorter game).
Friday, September 22, 2006
The art of the deal (Traders of Genoa, Ra)
A few returning favorites, this week.
Traders of Genoa saw it's first tabletime in quite a while. We were only four (Shemp, Kozure, Luch and myself). We all knew what we were doing, and it was pretty clear from the get-go that no one was going to be a pushover this time around. If you wanted something, you needed to make it worthwhile... or the acting player would end the turn. This is not new, of course, but it seemed like it was hapening a whole lot more often than it had in the past (and it started in the first round!). The game went long, but I found it to be extremely interesting. I wanted to try again the strategy I attempted unsuccessfully last time: collect 1:1 actions and convert them to privileges before that pile ran out. I spent the first few rounds collecting whatever goods came my way for cheap so I could trade them later on (1:1 trade markers aren't typically hot items in our group, either). I then traded 3 or 4 of them for privileges, bringing my total to 8. Obviously, with that number in hand, it was very hard to convince anyone to sell me theirs at any price, but unfortunately I did not have any big runs. I did eventually get 2 additional ones from Shemp, which fit in quite nicely and helped me out quite a bit in the end (side note: I almost didn't take one of them, because I mistakenly thought it didn't work very well with my cards!).
I had resisted playing the ownership marker game until the last few rounds (for whatever reason, I seem to gravitate to privileges and ownership markers every game!) By then I had concluded that Shemp was likely winning, so I picked up a number of them and started displacing his off the board (he had quite a few). Shemp immediately mentioned I might have handed Luch the victory by doing so, and I suddenly felt he might have been right. Then again, Kozure WAS fulfilling quite a number of large orders... maybe HE was winning. All I knew was that I mustered only a single large order and a single small order, so my privileges would have to carry me. I didn't think it was likely, though.
I did win. By 30 ducats. The ownership markers were the difference!
Next up was RA. We played two rounds, and both wound up being rather odd in their own way:
1) The first game, I went short. I always find that the more players there are, the more important it is to snag whatever you can and get out fast. With 4, the strategy is borderline, but I went with it anyway. I was often out before some players had played a single bid! The odd thing was that in the first round, the era lasted a LOOOONG time after I was done. The way things played out, the 2nd and 3rd era looked to be choked with RAs, so even though it burned me in the first round I stuck with my strategy. It worked for me, too... The horde of RAs which came out afterwards left Shemp, Luch and Kozure unable to aquire the temples or floods they were trying to collect and I reached the end in first place on the strength of my pharoahs and the gold+civ points I grabbed when I could.
2) The second game, I lost the pharoah struggle early. the other three seemed to be making a point of gathering them, so I decided to leave that alone and concentrate on rivers, civs or monuments. However, right up to the end of the game, virtually no monuments were drawn! It almost seems mathematically impossible that 3 eras could go by with so few monuments pulled, but there it was. I managed to get 7 different ones, and a mid sized river going, but it wasn't enough to stop Shemp, who won by 3 points.
... good times.
Traders of Genoa saw it's first tabletime in quite a while. We were only four (Shemp, Kozure, Luch and myself). We all knew what we were doing, and it was pretty clear from the get-go that no one was going to be a pushover this time around. If you wanted something, you needed to make it worthwhile... or the acting player would end the turn. This is not new, of course, but it seemed like it was hapening a whole lot more often than it had in the past (and it started in the first round!). The game went long, but I found it to be extremely interesting. I wanted to try again the strategy I attempted unsuccessfully last time: collect 1:1 actions and convert them to privileges before that pile ran out. I spent the first few rounds collecting whatever goods came my way for cheap so I could trade them later on (1:1 trade markers aren't typically hot items in our group, either). I then traded 3 or 4 of them for privileges, bringing my total to 8. Obviously, with that number in hand, it was very hard to convince anyone to sell me theirs at any price, but unfortunately I did not have any big runs. I did eventually get 2 additional ones from Shemp, which fit in quite nicely and helped me out quite a bit in the end (side note: I almost didn't take one of them, because I mistakenly thought it didn't work very well with my cards!).
I had resisted playing the ownership marker game until the last few rounds (for whatever reason, I seem to gravitate to privileges and ownership markers every game!) By then I had concluded that Shemp was likely winning, so I picked up a number of them and started displacing his off the board (he had quite a few). Shemp immediately mentioned I might have handed Luch the victory by doing so, and I suddenly felt he might have been right. Then again, Kozure WAS fulfilling quite a number of large orders... maybe HE was winning. All I knew was that I mustered only a single large order and a single small order, so my privileges would have to carry me. I didn't think it was likely, though.
I did win. By 30 ducats. The ownership markers were the difference!
Next up was RA. We played two rounds, and both wound up being rather odd in their own way:
1) The first game, I went short. I always find that the more players there are, the more important it is to snag whatever you can and get out fast. With 4, the strategy is borderline, but I went with it anyway. I was often out before some players had played a single bid! The odd thing was that in the first round, the era lasted a LOOOONG time after I was done. The way things played out, the 2nd and 3rd era looked to be choked with RAs, so even though it burned me in the first round I stuck with my strategy. It worked for me, too... The horde of RAs which came out afterwards left Shemp, Luch and Kozure unable to aquire the temples or floods they were trying to collect and I reached the end in first place on the strength of my pharoahs and the gold+civ points I grabbed when I could.
2) The second game, I lost the pharoah struggle early. the other three seemed to be making a point of gathering them, so I decided to leave that alone and concentrate on rivers, civs or monuments. However, right up to the end of the game, virtually no monuments were drawn! It almost seems mathematically impossible that 3 eras could go by with so few monuments pulled, but there it was. I managed to get 7 different ones, and a mid sized river going, but it wasn't enough to stop Shemp, who won by 3 points.
... good times.
Sunday, September 17, 2006
Oh where, oh where, could our little count be ? (Fury of Dracula)
Kozure, Shemp and I played our 2nd game of Fury of Dracula Wednesday night. I was Dracula once again, but unfortunately I wouldn't enjoy the same success I did last time...
The hunters started out spread across the board. Mina was the only hunter in Eastern Europe, so I thought I'd start there (in Sarajevo, I beleive). Lucky for me, Mina quickly picked up a piece of equipment she felt another Lord Godalming should have, and promptly exited the east to go give it to him. This ultimately allowed me free reign on my half of the board as the hunters systematically swept the west. It was looking liek a cake-walk for a while, but then disaster struck... Mina had returned to the east and was beginning to search there. She was two cities away from a vampire which would mature as soon as her turn ended. I felt confident. To my horror, Mina rode some fast horses to the site of Dracula's young vampire and destroyed it in broad daylight.
This was an enormous stroke of good luck for the hunters. Until that point, they had not even found my trail. There was about a dozen destinations Mina COULD have searched that turn, and any of them COULD have been on my trail. I still don't really understand why Shemp felt the need to play that card when all the cities surrounding Mina were equally viable targets, but it turned out to be very useful for them, indeed (Shemp must have some sort of spidey sense).
I had been delt a big blow, but somehow I still felt pretty good. I hadn't sufferred a single point of damage, hadn't been forced to resort to a voyage by sea, and they still couldn't really know where I was. I tried a bold move and attempted to slip right between the oncoming Dr. Seward and Van Helsing as they headed east and I headed west. It was a bad gamble, as Van Helsing found me rather quickly. In the dark of night, I chose to teach him a lesson and attacked rather than try to escape. Van Helsing was almost killed, but he escape my wrath before I could finish the deed. Day had dawned, Van Helsing had healed himself, and I decided to head north rather than push my luck further.
The hunters spent quite a bit of time clearing my trail. They did not want to chance any maturing vampires! Sadly, I was ddrawing none, so they didn't have much to fear. They then drew the card which allows Dracula to teleport to any destination, so I went to Spain and made a Dark Call. I now had 3 young vampires I could sire, and therefore a new lease on life. Beef, some guy I left behind in central Europe with a shotgun and a knife, gave the Dr. a tougher fight than he expected (see the post titled "Beef...STAKE" by Kozure). The hunters where hot on my trail, though, and a few lucky guesses* brought them quickly onto my path. Combat wasn't going so well for me anymore, and a heavily armed Dr. Seward knocked me around a fair bit (I stupidly tried to fight back, taking heavy damage before I escaped).
I was down to 5 life. I tried to get away from my predators. Mina found me and played Heroic Leap. I rolled a 5.
I lost.
Well, once more I quite enjoyed the game. Playing as Dracula is quite exciting, as close calls and interesting twists of fate are fairly common in the game. There is a fair amount of luck involved in the draw of cards, and the roll of the dice in combat but I haven't yet felt like anything I was doing was pointless or anything. On the hunter's side, things might be a little different. Having now played with three, I think this is the ideal number of players. With two hunters apiece, decision making is quicker and if Dracula manages to incapacitate a hunter for a few turns (though fog or bats, for example) the player can still participate through his 2nd one. It's still long, and it's still complicated, but it's fun and you wind up with a much more interesting story arc than most german games provide.
The hunters started out spread across the board. Mina was the only hunter in Eastern Europe, so I thought I'd start there (in Sarajevo, I beleive). Lucky for me, Mina quickly picked up a piece of equipment she felt another Lord Godalming should have, and promptly exited the east to go give it to him. This ultimately allowed me free reign on my half of the board as the hunters systematically swept the west. It was looking liek a cake-walk for a while, but then disaster struck... Mina had returned to the east and was beginning to search there. She was two cities away from a vampire which would mature as soon as her turn ended. I felt confident. To my horror, Mina rode some fast horses to the site of Dracula's young vampire and destroyed it in broad daylight.
This was an enormous stroke of good luck for the hunters. Until that point, they had not even found my trail. There was about a dozen destinations Mina COULD have searched that turn, and any of them COULD have been on my trail. I still don't really understand why Shemp felt the need to play that card when all the cities surrounding Mina were equally viable targets, but it turned out to be very useful for them, indeed (Shemp must have some sort of spidey sense).
I had been delt a big blow, but somehow I still felt pretty good. I hadn't sufferred a single point of damage, hadn't been forced to resort to a voyage by sea, and they still couldn't really know where I was. I tried a bold move and attempted to slip right between the oncoming Dr. Seward and Van Helsing as they headed east and I headed west. It was a bad gamble, as Van Helsing found me rather quickly. In the dark of night, I chose to teach him a lesson and attacked rather than try to escape. Van Helsing was almost killed, but he escape my wrath before I could finish the deed. Day had dawned, Van Helsing had healed himself, and I decided to head north rather than push my luck further.
The hunters spent quite a bit of time clearing my trail. They did not want to chance any maturing vampires! Sadly, I was ddrawing none, so they didn't have much to fear. They then drew the card which allows Dracula to teleport to any destination, so I went to Spain and made a Dark Call. I now had 3 young vampires I could sire, and therefore a new lease on life. Beef, some guy I left behind in central Europe with a shotgun and a knife, gave the Dr. a tougher fight than he expected (see the post titled "Beef...STAKE" by Kozure). The hunters where hot on my trail, though, and a few lucky guesses* brought them quickly onto my path. Combat wasn't going so well for me anymore, and a heavily armed Dr. Seward knocked me around a fair bit (I stupidly tried to fight back, taking heavy damage before I escaped).
I was down to 5 life. I tried to get away from my predators. Mina found me and played Heroic Leap. I rolled a 5.
I lost.
Well, once more I quite enjoyed the game. Playing as Dracula is quite exciting, as close calls and interesting twists of fate are fairly common in the game. There is a fair amount of luck involved in the draw of cards, and the roll of the dice in combat but I haven't yet felt like anything I was doing was pointless or anything. On the hunter's side, things might be a little different. Having now played with three, I think this is the ideal number of players. With two hunters apiece, decision making is quicker and if Dracula manages to incapacitate a hunter for a few turns (though fog or bats, for example) the player can still participate through his 2nd one. It's still long, and it's still complicated, but it's fun and you wind up with a much more interesting story arc than most german games provide.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
