And what might that new game be, which I so cleverly teased about in the blog title? That game is Hacienda. New to me, at least. I played it for the first time at June's Game Day event, and after 3 more plays this week, I think it's time to mention it here. I loved this game after the first time, and it only has become more endearing every play since.
For those who haven't played this gem, in short, it's a resource management and territory claim game played on a hex-board marked by varied terrain and interspersed markets. Players are competing for access to these markets as a source of income and victory points, as well as purchasing water tiles and grouping their lands to acquire other bonuses over the course of the game.
What makes this game unique, is that the victory points are totaled twice. Once at the midpoint of the game, and again at the end. So, a strong start can make-or-break you in Hacienda.
After these first few plays, my initial reaction as far as strategy is concerned, is that market access is king in this game. The score multiplier that goes along with market access is huge for points, especially if it's doubled by getting early access before the first scoring is done. Purchasing water and haciendas seem to be best served as late-game actions, as the early game should be focused on using your precious three actions either claiming territory and/or making money to purchase resources.
We have yet to try any of the variants that came with the game, but with a double-sided board and two pages of variants to try, I look forward to playing Hacienda with our group for a long while.
Toodles for now,
-Andrew
Monday, August 31, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Game Day Quick Hits
This past Saturday was an event appropriately entitled "Game Day" at a local gaming shop. Held once every two months, this was the 24th installment. It's always something I look forward to it, and my friend Mark all but single-handedly puts it together, bringing his personal game collection from home for use by the public for the day, gathering food & drinks for the group, and putting together a raffle among other tasks to perpetuate this event.
Now, when I say 'personal game collection,' know that this is no ordinary collection. Mark fills an entire wall of shelves with games, and I've no doubt that he owns and brings in excess of 300 games. I try to do what I can to help by arriving early and helping to bring in games & food, stay late to clean up when I can, and I set up a Facebook event for it each time.
This Game Day was abbreviated for me, but I still got to try a variety of new games, which I'll briefly review.
After setting up, Mark and I played Fits, a new Reiner Knizia (of Settlers of Catan fame, among others) game which plays like a mixture of Tetris and Blokus sans the interaction, with some twists. Players have an identical batch of pieces which they slide into their personal, slanted, Tetris-like grid one at a time, depending on what matching card is flipped from the deck. Fits is played over four rounds. In round one, each individual space on the grid is marked with a green dot, which obviously won't show when covered by your pieces. Players in round one try to cover these dots as best they can, and get points for completely covered rows and lose points for uncovered dots. Rounds progress with different objectives. For example, in round 2 instead of scoring for complete rows, some of the green spaces are replaced by a number value from 1-3, and if that spot is visible at the end of the round, a player gets that many points. Overall, Fits was a solid but not spectacular puzzle game. There is no difference between playing solitaire or with 4 players, as players don't interact at all. Since a game is quick (about 15 minutes), I didn't mind the lack of interaction that much.
The next game played was another game between Mark and I. We played Ra: The Dice Game (RTDG). It is a simplified version of Ra, which shaves some time off from the original, but also shaves off the best part of the original. Generally to me, converting something into a dice game is a downgrade, because it adds an element of luck that wasn't present before. However, the difference between drawing tiles in Ra and rolling dice in RTDG isn't very significant. The real loss is the lack of auctions in RTDG, which were a huge part of why I personally enjoyed the first. While there is some interaction in the form of rolling a disaster which only affects your opponent, it's still much less than existed in the original. As a result, I won't be adding Ra: The Dice Game to my wishlist.
Some of my friends showed up in time for the next game, and we played a five-player game of Small World. I'd been meaning to try this one for a while, as it's highly rated on Boardgamegeek.com. Small World is an example of a game that you will truely understand the second time around, but I enjoyed the potential of what I saw in the first. At the beginning of the game, the player going first chooses from a list of 5 game races attached to randomized bonus abilities for that race. If the player passes on the first in the list, they must spend one point on it to get to the second, and another to get to the third, etc. Then, that player puts a number of race tokens on the board claiming territory which is ultimately converted to victory points. As the game implies, the game board is too small to accommodate everybody appropriately, so the game quickly becomes a territory struggle. I enjoyed this game, because it seems to have lots of replay value, with the races and abilities always being randomized, there are hundreds of combinations of possibilities for ways the game could play out. However, there is some learning curve as it is a significant disadvantage to those who don't know the specifics of what the races and abilities all do, and how they interact with each other. I would recommend this to anyone seeking a better version of Risk.
Next, and last for me, we played a five-player game of Citadels. I loved this game - it was very elegant in its presentation and quick to play, yet provided lots of decision making and interaction between the players. At the start of the game, a hand of building cards is dealt to each player. One player is assigned as King, and begins the first round. The King chooses from a deck of 8 roles (6 in a 5-player game, one is discarded randomly face up, and one is chosen to be discarded face down by the King) and passes the deck clockwise for each other player to choose a role. The last player has a choice between two, and discards the one not chosen face down. The roles from 1-8 are Assassin, Thief, Magician, King, Bishop, Merchant, Architect, and Warlord. The turn begins with the Assassin (if present) and continues numerically to the Warlord. On a turn, a player plays his role card, and performs any action associated with it. Then, they can take two coins OR draw a new building card, and then play a card by paying its cost in coins. Players can receive bonus coins, build more buildings, steal from others, make a player lose a turn, switch hands with someone, and more depending on their role in the game. The next round begins with whoever chose the king role, and play continues until a player has played 8 buildings. The value of the buildings played determines the winner. This is a great buy for a game, and we've already got a copy on the way. Easy to learn and play, with some solid strategy aspects.
-Andrew
Now, when I say 'personal game collection,' know that this is no ordinary collection. Mark fills an entire wall of shelves with games, and I've no doubt that he owns and brings in excess of 300 games. I try to do what I can to help by arriving early and helping to bring in games & food, stay late to clean up when I can, and I set up a Facebook event for it each time.
This Game Day was abbreviated for me, but I still got to try a variety of new games, which I'll briefly review.
After setting up, Mark and I played Fits, a new Reiner Knizia (of Settlers of Catan fame, among others) game which plays like a mixture of Tetris and Blokus sans the interaction, with some twists. Players have an identical batch of pieces which they slide into their personal, slanted, Tetris-like grid one at a time, depending on what matching card is flipped from the deck. Fits is played over four rounds. In round one, each individual space on the grid is marked with a green dot, which obviously won't show when covered by your pieces. Players in round one try to cover these dots as best they can, and get points for completely covered rows and lose points for uncovered dots. Rounds progress with different objectives. For example, in round 2 instead of scoring for complete rows, some of the green spaces are replaced by a number value from 1-3, and if that spot is visible at the end of the round, a player gets that many points. Overall, Fits was a solid but not spectacular puzzle game. There is no difference between playing solitaire or with 4 players, as players don't interact at all. Since a game is quick (about 15 minutes), I didn't mind the lack of interaction that much.
The next game played was another game between Mark and I. We played Ra: The Dice Game (RTDG). It is a simplified version of Ra, which shaves some time off from the original, but also shaves off the best part of the original. Generally to me, converting something into a dice game is a downgrade, because it adds an element of luck that wasn't present before. However, the difference between drawing tiles in Ra and rolling dice in RTDG isn't very significant. The real loss is the lack of auctions in RTDG, which were a huge part of why I personally enjoyed the first. While there is some interaction in the form of rolling a disaster which only affects your opponent, it's still much less than existed in the original. As a result, I won't be adding Ra: The Dice Game to my wishlist.
Some of my friends showed up in time for the next game, and we played a five-player game of Small World. I'd been meaning to try this one for a while, as it's highly rated on Boardgamegeek.com. Small World is an example of a game that you will truely understand the second time around, but I enjoyed the potential of what I saw in the first. At the beginning of the game, the player going first chooses from a list of 5 game races attached to randomized bonus abilities for that race. If the player passes on the first in the list, they must spend one point on it to get to the second, and another to get to the third, etc. Then, that player puts a number of race tokens on the board claiming territory which is ultimately converted to victory points. As the game implies, the game board is too small to accommodate everybody appropriately, so the game quickly becomes a territory struggle. I enjoyed this game, because it seems to have lots of replay value, with the races and abilities always being randomized, there are hundreds of combinations of possibilities for ways the game could play out. However, there is some learning curve as it is a significant disadvantage to those who don't know the specifics of what the races and abilities all do, and how they interact with each other. I would recommend this to anyone seeking a better version of Risk.
Next, and last for me, we played a five-player game of Citadels. I loved this game - it was very elegant in its presentation and quick to play, yet provided lots of decision making and interaction between the players. At the start of the game, a hand of building cards is dealt to each player. One player is assigned as King, and begins the first round. The King chooses from a deck of 8 roles (6 in a 5-player game, one is discarded randomly face up, and one is chosen to be discarded face down by the King) and passes the deck clockwise for each other player to choose a role. The last player has a choice between two, and discards the one not chosen face down. The roles from 1-8 are Assassin, Thief, Magician, King, Bishop, Merchant, Architect, and Warlord. The turn begins with the Assassin (if present) and continues numerically to the Warlord. On a turn, a player plays his role card, and performs any action associated with it. Then, they can take two coins OR draw a new building card, and then play a card by paying its cost in coins. Players can receive bonus coins, build more buildings, steal from others, make a player lose a turn, switch hands with someone, and more depending on their role in the game. The next round begins with whoever chose the king role, and play continues until a player has played 8 buildings. The value of the buildings played determines the winner. This is a great buy for a game, and we've already got a copy on the way. Easy to learn and play, with some solid strategy aspects.
-Andrew
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Getting Stoned
Stone Age that is! HA! Yeah, I know, that was a stretch. Forgive me please.
I've described Stone Age to friends as a good jumping off point from Settlers of Catan to the "next level" of gaming. One thing I love to do is teach new games to people, but if a person is a complete gaming newbie, I'm not going to try to overwhelm them with something like Power Grid right away. I think Settlers is a good starting point, and that from there, Stone Age is an easy transition.
We had only four show up for our gaming night last night, which opened up some underplayed options for games to rehash. I pulled the old Stone Age out of my trunk, and after a minor refresher course for the gang, we dove in. Here's my mini-review of a game that we don't play enough.
Stone Age: A Mini-Review of a Game That We Don't Play Enough
Game Summary
Stone Age is a 2-4 player game where players start with a tribe of five meeples, and take turns placing their meeples in different locations on the Stone Age map. Each location gives a different benefit, and some locations have limited space and can only be done by one player each round. The starting player for each round rotates.
The locations are: Farm (Increase food track by 1, making it easier to feed your meeples), Tool (Gain a tool making resource rolls easier), Hut (Increase population by 1), Hunt (Roll/2 for Food), Wood (Roll/3 for Wood), Brick (Roll/4 for Brick), Stone (Roll/5 for Stone), Gold (Roll/6 for Gold), Cards (1-4 Resources, immediate benefit and end game score benefit), and Buildings (Costs resources, immediate score benefit).
All locations can only be claimed by one player, save the resources. Up to seven meeples can be played on the Wood, Brick, Stone, and Gold locations, and any number of meeples can hunt.
As in most games, most points at the end of the game wins. The game ends when one stack of buildings is exhausted, or the deck of cards is exhausted.
Strategies
With a number of different ways to gain points comes a number of different ways to win. Primarily, players can either focus on end game bonuses via collecting cards (n^2 points for relic/picure cards, other multiplier bonuses for buildings, population, food track and tools), or on collecting resources and purchasing buildings for points.
The trick is to find a balance that works for your tribe, between taking the food track space, increasing population, and gathering resources. All while not needing to commit too many meeples over the course of the game to hunting to keep your population fed (An unfed population results in the loss of 10 victory points each turn).
The other trick is to get a little lucky on your rolls and buildings/cards flipped when it becomes your turn to play first. A well-timed flip of a 1-7 building or a x2/x3 end game multiplier card can be game swinging.
What's Worked for Me
The last couple of games I've played, I have not increased my population at all over the course of the game. I've noticed that players that do boost their tribe numbers have to worry far too much about farming and increasing the food track to benefit from other things that ultimately score better for them in the end.
Tools are extremely important, as they eliminate rolling waste, and allow a player to attempt taking multiple types of goods with little meeple placement commitment.
Also important early are the Dice Roll cards, which give the potential of getting a food track +1 or an additional tool. Good rolling for these cards can give a huge boost to a player, with the advantage going to whoever buys the card.
My first placement early game is generally food track, then tool or the 1-resource card depending on what it is. I would food track until I am only spending 1-2 food per turn to feed the population, which is only boosting it up by 3 - something very easily attainable.
When going for late game points, I try focus on one particular bonus that seems to be not as sought-after by the other players. Also, it is always important to stake a claim in buildings when you can, especially the 1-7 building, if only to prevent others from taking them.
Why I Don't Mind the Luck
Stone Age is a refreshing mixture of luck and decision making. Yes, you will get the occasional terrible roll and not get the stone you needed to buy your building. But, you could have likely ensured getting that stone by committing more meeples to it. Or by investing in tools earlier, or by choosing it instead of a gold on a card roll.
I enjoy what I call "weighted luck" in this game, because you can make your own luck based on the decisions you make. Sometimes, it's beneficial to play against the odds in hopes of a huge payoff. But if you do this, you know it's less likely to succeed.
The most important thing in Stone Age is to be flexible in your strategy early on, then once you've committed, focus on it hard. The end game tends to be a free-for-all building and card point grab, so be prepared for it. Diversify resources and grab some tools.
We should play this more often.
-Andrew
I've described Stone Age to friends as a good jumping off point from Settlers of Catan to the "next level" of gaming. One thing I love to do is teach new games to people, but if a person is a complete gaming newbie, I'm not going to try to overwhelm them with something like Power Grid right away. I think Settlers is a good starting point, and that from there, Stone Age is an easy transition.
We had only four show up for our gaming night last night, which opened up some underplayed options for games to rehash. I pulled the old Stone Age out of my trunk, and after a minor refresher course for the gang, we dove in. Here's my mini-review of a game that we don't play enough.
Stone Age: A Mini-Review of a Game That We Don't Play Enough
Game Summary
Stone Age is a 2-4 player game where players start with a tribe of five meeples, and take turns placing their meeples in different locations on the Stone Age map. Each location gives a different benefit, and some locations have limited space and can only be done by one player each round. The starting player for each round rotates.
The locations are: Farm (Increase food track by 1, making it easier to feed your meeples), Tool (Gain a tool making resource rolls easier), Hut (Increase population by 1), Hunt (Roll/2 for Food), Wood (Roll/3 for Wood), Brick (Roll/4 for Brick), Stone (Roll/5 for Stone), Gold (Roll/6 for Gold), Cards (1-4 Resources, immediate benefit and end game score benefit), and Buildings (Costs resources, immediate score benefit).
All locations can only be claimed by one player, save the resources. Up to seven meeples can be played on the Wood, Brick, Stone, and Gold locations, and any number of meeples can hunt.
As in most games, most points at the end of the game wins. The game ends when one stack of buildings is exhausted, or the deck of cards is exhausted.
Strategies
With a number of different ways to gain points comes a number of different ways to win. Primarily, players can either focus on end game bonuses via collecting cards (n^2 points for relic/picure cards, other multiplier bonuses for buildings, population, food track and tools), or on collecting resources and purchasing buildings for points.
The trick is to find a balance that works for your tribe, between taking the food track space, increasing population, and gathering resources. All while not needing to commit too many meeples over the course of the game to hunting to keep your population fed (An unfed population results in the loss of 10 victory points each turn).
The other trick is to get a little lucky on your rolls and buildings/cards flipped when it becomes your turn to play first. A well-timed flip of a 1-7 building or a x2/x3 end game multiplier card can be game swinging.
What's Worked for Me
The last couple of games I've played, I have not increased my population at all over the course of the game. I've noticed that players that do boost their tribe numbers have to worry far too much about farming and increasing the food track to benefit from other things that ultimately score better for them in the end.
Tools are extremely important, as they eliminate rolling waste, and allow a player to attempt taking multiple types of goods with little meeple placement commitment.
Also important early are the Dice Roll cards, which give the potential of getting a food track +1 or an additional tool. Good rolling for these cards can give a huge boost to a player, with the advantage going to whoever buys the card.
My first placement early game is generally food track, then tool or the 1-resource card depending on what it is. I would food track until I am only spending 1-2 food per turn to feed the population, which is only boosting it up by 3 - something very easily attainable.
When going for late game points, I try focus on one particular bonus that seems to be not as sought-after by the other players. Also, it is always important to stake a claim in buildings when you can, especially the 1-7 building, if only to prevent others from taking them.
Why I Don't Mind the Luck
Stone Age is a refreshing mixture of luck and decision making. Yes, you will get the occasional terrible roll and not get the stone you needed to buy your building. But, you could have likely ensured getting that stone by committing more meeples to it. Or by investing in tools earlier, or by choosing it instead of a gold on a card roll.
I enjoy what I call "weighted luck" in this game, because you can make your own luck based on the decisions you make. Sometimes, it's beneficial to play against the odds in hopes of a huge payoff. But if you do this, you know it's less likely to succeed.
The most important thing in Stone Age is to be flexible in your strategy early on, then once you've committed, focus on it hard. The end game tends to be a free-for-all building and card point grab, so be prepared for it. Diversify resources and grab some tools.
We should play this more often.
-Andrew
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Race for the Galaxy Card Submissions
So there is a contest for the Race for the Galaxy expansions where 2 player submitted cards will be chosen to be included in the next set. The most recent winners from Rebel vs. Imperium were Hidden Fortress and R&D Crash Program. I just shipped off these as my entries:
TERRAFORMING Upgrade Commission
Development: 3 Cost, 0 VP Value
II: May discard a development from your tableau to reduce the cost of playing a development in your hand by the discarded card's cost.
Example: A player has Mining Robots and Terraforming Upgrade Commission in play, and Merchant Guild in hand. During the develop phase, this player may discard Mining Robots to play Merchant Guild at a cost reduced by 2.
Note: May discard Terraforming Upgrade Commission itself from tableau to reduce a development's cost as well.
Robotic Mercenary World
Settlement: 3 Defense, 2 VP Value
III: May discard a settlement from your tableau to increase your military strength by the discarded card's defense/cost this turn.
Example: A player has Robotic Mercenary World and Avian Uplift Race in play, with Rebel Home World in hand. That player may discard Avian Uplift Race from their tableau during the Settle Phase and play Rebel Home World from his/her hand if their military strength is 5 or greater (as opposed to 7).
Note: May discard Robotic Mercenary World itself from tableau to reduce a military settlement's cost as well.
Interstellar Warehouse
Settlement: 3 Cost, 1 VP Value
Rare Goods Windfall Settlement
IV: May choose to not consume a good on this world this phase.
Galactic Expansionists
Development: 6 Cost, ? VP Value
II: Draw a card after placing a Development
III: Draw a card after placing a Settlement
End Game: 1VP/Development in your tableau OR 1VP/Settlement in your tableau
Note: Only one or the other may be chosen at game end. Not both.
Look for 'em in the next expansion :-)
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
The Humans Win!
So, playing Battlestar Galactica last night, the Humans won for the first time, with the resources handicapped in their favor by starting them all at maximum. All in all, it was still a close game, and while I believe the Cylons made some questionable decisions which helped the Humans' case, a lot of the luck elements tilted towards the Humans' favor as well. As an aside, without the handicaps, the Humans would have lost in 3 of the 4 resource categories prior to their final jump.
It is a bit of a relief to know that it isn't impossible for the Humans to win. I'm also a bit conflicted as to how I feel as I was the Cylon Sympathizer, playing for the Cylons in last night's game. Translation: I lost.
It seems, after playing as the Sympathizer for the first time, that playing as the Sympathizer can be likened to a drinking water duck toy.
As the Sympathizer, I was limited to basically 2 options as far as turn actions, and I believe using the Caprica action to be far more valuable than using Human Fleet each turn. So my turns were basically on auto-pilot for the 2nd half of the game. And to top it off, I don't get a Super Crisis!
We discussed after the game possibly finding a way to make the Sympathizer more fun while not skewing the game balance any more than it already is. Suggestions as far as how to accomplish this:
-Give the Sympathizer extra card drawing power, either at the start of his/her turn or during the Caprica action.
-Let the Sympathizer contribute more to skill checks
-Create entirely new actions for the Sympathizer to choose from each turn
-Give the Sympathizer a Super Crisis card, perhaps with restrictions on when it can be played
-Other
Of these, I like the first the most. Possibly letting the Sympathizer look at 3/4/5 cards when choosing one from the Crisis Deck when activating Caprica. Or, causing two crises with no choices involved could be an option.
Some brief musing for your Tuesday afternoon,
-Andrew
It is a bit of a relief to know that it isn't impossible for the Humans to win. I'm also a bit conflicted as to how I feel as I was the Cylon Sympathizer, playing for the Cylons in last night's game. Translation: I lost.
It seems, after playing as the Sympathizer for the first time, that playing as the Sympathizer can be likened to a drinking water duck toy.
As the Sympathizer, I was limited to basically 2 options as far as turn actions, and I believe using the Caprica action to be far more valuable than using Human Fleet each turn. So my turns were basically on auto-pilot for the 2nd half of the game. And to top it off, I don't get a Super Crisis!We discussed after the game possibly finding a way to make the Sympathizer more fun while not skewing the game balance any more than it already is. Suggestions as far as how to accomplish this:
-Give the Sympathizer extra card drawing power, either at the start of his/her turn or during the Caprica action.
-Let the Sympathizer contribute more to skill checks
-Create entirely new actions for the Sympathizer to choose from each turn
-Give the Sympathizer a Super Crisis card, perhaps with restrictions on when it can be played
-Other
Of these, I like the first the most. Possibly letting the Sympathizer look at 3/4/5 cards when choosing one from the Crisis Deck when activating Caprica. Or, causing two crises with no choices involved could be an option.
Some brief musing for your Tuesday afternoon,
-Andrew
Thursday, July 16, 2009
Wheeling and Dealing
Over the last couple of weeks, my game group has revived one of our old favorites in Bohnanza. For those unfamiliar, it is a trading and hand management game where the goal is to earn the most money. Beans of different rarities are sought after, planted and harvested for money, and the largest factor in acquiring beans is by making trades with the other players to get them. Also, "bohn" in German means bean, so the title is a bonus foreign pun. I LOVE FOREIGN PUNS!
Playing this again made think about trading as a general concept in games, and what makes one successful in these types of games. Without a doubt, one principle stands out more than any other regarding how to benefit the most. This is a law that I adhere to when playing trading games, and while it seems obvious, I think that most don't think about its effectiveness upfront. Here it is: Ready? Ok - Whoever is involved in the most trades, will win the game. Now, that's not to say that you should be making bad trades, because quantity over quality only gets you so far. Definitely whoever makes the most 1:1 trades (in a 3+ player game) will be in the best situation, because they have bettered their own situation more than the other players.
Example, using Bohnanza: In a 3 player game, you make a 1:1 trade with Player A, and each player makes a gold out of it. Then, you make another 1:1 trade with Player B, and each player makes a gold out of it. Result: Player A has 1 gold, Player B has 1 gold, you have 2 gold. Multiply this over the course of the game, and you should have the advantage.
So what's the best way to do this? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED HAHAHA. *Ahem - I think it's important to make a quality offer as quickly as possible, to stake your claim in the intangible trade market. This means you need to figure out in a hurry every turn what scenarios exist for a beneficial trade to all parties involved. Ideally, while other players are figuring out what works best for them, you will have already made a trade, and nullified theirs.
There are ways to beat this, such as other players drawing good enough cards that doesn't necessitate them trading, or by not having the right cards to trade to the other players.
However, for most all games I have played which use trading as a game mechanic (Settlers of Catan, Bohnanza, Pit, Wheedle, and Chinatown, I'm thinking of specifically), if you can quickly make a beneficial offer to a player or players, then the other players in the game miss out, making it easier for you to win in the long run.
Cheerio.
-Andrew
Playing this again made think about trading as a general concept in games, and what makes one successful in these types of games. Without a doubt, one principle stands out more than any other regarding how to benefit the most. This is a law that I adhere to when playing trading games, and while it seems obvious, I think that most don't think about its effectiveness upfront. Here it is: Ready? Ok - Whoever is involved in the most trades, will win the game. Now, that's not to say that you should be making bad trades, because quantity over quality only gets you so far. Definitely whoever makes the most 1:1 trades (in a 3+ player game) will be in the best situation, because they have bettered their own situation more than the other players.
Example, using Bohnanza: In a 3 player game, you make a 1:1 trade with Player A, and each player makes a gold out of it. Then, you make another 1:1 trade with Player B, and each player makes a gold out of it. Result: Player A has 1 gold, Player B has 1 gold, you have 2 gold. Multiply this over the course of the game, and you should have the advantage.
So what's the best way to do this? I'M GLAD YOU ASKED HAHAHA. *Ahem - I think it's important to make a quality offer as quickly as possible, to stake your claim in the intangible trade market. This means you need to figure out in a hurry every turn what scenarios exist for a beneficial trade to all parties involved. Ideally, while other players are figuring out what works best for them, you will have already made a trade, and nullified theirs.
There are ways to beat this, such as other players drawing good enough cards that doesn't necessitate them trading, or by not having the right cards to trade to the other players.
However, for most all games I have played which use trading as a game mechanic (Settlers of Catan, Bohnanza, Pit, Wheedle, and Chinatown, I'm thinking of specifically), if you can quickly make a beneficial offer to a player or players, then the other players in the game miss out, making it easier for you to win in the long run.
Cheerio.
-Andrew
Monday, July 13, 2009
More Thoughts from My Grey Brain...
...regarding the new Race for the Galaxy expansion. When last we spoke, I said I was going to mention a few individual cards that were helped by the new additions. Here's my top 4, because nobody does a top 4, and I feel like I'm being mildly original. WITHOUT FURTHER ADO:
Top 4 Improved Cards:
1. Colony Ship/Doomed World - The addition of the Gene Designers and the Imperium Blaster Gem Consortium cards give these two more very valid and otherwise expensive production targets. A quick drop of one of these or one of the three existing Five-cost production worlds can be huge.
2. Interstellar Bank/Investment Credits - As I did mention in the last post, developing got a huge boost in this expansion, and as part of that, these cheap developments that promote developing are now more sought after than before. These both combine with R&D Crash Program to pump out an early 6-cost development. Interstellar Bank also doubles up on the development draw if you start with the new Galactic Developers start world. Also, and perhaps best of all, both are bonus points for the Galactic Bankers development. Especially with the new "first to 8" goal, there is definite potential for a more-focused developing strategy than before.
3. Diversified Economy - Just with the addition of the Galactic Exchange development, this gives players a new reason to consider diversification. Part of the problem before for DE, is that there weren't always enough consume powers to take advantage of. Galactic Exchange fixes this in a big way, and lets you drop a 13 point end-game bonus, as well as gives the ability to draw even more cards.
4. Aquatic, Avian, and Reptilian Uplift Race - Also known as the 2/2 green military windfalls. They were joined in this expansion by the Insect Uplift Race, to make a total of 4. More importantly, they are easier to play early now, which can be a huge springboard for a military player to find what they need. The expansion brought 6 ways of cost 3 or less to increase military by at least 1, and the Rebel Cantina start world which lets a player drop it as a regular settlement. Also, with the introduction of the Uplift Code development, Genes players have 3 huge end-game target buildings to search for.
The astute among you will notice that my top 4 actually included 8 cards. Don't tell anyone I did this, it's a secret.
That's it for now - join me next time when odds are less that I will be again discussing this game.
-Andrew
Top 4 Improved Cards:
1. Colony Ship/Doomed World - The addition of the Gene Designers and the Imperium Blaster Gem Consortium cards give these two more very valid and otherwise expensive production targets. A quick drop of one of these or one of the three existing Five-cost production worlds can be huge.
2. Interstellar Bank/Investment Credits - As I did mention in the last post, developing got a huge boost in this expansion, and as part of that, these cheap developments that promote developing are now more sought after than before. These both combine with R&D Crash Program to pump out an early 6-cost development. Interstellar Bank also doubles up on the development draw if you start with the new Galactic Developers start world. Also, and perhaps best of all, both are bonus points for the Galactic Bankers development. Especially with the new "first to 8" goal, there is definite potential for a more-focused developing strategy than before.
3. Diversified Economy - Just with the addition of the Galactic Exchange development, this gives players a new reason to consider diversification. Part of the problem before for DE, is that there weren't always enough consume powers to take advantage of. Galactic Exchange fixes this in a big way, and lets you drop a 13 point end-game bonus, as well as gives the ability to draw even more cards.
4. Aquatic, Avian, and Reptilian Uplift Race - Also known as the 2/2 green military windfalls. They were joined in this expansion by the Insect Uplift Race, to make a total of 4. More importantly, they are easier to play early now, which can be a huge springboard for a military player to find what they need. The expansion brought 6 ways of cost 3 or less to increase military by at least 1, and the Rebel Cantina start world which lets a player drop it as a regular settlement. Also, with the introduction of the Uplift Code development, Genes players have 3 huge end-game target buildings to search for.
The astute among you will notice that my top 4 actually included 8 cards. Don't tell anyone I did this, it's a secret.
That's it for now - join me next time when odds are less that I will be again discussing this game.
-Andrew
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Race for the Galaxy: Rebel vs. Imperium - First Reactions
As the game my gaming group plays most often, I had high hopes for this, the 2nd expansion of the base set for Race for the Galaxy. I have played a handful of times, and only the two-player version thusfar, but I wanted to share some initial thoughts, as well as cards that seemed to improve with this expansion.
First, I think developing in general has improved significantly. With the new start world (Galactic Developers) that comes with the Interstellar Bank power of drawing a card on develop, as well as two new six-cost developments which improve the phase (Galactic Bankers & Pan-Galactic Research), and most of all - the R&D Crash Program, developing can get out of hand in a hurry. For example, in the 2nd game I played with the new cards, I was able to pair Investment Credits with a Crash Programmed Galactic Federation, and paired that with Pan Galactic Research the following turn. This enabled me to develop 6-costs for 1 measly card, and my last 7 plays were 6 cost developments (Final Score: 85!). Granted a lot of things had to go right for this to happen, but it was still indicative of the new increased power of developing.
Military has obviously been buffed, as there are tons of new cheap ways to get out early military. Most notably, the two start worlds (Imperium Warlord & Rebel Cantina) allow for military acceleration, and the Mercenary Fleet development can easily put a military player to the power they need to be for the rest of the game. In our group, the most sought after cards seemed to be Space Marines and Drop Ships for the military accelleration. This expansion adds 10 cards that boost military at a cost of 3 or less. Also the two new military six-cost developments are very powerful as end game targets, especially paired with any of the existing military six costers.
My first reaction to the "takeover" mode of the game is that it is cumbersome and takes away from some of the elegance the game has which makes it so appealing. This is just a gut reaction as I haven't personally tried it. All in all, I like what I've seen thusfar, and am looking forward to some game plays with a group of 3+.
MORE TO COME. I SWEAR.
-Andrew
First, I think developing in general has improved significantly. With the new start world (Galactic Developers) that comes with the Interstellar Bank power of drawing a card on develop, as well as two new six-cost developments which improve the phase (Galactic Bankers & Pan-Galactic Research), and most of all - the R&D Crash Program, developing can get out of hand in a hurry. For example, in the 2nd game I played with the new cards, I was able to pair Investment Credits with a Crash Programmed Galactic Federation, and paired that with Pan Galactic Research the following turn. This enabled me to develop 6-costs for 1 measly card, and my last 7 plays were 6 cost developments (Final Score: 85!). Granted a lot of things had to go right for this to happen, but it was still indicative of the new increased power of developing.
Military has obviously been buffed, as there are tons of new cheap ways to get out early military. Most notably, the two start worlds (Imperium Warlord & Rebel Cantina) allow for military acceleration, and the Mercenary Fleet development can easily put a military player to the power they need to be for the rest of the game. In our group, the most sought after cards seemed to be Space Marines and Drop Ships for the military accelleration. This expansion adds 10 cards that boost military at a cost of 3 or less. Also the two new military six-cost developments are very powerful as end game targets, especially paired with any of the existing military six costers.
My first reaction to the "takeover" mode of the game is that it is cumbersome and takes away from some of the elegance the game has which makes it so appealing. This is just a gut reaction as I haven't personally tried it. All in all, I like what I've seen thusfar, and am looking forward to some game plays with a group of 3+.
MORE TO COME. I SWEAR.
-Andrew
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Clue Deux
So my friend Chris texted me yesterday with a mission. He said, "Reinvent the game Clue so it's fun." For a long time, I had a grudge against Clue myself, as I tended to play with my sister, and she has a knack for getting the exact answer right on the first guess of the game two games in a row... WHAT ARE THE ODDS?! *Ahem - ok, I'm better now. Anyway, for multiple reasons, I decided to give it some thought, and here's a variant I came up with late yesterday.
Clue Deux
-Rules of the original Clue apply unless specifically stated otherwise here.
-Before the game, randomly deal out a weapon card to each player. Players take the weapon token. This is their starting weapon for the game. Collect the weapon cards, and distribute hands as in the original game.
-On your turn, after movement, you may attack another player if you are in the same room, or one square away orthagonically from each other on the game board. Movement and weapon effects are determined by a two six-sided dice roll, rather than one used in the original Clue.
Attacking a player:
-When attacking a player, roll two six-sided dice.
9-12 = Sneak Attack - Look at a random card from that player's hand, and your weapon effect occurs on them.
5-8 = Hard Fight - Each player looks at a random card from the other's hand, and each weapon effect happens to the other.
2-4 = Clumsy Attack - You reveal a card at random to the other player, and their weapon effect happens to you.
-Weapon effects:
Revolver - Player is sent back to their start square. (Dies)
Candlestick - Roll the dice. Move the player the number shown on the roll. (Burned)
Knife - Player's next movement roll is halved. (Stabbed)
Rope - Player cannot accuse next turn. (Choked)
Lead Pipe - Room cannot be entered or left until your next turn, except by secret passage. (Bar the door)
Wrench - Player loses a turn. (Unconscious)
-After each attack, exchange your weapon with the other player's weapon.
-As noted, all other rules for the original Clue still apply, and the ultimate goal is to deduce who committed the murder, where and with what. Players may still only accuse the room in which they are standing, and accusations still move other players' tokens to that room.
So, that's what I came up with on short notice. Thoughts?
-Andrew
Clue Deux
-Rules of the original Clue apply unless specifically stated otherwise here.
-Before the game, randomly deal out a weapon card to each player. Players take the weapon token. This is their starting weapon for the game. Collect the weapon cards, and distribute hands as in the original game.
-On your turn, after movement, you may attack another player if you are in the same room, or one square away orthagonically from each other on the game board. Movement and weapon effects are determined by a two six-sided dice roll, rather than one used in the original Clue.
Attacking a player:
-When attacking a player, roll two six-sided dice.
9-12 = Sneak Attack - Look at a random card from that player's hand, and your weapon effect occurs on them.
5-8 = Hard Fight - Each player looks at a random card from the other's hand, and each weapon effect happens to the other.
2-4 = Clumsy Attack - You reveal a card at random to the other player, and their weapon effect happens to you.
-Weapon effects:
Revolver - Player is sent back to their start square. (Dies)
Candlestick - Roll the dice. Move the player the number shown on the roll. (Burned)
Knife - Player's next movement roll is halved. (Stabbed)
Rope - Player cannot accuse next turn. (Choked)
Lead Pipe - Room cannot be entered or left until your next turn, except by secret passage. (Bar the door)
Wrench - Player loses a turn. (Unconscious)
-After each attack, exchange your weapon with the other player's weapon.
-As noted, all other rules for the original Clue still apply, and the ultimate goal is to deduce who committed the murder, where and with what. Players may still only accuse the room in which they are standing, and accusations still move other players' tokens to that room.
So, that's what I came up with on short notice. Thoughts?
-Andrew
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Battlestar Galactica - The Board Game: A Five-Play Review
The latest addition to my burgeoning game collection, Battlestar Galactica came highly recommended to my by several other gamer friends. After several plays with varying numbers of players and groups, there are things that I enjoy about the game, and things that aren't so great.
A brief summary of the game:
The humans are trying to travel to a location called Kobol, and the Cylons, their robotic enemies, are trying to thwart them by any means necessary. Players are assigned secret roles at the game's beginning and again at the game's midpoint, which determines which side they are playing for. Distance travelled and staying alive are the objectives for the human side, but the Cylons can take them down by eliminating any one of a number of necessities such as food, fuel, morale, population, by boarding the ship and destroying it from within, or by destroying the ship from outside attacks. Human players also have to combat other crises every turn which affect their resources.
First, the positive. It is a unique game, in that it is mostly co-operative, but incorporates an element of Mafia where one or two players' objectives could be different from the group or change to be different over the course of the game. It's Pandemic meets Mafia, and the air of suspicion instantly present from the start until all Cylons are revealed is something I haven't experienced playing any other board game.
The game is well designed, in that there is an impending sense of danger at all times, and a clear, Cylon-free board can turn around into a disaster zone in an instant. Being a fan of the show, I think the creators of the game did a very nice job representing the same sensations found throughout the series.
Now the negative. It's really, really hard to win if you're a human. Even though in most scenarios, the Cylons are going to be outnumbered, they have a great deal more power in that they can decide to focus on a particular resource to eradicate the humans. In the games we've played, it's been almost impossible to come back after a Blue, Cylon ships appear and attack regular crisis card doubled with a revealed Cylon's super crisis.
Secondly, while the game box says the game plays 3-6 players, ignore it. It should read "5-6 players, unless you want someone to be bored." Only with five or six are there two Cylons in the game. Of the five games I have played, one has been with four players, two with five and two with six. All except one (potentially tainted) game has gone in favor of the Cylons, and it was likely only due to the fact that no Cylon role cards were dealt out until the midpoint of the game, giving the humans a huge head start. With four players, only one Cylon role card is dealt, and from what I was told and witnessed, it's simply not fun to play this game on a team by yourself, even though she did win (grumble grumble).
Third, it's a long, long game. Our games have averaged about 3 hours each, so it's quite a comittment to start a game, especially knowing the Cylons have a large advantage. Perhaps the game will balance while we continue to discover other strategies for the humans, but we have begun to crank the resources up for the humans. The last game was +2 for population and fuel, and +1 for morale and food, and the Cylons still won. Hopefully, more tweaking will find the right balance for our game group.
Despite the bad, I still really enjoy this game. It's just the right mixture of luck, deceipt, using your cards right, manipulation, and socialization to make it worthwhile. It will likely be a go-to staple for our group for quite a while, or until we've thrown it off the roof in frustration.
-Andrew
A brief summary of the game:
The humans are trying to travel to a location called Kobol, and the Cylons, their robotic enemies, are trying to thwart them by any means necessary. Players are assigned secret roles at the game's beginning and again at the game's midpoint, which determines which side they are playing for. Distance travelled and staying alive are the objectives for the human side, but the Cylons can take them down by eliminating any one of a number of necessities such as food, fuel, morale, population, by boarding the ship and destroying it from within, or by destroying the ship from outside attacks. Human players also have to combat other crises every turn which affect their resources.
First, the positive. It is a unique game, in that it is mostly co-operative, but incorporates an element of Mafia where one or two players' objectives could be different from the group or change to be different over the course of the game. It's Pandemic meets Mafia, and the air of suspicion instantly present from the start until all Cylons are revealed is something I haven't experienced playing any other board game.
The game is well designed, in that there is an impending sense of danger at all times, and a clear, Cylon-free board can turn around into a disaster zone in an instant. Being a fan of the show, I think the creators of the game did a very nice job representing the same sensations found throughout the series.
Now the negative. It's really, really hard to win if you're a human. Even though in most scenarios, the Cylons are going to be outnumbered, they have a great deal more power in that they can decide to focus on a particular resource to eradicate the humans. In the games we've played, it's been almost impossible to come back after a Blue, Cylon ships appear and attack regular crisis card doubled with a revealed Cylon's super crisis.
Secondly, while the game box says the game plays 3-6 players, ignore it. It should read "5-6 players, unless you want someone to be bored." Only with five or six are there two Cylons in the game. Of the five games I have played, one has been with four players, two with five and two with six. All except one (potentially tainted) game has gone in favor of the Cylons, and it was likely only due to the fact that no Cylon role cards were dealt out until the midpoint of the game, giving the humans a huge head start. With four players, only one Cylon role card is dealt, and from what I was told and witnessed, it's simply not fun to play this game on a team by yourself, even though she did win (grumble grumble).
Third, it's a long, long game. Our games have averaged about 3 hours each, so it's quite a comittment to start a game, especially knowing the Cylons have a large advantage. Perhaps the game will balance while we continue to discover other strategies for the humans, but we have begun to crank the resources up for the humans. The last game was +2 for population and fuel, and +1 for morale and food, and the Cylons still won. Hopefully, more tweaking will find the right balance for our game group.
Despite the bad, I still really enjoy this game. It's just the right mixture of luck, deceipt, using your cards right, manipulation, and socialization to make it worthwhile. It will likely be a go-to staple for our group for quite a while, or until we've thrown it off the roof in frustration.
-Andrew
Sunday, June 28, 2009
The Luck Factor
One of the most heavily debated topics in my own personal game group is about the value that luck has in the games we play. I've considered myself for many years to be a strategy man, but am coming around to the idea that luck not only is important when gaming with a group, but it's necessary. That said, there are different levels and types of luck when it comes to games. The most important and prevalent types are:
1. Dice Rolling
Dice to me can make or break the fun factor of a game. If overused, then the game becomes less fun for competitive players. The best example I can think of in which dice are overused is the Risk series of games. Risk, in theory, is a good game. In practice, it comes down to whoever was able to defy the odds for the longest, or whoever rolls the most sixes. This is a problem in this game because it freaking takes forever. Dice rolling, and luck in general is best suited to games that don't require a heavy time commitment. That way, if someone got completely hosed by the dice, they can either play again and try for better rolls, or leave the room to punch a pillow.
2. Card/Tile Drawing
In most games, there will likely be either cards or dice, and the rolls you make or the cards you draw can determine who is in a better situation to win. Cards and tiles are generally less invasive to strategy, as there is almost always a decision to be made with whatever you have drawn, whereas dice are cold and unforgiving. Again, if a game is entirely about the cards drawn, it, at least personally, detracts from the enjoyment I'm going to get out of a game.
3. Turn order
This is something that people rarely think of when sitting down to play a casual game, but can greatly affect one's ability to win a game. If turn order is random, and you sit after someone who makes great decisions, then it's going to be tougher for you to capitalize. This is something I've noticed when playing multiplayer games of Scrabble, among other games. I can do everything in my power to not set up the person after me, but if it's a three player game, I have no control over what the person to my left does. They could perfectly set up the person to my right, and as a result, I could lose every game that way. For this reason, especially if gaming with a group that has varying levels of game experience, that turn order should ideally be randomized. However, this is not often practical, and people seem to have an aversion to leaving their chosen chair behind.
I feel that a good game has about 75-80% strategy or decision-making, and 20-25% luck. As my girlfriend recently pointed out to me, it is important to know that going into a game, anyone has a chance of winning, otherwise - what's the point? I once saw a graph which ranked some games as where they fall in the Luck vs. Strategy realm, I'll try to recreate my own version here:
This is again, incomplete and subject to some opinion, but I tend to gravitate toward the center of the graph as far as games that I find most fun to play. My favorites here are Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, Settlers of Catan, and Scrabble. That said, there are aspects of all of these (and most every existing game ever) that I enjoy and respect the value of.
Also, it is fair to point out that there are plenty of games that require other characteristics to be successful such as speed/dexterity, creativity, relationships etc. These are the Pictionaries, Craniums, and Apples to Apples' of the world, which are all in their own right great games and I thoroughly enjoy as well.
Hopefully this can be used as a tool for discussion and debate, and to define perhaps where your own tastes lie.
Hugs and kisses.
-Andrew
1. Dice Rolling
Dice to me can make or break the fun factor of a game. If overused, then the game becomes less fun for competitive players. The best example I can think of in which dice are overused is the Risk series of games. Risk, in theory, is a good game. In practice, it comes down to whoever was able to defy the odds for the longest, or whoever rolls the most sixes. This is a problem in this game because it freaking takes forever. Dice rolling, and luck in general is best suited to games that don't require a heavy time commitment. That way, if someone got completely hosed by the dice, they can either play again and try for better rolls, or leave the room to punch a pillow.
2. Card/Tile Drawing
In most games, there will likely be either cards or dice, and the rolls you make or the cards you draw can determine who is in a better situation to win. Cards and tiles are generally less invasive to strategy, as there is almost always a decision to be made with whatever you have drawn, whereas dice are cold and unforgiving. Again, if a game is entirely about the cards drawn, it, at least personally, detracts from the enjoyment I'm going to get out of a game.
3. Turn order
This is something that people rarely think of when sitting down to play a casual game, but can greatly affect one's ability to win a game. If turn order is random, and you sit after someone who makes great decisions, then it's going to be tougher for you to capitalize. This is something I've noticed when playing multiplayer games of Scrabble, among other games. I can do everything in my power to not set up the person after me, but if it's a three player game, I have no control over what the person to my left does. They could perfectly set up the person to my right, and as a result, I could lose every game that way. For this reason, especially if gaming with a group that has varying levels of game experience, that turn order should ideally be randomized. However, this is not often practical, and people seem to have an aversion to leaving their chosen chair behind.
I feel that a good game has about 75-80% strategy or decision-making, and 20-25% luck. As my girlfriend recently pointed out to me, it is important to know that going into a game, anyone has a chance of winning, otherwise - what's the point? I once saw a graph which ranked some games as where they fall in the Luck vs. Strategy realm, I'll try to recreate my own version here:
This is again, incomplete and subject to some opinion, but I tend to gravitate toward the center of the graph as far as games that I find most fun to play. My favorites here are Puerto Rico, Race for the Galaxy, Settlers of Catan, and Scrabble. That said, there are aspects of all of these (and most every existing game ever) that I enjoy and respect the value of.
Also, it is fair to point out that there are plenty of games that require other characteristics to be successful such as speed/dexterity, creativity, relationships etc. These are the Pictionaries, Craniums, and Apples to Apples' of the world, which are all in their own right great games and I thoroughly enjoy as well.
Hopefully this can be used as a tool for discussion and debate, and to define perhaps where your own tastes lie.
Hugs and kisses.
-Andrew
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Introduction
*Reads newspaper
Oh, hi there! I didn't see you come in. My name is Andrew, and the intention of this blog is to discuss one of my favorite subjects: games.
To give a brief background on your humble blogger: I might be what you would call, an "addict" when it comes to gaming. In one form or another, like many others, I've been playing games my entire life. This has progressed from "mainstream" board games like Scrabble and Monopoly, to video games on PC and console, to more obscure board games like Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy.
It's safe to say that games, especially board games, are the most widely available outlet for competitive socialization. This two word phrase which I may have just coined, succinctly describes why my personality attaches to board games as a primary hobby. I like competition. I like socialization. I'd bet that there aren't many people who game that don't like both. As a result, the people in my life have become avid gamers as well, and we hold a game night once or twice a week.
So, again, using this site as an outlet, I will attempt to provide an analysis of all things game (It's the subtitle! Tying it all together, oh yeah.) which will range from game reviews, of both old and new favorites, some game theory discussion, some tips and tricks, and general rants!
Please feel free to comment, as I'd prefer this a collaborative site, and if there are any requests or suggestions, bring 'em on.
Coming soon: POST TWO: Return of the Lost Ark
Oh, hi there! I didn't see you come in. My name is Andrew, and the intention of this blog is to discuss one of my favorite subjects: games.
To give a brief background on your humble blogger: I might be what you would call, an "addict" when it comes to gaming. In one form or another, like many others, I've been playing games my entire life. This has progressed from "mainstream" board games like Scrabble and Monopoly, to video games on PC and console, to more obscure board games like Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy.
It's safe to say that games, especially board games, are the most widely available outlet for competitive socialization. This two word phrase which I may have just coined, succinctly describes why my personality attaches to board games as a primary hobby. I like competition. I like socialization. I'd bet that there aren't many people who game that don't like both. As a result, the people in my life have become avid gamers as well, and we hold a game night once or twice a week.
So, again, using this site as an outlet, I will attempt to provide an analysis of all things game (It's the subtitle! Tying it all together, oh yeah.) which will range from game reviews, of both old and new favorites, some game theory discussion, some tips and tricks, and general rants!
Please feel free to comment, as I'd prefer this a collaborative site, and if there are any requests or suggestions, bring 'em on.
Coming soon: POST TWO: Return of the Lost Ark
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
