Despite a weekend mostly without gaming. I have managed to play both Gobblet and PÜNCT since I bought them last week. Gobblet was against the kid. I found that if I made a stupid mistake he would beat me, but if I kept the game going for a while I could beat him. I just needed to present enough threats across the centre of the board that sooner or later he would get confused and reveal one of my swallowed pieces to set me up for the win. It's an OK game.
I got out PÜNCT last night against the brother-in-law. I didn't really know what to expect, and at first we made a mistake, allowing ourselves to place from the hand to on top of other pieces, which isn't right and isn't as interesting as the real rules. So I figured out that when I place a piece that is reaching for the edge, I need to align its pünct so that it can later be brought in to defend the centre of the board as well. I found that brother-in-law was good at getting into an attacking position, but I was good at defending. In one game I held him off and was able to cross the board in the confusion; in the next game I held him off until he made a stupid mistake; and in the third I missed a move he could make and he beat me. PÜNCT is a very different game from GIPF, YINSH and DVONN, and I'll have to play more. I think I like it, but probably not as much as GIPF.
By the way, I got to play Cathedral during the week. It's very very simple, and plays something like a puzzle that the two players are macking for each other. I cramped my opponent for room, and looked like blocking off a large territory for myself, but he invaded and made it a small territory. Still, it was enough to win. I'm not sure whether I'd play it too many times in a row, but the kid might play against me. I think I'd have to get Cathedral World, because it looks so nice.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
GIPF for Dummies like me
I really really really like GIPF. However as there is nobody in my household who is willing to play it, or would be much chop if they did, I downloaded GF1 (GIPF for 1) during the week. It's very nice. I have only been playing the basic game so far, and I beat it on level 1 (i.e. I was conscious). However I can't yet beat it on level 2. It goes up to level 9. That means I am not very good at GIPF. It seems to me that this is a game you can get very very good at, and I am just a beginner. I went to the 'geek today to read strategy articles, and there are none. That means that this one that I am about to write is the best I can find :-). Expert that I am!
So the edges of the board are 4 pieces long, the diameter is 7. That means that you cannot capture on the edges, all you can do is weaken your board position. In the second row (length 5) you can capture one piece, in the third row you can capture two, and across the centre you can potentially capture three pieces. If you have a piece on the very centre point, you cannot lose it (while it remains there), so that single point defends all of the longest rows. I think that means the centre point is important. I suspect the points around the centre are nearly as important, so I am guessing that the heart of the game is a struggle for control of the centre.
Consequently, one strategy would be to get your pieces into the centre of the board while denying your opponent that privilege. As you can only place pieces on the outside of the board, and making long chains of pieces reaching into the centre of the board will just get you taken off, you want your opponent to help push you into the middle of the board. I don't know how you coerce him to do that. In any case, you want your opponent to be in the middle of the board with you to prevent you from having rows of 4 when you don't want them.
Having the most pieces on the board seems to be an advantage as well. If you have more pieces, you have more opportunities to capture your opponent. If you can find a move which allows you to force your opponent to remove 4 pieces from the board, do it, as you'll have relatively more pieces to be working with. His will go back to the outside and they might end up pushing you into the centre. I notice that when your opponent captures you, he removes 4 pieces from the board and you lose fewer than that. I wonder if sacrifices might be useful for improving board position?
Hmm, can't think of any more brilliant ideas at the moment. Don't make mistakes. I spent several games smacking myself in the forehead as I made blunder after blunder which allowed the computer to demolish me. The game is more fun if you don't do that (make the blunders). It's really only once you get past that that you can think about how to exert any pressure on the opponent, as you'll have so few pieces on the board you won't be able to attack anyway.
Anyway, the author of GF1 asks for a postcard if you like his work. I think I'll send him one.
So the edges of the board are 4 pieces long, the diameter is 7. That means that you cannot capture on the edges, all you can do is weaken your board position. In the second row (length 5) you can capture one piece, in the third row you can capture two, and across the centre you can potentially capture three pieces. If you have a piece on the very centre point, you cannot lose it (while it remains there), so that single point defends all of the longest rows. I think that means the centre point is important. I suspect the points around the centre are nearly as important, so I am guessing that the heart of the game is a struggle for control of the centre.
Consequently, one strategy would be to get your pieces into the centre of the board while denying your opponent that privilege. As you can only place pieces on the outside of the board, and making long chains of pieces reaching into the centre of the board will just get you taken off, you want your opponent to help push you into the middle of the board. I don't know how you coerce him to do that. In any case, you want your opponent to be in the middle of the board with you to prevent you from having rows of 4 when you don't want them.
Having the most pieces on the board seems to be an advantage as well. If you have more pieces, you have more opportunities to capture your opponent. If you can find a move which allows you to force your opponent to remove 4 pieces from the board, do it, as you'll have relatively more pieces to be working with. His will go back to the outside and they might end up pushing you into the centre. I notice that when your opponent captures you, he removes 4 pieces from the board and you lose fewer than that. I wonder if sacrifices might be useful for improving board position?
Hmm, can't think of any more brilliant ideas at the moment. Don't make mistakes. I spent several games smacking myself in the forehead as I made blunder after blunder which allowed the computer to demolish me. The game is more fun if you don't do that (make the blunders). It's really only once you get past that that you can think about how to exert any pressure on the opponent, as you'll have so few pieces on the board you won't be able to attack anyway.
Anyway, the author of GF1 asks for a postcard if you like his work. I think I'll send him one.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Also on order
Woohoo, payday! Monthly pays were introduced late last year, and have seriously disrupted by game buying abilities. Luckily, most of the impulse buying I could do at local shops got done then, and now I am left with a long list of items that I know I want and need to plan to purchase. Today was payday, and time for some shopping.
First stop was at Milsims, where I ordered Arkham Horror (with the intention of playing it solo, in general) and Frank's Zoo (with the intention of playing it with my family, as my wife likes card games). I considered Dogville, but I am not really clear whether Boulder is sending that on the slow boat from Colorado, so I didn't get it just yet. It may not be the sort of game you'd like, and maybe not even me, but we do have a very good dog and the kids (my kid, my niece, my nephew) are consequently into dogs, and I think they will enjoy it.
Next stop was to the FLGS, Presents of Mind at Paddington. The lady there is always very helpful, and doesn't mind my obscure questions. Have you got Zertz yet? Have you heard of Cannon? Do you ever sell Kahuna? How much for Railroad Tycoo... oh my goodness feel how much that weighs! Unlike many other games shops I have been to, they seem to be interested in their games and are interested in finding other games which sell. I could buy the same stuff cheaper on-line, but choose not to. Anyway, today's purchase was Pünct and Gobblet. When my kid and I were there last payday, we tried out Gobblet and decided we had to have it. I wanted Zertz instead of Punct, but as they still didn't have it I chose the member of the Gipf project that I knew least about and bought that. Other games they have that I am thinking of for next payday are Dvonn, Yinsh, Cathedral, and if they have it, Blokus Duo. I'll buy Blokus Duo and leave it in the car for those emergency situations where you need a game.
The other order that I am waiting for is C&C Ancients, which GMT kindly sent to me very slowly for a very low price. Hope the guys on the boat have put the stickers on for me.
Hmm, a month till next payday. It seems so far.
Edit: I forgot, I have Return of the Heroes on its way from Boulder Games as well. The kid likes Talisman, I like Runebound 2e, and RotH might be a mid-way point. In any case, it looks very very nice, and I like the idea of the quests.
First stop was at Milsims, where I ordered Arkham Horror (with the intention of playing it solo, in general) and Frank's Zoo (with the intention of playing it with my family, as my wife likes card games). I considered Dogville, but I am not really clear whether Boulder is sending that on the slow boat from Colorado, so I didn't get it just yet. It may not be the sort of game you'd like, and maybe not even me, but we do have a very good dog and the kids (my kid, my niece, my nephew) are consequently into dogs, and I think they will enjoy it.
Next stop was to the FLGS, Presents of Mind at Paddington. The lady there is always very helpful, and doesn't mind my obscure questions. Have you got Zertz yet? Have you heard of Cannon? Do you ever sell Kahuna? How much for Railroad Tycoo... oh my goodness feel how much that weighs! Unlike many other games shops I have been to, they seem to be interested in their games and are interested in finding other games which sell. I could buy the same stuff cheaper on-line, but choose not to. Anyway, today's purchase was Pünct and Gobblet. When my kid and I were there last payday, we tried out Gobblet and decided we had to have it. I wanted Zertz instead of Punct, but as they still didn't have it I chose the member of the Gipf project that I knew least about and bought that. Other games they have that I am thinking of for next payday are Dvonn, Yinsh, Cathedral, and if they have it, Blokus Duo. I'll buy Blokus Duo and leave it in the car for those emergency situations where you need a game.
The other order that I am waiting for is C&C Ancients, which GMT kindly sent to me very slowly for a very low price. Hope the guys on the boat have put the stickers on for me.
Hmm, a month till next payday. It seems so far.
Edit: I forgot, I have Return of the Heroes on its way from Boulder Games as well. The kid likes Talisman, I like Runebound 2e, and RotH might be a mid-way point. In any case, it looks very very nice, and I like the idea of the quests.
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
I was talking to Cyberkev today, who, despite being an intelligent man, says he can't understand my taste in games. He accused me of being a game snob (correctly!) yet wanting games like Munchkin (correct). "Does not compute" for Cyberkev, which I guess just goes to show that I'm a complex individual, which I would have thought that a secret master would understand. Hmm, hang on, my wife doesn't understand and she's known me 12 years, why should Cyberkev have me figured out? Anyway, my theory is that I have different aspects to my personality. Freud thought that too.
I suspect the largest influence on my gaming is what Freud would have called the id: the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. The id wants to play Domaine, Tikal, Gipf, Through the Desert, Vinci, Euphrat & Tigris and For Sale. The id wants severely hard games that keep me thinking. These are usually my top-rated games.
Then there's the ego: the ego understands that other people have needs and desires. That leads me to games that are more fun in the traditional sense, such as Mystery of the Abbey, Amazonas, Shadows Over Camelot, Wyatt Earp, Pick Picknic and Pirate's Cove. I will play these games and enjoy them, but they're not particularly mentally challenging and they don't satisfy the primeval needs of the id. However due to the availability of opponents they get played more often. These games can rate quite highly, and provide some sort of satisfaction. Mystery of the Abbey, Amazonas and Pirate's Cove also feed some magpie instinct in me as well, but Freud didn't mention magpies so I am not sure how to address that issue.
Finally, there's the superego: the superego is the moral part of us nd develops due to the moral and ethical restraints placed on us by our caregivers. My superego wants me to play games that others want to play. As I have a 9yo son, that includes Goosebumps games, but also games like Munchkin, Hex Hex, Sitting Duck Gallery, Zombies, Once Upon a Time and Bang!. These sorts of games get played as little as I can manage, but all the dads out there will recognise that any time spent with their kids having fun is a good time. These games are for when you're playing with little people, or non-gamers, or people whom you just want to be around without wasting your life drinking and gossiping. And of course, unless your kid understands the strategies behind Munchkin, he'll never be any good at Diplomacy.
So on to the extraordinary vanity and irreverence... The id games satisfy the holy ghost, that thing inside of me that is me. Daniel Dennett calls it the homonculus, in the process of explaining that it doesn't exist. The superego games satisfy the father in me, giving me a chance to interact with and educate those not yet ready for Tikal. And the ego games let me play nicely with others, like a good son. I'm not going to claim that I really *am* God, readers can decide that for themselves :-).
Of course, there are many games I have played solely with the intention of finding which category they belonged in. There are some games which even the superego can't deal with. My quest to find the perfect games group is a quest to find players whose id games match my id games, so that after a session we feel that no matter who won or lost, something great was achieved. Is that possible? I don't know. But it's a dream worth dreaming.
References: Psychology 101, homonculus
I suspect the largest influence on my gaming is what Freud would have called the id: the id wants whatever feels good at the time, with no consideration for the reality of the situation. The id wants to play Domaine, Tikal, Gipf, Through the Desert, Vinci, Euphrat & Tigris and For Sale. The id wants severely hard games that keep me thinking. These are usually my top-rated games.
Then there's the ego: the ego understands that other people have needs and desires. That leads me to games that are more fun in the traditional sense, such as Mystery of the Abbey, Amazonas, Shadows Over Camelot, Wyatt Earp, Pick Picknic and Pirate's Cove. I will play these games and enjoy them, but they're not particularly mentally challenging and they don't satisfy the primeval needs of the id. However due to the availability of opponents they get played more often. These games can rate quite highly, and provide some sort of satisfaction. Mystery of the Abbey, Amazonas and Pirate's Cove also feed some magpie instinct in me as well, but Freud didn't mention magpies so I am not sure how to address that issue.
Finally, there's the superego: the superego is the moral part of us nd develops due to the moral and ethical restraints placed on us by our caregivers. My superego wants me to play games that others want to play. As I have a 9yo son, that includes Goosebumps games, but also games like Munchkin, Hex Hex, Sitting Duck Gallery, Zombies, Once Upon a Time and Bang!. These sorts of games get played as little as I can manage, but all the dads out there will recognise that any time spent with their kids having fun is a good time. These games are for when you're playing with little people, or non-gamers, or people whom you just want to be around without wasting your life drinking and gossiping. And of course, unless your kid understands the strategies behind Munchkin, he'll never be any good at Diplomacy.
So on to the extraordinary vanity and irreverence... The id games satisfy the holy ghost, that thing inside of me that is me. Daniel Dennett calls it the homonculus, in the process of explaining that it doesn't exist. The superego games satisfy the father in me, giving me a chance to interact with and educate those not yet ready for Tikal. And the ego games let me play nicely with others, like a good son. I'm not going to claim that I really *am* God, readers can decide that for themselves :-).
Of course, there are many games I have played solely with the intention of finding which category they belonged in. There are some games which even the superego can't deal with. My quest to find the perfect games group is a quest to find players whose id games match my id games, so that after a session we feel that no matter who won or lost, something great was achieved. Is that possible? I don't know. But it's a dream worth dreaming.
References: Psychology 101, homonculus
Saturday, February 18, 2006
I have a dream
I have a dream that one day I will go to a games meeting, say "let's play X", and everyone will know the rules and we'll sit down and play it. That would be so good.
I'm guessing some of you are confused. After all, isn't that how games meetings work? Maybe yours do. What happens to me is I say "let's play X", and everyone says "OK, you teach us how". So you see, I am thinking about (a) teaching the game and (b) winning, when I would enjoy the game more if I was thinking about (a) winning. I reckon I teach 50% of the games that I play, 25% are games I am learning, and 25% are with the kids or my family, and so are not usually the sort of games I aspire to play anyway.
It's a function of the newness of the hobby in Brisbane, the newness of the games groups, and the fact that I own many games that other people don't. The games played most last month as logged at BoardGameGeek were Lost Cities, Caylus, Magic, TtR, Carcassonne, San Juan, Settlers, Puerto Rico, TtR:E and Ra. At one game group (of 4) that I attend, I expect I might get a game of Ticket to Ride without needing a rules explanation for somebody. At another, I might get Settlers and Magic. All other games at all other groups would need to be explained. What we've got here is a massive education deficit! So the two adjectives I would use to describe the Brisbane Euro-gaming scene at the moment are "warming up" and "undereducated". Well, hey, at least we've got one.
I'm guessing some of you are confused. After all, isn't that how games meetings work? Maybe yours do. What happens to me is I say "let's play X", and everyone says "OK, you teach us how". So you see, I am thinking about (a) teaching the game and (b) winning, when I would enjoy the game more if I was thinking about (a) winning. I reckon I teach 50% of the games that I play, 25% are games I am learning, and 25% are with the kids or my family, and so are not usually the sort of games I aspire to play anyway.
It's a function of the newness of the hobby in Brisbane, the newness of the games groups, and the fact that I own many games that other people don't. The games played most last month as logged at BoardGameGeek were Lost Cities, Caylus, Magic, TtR, Carcassonne, San Juan, Settlers, Puerto Rico, TtR:E and Ra. At one game group (of 4) that I attend, I expect I might get a game of Ticket to Ride without needing a rules explanation for somebody. At another, I might get Settlers and Magic. All other games at all other groups would need to be explained. What we've got here is a massive education deficit! So the two adjectives I would use to describe the Brisbane Euro-gaming scene at the moment are "warming up" and "undereducated". Well, hey, at least we've got one.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Roll the Bloody Dice!
Time for a rant. One thing that completely gets up my nose is people who take a long time to roll dice. Especially if they sit there shaking them. What are they trying to do? Make them more random? Find just the right angle to throw them at to get a 6? Keep their fingers warm? Or just annoy the crap out of me? I especially hate dice cups, because they make extra noise and encourage extra shaking. All you gotta is pick the freakin' dice up and drop the bastards, they'll work fine! Now stop buggerising around and have your freaking turn before I stuff those bloody things up your freaking nose! Have I made myself clear?
But seriously, games get a bad enough rap with non-gamers for taking too long without time-wasting rituals with the dice. Just say you have 50 turns in a game, and spend 10 seconds rolling the dice each time. That's 500 seconds (8 minutes) you've wasted just rolling the dice. If there are 3 players who do that, like there might be in a family Monopoly game, that's 25 minutes. No wonder the game takes such a long time! Games take as long to play as the players choose to let them take. If you think games take too long to play, consider what you can do to speed them up. Like rolling the freaking dice!
But seriously, games get a bad enough rap with non-gamers for taking too long without time-wasting rituals with the dice. Just say you have 50 turns in a game, and spend 10 seconds rolling the dice each time. That's 500 seconds (8 minutes) you've wasted just rolling the dice. If there are 3 players who do that, like there might be in a family Monopoly game, that's 25 minutes. No wonder the game takes such a long time! Games take as long to play as the players choose to let them take. If you think games take too long to play, consider what you can do to speed them up. Like rolling the freaking dice!
Sweet Revenge! (and pretty, too!)
I just managed to convince the family to play Amazonas. Last time we played, I had a miserable game and got completely thrashed, although I can't remember who won. This time I lead from start to finish, and the final scores were 15-10-6. Not sure what the kid was doing, he didn't even get all 5 samples. I think one of my good moves was going for the big money at the beginning, so I was able to get 2 camps on my first 2 turns. There was a lull after that, but at least I had options for where I wanted to build next. I also managed to score 3 out of 4 natives, because the other 2 didn't value them so much. I need to play this more, but I am beginning to suspect that this game shares a flaw with Pirate's Cove, in that the rich get richer and the poor get the picture. Anyway, I enjoy it, it's gorgeous to look at, and I am the champion!
Postscript: Why does this game get such a bad rap? I find there are many interesting things to do. For example, it's vital to play the income cards in the right order, not just to choose the highest score at the time. If you can get 5 by playing flowers now, but you're planning to get another flower camp very soon, then save the flower card. You'll get an extra silver when you play it. Also, where's the best location to build your next camp so that your future income is maximised, you score in as many different types of samples as possible, and you're able to make all the right connections to fulfil your secret orders? And should I play my native now for the money, or save him to avoid a disaster? I find a lot of things to think about in this game. No, there's not much player interaction, except that you're sitting there at the table with the other players. You want the game to tell you what to say to them? I love this game, you're all wrong.
Postscript: Why does this game get such a bad rap? I find there are many interesting things to do. For example, it's vital to play the income cards in the right order, not just to choose the highest score at the time. If you can get 5 by playing flowers now, but you're planning to get another flower camp very soon, then save the flower card. You'll get an extra silver when you play it. Also, where's the best location to build your next camp so that your future income is maximised, you score in as many different types of samples as possible, and you're able to make all the right connections to fulfil your secret orders? And should I play my native now for the money, or save him to avoid a disaster? I find a lot of things to think about in this game. No, there's not much player interaction, except that you're sitting there at the table with the other players. You want the game to tell you what to say to them? I love this game, you're all wrong.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
I Invoke Ra
The "Settlers of Brisbane" list is working already. A friend of a friend from QGG told us about a bookshop at Gaythorne (yes, it is in Brisbane, apparently) where he plays games, so 2 new people attached to the list turned up there tonight. There could have been 3 more, but apparently they have things in their lives more important than gaming. Well excuse us! :-) But seriously, it was exactly the sort of meeting I've been looking for - intimate, not too far from home, with some real gamers. And held in a second hand book store, no less! Candlelight dinners be damned, it's book stores that turn me on. The guys seem to have only played games that you can buy at shops in Brisbane, so there's plenty of stuff in my collection to show them.
Anyway, Mikey brought along Ra and Evo, at my request. Both are on my "I will buy this if that is the only way I'm going to get to play it" list, so I am grateful for the chance to try before I buy something I don't like. We didn't get time for Evo, but we did play Ra. I liked Ra so much that when it hit the table a second time, I opted to play that. The other option at the time was Cartagena, which has hit my nickel list already this year, so I felt no need to play that anyway. Ra was a very interesting game - my opinion is that it's similar to Coloretto, but with many more complications. In both cases, you want to assemble a good set of cards, with the fear that someone's going to steal them before you get them. I kicked butt in the first game with 60 points, but in the second game I got shafted by crazy tile draws and barely held on to be second-last with 19 points.
Other games played on the night were Settlers, Robo-Rally, and Cathedral. I definitely want to have a go at Cathedral one of these days. It looks like Blokus, if you squint.
Anyway, Mikey brought along Ra and Evo, at my request. Both are on my "I will buy this if that is the only way I'm going to get to play it" list, so I am grateful for the chance to try before I buy something I don't like. We didn't get time for Evo, but we did play Ra. I liked Ra so much that when it hit the table a second time, I opted to play that. The other option at the time was Cartagena, which has hit my nickel list already this year, so I felt no need to play that anyway. Ra was a very interesting game - my opinion is that it's similar to Coloretto, but with many more complications. In both cases, you want to assemble a good set of cards, with the fear that someone's going to steal them before you get them. I kicked butt in the first game with 60 points, but in the second game I got shafted by crazy tile draws and barely held on to be second-last with 19 points.
Other games played on the night were Settlers, Robo-Rally, and Cathedral. I definitely want to have a go at Cathedral one of these days. It looks like Blokus, if you squint.
Monday, February 13, 2006
My Favourite Game
I'm going to assume you have a favourite game. Mine is Domaine. BTW, I haven't played Lowenherz, so I am unqualified to get into that discussion. However, here's a question that's disturbingly difficult to answer: why? Why is your favourite game your favourite game? What's so good about it? Let me speak for Domaine while you think.
Firstly, there's not much luck. The random set-up does add some luck, unless you are skilled enough to analyse the board and choose an optimal start position, but I am only good enough to choose a decent one. Also, the cards add some randomness, but with the chancery there's a reasonable chance you'll be able to get any card you need at some stage. Overall, the cards seem to even out.
Secondly, it's an economic game, so you have the chance to develop your economy in order to fund the war effort, and I like that because unbridled aggression and rushing don't work. Furthermore the economy and the war interact (if you lose mines, you lose money), so you need to continually maintain your economy.
Thirdly, there's conflict, but not too much. I don't mind conflict between players, but I don't really go for games where everything that is good for me is bad for you, Memoir '44 being a notable exception. In Domaine, there is always the chance that a player could attack you, but you have the chance to make it too difficult or not worth the effort, so you're not perpetually fighting people off.
Fourthly, there's cooperation. Few domaines are built by one player's walls alone, so the first part of the game is sort of cooperative building of the domaines, with a little bit of squabbling about where the borders go, but not too much or else nothing will get built at all.
Fifthly, there's thinking. I like games where I am always thinking. Tikal, Louis XIV, Trias, all get good points for that. There might be down-time in Domaine, but I don't notice because I am thinking what I need to do next, what is he doing that is a threat to me, why did he just take that defector card from the Chancery? Shadows Over Camelot and Citadels are otherwise good games which just don't inspire that sort of thought in me.
Between the combat and the thinking, there's perpetual tension. I am always thinking how can I complete that domaine, is he going to attack, am I going to have enough money, am I vulnerable anywhere? It's good stuff.
Lastly, I am at least a little bit good at it. I admit, I don't think I've ever played against an experienced player, but I usually win and I know what I need to do and I have a fair idea of my chances of success. Often, my plans work. There are fine games such as Samurai and Alhambra where I can form a plan, and it never helps. At least in Domaine I play well enough to always be a contender, and if was to lose I'd be able to identify causes.
I was just considering a posting about my least favourite games, but I haven't got the time to express my passionate hatred...
Firstly, there's not much luck. The random set-up does add some luck, unless you are skilled enough to analyse the board and choose an optimal start position, but I am only good enough to choose a decent one. Also, the cards add some randomness, but with the chancery there's a reasonable chance you'll be able to get any card you need at some stage. Overall, the cards seem to even out.
Secondly, it's an economic game, so you have the chance to develop your economy in order to fund the war effort, and I like that because unbridled aggression and rushing don't work. Furthermore the economy and the war interact (if you lose mines, you lose money), so you need to continually maintain your economy.
Thirdly, there's conflict, but not too much. I don't mind conflict between players, but I don't really go for games where everything that is good for me is bad for you, Memoir '44 being a notable exception. In Domaine, there is always the chance that a player could attack you, but you have the chance to make it too difficult or not worth the effort, so you're not perpetually fighting people off.
Fourthly, there's cooperation. Few domaines are built by one player's walls alone, so the first part of the game is sort of cooperative building of the domaines, with a little bit of squabbling about where the borders go, but not too much or else nothing will get built at all.
Fifthly, there's thinking. I like games where I am always thinking. Tikal, Louis XIV, Trias, all get good points for that. There might be down-time in Domaine, but I don't notice because I am thinking what I need to do next, what is he doing that is a threat to me, why did he just take that defector card from the Chancery? Shadows Over Camelot and Citadels are otherwise good games which just don't inspire that sort of thought in me.
Between the combat and the thinking, there's perpetual tension. I am always thinking how can I complete that domaine, is he going to attack, am I going to have enough money, am I vulnerable anywhere? It's good stuff.
Lastly, I am at least a little bit good at it. I admit, I don't think I've ever played against an experienced player, but I usually win and I know what I need to do and I have a fair idea of my chances of success. Often, my plans work. There are fine games such as Samurai and Alhambra where I can form a plan, and it never helps. At least in Domaine I play well enough to always be a contender, and if was to lose I'd be able to identify causes.
I was just considering a posting about my least favourite games, but I haven't got the time to express my passionate hatred...
Sunday, February 12, 2006
First Thoughts on Louis XIV and Web of Power
You know sometimes when people are explaining rules it's just easier to go "uhuh, uhuh" and figure them out as you go along? Well I deny that I was doing that when Andrew explained Web of Power. I just didn't particularly follow the advisor scoring, and missed the rule that to play 2 pieces you needed to play 2 cards, but other than that it was as clear as mud. Luckily, it's not too hard to pick up as you go along - this is the same as did Coloretto, after all. I'm thinking his games aren't quite as simple and confusing as Colovini's (Clans, Cartagena), but he's in the same vein.
Anyway, Kevin's spinner chose me as first player, and I dumped a cloister in Frankreich. In hindsight that maybe wasn't a good idea, maybe I should have looked at the upcoming cards and played somewhere I could follow up on in my next turn. By the time it got back to me there was an opportunity for an advisor in England, so I got one there. It soon became clear that I wasn't going to be building long chains of cloisters, but I could get a few advisors in linking countries, so I focused on that. I might have missed some opportunities for great moves, but I think I played solidly. The intermediate scoring was tight, but at the end I managed to make good points out of my advisors, and got ahead of Andrew and Paul. Sadly Kevin's advisors were even better placed, and he beat us all soundly.
I like this game. It's like Coloretto with a map, in a very loose way. I can't think who I'd play it with other than these guys, but it's pretty cool. I wonder if you can still buy it? Or if you can't, how similar China is. Not that I need to buy it, if I can't play it. But I do like it.
After Web of Power we had a long debate about what to play next. We were constrained by time, and the debate made us more so. We decided on a quick game of Louis XIV (hah!) followed by Ingenious. The trouble was that the rules explanation for Louis XIV took quite a while, as there are all those special powers of the tiles, and then there's what happens in the case of ties. Playing in my naive semi-ignorant fashion, the turns didn't take long, but the guys who knew what they were doing seemed to take longer.
Paul and I got off to miserable starts, only completing one mission each. I got into a pissing war with Kevin on the king space, and got very little reward for a lot of influence, so I decided not to do that again. That meant that Kevin dominated the king space for the entire game. I guess someone could have taken him on, but at what cost to them? Anyway, as well as dominating the king space, he managed to have enough influence in other places (maybe that was his vulnerability?) to win 2 other rewards each turn, and I think he completed 8 missions. I had a really good 3rd round, getting stuff on 7 tiles and completing 2 missions with a crown left over, but in the end I was too far behind to even threaten for the win. Andrew and Kevin both did very well, and Andrew pulled off the win by a couple of points.
There seemed to be a lot of analysis paralysis in this game, from players who are not prone to it. I had my moments too, where I needed to wait till Paul had moved to assess what I could achieve with the cards in my hand so I could choose which one to cash in for influence, but maybe I was just too ignorant to worry :-). We certainly spent a lot of time discussing the fine details of the rules, as we really did need to know, and there are *lots* of rules. I would play again, but something like Tikal is probably a better reward for the time spent. That was one of "the games to play this year", so another one bites the dust.
Oh yeah, Ingenious got abandoned. But I play that all the time, so no biggie.
Anyway, Kevin's spinner chose me as first player, and I dumped a cloister in Frankreich. In hindsight that maybe wasn't a good idea, maybe I should have looked at the upcoming cards and played somewhere I could follow up on in my next turn. By the time it got back to me there was an opportunity for an advisor in England, so I got one there. It soon became clear that I wasn't going to be building long chains of cloisters, but I could get a few advisors in linking countries, so I focused on that. I might have missed some opportunities for great moves, but I think I played solidly. The intermediate scoring was tight, but at the end I managed to make good points out of my advisors, and got ahead of Andrew and Paul. Sadly Kevin's advisors were even better placed, and he beat us all soundly.
I like this game. It's like Coloretto with a map, in a very loose way. I can't think who I'd play it with other than these guys, but it's pretty cool. I wonder if you can still buy it? Or if you can't, how similar China is. Not that I need to buy it, if I can't play it. But I do like it.
After Web of Power we had a long debate about what to play next. We were constrained by time, and the debate made us more so. We decided on a quick game of Louis XIV (hah!) followed by Ingenious. The trouble was that the rules explanation for Louis XIV took quite a while, as there are all those special powers of the tiles, and then there's what happens in the case of ties. Playing in my naive semi-ignorant fashion, the turns didn't take long, but the guys who knew what they were doing seemed to take longer.
Paul and I got off to miserable starts, only completing one mission each. I got into a pissing war with Kevin on the king space, and got very little reward for a lot of influence, so I decided not to do that again. That meant that Kevin dominated the king space for the entire game. I guess someone could have taken him on, but at what cost to them? Anyway, as well as dominating the king space, he managed to have enough influence in other places (maybe that was his vulnerability?) to win 2 other rewards each turn, and I think he completed 8 missions. I had a really good 3rd round, getting stuff on 7 tiles and completing 2 missions with a crown left over, but in the end I was too far behind to even threaten for the win. Andrew and Kevin both did very well, and Andrew pulled off the win by a couple of points.
There seemed to be a lot of analysis paralysis in this game, from players who are not prone to it. I had my moments too, where I needed to wait till Paul had moved to assess what I could achieve with the cards in my hand so I could choose which one to cash in for influence, but maybe I was just too ignorant to worry :-). We certainly spent a lot of time discussing the fine details of the rules, as we really did need to know, and there are *lots* of rules. I would play again, but something like Tikal is probably a better reward for the time spent. That was one of "the games to play this year", so another one bites the dust.
Oh yeah, Ingenious got abandoned. But I play that all the time, so no biggie.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)