|
Has anyone heard anything about/tried Allegiance A Realm Divided? My local store has a copy of the Kickstarter edition and it looks pretty good.
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
Rutibex posted:I only said "throw it in the trash" because that is exactly what I did. I started off with Lords of Waterdeep, but once I found Agricola I never ever wanted to play Waterdeep again. If someone had slapped my hand in the store and told me to get Agricola first I would have saved myself $50. It's not like Agricola is a more complex game either, it has a family mode that is just as easily to pick up as Lords of Waterdeep, but (unlike waterdeep) the rabbit holes doesn't end there This post is ironic as gently caress to me, because Agricola is the only game I'd honestly say is a pointless waste of money and should be pulled from store shelves, burned to heat homeless shelters, and never reprinted. I loved the game for years, but there is no reason for anyone to ever play it again now that Caverna exists and is strictly better.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:Okay uhm, how do I say 'Hey, it's great, you're a very nice person, we love the same games, but you're the most AP prone person I know whenever we play a game and GODDAMNIT HURRY UP AND MOVE ALREADY so we can finish this game then never play together again?' but in a nice way? make the codenames clock a rule in every game?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:What's the thread consensus on a good two player game for me to pick up and play with my wife? She's not a huge gamer but something that's a simple euro style game would be great I'm going to nth Patchwork. My S.O. is not a gamer at all, but I bought it and the apps for our phone. She loves the hell out of it, and now she's a loving MONSTER at the game. I don't think I've won against her since the first game we played. She'll regularly have like 2-3 ranked games going on the app while playing a friendly game with me. Not saying your wife will take to it like my S.O. did, but all it takes is one to get the hook in them. Now she's curious about all my other games 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
EBag posted:Anyone played Spirits of the Rice Paddy and have an opinion on it? Seems kind of neat and a little different. I played it last weekend with two others. The way you let water flow through your paddies into your neighbor's board is pretty neat. The theme comes through pretty well, and there's a card draft that adds interest. Based on one play, it's not a very challenging game -- I never felt very constrained by resources; I was always able to accomplish what I wanted to do. I think part of the reason is that we played with "Rahdo's Rule" --- you remove all of the "interactive" or "mean" cards that let you directly interfere with your opponents --- since it was our first game. We talked about that after the game, and we all agreed that those interactive elements are probably needed to balance the game and not let one player run away with a fortunate combination of spirit cards (which give you more abilities). That's all based on one play, though. I'd definitely play it again, especially when a lighter game is called for. I think the theme and colorful bits would appeal to casual gamers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
rydiafan posted:This post is ironic as gently caress to me, because Agricola is the only game I'd honestly say is a pointless waste of money and should be pulled from store shelves, burned to heat homeless shelters, and never reprinted. I loved the game for years, but there is no reason for anyone to ever play it again now that Caverna exists and is strictly better. Which is crazy to me, since Agricola has a huge tenseness to it that I love which Caverna has none of.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Which is crazy to me, since Agricola has a huge tenseness to it that I love which Caverna has none of. Agreed. I have no interest in Caverna, but still play Agricola a few times a year.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
I don't really want to get into the whole Agricola vs Caverna thing but I played Caverna for the first time a couple weeks ago, and have played Agricola over 20 times. I liked Caverna a lot but yah it was seriously lacking that tension of using your cards and struggling to make ends meet. I had a great farm/mining operation going on my first game of Caverna and it felt good sure, but it also felt almost too easy as I more or less did everything I wanted to do. When you build a really good farm in Agricola and score 45+ points it feels much more rewarding because of how hard it can be.werdnam posted:I played it last weekend with two others. The way you let water flow through your paddies into your neighbor's board is pretty neat. The theme comes through pretty well, and there's a card draft that adds interest. Based on one play, it's not a very challenging game -- I never felt very constrained by resources; I was always able to accomplish what I wanted to do. I think part of the reason is that we played with "Rahdo's Rule" --- you remove all of the "interactive" or "mean" cards that let you directly interfere with your opponents --- since it was our first game. We talked about that after the game, and we all agreed that those interactive elements are probably needed to balance the game and not let one player run away with a fortunate combination of spirit cards (which give you more abilities). That's all based on one play, though. Thanks, that is a little concerning if it's too easy but I'll think about it. Generally we most enjoy games that don't allow you to do everything or make you work a bit for your points, I would be worried about it only getting played a few times before feeling done with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
I think it boils down to what is "tense and difficult" versus what is "punishingly crippling on turn 2". The same level of unforgiving can feel like the former or the latter, depending on the player. So basically I think we agree on the difference between the two games, but disagree on whether that difference is good or bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
EBag posted:Thanks, that is a little concerning if it's too easy but I'll think about it. Generally we most enjoy games that don't allow you to do everything or make you work a bit for your points, I would be worried about it only getting played a few times before feeling done with it. On that point: One thing I like about the game is that the designers added several elements to increase the variability from game to game and thus the replayability: Each player gets a randomized setup, the spirit draft is different every game, and there are randomly selected achievements for each game. Also, check out some of the session reports on BGG. Some other players have had a much more difficult time in the game. Maybe we all got lucky on our first play. Or maybe we're just rice-farming savants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Le Havre is a neat middle ground between Agricola's ball-crushing feed the family or else and Caverna's more laid back approach. I personally love Caverna and Le Havre but I played them first.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Arkwright preorders are live, yo: http://www.capstone-games.com/?mc_cid=939f250e5b&mc_eid=dd6017636c Talk to me about this Arkwright. My top three games of the moment are Food Chain Magnate, Kanban, and Caylus. However, I found Madeira and Zhanguo to be absolute snore-fests. What is Arkwright like, and it is closer to the first three games than the second two?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:41
|
|
|
Radioactive Toy posted:He's also the kind of guy who would exclaim "this game is bullshit, it's so stacked against me!" every time I played an event card that benefited me in the slightest, so that was a bit much after the first hour since we both play those cards the entire game. These people need to be beaten. I had to teach my son this lesson. I was playing the new Through the Ages with him and my daughter. I had the leader that lets you use cards to get additional strength points for colonization, and makes your colonies generate culture (James Cook if I recall correctly). My son spent the entire middle portion of the game loving whining about how it was "so OP" and a bunch of other retarded things he's learned from online internet games. I lost by 50 points. I basically told him to look at the end score, and then remember how much he was whining about how no one else could possibly win and James Cook was clearly the broken game mechanic to end all game mechanics, and to then shut the gently caress up next time and play the game out. On another topic that has been discussed recently (player collusion, etc.), one thing that irritates me in the other direction among gamers are these belief systems that some people have about how you must play. I see this frequently when people try to backstab me, after I've warned them that I will gently caress up their poo poo no matter what if they backstab me. They then try to tell me that I can't come wreck them, because I would be throwing the game to another player, or some similar bullshit like that. Here's the deal - if I tell you that I'm going to come wreck you if you betray me, if you don't want me to come wreck you, then either don't betray me, or only betray me if you can withstand what I'm going to do to you. I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate how I should play after you backstab me, just because it allows you to carry out your perfect little plan. Knowing that I may actually come gently caress you up to my detriment is, in itself, a perfectly reasonable tactic that I employ that may make you think twice about backstabbing me. If you literally only want me to respond to a backstab in a way that you can perfectly interpret and fit into your plans, than maybe just play a solitaire game next time, where everyone does exactly what you expect or think is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Le Havre is a neat middle ground between Agricola's ball-crushing feed the family or else and Caverna's more laid back approach. I personally love Caverna and Le Havre but I played them first. The two issues I have with Le Harve are the length and loans. Game is just a bit too long for what you want to do and taking a loan is no big deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
SlyFrog posted:On another topic that has been discussed recently (player collusion, etc.), one thing that irritates me in the other direction among gamers are these belief systems that some people have about how you must play. I see this frequently when people try to backstab me, after I've warned them that I will gently caress up their poo poo no matter what if they backstab me. They then try to tell me that I can't come wreck them, because I would be throwing the game to another player, or some similar bullshit like that. That's a perfectly valid negotiation tactic that doesn't work on you. Good to know. True, some people do in fact believe that you following through on your threat to your detriment is a waste of your resources and therefore cannot possibly be what you should do. Those people clearly do not understand emotions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
I haven't been able to be as aggressive as I liked to be in board games lately cause everyone I play with has realized they can just push the narrative that I am completely untrustworthy (true) and I always win games (deffo not true) to try to make me a distraction so they can sneak in a win. The thing is you can't really sneak in a win when every player is doing the same thing you are doing, and oddly enough since this started happening I have been winning way more often. I really hate it though because to survive I usually have to play defensively and that is not my style.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
OmegaGoo posted:True, some people do in fact believe that you following through on your threat to your detriment is a waste of your resources and therefore cannot possibly be what you should do. Those people clearly do not understand emotions. Yes. Amazing that you would find people who do not understand emotions in the boardgaming world. But for me, it is not actually emotion. It's an issue of trying to force me to play prisoner's dilemma, but trying to take away my ability to defect in response to your defection. Isn't going to happen. I think it takes a lot away from the game if the person backstabbing believes they can calculate with perfection the detrimental results of their backstabbing. (Oh, if I backstab, he can't come after me, because that would throw the game to this person, and he can't do that, so I'll backstab him and win.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Dominion is such a good game you guys. Introduced my father in law to it last weekend and he loved it. Easy to pick up, lots of depth to master. Played three games with him and my wife, and each of us won one with a margin of victory of 3 VPs, with the second place players tied.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
Guy in our group does the exact same thing, only he frequently manages to gently caress his assailants poo poo up to his own detriment and still take the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Talk to me about this Arkwright. My top three games of the moment are Food Chain Magnate, Kanban, and Caylus. However, I found Madeira and Zhanguo to be absolute snore-fests. What is Arkwright like, and it is closer to the first three games than the second two? I've never played it. The Heavy Cardboard podcast sold me on it though, it's a great review: http://heavycardboard.com/2014/12/31/heavy-cardboard-episode-15-arkwright/ From what I understand it's definitely closer to FCM/18xx than Madeira or Zhanguo, and although not as cutthroat as the former it's a pure economic game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
quote:Here's the deal - if I tell you that I'm going to come wreck you if you betray me, if you don't want me to come wreck you, then either don't betray me, or only betray me if you can withstand what I'm going to do to you. I'm sorry, but you don't get to dictate how I should play after you backstab me, just because it allows you to carry out your perfect little plan. Knowing that I may actually come gently caress you up to my detriment is, in itself, a perfectly reasonable tactic that I employ that may make you think twice about backstabbing me. If you literally only want me to respond to a backstab in a way that you can perfectly interpret and fit into your plans, than maybe just play a solitaire game next time, where everyone does exactly what you expect or think is appropriate. Every once in a while our group will play a very political game. And then we remember that this crap ^^ here is how they play out, and how the winner is often decided by some third place player deciding who "deserves it".. and then we go back to good games where you don't have to "fly under the radar" and "threaten mutually assured destruction" and all that other boring crap that's the same in every political turd Risk game. VVV: For me, low politics has pretty much become a requirement. I mean obviously we learned pretty quick to avoid true political crap like Smallworld - and, I mean, every game doesn't need to be "Dominion-level" low politics, but even "high-quality/middling-politics" games like Kemet aren't getting much table time. Too many times we've had good, interesting games of Eclipse or Kemet or whatever end in the big wet fart of "well, I lose... and whoever I put last in turn order wins". I'd sit back and "enjoy the journey, not the destination" or something, except there's other games out there that play well and end well too. jmzero fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Every once in a while our group will play a very political game. And then we remember that this crap ^^ here is how they play out, and how the winner is often decided by some third place player deciding who "deserves it".. and then we go back to good games where you don't have to "fly under the radar" and "threaten mutually assured destruction" and all that other boring crap that's the same in every political turd Risk game. lmao this happens in so many different games, regardless of the games quality
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Actually, good games don't have kingmaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
Yeah this is a discussion that comes around here every so often, but there's a concept of the chip taking game, where everyone starts with n chips, your turn is "take a chip from someone and discard it", game ends when someone is the only one with chips left. In essence, most political games come down to the chip taking game, regardless of the mechanics, and non-political games do not. I fuckin hate chip taking games. Some people like em. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
S.J. posted:lmao Well-reasoned counterpoint: nuh-uh In better-quality games that are not 2-player and not wargames, your ability to direct "attacks" on other players in ways that powerfully affect their standing is restricted. In fact, politics as a defining characteristic of how you win is roughly inversely proportional to the game's quality. "No, gently caress YOU" is bargain-basement game design.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:40
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:Actually, good games don't have kingmaking. So no good game ever has a close finish and sufficient interaction that a third party can affect the outcome?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
I played Dominion with the Guilds/Cornucopia expansion I got and it was soooo good. Using Butcher to trash a Copper into a Province is so satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Jedit posted:So no good game ever has a close finish and sufficient interaction that a third party can affect the outcome? I would personally argue that good games do not revolve around kingmaking.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:I would personally argue that good games do not revolve around kingmaking. Now that's a better argument. If the end game is always "everyone is close and one player who can't win has to decide who does", then your game isn't close enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
We've been over this enough times that I don't think there's much to add, but I think Silvergoose has summarized my position pretty well here:silvergoose posted:I fuckin hate chip taking games. Some people like em. jmzero fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Jedit posted:So no good game ever has a close finish and sufficient interaction that a third party can affect the outcome? I can't think of any Euro-y Euros where it's impossible. I can think of lots of piles of poop where it's pretty much all that happens.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
jmzero posted:Every once in a while our group will play a very political game. And then we remember that this crap ^^ here is how they play out, and how the winner is often decided by some third place player deciding who "deserves it".. and then we go back to good games where you don't have to "fly under the radar" and "threaten mutually assured destruction" and all that other boring crap that's the same in every political turd Risk game. Jedit posted:So no good game ever has a close finish and sufficient interaction that a third party can affect the outcome? S.J. posted:lmao No good game ever is focused on manipulating the appearance of your strategy's success to other players over the actual deployment of the strategy, which is actually what I was talking about. Good games have low to no politics or are oriented pricipally around their politics in such a way that all players understand what they are getting into before the game works. (see COIN games, the Pax series, etc.) Agricola Addendum: Some games, principally organized around the accumulation of points, may offer players that are a distant third or fourth in a game the option to take a choice decides the game in the first or second player's favor, for example by taking a critical sheep. Playing petulantly by deliberately spoiling a game for a third player while not improving your own score in a meaningful way in a game like this is contrary to rule 0 of the game, which is that the players are playing in order to maximize their own points. Under these circumstances, a game may have limited kingmaking, but the correct course of action is to not play games with that type of petulant player again because this personality problem runs too deep to counter with pure game mechanics. This is similar to the Coup rule: If a game group cannot play Coup without resorting to name-calling or threats like "if you coup me now I'll coup you in every game first we play for the rest of the night" then you should leave that group or change the game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 19:56
|
|
|
It would be a kinda cool mechanic in a politicky wargame if it gave you an actual in game incentive to get revenge (or not to -- maybe both) on someone who had stabbed you. Like sort of a mid game version of objectives that progressed naturally from the actual game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:It would be a kinda cool mechanic in a politicky wargame if it gave you an actual in game incentive to get revenge (or not to -- maybe both) on someone who had stabbed you. Like, stabbing someone gives them a "revenge" token that, if they stab you back, they complete some objective that gives them some stuff. Which encourages backstabbing but only if you can protect yourself from that person. And then you can trade revenge tokens as a sort of hire bounty hunters thing. Neat idea.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
quote:It would be a kinda cool mechanic in a politicky wargame if it gave you an actual in game incentive to get revenge (or not to -- maybe both) on someone who had stabbed you. It's hard to have these systems without them being gameable. Like, in Eclipse it's easy to set up some "friendly" battles where you can both farm a few VP tokens for a minimal ship commitment. That's not to say it's not an interesting idea or worth trying. My favorite solution I've seen is in Tash-Kalar, where you have a separate point track for each other player, so you have to spread your aggression out to be successful.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:No good game ever is focused on manipulating the appearance of your strategy's success to other players over the actual deployment of the strategy, which is actually what I was talking about. Good games have low to no politics or are oriented pricipally around their politics in such a way that all players understand what they are getting into before the game works. (see COIN games, the Pax series, etc.) Sounds like it just boils down to: play games with people who play them well and can have fun. If you play games with vindictive pricks that sulk or play against their own interests to spite other players then you need to find different people! But there a few in my groups like this so I get it. I have a friend that will backstab without a doubt (is it still a backstab if you expect it?) every game we play and if it goes south just completely shuts down and will crash the game with no survivors in order to spite the potential victim.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Like, stabbing someone gives them a "revenge" token that, if they stab you back, they complete some objective that gives them some stuff. Which encourages backstabbing but only if you can protect yourself from that person. Yeah -- I mean you could even have variable player powers that reward certain people for stabbing, and others not so much. "Of course the Assassin's Guild stabbed that's what they do" and "gently caress did the Knights really just stab me? They lose like 5VP for that." Or maybe they need to buy a certain upgrade or have a certain loyalty just to be able to stab, I don't know -- there's a lot you could do depending on the game to make it more mechanically interesting. It could maybe turn a little too much into a catch up mechanic, but could also promote some interesting decisions if done properly. I mean I'm all for the sandbox, but incentivizing the right way makes games go. jmzero posted:It's hard to have these systems without them being gameable. Like, in Eclipse it's easy to set up some "friendly" battles where you can both farm a few VP tokens for a minimal ship commitment. That's not to say it's not an interesting idea or worth trying. Yeah you would have to somehow measure the stab (some kind of unit killing requirement or whatever depending on the game). And the consequences would need to be severe enough so that the stabee just wouldn't let it happen. e: I suppose you would also have to formalize alliances to make this work, which could also open up some interesting mechanical possibilities (maybe I get to use some of your tech temporarily, or resources, whatever, depending on the nature of the alliance) -- sort of a hulked up version of what TTA does. T-Bone fucked around with this message at 20:38 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:It would be a kinda cool mechanic in a politicky wargame if it gave you an actual in game incentive to get revenge (or not to -- maybe both) on someone who had stabbed you. Not solely usable against the person that stabbed you but there's this optional rule in Pax Pamir: quote:I3. Badal Tokens. 11 Also a lot of people don't understand how to utilize brinksmanship in multiplayer games. I have a habit of refusing to attack/hinder another player if I think my resources could be better spent elsewhere. It doesn't matter if the player I'm refusing to attack is in a winning position, I'll just let them go until someone else decides to do something about it. Sure, I'm just playing chicken, but if the other players want to win they'll have to do something about it eventually. That way I have two weakened opponents instead of one and I can maybe make a winning play. If I had attacked the player in the lead I would be spending resources to come in third so if that player wins due to my inactivity I there's very little difference. Also the basic example chip taking game is obviously a lovely game and more of a social experiment. However, if you add enough layers of complexity and nuance (and perhaps a bit of randomness) you can create a game where decisions are not always obvious and outcomes of actions are not always predictable. That's when you get into Good Game territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
jmzero posted:It's hard to have these systems without them being gameable. Like, in Eclipse it's easy to set up some "friendly" battles where you can both farm a few VP tokens for a minimal ship commitment. That's not to say it's not an interesting idea or worth trying. "I swear to god, if you go back on your word and don't backstab me I will flip the table."
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
rydiafan posted:This post is ironic as gently caress to me, because Agricola is the only game I'd honestly say is a pointless waste of money and should be pulled from store shelves, burned to heat homeless shelters, and never reprinted. I loved the game for years, but there is no reason for anyone to ever play it again now that Caverna exists and is strictly better. Caverna shouldn't be hauling garbage, it should be hauled away as garbage. Caverna only "feels" like a better game to idiots, it presents so many options it may as well be random. Protip: if you are getting beggar cards in Agricola then you don't know how to play it properly. Those cards should never even come out of the box; they only serve to limit your options. The food tension in Agricola makes it an understandable puzzle, you can see two maybe three optimal paths (that don't result in beggar cards) and choose the best one. Caverna gives you no feedback, every decision is "fine". You don't have 3 options to choose from, you have a nearly infinite number. The best you can do is guess, there is no way to actually play Caverna. Thats not even getting into the fact that Agricola has about 3,000+ cards going for it now, and Caverna has what 60 tiles total?
|
|
#
?
Mar 15, 2016 20:48
|
|
