|
GrandpaPants posted:You jerks are making me want The Colonists. How much player interactivity is there? I imagine being a Euro, there's not much in the way of take-that gameplay, but do you have to adapt to what others are doing? For reference, I respect something like Feast for Odin for its mechanics, but feel that playing the game feels very much like multiplayer solitaire, especially since there's not that much competition for squares, as opposed to Agricola where competition for certain squares and resources is pretty drat tight. I have only been playing solo, but there seem to be a lot of mechanics for player interaction. Only one person gets to place the new tiles each round, so people are going to be fighting over that. Also "blocking" spaces come with a hefty fee. There is also a colony power that lets you clone the space another player has a pawn. It's not the most interactive game ever, but there is definitely enough elements there to keep it interesting. I would say it is about as interactive as Race for the Galaxy. In fact that's what I would compare The Colonists to most closely, a giant game of Race for the Galaxy.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Depending on the colonies in play there will either be a lot of blocking or very little. Blocking is heavily incentivized though. Not only does it penalize another player to take a space you're on, you also gain whatever they used to pay the penalty, provided you have the storage. Buildings that are resource intensive for the era can be built to generate points every year, and buying these triggers a sort of cold war, as falling behind in the long game in production of these buildings can set you back 40 or more points, which can easily lead to defeat in a close game. Placing tiles can, if you pay attention to the strategies players are using to generate resources, greatly disadvantage someone else while making things easier for yourself. For example, as the only player with the alchemists in the last game, I made all of the brick creating tiles hard to access because I didn't need them. Certain spots are always in demand, and someone taking a space at exactly the wrong time can foul up two or more turns worth of planning if you're playing risky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Can someone give deeper impressions on Santorini, especially compared to say Go, Tak, The Duke, and Hive? I'd say it's most similar to Tak in that you have a very limited move set that involves placing something or moving something. Both games are also so tightly constructed that after the initial few moves you're always locked in a back-and-forth check. Tak is a little more complex because the capstone and walls provide an additional awareness challenge but Santorini provides God cards that change how the game is played (and are surprisingly well balanced) so there's more variety for a game you will likely master quickly. Santorini is definitely intended for a younger audience and it's simple but not shallow. If I only bought one it would be Tak and the reason being the travel/tavern/whatever version is amazingly portable. I met a friend at a café and he whips out this tiny bag with a flourish, unfolds the cloth sack inside, and then we're playing a game with aesthetically pleasing wooden pieces by a roaring fire with flagons of beer as the other patrons steal sideway glances at the board. Santorini is visually fantastic and takes up little table space but you're still lugging a big box with dozens of plastic pieces around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Yeah it seemed the most like Tak of the games I listed. I have an awesome travel set I made for that with 5x5 and 7x7 boards so I'll just stick to that. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Yeah it seemed the most like Tak of the games I listed. I have an awesome travel set I made for that with 5x5 and 7x7 boards so I'll just stick to that. Thanks. How's Tak compared to Hive? I really love Hive, but it's the only abstract I own.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:48
|
|
|
Impermanent posted:skip Clash of Cultures and get Through The Ages I've been spending the last couple of nights trying to figure out how you'd translate the player boards into a PBP format.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Is there a chance that I will like The Colonists if I'm not interested in a 2+ hour game? I know you can choose to only play certain parts and continue them later, but is that a satisfying way to play it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:How's Tak compared to Hive? I really love Hive, but it's the only abstract I own. Hmm. Tak is more like Go than Hive, but the main similarity is that you are constantly balancing offensive and defensive play. The smaller boards (4x4 and 5x5) are more like Hive since the endgame triggers very quickly, where larger (6x6+) can be much more long strategic matches like Chess. Hive is fun, but I vastly prefer Tak. All pieces are equal, more strategic depth, and it feels more balanced. Plus, you can make a set for less than $5 so there's no reason not to try it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Hmm. Tak is more like Go than Hive, but the main similarity is that you are constantly balancing offensive and defensive play. The smaller boards (4x4 and 5x5) are more like Hive since the endgame triggers very quickly, where larger (6x6+) can be much more long strategic matches like Chess. Hive is fun, but I vastly prefer Tak. All pieces are equal, more strategic depth, and it feels more balanced. Plus, you can make a set for less than $5 so there's no reason not to try it. Oh holy hell, it's the game from The Kingkiller Chronicles? Haha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:Is there a chance that I will like The Colonists if I'm not interested in a 2+ hour game? I know you can choose to only play certain parts and continue them later, but is that a satisfying way to play it? The parts are 2+ hours long, so you won't like it. It may be that game that cracks your normal boundaries, but it's too expensive to wager on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Megasabin posted:Oh holy hell, it's the game from The Kingkiller Chronicles? Haha. Yep, they actually made it a game and it's really good. You can learn in 2 minutes and it really lends well to the "just one more game" type of play. So far I've gotten my wife, 9 and 10 year old cousins, and 54 year old father-in-law all addicted to it. It's that good. http://cheapass.com//wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tak-Beta-Rules.pdf People make some incredible looking sets too  Here's my cheapo set from Hobby Lobby/Lowes (spent $5.50 on it) 
Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 02:32 on Jan 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Medium Style posted:Is there a chance that I will like The Colonists if I'm not interested in a 2+ hour game? I know you can choose to only play certain parts and continue them later, but is that a satisfying way to play it? It might work for you If you are interested in playing it like Pandemic Legacy, over the course of 4 weeks?  The set-up and tear down week to week might be annoying, unless you come up with a system or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 03:30
|
|
|
Played my first game of 7 Wonders with 7 players, where my initial strategy of getting all the money was cancelled in favour of keeping up with the escalating war machines of my neighbours. Of course in the end, the passive player with no red on their board outscored everyone  Would play again!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 07:24
|
|
|
Webcormac McCarthy posted:Played my first game of 7 Wonders with 7 players, where my initial strategy of getting all the money was cancelled in favour of keeping up with the escalating war machines of my neighbours. Of course in the end, the passive player with no red on their board outscored everyone For your future games, you should know that keeping up with your neighbors war machines is always a loser's game. It doesn't matter how much military you play, you can never scored more than 18 points from them all, so each additional red card you play lowers the point return of each card. And if you end up losing the wars anyways, your point return plummets. If I see both of my neighbors start putting down multiple red cards, I always go pacifist and just accept the -6 points, because no one wins arms races, and you can always make up the difference by focusing on other avenues. Military in 7 Wonders is like the ultimate expression of Sunk Cost Fallacy, but if you can read the table and the hand distributions effectively (as well as hate-draft properly), you can score a lot of points off for little investment, which is why I love its implementation.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
War, what is it good for?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Elysium posted:War, what is it good for? 18 points
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:08
|
|
|
The person who wins war is the person who slides into 6 victories with like two military strength while their neighbors all furiously steal greens from each other.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 16:34
|
|
|
Sloober posted:18 points Which by an interesting coincidence is also what "WAR" scores in Scrabble if played on a Triple Word Score.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:The person who wins war is the person who slides into 6 victories with like two military strength while their neighbors all furiously steal greens from each other. Pretty much. I know 7 Wonders has its issues (mainly it's longevity once players hit the skill ceiling), but I just adore how it abstracts military in Civ-themed game. It's not how about having the biggest military, it's who can win wars with the weakest military.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Any thoughts on Quartermaster General? The idea of a team-based game for 6 people that plays in less than a couple of hours really appeals, and made me realise that I can't (off the top of my head) think of too many solid team-based boardgames that aren't party games (e.g. Codenames).
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 21:30
|
|
|
Better than Risk, worse than World in Flames. [edit] Don't buy it, but feel free to steer any normie friend about to buy "Risk: My Little Pony Edition" towards it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Kerro posted:Any thoughts on Quartermaster General? The idea of a team-based game for 6 people that plays in less than a couple of hours really appeals, and made me realise that I can't (off the top of my head) think of too many solid team-based boardgames that aren't party games (e.g. Codenames). I have played it once, with 6. it is relatively quick, and I enjoyed it, but a couple other players really got boned by their deck shuffle and were effectively cut out of large portions of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
Lichtenstein posted:Better than Risk, worse than World in Flames. Does not compute?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:I have played it once, with 6. it is relatively quick, and I enjoyed it, but a couple other players really got boned by their deck shuffle and were effectively cut out of large portions of the game. Yeah, that's one of the things I read in reviews about it - though apparently this can be somewhat mitigated by allowing mulligans of your starting hand. Lichtenstein posted:Better than Risk, worse than World in Flames. I could be wrong, but I'm not sure that either of these games fall within the same niche (i.e. sub-6000-minute 6-player team games) Are there any other good board games that allow team play that are also somewhat flexible with player count? We've enjoyed Captain Sonar but any fewer than 6 players it doesn't really work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:10
|
|
|
Kerro posted:Yeah, that's one of the things I read in reviews about it - though apparently this can be somewhat mitigated by allowing mulligans of your starting hand. Ladies & Gentlemen is good with 4-11, teams of 2, but the gameplay is not super deep. team play + player count flexibility is a tall order.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:29
|
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:team play + player count flexibility is a tall order. You mean besides Codenames, right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
Well the poster specifically said Not Codenames.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:08
|
|
|
Kerro posted:Any thoughts on Quartermaster General? The idea of a team-based game for 6 people that plays in less than a couple of hours really appeals, and made me realise that I can't (off the top of my head) think of too many solid team-based boardgames that aren't party games (e.g. Codenames). I've played 4 or 5 games of QMG, a few with the expansion. It's an okay game. Things I like are the asymmetry and different play styles for each faction. The focus on supplying your troops instead of building up big armies is a nice change of pace in war games. Things I don't like are that the action card driven so you're at the mercy of the RNG. You can discard 3 cards from hand to search your deck for a specific card but cards are so vital that losing that many cards has been a non-starter for me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 00:11
|
|
|
ketchup vs catsup posted:Ladies & Gentlemen is good with 4-11, teams of 2, but the gameplay is not super deep. Yeah it does seem to be. Which is a shame, I enjoy playing as part of a team and it doesn't seem inevitable that it would be difficult to design games like this. After all if it's possible to create games that are reasonably balanced with hidden teams e.g. BSG and it's possible to create balanced 1 vs many games it seems like team games should be perfectly doable. Perhaps there's just not much demand.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
LongDarkNight posted:You can discard 3 cards from hand to search your deck for a specific card but cards are so vital that losing that many cards has been a non-starter for me. Does it seem like something you could house rule around or is the rng of the decks just too integral to the game to really work around?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 01:25
|
|
|
Kerro posted:Yeah it does seem to be. Which is a shame, I enjoy playing as part of a team and it doesn't seem inevitable that it would be difficult to design games like this. After all if it's possible to create games that are reasonably balanced with hidden teams e.g. BSG and it's possible to create balanced 1 vs many games it seems like team games should be perfectly doable. Perhaps there's just not much demand. Not really designed for it, but I've been meaning to try galaxy trucker with teams of two building the same ship. Not entirely sure how it would work but probably something like you switch builders every time the timer flips.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:48
|
|
|
I've been kicking around a 6-player teams variant in my head a little bit - essentially each team builds two ships, you fly your two ships as a single flotilla (using the normal multi-ship rules), using adventure cards for one tier higher than the ships you're playing. I haven't actually had a chance to try it out given how rare it is to get six experienced truckers together, but I'm pretty sure you can make it work mechanically and be reasonably balanced.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 06:54
|
|
|
Recaffeinated posted:Not really designed for it, but I've been meaning to try galaxy trucker with teams of two building the same ship. Not entirely sure how it would work but probably something like you switch builders every time the timer flips. In the spirit of Galaxy Trucker, cut the ship-building board in half, have both teammates building their half of the ship simultaneously (no communicating or looking at the other teammate's half) then smush it together afterward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
The Narrator posted:In the spirit of Galaxy Trucker, cut the ship-building board in half, have both teammates building their half of the ship simultaneously (no communicating or looking at the other teammate's half) then smush it together afterward. Oh yeah I'd forgotten about team Galaxy Trucker. We played a few games exactly as you described (with both players being allowed to add pieces to the central column). Pretty damned fun actually 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 10:12
|
|
|
Any thread thoughs on Adrenaline? Reviews seem to indicate it hits the FPS-deathmatch-as-a-boardgame mark, whilst being fairly low-randomness with valid decision-making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 11:15
|
|
|
LazyAngel posted:Any thread thoughs on Adrenaline? Reviews seem to indicate it hits the FPS-deathmatch-as-a-boardgame mark, whilst being fairly low-randomness with valid decision-making. Haven't played it personally, but it has good reports from people I know who have including the guy who most expected to hate it based on appearance and theme and the direct conflict. It's more about area control than fragging.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
I'm about to order my first splotter game! Does Zimbabwe play ok with 3?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 11:51
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Haven't played it personally, but it has good reports from people I know who have including the guy who most expected to hate it based on appearance and theme and the direct conflict. It's more about area control than fragging. Whelp... will give it a go tomorrow then. Joys of amazon prime and a pair of younger brothers...
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 11:57
|
|
|
the panacea posted:I'm about to order my first splotter game! It may be the best count. The specialists get evenly divided, and everyone can't build everything as in the two player game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 12:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
Recaffeinated posted:Not really designed for it, but I've been meaning to try galaxy trucker with teams of two building the same ship. Not entirely sure how it would work but probably something like you switch builders every time the timer flips. Everyone at once and get a smaller timer. Embrace the chaos, don't try to fight it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2017 14:56
|
|
