|
Jabor posted:Suppose it's a three player game, and early in it's looking pretty equal. I have the opportunity to screw over exactly one of my opponents in order to benefit my position. In my group we're very often fairly open about our strategies (within reason of course - we strive not to entirely compromise our position when we do so) and it has happened on multiple occasions, for example in Inis, that someone would think out loud while deciding between the first two things you mention. And neither of the two other people would feel unfairly targetted, because those two are both things a reasonable person might see as "the best course of action to maximise my chances of winning".
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
It's not clear which action is more beneficial in the abstract. Picking the strongest player would purely be because I expect the weaker player to make errors later in the game to give me an edge. But if I choose to screw over Chris (the stronger player) every time this comes up, he's probably going to think it's revenge for all the time he's screwed me over, and not be reassured too much by me just stating that it's my best possible action.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:21
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Suppose it's a three player game, and early in it's looking pretty equal. I have the opportunity to screw over exactly one of my opponents in order to benefit my position. Is Chris going to (whine/ scream / moan) about metagaming/kingmaking and divorce you as a opponent if you choose them? Cause if so Chris definitely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:25
|
|
|
As a follow-up: if someone gets really whiny about "metagaming" when they get targeted, is it valid to avoid targeting them when all other things are equal for the sake of keeping the peace? Or is that in itself unacceptable metagaming? And where does "grumbling about metagaming when you get attacked" fit on the acceptability scale?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:27
|
|
|
Jabor posted:As a follow-up: if someone gets really whiny about "metagaming" when they get targeted, is it valid to avoid targeting them when all other things are equal for the sake of keeping the peace? Or is that in itself unacceptable metagaming? And where does "grumbling about metagaming when you get attacked" fit on the acceptability scale? If someone gets whiny about getting targeted, we tell them to grow the gently caress up and/or stop playing with them.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:29
|
|
|
Alternatively it's a "social meta" thing. My board game group is pretty close and friendly, and everyone knows well that I like complaining and knows well that no I don't actually feel offended/personally attacked when I'm complaining, I'm just doing it because it amuses me (and it sometimes amuses them too). (by "social meta" I mean, not "game meta", because the actual game/game-state is mostly irrelevant. I will gladly complain when it's the other person's best move to attack me and they know that I know it's the best move and we're all good)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:33
|
|
|
Dancer posted:Alternatively it's a "social meta" thing. My board game group is pretty close and friendly, and everyone knows well that I like complaining and knows well that no I don't actually feel offended/personally attacked when I'm complaining, I'm just doing it because it amuses me (and it sometimes amuses them too). I describe this as "strategic whining," a move I consider valid but is only acceptable when everyone at the table are friends. I will cry, threaten, and stare daggers but everyone accepts it's part of the game and no grudge leaves the table.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 02:43
|
|
|
I knew a guy that whined anytime someone made a move that affected him negatively. He no longer gets invited to games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 03:07
|
|
|
T-Bone posted:Is it out yet? Still on preorder for me at MM. Oh, looks like you're right. I've seen a handful of reviews and videos and I assumed it was available.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 03:14
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I knew a guy that whined anytime someone made a move that affected him negatively. He no longer gets invited to games. This is sort of the thing. For every "dirty kingmaker / meta-wrecker" there's a porcupine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 03:34
|
|
|
I'm interested in picking up Spirit Island but was wondering how it plays at 2, and would you consider it accessible for someone who hasn't played a lot of board games? I'll have some occasions to play it at higher counts, but am hoping that it's something my non-board game enthusiast wife and I can get some mileage out of. I've read the rulebook and while there's a lot there, it doesn't seem that difficult to explain, and most importantly the mechanics seem to make thematic sense. Would love to hear thoughts from people who've actually played it, though. Mikey Purp fucked around with this message at 04:48 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 04:16
|
|
|
2 is probably the best player count for balance and player experience. I’ve had success with people that have only played Catan/Pandemic and I ran most of the upkeep stuff and all the had to worry about was their own cards and powers. Worked just fine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 04:21
|
|
|
Just finished Charterstone, after a break due to life. I won with 916, my wife was in the 880's, then 7 something, then 6 something. I had a string of early to midgame victories and kinda couldn't be stopped, I had a great last game with buildings and stuff, my wife had a great last game with a ridiculous combo involving some big money. I think everyone had a pretty good time overall. We're all happy to be done, though, campaign games can feel like it's the only thing available. We can play other stuff with that couple now! ...they're not very *good* at charterstone, nor at a lot of strategic games, really, but they're good sports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 04:52
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I describe this as "strategic whining," a move I consider valid but is only acceptable when everyone at the table are friends. I will cry, threaten, and stare daggers but everyone accepts it's part of the game and no grudge leaves the table. This is a powerful technique which I also practice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
If diplomacy is a trash mechanic, is Chinatown the worst game or the best game?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 05:13
|
|
|
my multiplayer strategy is to be an rear end in a top hat
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Looking for something Big and Dumb to do an all-day game of over the Xmas/New Years break with my buddies while they're in town. In the past we've done Rune Wars, Pax Britannica a bunch of times, Republic of Rome, Eclipse, etc etc. Ideally 6+ players and 3-6 hrs. I'm going to see if I can borrow TI4 off someone, Sidereal Confluence also looks interesting playing 9 but it looks like it might not take all day? Anything else reasonably available and new that suits that kind of goal?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:If diplomacy is a trash mechanic, is Chinatown the worst game or the best game? Depends if you play it with binding deals like sidereal confluence  but for reals, even with pure trading games, binding deals allow for loans and futures markets that nonbinding deals don't really allow
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 05:45
|
|
|
The only meta-gaming that I'm truly sick of is "this person owns the game, therefore it makes sense to dogpile them." Worse yet is no one else buys games.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:06
|
|
|
What other good games are there with binding deals? The only one I know of is Sidereal Confluence, and I guess the pact cards in Through the Ages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:08
|
|
|
Eclipse punishes you a bit for breaking deals. Struggle of Empires goes really far and defines alliances for a round and you simply cannot attack your allies as much as you may want to.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:21
|
|
|
I really ought to try struggle of empiresDr. Video Games 0069 posted:What other good games are there with binding deals? The only one I know of is Sidereal Confluence, and I guess the pact cards in Through the Ages. Here I Stand, Virgin Queen, Die Macher, John Company from what I've played. These are on a spectrum, since JC/SC are more like negative repercussions, DM is more a guarantee they can't run against you in a race of a specific region with the tradeoff meaning someone gets to piggyback votes, and full-blown treaties with HIS/VQ. Some 18xx games like 18CZ specifically say that deals may be binding or non-binding on mutual player agreement. Here I Stand/ VQ may be considered a good game or a lame experience generator (or both!) based on your thoughts on wrestling control from random chance in a long, historical game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:22
|
|
|
Dr. Video Games 0069 posted:What other good games are there with binding deals? The only one I know of is Sidereal Confluence, and I guess the pact cards in Through the Ages. Dune (reskinned as Rex from FFG) has explicit alliances. Each player can use their partner’s unique faction ability, and their forces behave differently with each other than with enemies. Alliances can only be formed/broken during very specific phases in the game.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 06:35
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:If diplomacy is a trash mechanic, is Chinatown the worst game or the best game? I think negotiations tend to play better in games where there is an exchange of some sort of commodity, especially ones in which there can be a clear benefit for both players when a deal is made, even if that benefit is not equal, and especially if those benefits are only partially quantifiable. For instance, in Bohnanza, a deal can be made where both players clearly profit from it, to the point where it can be useful to give your own cards away to prevent an upcoming bean from ruining your fields through forced planting. Who winds up getting more value from the exchange is usually roughly quantifiable at the time it is made (especially if both players are able to harvest after the trade) but can also be quite fuzzy due to the inherent randomness of a card game with random draws. In games where deals primarily revolve around negotiating aggressive actions against other players I think it tends to be a bad mechanism because you're usually just trying to figure out who to gang up on. I guess what I'm saying is that as you approach a pure chip-taking game the viability of negotiation as an enjoyable mechanism diminishes until you reach the point that the whole game is just an exercise in who to eliminate from contention first. Dr. Video Games 0069 posted:What other good games are there with binding deals? The only one I know of is Sidereal Confluence, and I guess the pact cards in Through the Ages.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 07:20
|
|
|
Twilight Imperium 4th edition has promissory notes that can be traded during deals. It can be as simple as "an extra point as long as you don't attack me" or "forced retreat if you attack me", to a special one for each race. They can be traded along to other players too, without your knowledge, which opens up diplomacy to a bit more risk though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 08:50
|
|
|
xiw posted:Looking for something Big and Dumb to do an all-day game of over the Xmas/New Years break with my buddies while they're in town. In the past we've done Rune Wars, Pax Britannica a bunch of times, Republic of Rome, Eclipse, etc etc. Ideally 6+ players and 3-6 hrs.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 11:10
|
|
|
xiw posted:Looking for something Big and Dumb to do an all-day game of over the Xmas/New Years break with my buddies while they're in town. In the past we've done Rune Wars, Pax Britannica a bunch of times, Republic of Rome, Eclipse, etc etc. Ideally 6+ players and 3-6 hrs. Sidereal Confluence is fine as long as you use a timer for the negotiation phase. If people are just learning it, set aside 15 minutes for the first turn's negotiation, then stick to 10 for the rest. That's plenty of time and it keeps the game to 2-2.5 hours.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 15:53
|
|
|
xiw posted:Looking for something Big and Dumb to do an all-day game of over the Xmas/New Years break with my buddies while they're in town. In the past we've done Rune Wars, Pax Britannica a bunch of times, Republic of Rome, Eclipse, etc etc. Ideally 6+ players and 3-6 hrs. Mega civilization
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 15:56
|
|
|
xiw posted:Looking for something Big and Dumb to do an all-day game of over the Xmas/New Years break with my buddies while they're in town. In the past we've done Rune Wars, Pax Britannica a bunch of times, Republic of Rome, Eclipse, etc etc. Ideally 6+ players and 3-6 hrs. obligatory Campaign for North Africa
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 16:25
|
|
|
Having not been aware of this at all previously this actually looks exactly like what I've been looking for. Anyone have any experiences of it as I'd rather not get a second mortgage if it's not rad as all hell. Or anything they'd recommend with a similar theme?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 16:48
|
|
|
Just got Venus Next and only just now became aware of the printing error on the North American cards that makes them smaller than the base game's cards. Unfortunate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:24
|
|
|
Jihad Joe posted:Having not been aware of this at all previously this actually looks exactly like what I've been looking for. Oh sweet Jesus, I wasn't expecting anyone to take me seriously. Medioevo Universale is a Risk-meets-Civ heartbreaker that got Kickstarted a while back. I honestly never thought it would be produced. But it has been, and I took photos as proof or nobody would believe me. Initial reviews are positive, but then they would be because they're from backers. They also say that the game takes about 90 minutes to teach - it's apparently quite simple mechanically, but there are so many things going on - and that a medium length game will take between 5 and 7 hours. If you want the MU experience at lower cost, get Crusader Kings: the Board Game when it comes out. On the other hand, you could just say "gently caress it" because even if it isn't a perfect experience nobody is going to forget it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:34
|
|
|
wizzardstaff posted:Dune (reskinned as Rex from FFG) has explicit alliances. Each player can use their partner’s unique faction ability, and their forces behave differently with each other than with enemies. Alliances can only be formed/broken during very specific phases in the game. Are there any games out there (I don't know, maybe Dune is one), where you can permanently ally with another player and potentially share victory between you? Would it be a valid catch-up mechanism for a game like Eclipse to allow two players to form an alliance where their scores are averaged between them at the end for the team's score?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:40
|
|
|
Jedit posted:Oh sweet Jesus, I wasn't expecting anyone to take me seriously. Yeah I read between the lines but this pretty much sounds like my perfect game so was hoping it wasn't the Star Citizen of board games or something. I'm disinclined to buy into the rabid fanboyism of BGG or backers so I guess I'll wait for some reputable reviews. Our group will happily break out Twilight Imperium at the drop of a hat if we can possibly get together so none of the above should be an issue. Cheers for the heads up on CK I'll take a look. Ballbot5000 fucked around with this message at 17:48 on Nov 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:45
|
|
|
Oh are the Kemet expansion(s?) any good? Tell me about it/them(?), please. (Played Kemet 3x now - it gets better every time, and it's more fun when everyone at the table has played at least once. We're hoping to get a 5p game of it soon, because 3p is good, but we figure that there'd be more chaos and conflict with 5 because the ability tiles will spread out more).
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:46
|
|
|
Max posted:Just got Venus Next. Unfortunate.  Anyone have any opinions on The Rose King? Looks like a nice simple abstract in the vein of Tash and it's dirt cheap. https://www.amazon.com/Thames-Kosmo...694228074&psc=1 CommonShore posted:Oh are the Kemet expansion(s?) any good? Tell me about it/them(?), please. Ta-Seti has a few modules; the black tiles which are great, the new game end rules which are great, and the priest path, which is garbage. Seth turns the game into a 1 v All and looks really interesting but I haven't heard much about balance or anything yet.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Aston posted:Are there any games out there (I don't know, maybe Dune is one), where you can permanently ally with another player and potentially share victory between you? Would it be a valid catch-up mechanism for a game like Eclipse to allow two players to form an alliance where their scores are averaged between them at the end for the team's score? Dune is one. It doesn't have a score; victory is achieved by controlling a certain number of territories at the end of a turn. If an allied set of players controls enough, they win together and it's just as real a victory as any other. (Unless the Bene Gesserit do their mind tricks. But special rules and individual faction victory conditions are an irrelevant tangent here.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Alright I'm gonna make a small post on the games I played on my bi-yearly boardgaming weekend. Was pretty good weekend even though I got con flu and couldn't sleep. In three parts: I must respectfully disagree that Decrypto trumps Codenames. Decrypto is like a heavier, gamer's Codenames with its greater emphasis on adjusting your plays to screw with the enemy team. It is rather less encouraging of free-flowing table talk because you are again minding what the other team knows more sharply. This makes it less party-friendly. I imagine just about anyone could drop Codenames on six to ten of their assembled uncles, cousins, and grandparents over Christmas. Decrypto not so much. Decrypto also tests different language skills than Codenames. Anyway, the niches they occupy in terms of player-count and situational applicability are different enough that one cannot obsolete the other. Is 1st and Roll related to 1st and Goal (the board game from R&R, not the football terminology)? Thanks for the thoughts on Pantone (and Root, and others). I'd like to hear more about Pantone because of a graphic designer friend who likes the theme. Agent Rush posted:Another question about the Sirlin Games sale, does anyone have experience with Pandante? The description makes it sound interesting, but I probably wouldn't consider it outside of a big sale like this. I have to go with thread-mind on Pandante. Doesn't seem like a particularly good product, not for its cost. I'm pro-Codex, with limited play experience though (don't own it myself). Feels like a tuned-up Magic the Gathering to me and does fairly well feel like Warcraft 3 at the same time. However, there's no doubting that it's a complete dog's breakfast in terms of art and theme. Just all over the place. I'll also belatedly agree that Yomi Round 1 and/or 2 is where you want to go to start with Yomi. And don't forget Puzzle Strike! The first set, with the pink box, contains less complicated chip and character ideas and is the one to get if you only get one. Note that the blue box can stand alone as its own game though because it also has all the rules and basic game components. Aston posted:Are there any games out there (I don't know, maybe Dune is one), where you can permanently ally with another player and potentially share victory between you? Would it be a valid catch-up mechanism for a game like Eclipse to allow two players to form an alliance where their scores are averaged between them at the end for the team's score? Ah, that is literally what alliances do in Eclipse...
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 17:55
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:The only meta-gaming that I'm truly sick of is "this person owns the game, therefore it makes sense to dogpile them." Worse yet is no one else buys games. Speaking of wanting to play literally all of the games, the El Dorado chat from earlier made me realise that my collection has a pretty glaring deck/engine building shaped hole in it. I am probably going to pick up one of Splendor, El Dorado, Clank!, Spice Road or maybe Gizmos at a push (I think the marbles are neat but I'm almost certain the game will confuse/frustrate my beginner friends). Do people have any strong opinions about any of those games and have I missed any other obvious alternatives?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:Mega civilization We did a 6 player game of Mega Civ on the weekend that we had to cut a round or two short because of people's time constraints but with two new players and the normal AST track we were flying. It's so interesting to hear from people who are always skeptical at first is the "oh this is actually really simple" and "wow I was having fun and engaged the entire time". I think it says a lot about how badly people have been burned (myself included) that a lot of people are terrified to touch an epic like Civ that could last like half a day, but when they do they're knocked down by how good it is. I don't think I would ever touch the Expert side of the AST again unless everyone playing really knows what they're doing and/or it's a smaller group. The normal side had us moving briskly but even by the end the tech buys were getting atrocious. That said, I had Wonder of the World by maybe turn four or five, which was awesome. It was also interesting because the other game up for possible play that day was Here I Stand but I got terrified it would ruin everyone's gaming day with how fiddly and intricate it is so we defaulted to MC. I will get HiS onto the table in the new year, so help me God.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2018 18:05
|
|
