|
FulsomFrank posted:We've been playing Mega Civ pretty frequently lately and it's like real-life monotheism in action because (almost) everyone who plays it immediately becomes converted and wants to play it again ASAP. For the 18 player game even the guys who were down and out in the first few rounds were asking when the next game was. I think this is because even though they didn't do well, they were thinking about how to fix their mistakes for the next time and felt like they could change what went wrong, which I think is a tremendous sign of a good game. There's also the fact that down and out in civ still lets you...build a civilization. You might not reach world spanning heights, but you're still advancing, building cities, skirmishing with neighbors, and maybe get hit less with side effects from calamities too. Like, aiming for 3rd place when you're in 5th feels...actually good in civ, whereas it kinda sucks in a lot of other civ games? I dunno, I'm also really biased. (note I've not played mega, so maybe you really can get completely devastated in it)
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
silvergoose posted:There's also the fact that down and out in civ still lets you...build a civilization. You might not reach world spanning heights, but you're still advancing, building cities, skirmishing with neighbors, and maybe get hit less with side effects from calamities too. Like, aiming for 3rd place when you're in 5th feels...actually good in civ, whereas it kinda sucks in a lot of other civ games? I dunno, I'm also really biased. No you're still correct, you can still build stuff and work toward trying to get better. I'll admit though, the part that blows is not having enough cities to get a good amount of trade cards so in the best part of the game you're relegated to staring unhappily as your neighbours all horse-trade to their hearts' content and you just hope a civil war hits someone next to you. Also, if your neighbours are being ruthless you can end up in the middle of a poo poo sandwich with your meagre territory being chewed away at from both sides which can be frustrating, but again, everyone is just one bad calamity away from a turn or two rebuilding. I think the biggest problem in Civ is that people have to understand who is in the lead and NOT HELP THEM KEEP WINNING. Whether this is hitting them with every secondary effect you can, attacking their cities, refusing trades... you can't just sit back if someone is running away with it, doubly so if they're your neighbour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:26
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Lorini is going to lose her mind when she reads this. Also, is board game hipsterism a thing because this sounds like board game hipsterism Oh I've heard it many many times. One thing that some who criticize it don't realize is that when we were working on Advanced Civ, it was meant to be a game that was more accessible than regular Civ. He can idolize Tresham all he wants (I heard the podcast and he even credited me with supporting Adv Civ on BGG for years) but regular Civ is not accessible if you look at it as a current game as we were looking at it. Egypt and Babylon are terrible countries to take in a game where the AST determines the winner since they have to take a bounce to grow. That was a poor design decision I'm sorry. And the fact that calamities didn't have to be played and could be discarded ignored an important way of stopping the leader. Now does Adv Civ go overboard on calamities? Probably but we did put in a way to mitigate that somewhat. In regular Civ you could take cards that would literally prevent you from being able to win early on in the game. Again remember that Avalon Hill at the time is trying to sell this game as a box, not as a cult classic. So looking back and fixing the things that they can fix because they know the game so well then sure people who like Civ better than Adv Civ or people who hate Adv Civ feel all superior but they are forgetting that the game was not designed with 2018 in mind. If you want to read a long discussion on it, here you go. I'm friends with Chris Farrell and respect his views even though I don't agree with them. Mark Bigney tends to fall in love with designers. Had Tresham released Advanced Civ as Civ he'd probably be fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:32
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:No you're still correct, you can still build stuff and work toward trying to get better. I'll admit though, the part that blows is not having enough cities to get a good amount of trade cards so in the best part of the game you're relegated to staring unhappily as your neighbours all horse-trade to their hearts' content and you just hope a civil war hits someone next to you. Also, if your neighbours are being ruthless you can end up in the middle of a poo poo sandwich with your meagre territory being chewed away at from both sides which can be frustrating, but again, everyone is just one bad calamity away from a turn or two rebuilding. Yeah Euro players are not used to that kind of game play which is why it's refreshing that Root has caught on so much. Maybe bashing the leader isn't the worst thing ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Lorini is going to lose her mind when she reads this. Also, is board game hipsterism a thing because this sounds like board game hipsterism I find this crops up often in board games, especially when a redesign approaches an older game. We can look at the wonky rules in older games from a modern lense but past designers knew what the hell they were doing. Like I find Dune to be far more dynamic and interesting than Rex which is streamlined and cleaner but the rules changes turns a cutthroat political game where combat is so expensive it has to be weighed carefully into a dudes-on-a-map game where combat is the only thing you're allowed to engage with and the combat is too simplistic to base a whole game around it. There are a few cases where I'll say "I'd rather play the original" and I don't think that's hipsterism, it's more like people who would rather watch old movies instead of the remakes. I think both Dawn of the Dead films are good for different reasons but if I was going to recommend someone a good zombie movie it would be the 70s film first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
SVWAG has their patreon up now. The three dollar tier is tempting to get the unedited episodes. Donate or don't, whatever. https://www.patreon.com/svwag
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 17:39
|
|
|
al-azad posted:I find this crops up often in board games, especially when a redesign approaches an older game. We can look at the wonky rules in older games from a modern lense but past designers knew what the hell they were doing. Like I find Dune to be far more dynamic and interesting than Rex which is streamlined and cleaner but the rules changes turns a cutthroat political game where combat is so expensive it has to be weighed carefully into a dudes-on-a-map game where combat is the only thing you're allowed to engage with and the combat is too simplistic to base a whole game around it. Basically what makes it ~hipsterism~ or not is the ability to express why you prefer the old one in some kind of tangible terms more specific than something like pure nostalgia. Not a board game, but AD&D is a good example for me to use - I like to play a game of AD&D, with its THAC0 and spaghetti rules and crazy lethality now and again. 5e is way more streamlined, and is probably the easier game system to understand. If I were to say "I like AD&D for its retro charm, 5e is too streamlined and corporate," that's hipsterism (or w/e). But my reason for occasionally enjoying AD&D over smoother, cleaner systems is that the insane, brutal, unpredictable rules have a tendency to encourage the players to circumvent the rules by role playing and being clever, whereas the modern rules tend to encourage players to work within the system and stack powers for maximum dice-chucking ability. That has nothing to do with "Gygax's pure vision" (even though I think that's the point of the rules). They're different experiences, and they're both valid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
You obviously take the chip off whoever brought the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:12
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:You obviously take the chip off whoever brought the game. Die!!!!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:18
|
|
|
Mr. Squishy posted:You obviously take the chip off whoever brought the game. And stayed up to learn the rules, and taught them to you, but whack them @ every oppo because obviously they know the game best and are the superior secret threat
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:29
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:And stayed up to learn the rules, and taught them to you, but whack them @ every oppo because obviously they know the game best and are the superior secret threat This happens to me an absurd amount of the time, especially in Cthulhu Wars. (OK, I often do win because I know the game best, but that's not the point.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:43
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:And stayed up to learn the rules, and taught them to you, but whack them @ every oppo because obviously they know the game best and are the superior secret threat Yeah, I default as the target in most of our games because I buy/teach them all. Also, if someone doesn't know what to do, they often copy me, which sucked in An Infamous Traffic. I'll invest in fleets! Uhh me too I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
Ravendas posted:Yeah, I default as the target in most of our games because I buy/teach them all. Also, if someone doesn't know what to do, they often copy me, which sucked in An Infamous Traffic.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 18:55
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Oh I've heard it many many times. One thing that some who criticize it don't realize is that when we were working on Advanced Civ, it was meant to be a game that was more accessible than regular Civ. He can idolize Tresham all he wants (I heard the podcast and he even credited me with supporting Adv Civ on BGG for years) but regular Civ is not accessible if you look at it as a current game as we were looking at it. Egypt and Babylon are terrible countries to take in a game where the AST determines the winner since they have to take a bounce to grow. That was a poor design decision I'm sorry. And the fact that calamities didn't have to be played and could be discarded ignored an important way of stopping the leader. Now does Adv Civ go overboard on calamities? Probably but we did put in a way to mitigate that somewhat. In regular Civ you could take cards that would literally prevent you from being able to win early on in the game. Again remember that Avalon Hill at the time is trying to sell this game as a box, not as a cult classic. Thanks for answering! That helps a lot. The bounce stuff in the original AST model really was broken, wasn't it.  I'll check out that link. Falling in love with designers sounds accurate, that helps clarify a bit too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
To be fair to Mark, he’s not big on 18XX and really likes Mega Civ, which he admits is closer to Advanced Civ than to the original. I think this was a case of not liking specific things and less of being in love with the designer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:46
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:To be fair to Mark, he’s not big on 18XX and really likes Mega Civ, which he admits is closer to Advanced Civ than to the original. I think this was a case of not liking specific things and less of being in love with the designer. So you're saying his opinion evolves during the podcast and I should keep listening til I get to present? That sounds like what you're saying. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 19:59
|
|
|
Anyone have experience with Wir Sind Das Volk 2x2? I wonder if the other two players feel a bit tacked on and it works better as a 2p game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:14
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Anyone have experience with Wir Sind Das Volk 2x2? I wonder if the other two players feel a bit tacked on and it works better as a 2p game. I know for a fact that Tekopo thinks it's brilliant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:So you're saying his opinion evolves during the podcast and I should keep listening til I get to present? That sounds like what you're saying. I was surprised to read how he felt about Adv. Civ because in one of the later episodes (which are the only ones I've listened to) he raves about Mega Civ and specifically criticizes it for leaving out Mayveena and the rest of the Adv. Civ design team from the credits because it's so clearly a branch of Adv. more than the original.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
AceRimmer posted:Anyone have experience with Wir Sind Das Volk 2x2? I wonder if the other two players feel a bit tacked on and it works better as a 2p game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
New FCM milestones sheet I mocked up based on a pic on BGG from the expansion. Expansion will also include coffee/kimchi/road construction milestones but this was what they have been using/testing I guess. This will completely change the game though as is, so go hog wild. Print size is 5x7
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:48
|
|
|
drat trainer basically allows you to set up late-game mega-turns
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
Some of those seem really cool and fun, but others are just awful. I've learned the hard way more than once that 'permanent radio' is more of a liability than anything else, for instance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:To be fair to Mark, he’s not big on 18XX and really likes Mega Civ, which he admits is closer to Advanced Civ than to the original. I think this was a case of not liking specific things and less of being in love with the designer. This last discussion of Advanced Civ of his was the second discussion by Mark (or at least the second discussion) and in the previous discussion he made it clear that the design team of Advanced Civ never should have existed because Tresham made the original and no one could do better than Tresham. The latest discussion of the two games was within the context of Mega Civ. I responded on their FB page about why Advanced Civ was made in the first place, namely the Egypt/Babylon problem and the fact that a player can buy cards early in the game that can then prevent them from winning. From a publishers point of view those two issues are unacceptable. AH is not shipping a game where they tell you 'oh yeah these things are in the game but don’t do them'. Mark didn’t respond and Walker simply acknowledged that I wrote something. The current pro Civ players never acknowledge these issues which is annoying, noting that Chris Farell is an exception and acknowledges that they hand hold new players. But AH wanted a game that players could enjoy even if everyone is new and I agreed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
I mean Tresham also made 1829, 1830 and 1853 so he couldn't have been that good a designer 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
double post I actually like 1853 though, even with my rating of 6 on BGG
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:11
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:I mean Tresham also made 1829, 1830 and 1853 so he couldn't have been that good a designer '29 and '53 suck, and he quit on '30. '30 is almost all Bruce Shelley.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
I'll have to see what the rest of the expansion is like, because some of those seem weird as hell out of context. I'm intrigued by the way that some of those milestones have cross-advantages. Instead of "First X" giving a big "X" related advantage, it has an effect somewhere else. Unrelated (or is it?) but I have been playing FCM online a lot and my biggest online peeve is the way that no one ever chooses anything other than the +$300 reserve cards and focusing on building juggernaut orgs in a game with the max bank reserves possible. I kind of prefer the turn to turn jockeying so instead I try to win with early with selling before the "big money" strats of first radio + huge production fall, and it only very rarely works. I still try, though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:12
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:'29 and '53 suck, and he quit on '30. '30 is almost all Bruce Shelley. I think Tresham is a good designer but a bad developer, and overall board game design is really REALLY lacking in developers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
Another example of a good designer bad developer is probably Martin Wallace.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:24
|
|
|
Tekopo posted:Another example of a good designer bad developer is probably Martin Wallace. Yes that’s what I wanted to add. Tresham is an awesome designer, he just needed a developer. I think Martin is a better developer, he just can’t write rules. He’s also a bad businessman, but that’s another discussion 😀
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:30
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:'29 and '53 suck, and he quit on '30. '30 is almost all Bruce Shelley. I laughed pretty hard when I was reading the General article about 30, where early in development you could do insane stuff like sell your privates to corporations for five (?) times the price which is just absolutely bonkers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:35
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:Unrelated (or is it?) but I have been playing FCM online a lot and my biggest online peeve is the way that no one ever chooses anything other than the +$300 reserve cards and focusing on building juggernaut orgs in a game with the max bank reserves possible. I kind of prefer the turn to turn jockeying so instead I try to win with early with selling before the "big money" strats of first radio + huge production fall, and it only very rarely works. I still try, though! I'd like to see ties for the CEO capacity chosen by first player or last player or something (on the turn the bank breaks). In 2p in particular, if you put in a $300 tile you know for a fact that your CEO will have 4 slots.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:If I were to say "I like AD&D for its retro charm, 5e is too streamlined and corporate," that's hipsterism (or w/e). But my reason for occasionally enjoying AD&D over smoother, cleaner systems is that the insane, brutal, unpredictable rules have a tendency to encourage the players to circumvent the rules by role playing and being clever, whereas the modern rules tend to encourage players to work within the system and stack powers for maximum dice-chucking ability. That has nothing to do with "Gygax's pure vision" (even though I think that's the point of the rules). They're different experiences, and they're both valid. TBCF AD&D2 was all about stacking splat books in unintended ways to create ridiculous advantages, and un-credible situations. I feel like the issue with comparing D&D systems in particular is that your experience is so intimately tied to the group you are playing with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Yes that’s what I wanted to add. Tresham is an awesome designer, he just needed a developer. Hey, I was pretty much the first person ever to buy a Martin Wallace game and I'm still buying them!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2019 23:11
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:New FCM milestones sheet.... just fyi, a comment on that image from splotter: "There’s only a few that haven’t changed by now..." which I take to mean that most of those milestones have changed edit: my bad for telling you something you already know if you're the guy asking jmdsplotter what he meant prokaryote fucked around with this message at 00:17 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
prokaryote posted:just fyi, a comment on that image from splotter: "There’s only a few that haven’t changed by now..." Yeah it was hard to read if he was referring to the discussion on that image or to the image directly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:03
|
|
|
Thank you for the FCM update and note. Interesting mega/adv Civ discussion. I was about to comment about SVWAG’s mega vs Civ likes but it’s been covered. The Eyes Have It posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 01:54
|
|
|
Rosenberg Fact of the day: Uwe Rosenberg was a big civilization fan in the 80s and Bohnanza was inspired by Civ's trading..
discount cathouse fucked around with this message at 10:02 on Jan 15, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 09:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Game night! We played through the Christmas haul: Flick 'Em Up: Dead of Winter. We played through the first scenario. The scenario itself was very simple, but that was good, since it let us internalize the basic rules, which are a bit fiddly. The noise mechanism makes you think about positioning, and the Zombie Tower makes a dexterity co-op really work. The different weapons work in interesting ways. For instance, one of our guys can't flick for poo poo, so we let him always use the character with the rifle. Definitely a good drunk game, if enough people already know it. HMS Dolores. Clever little take on the Prisoner's dilemma. We played with three players, and I think that must be the best way to do it, for minimal downtime, while still keeping the matchups different each turn. The scoring system gives you good reasons for making different choices. There's not a whole lot to say about it, but it's solid. Blue Lagoon. Fuuuuck. This just shot right to the top of my Knizia games. Might replace a few other games I already have, too. I played this twice tonight, both times with four people, and I was the only one who played both times. I agree with everything people on here have said! I really like games that give me multiple reasons for doing something, then make me deal with my priorities shifting over time as a result of those actions. That's a really inelegant way to put it, but Blue Lagoon is very elegant. At least one other person who played tonight is going to buy it too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2019 10:47
|
|
