|
jarofpiss posted:new dungeon crawl in my quest to own every dungeon crawl ever made: DungeonQuest was good times with friends when I was 12 or whatever, I still own my copy! It can be seen as a lolrandom "dying of starvation in a exit-less corridor is very 1985" kind of fantasy game, but there are actually a number of things to admire about DungeonQuest!
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
Hansa Teutonica Big Box has arrived  https://i.imgur.com/228XTAO.mp4
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 09:40
|
|
|
I gotta get Hansa Teutonica Britannia back to the table at some point. We only played it once, and then went back to just playing the Eastern expansion. But there may be more in Britannia than we first saw and I'd like to give it another shot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 15:37
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:DungeonQuest was good times with friends when I was 12 or whatever, I still own my copy! this sounds great! that other guy made it sound much worse. im gonna try and play this evening and report back
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 18:20
|
|
|
Well, it's also true that it is not much of a "game" in the more serious sense of the word. And it's true that picking up some minor treasure then escaping is a winning (yet boring) strategy on average because most people will die in the dungeon on the way to or from filling their pockets. I think the game has seen updates over the years but I only know the 1985 version; I seem to remember hearing combat changed at some point? Anyway, enjoy your game. Collecting dungeon crawls sounds like a fine theme for a collection.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
It's actually a pretty decent beer and pretzels game, half the fun is watching everyone else explode. It is incredibly 80s though If someone made me choose between this and Betrayal to kill an hour or two I'd pick this every time
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 21:42
|
|
|
I disliked both Blood Rage and Rising Sun, for reasons I can't entirely articulate, but seem to be something around the game's philosophy of "go for the most broken combo you can, but if it's your first few games you won't know what they are so good luck!!1!!".
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Hey Mayveena I'm watching your "Thoughts" on Dominant Species: Marine right now and thank you - you answered the main questions I had about it as a big fan of the original. I was going to windmill slam the p500 until I saw "4 players" and the change to the action selection system so I held off, and now I'm glad that I did. By the way my suspicion is that the series uses the "dominance" formula so that there are two different types of area control that players have to balance: more cubes (for points) vs better cubes (for cards). And that's why I love the game so much - literally every decision is about negotiating a balance.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 15:25
|
|
|
huh I think I might have accidentally stumbled across a video of how the Lorenzo sized wooden dice get made. https://i.imgur.com/SGWllYK.mp4 Which also nicely demonstrates how crap like this happens Infinitum posted:Didn't get to play Lorenzo Il Magnifico today, but I did get to demo it which led to me discovering this crime against dicemanity Must have been the interns day on the polka-dotting machine 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 15:43
|
|
|
How do people feel about Heroes and Hexes expansion for Quest for El Dorado? Same question for the Golden Temples stand-alone. Do they all mix together well?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 17:35
|
|
|
CommonShore posted:Hey Mayveena I'm watching your "Thoughts" on Dominant Species: Marine right now and thank you - you answered the main questions I had about it as a big fan of the original. I was going to windmill slam the p500 until I saw "4 players" and the change to the action selection system so I held off, and now I'm glad that I did. I frankly feel that the original dominance calculation works way better than the new dominance calculation and especially because it means a lot more in the original than it does in the new. Also the new calculation makes dominance jump all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2021 21:50
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:I frankly feel that the original dominance calculation works way better than the new dominance calculation and especially because it means a lot more in the original than it does in the new. Also the new calculation makes dominance jump all over the place. oh! I didn't know that they had changed it. That seems silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 04:49
|
|
|
Has anyone played 18Ireland? It sounds fairly wacky and like a mix of 1849 and... games with mergers (1817 is the only one I've ever played with them!). I was reading on the geek about it and Clearclaw showed up in the comments saying:quote:"We figured that out half-way through the first game and ever after that it was simply tediously rote: In every SR prior to the permanents, empty every IPO and put every company on the floor. Lather, rinse, repeat. There's just no reason to allow other players to get that income to treasury or the (higher) stock-prices when merging... I don't understand what he's saying though. Unless I'm misunderstanding the rules it seems you can only ever buy a single share at a time so where is he getting the "two shares" from? Or is he just referring to the fact that they're 20% certificates? If so I don't see how that would apply to 1830.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
I've played it once in a pbf and enjoyed it. I've heard a few people say it's overlong for what it offers, but that may just be received wisdom. I've got a physical copy but haven't been able to play in person for a year, and I've given up playing online with a spreadsheet. It's hitting .games sometime in the future. I believe the 2 shares aren't bought in one turn. You buy a share, next turn you buy another and immediately sell down (I don't know offhand if 'Ireland let's you sell after the buy. If not add another turn in the mix). A lot of what Clearclaw says can be dismissed as unusually rigorous group think.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 19:58
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Has anyone played 18Ireland? It sounds fairly wacky and like a mix of 1849 and... games with mergers (1817 is the only one I've ever played with them!). I was reading on the geek about it and Clearclaw showed up in the comments saying: 18Ireland is 1849 but without anything that may inspire joy. The privates are useless and comedically bad. You can start a terrible 5-share company and lose, or don't and fall further behind. On the rare occasion you do get a good 5-share company going (breaking $10/run is a Sisyphean task) it will be destroyed promptly, either by opponents forcing an awful merger, share trashing before and/or after the merge, or tragic track. The bank can sometimes break before permanents come out. Companies slowly grind into dust, unable to buy a good train because the rusted versions of old trains are available and affordable. I like how narrow gauge is used to add the pip's value to a city but that's about it. It's a 6 hour misery simulator. Bellmaker fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Mar 18, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2021 21:38
|
|
|
FulsomFrank posted:Has anyone played 18Ireland? It sounds fairly wacky and like a mix of 1849 and... games with mergers (1817 is the only one I've ever played with them!). I was reading on the geek about it and Clearclaw showed up in the comments saying: That play pattern explains why, when I once joined some randos on 18xx.games, it seemed like they were communally targeting me the outsider player by dumping my shares. I still wonder if that was the case but I wouldn’t play with them again so it doesn’t matter but it has me thinking about the groupthink that must exist in these groups. I’m sure there’s certainly an aspect of groupthink in my group where we might do the opposite and snatch up shares quickly if someone dumps even just one. But it’s interesting to reconsider how play patterns are affected by group think when you haven’t had to think about it. I remember when someone here posted what it was like to play with clearclaw and how they had a stern disappointed, passive-aggressive sigh/look when they “obviously” did the wrong thing and actually here’s the right way to go about things. It’s also why I enjoy playing container with new people who disrupt the flow of things. Signaling shouldn’t turn into a coded language like in bridge. It’s fine in bridge cuz you’re expected to play with a partner and that’s a skill that’s tested by the game. But in container, you might as well be talking openly about what you’re doing if there’s a new person joining and you want to “preserve” the sanctity of your coded signals. Kinda like how in MTG you’ll have grognards screaming at you cuz they sat on your left in draft and you obviously signaled that color X was open when you passed that obvious bomb uncommon so how dare you take the other good picks later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 09:20
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:That play pattern explains why, when I once joined some randos on 18xx.games, it seemed like they were communally targeting me the outsider player by dumping my shares. I still wonder if that was the case but I wouldn’t play with them again so it doesn’t matter but it has me thinking about the groupthink that must exist in these groups. I’m sure there’s certainly an aspect of groupthink in my group where we might do the opposite and snatch up shares quickly if someone dumps even just one. I think people talk about that with Puerto Rico and maybe Terra Mystica too? It reminds me of what the blackjack players call 'advantage play' for some reason, but that abbreviation is already in use. I wonder how this may relate to the way people get salty about kingmaking. For example, imagine three kingmaking scenarios. 1: An obvious kingmaking scenario where I must choose player A or player B with little reason to choose either, where the situation is easy to understand. 2: A longer-term situation where I must do multiple moves over time to favor A or B, you can start to see where those moves may be individually understood improve my position. 3: A point in the game where the number of choices yet to be made in the game are in the tens or hundreds. Outside of serious algorithmic understanding, the deep consequences of an action are often concealed by what I call the defacto randomness of a large possibility space. (For instance, Five Tribes is not random after setup, but your ability to observe and understand can omit data in an essentially random way, if your faculties are limited.) I think your average observer might look at the first situation and think it silly to be mad a a player who must decide who wins in a single compelled move, yet they would also not appreciate if someone took multiple actions against their own interest to further another player. But what about the third situation? They are essentially saying "you are expected to play a particular way". This has several pitfalls, but some known applications. There are certain areas where the social contract of board gaming can instruct that a player is expected to play a certain way. If a player just acts randomly because they're checked out, that's bad. Also, if a person's behavior is inappropriate for various socially unacceptable reasons, that's bad too. However, is there a 18XX social contract that compels 'correct action'? At first I thought that maybe at an expert level of play this could be rational, but consider the consequences of that. That means that in a tournament, the expert player can't use their expertise and intuition to vary from the script. To bring back the blackjack analogy: you must play perfect to profit at blackjack; there is no room for improv. However, that game is incredibly simple in comparison to almost any modern designer board game. MTG is probably a great example. Is picking card X over card Y better? Who knows? Can someone failing to reading your signals screw you up when they start cutting you? Sure. But isn't that just part of the game? If you don't like it, play sealed. There is also the possibility this is a social ploy to weaponize complaining into getting players to do what you want, a la my experience with V:TES. Even if this is the case, I don't expect 18XX players to be nearly as honest about it. That would mean that their victory was based on something other than their highly focused mind. Basically, the consequences of this thinking appear to be that the choices are known ahead of time. If that is so, why are you playing against a human? Just deal the shares to yourself and declare yourself king of trains.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 10:04
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:
I really like your entire reply but especially this last bit. One of the things that I sometimes wished for at certain points was to have “perfect” games where people might discuss together as a group what the best move might be if someone was unsure or had a lesser skill level. But I’ve found overall that what I really like in games is actually the chaos that player agency brings to the table. I think that the bounded rationality we have is what keeps things interesting compared to a rote, algorithmic approach if we were to be given the power of supercomputers. I mean we have that somewhat, it’s called heuristics, developed over years of play, but people still have their own styles and quirks. There’s a post by someone about container (medium not jumbo, but all the same) about how they’ve played container weekly for a year or more trying out different scenarios of open vs closed communication, random seating order, group openness about best moves, etc. I really envy such a group. That might be the closest to a “pure” meta I’d love to play in but nobody in my group would tolerate more than 4-5 weeks of weekly container games playing twice a night. Right now I’m in a 6P 1830 game where I’m being shat on cuz I didn’t anticipate some things and there wasn’t really communication except for me gnashing my teeth about a certain tile lay that would’ve been beneficial but not really frustrated about it. Just kinda sad my poor trains didn’t get to experience some nice runs but hey seeing the poo poo hit the fan is lol.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 13:38
|
|
|
I personally despise kingmaking, when it happens overtly. While there are games that lend themselves to it, or even in some way require it in the very very endgame, that's not the sort of thing that bothers me. It's basically just late game collusion by skilled players to turn the tide in one person's favor over another that I hate. Any time I've experienced that sort of thing, it was 100% the dynamic of the players I was playing with, and I've made a mental note to not play games with them in the future where that was a possibilty. Or, if I do, to just expect it and deal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 14:01
|
|
|
I normally don't mind some kingmaking if the person realizes what their options are and knows they can choose on their own. But I was at a 'friendly bar meetup' with randos once two years ago, and nearing the end of an hour long game, the owner of the game told the other two people to take Action_X and Action_Y on their turn, and then he'll take Action_Z, which will prevent me from winning. None of this was obvious, he just figured out the best way to stop me, and got the others to do it because they just went "Oh, yes, that is a way to stop him from winning, and since we are not him, that is a thing we want to do". So, he won. Cool. (This is also the same guy that ragequit Tiny Towns, and was the first and only time I saw a single digit end score)
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Yeah that's exactly the sort of thing I mean. If those moves also happened to be great for the players involved, that's one thing, but otherwise it's just a dumb social dynamic and I have no interest playing serious games in a group like that. Alternatively I guess if you were going to win on your next turn, and that sequence added some unpredictability into the game such that one of those players then had a chance, I'd be fine with that too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
Kingmaking is not normally an issue for me, but it's why I stopped playing Acquire. I've played it so much that I can basically play in such a way to guarantee first and second place, and then it ceased being fun. I will note that I only play with open stock and I'm sure that has something to do with it, but I'm not playing it any other way anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
I’m curious how Oath will be received by folks because it’s basically Kingmaking: The Game. Like more than Cole’s other games or Inis. One of the victory conditions is also rolling a dice at the end of each round and the chancellor wins if it’s a 6/5/3+ depending on the round, which the exiles can try to prevent by having the ability to not let them roll. It’s not a 1 vs all game but I suspect a lot of groups will play that way and I don’t think the game is going to shine like that. Cole also described the game as being in a row boat in an ocean regarding player agency and sense of direction compared to John Company 2 which has a straightforward flow to the round structure. I’m short, I think a lot of people are going to really hate Oath lol. Bottom Liner fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 17:06
|
|
|
Chill la Chill posted:But I’ve found overall that what I really like in games is actually the chaos that player agency brings to the table. I hear ya. The chaos a new person brings to a game is great when they also have an idea of the fundamental mechanics of the game and are just a bull in a china shop. It's the sort of stuff that JC explicitly says he hates in his little bio but is nice to see as far as breaking the mold with regard to the group-think. Seeing fresh players deal with grognards is lovely. It's one of the reasons I think our Civ games have sort of stagnated a bit is because people are too stuck in their ways and playing too nicely versus the borderline Kemet-tier behaviour you expect when say, playing the AI in the DOS version of Adv Civ/1830. The computer also doesn't bear grudges and maliciously attack you because you screwed it last round/trashed its shares... Bottom Liner posted:I'm curious how Oath will be received by folks because it's basically Kingmaking: The Game. Like more than Cole's other games or Inis. I backed it and I'm excited to try it but I'm scared man. Real scared. VVVV Scared about the king-making being so strong that it causes certain personalities to bounce off the game or it turn into an affair based around trying not to piss player X off. I'll admit that I haven't been diving deep into the mechanics so I might be way off and it'll be no more mean than Root is. FulsomFrank fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Mar 19, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 17:31
|
|
|
What about specifically? I think the suggested first game setup gives a really solid on ramp to the game and will help it lead with its best foot forward and it’s clear Cole is aware of some of the points I mentioned. The Chancellor role is really interesting to me because it’s not 1 v all but more of a default winner if none of the exiles can rise up, so the chancellor is more playing whack a mole to the exiles while holding on and the exiles are doing the same among themselves but also trying to achieve a win condition.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 17:40
|
|
|
I watched whatever I could find around Oath and ultimately didn't think I would enjoy it that much. I'd love to play it some time and see if I was wrong, but it really didn't seem like an experience I would be into so I didn't back it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 17:52
|
|
|
Magnetic North posted:There is also the possibility this is a social ploy to weaponize complaining into getting players to do what you want, a la my experience with V:TES. Even if this is the case, I don't expect 18XX players to be nearly as honest about it. That would mean that their victory was based on something other than their highly focused mind. This brings to mind the occasional story in games with a political/diplomacy element where one player's strategy is to basically emotionally exhaust the rest of the players into ultimately doing what they want. (Think the last one was Dune and a Harkonnen player.) They win (or worse, they don't and you listen to the result) and no else one wants to play ever again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:I’m curious how Oath will be received by folks because it’s basically Kingmaking: The Game. Like more than Cole’s other games or Inis. I've played a bunch of it on TTS and I think it has some stuff that gets around it feeling like a pure Kingmaker, particularly the vision wins for exiles. There is a ton of "this player is going to win next round if we don't stop it" but who that player is changes very quickly, like someone can go from unremarkable to being one round from victory out of nowhere if they've planned it right. I guess there will be kingmaking situations where it's like "sit back and let this guy win, or stop him and the Chancellor probably/definitely wins next round." Even that can have some interesting wrinkles because of the citizenship mechanic and the possibility you could push a succession goal instead. In most cases you should at least have a path to be working toward your own victory condition, whether that be the current oath, a vision, or citizen succession but yeah, there will be situations where you have to decide to who to screw because you got nothing on your own. Even that can have some interesting points to it if you're playing more than one game or playing it regularly since who wins will affect stuff the next time you play. I like it quite a bit, but I feel like people are going to be really out to sea on what they are doing their first few games and yeah, I could see some first impression reviews being negative. Because the games are relatively short, you have to both have a game plan for a victory condition pretty quickly and also be willing and able to change direction on it fast (the "row boat in an ocean" quote is pretty apt).
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 18:15
|
|
|
The Eyes Have It posted:This brings to mind the occasional story in games with a political/diplomacy element where one player's strategy is to basically emotionally exhaust the rest of the players into ultimately doing what they want. (Think the last one was Dune and a Harkonnen player.) Ah yes, bored games
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 20:20
|
|
|
I had the opportunity to play John Company 2e this week. Couple quick thoughts: + the map makes events and the elephant a little easier to parse. + the changes to passing laws are very cool. One player is the prime minister and has a strong incentive to pass the law. In addition to a big game changing effect, each law will also provide a bonus/tax for possession of shipyards/factories. The company might be too fragile? We only played once, but our initial chairman was immediately unfaithful and we had no recourse to remove him. He rightly starved the company after he had a strong first turn, and he rolled well on retirements. I look forward to playing it again, it's got the very complicated incentives that are the hallmarks of a Wehrle game.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 22:47
|
|
|
Any insight into how much the scenario might affect the fragility?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Got my Alhambra "New Market" expansion today--anyone want the smaller size tiles? Sadly the market board itself is double sided so I can't send you that part. But it's literally just places to put the tiles. Easy to proxy
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 23:09
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:Any insight into how much the scenario might affect the fragility? We played the 1710 scenario. I didn’t have the rulebook in front of me so I’m not sure how they currently change the set up. In our game, we randomly dealt the starting cards and the chairman only had one share in the company, so he didn’t take any starting loans. On top of that we had a couple bad roles on trades/conquests after the first round. With hindsight, we should’ve given him some additional shares to make dividends worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2021 23:14
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a way to get a refund on Frosthaven? I just...don't want it now. Figured I might as well ask!
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Deathlove posted:Does anyone know of a way to get a refund on Frosthaven? I just...don't want it now. Figured I might as well ask! Have you tried reaching out through KS's messaging? No idea what Cephalofair's refund policy is, but can't hurt to ask
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2021 22:05
|
|
|
Deathlove posted:Does anyone know of a way to get a refund on Frosthaven? I just...don't want it now. Figured I might as well ask! Their most recent developer diary from yesterday mentions that refunds are available until the game is shipped, which will be around October. Just email the Cephalofair support email. As their running behind on timeline, it sounds like it’s no questions asked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2021 22:54
|
|
|
Played some Jaws of the Lion with my friend last night and... Man sometimes the thought of Gloomhaven is way better than the actual playing of Gloomhaven.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 01:48
|
|
|
PJOmega posted:Played some Jaws of the Lion with my friend last night and... Man sometimes the thought of Gloomhaven is way better than the actual playing of Gloomhaven. After two plays I put our copy on the for trade pile. We may try it again with another first but it wasn’t as awesome as I expected.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
I played it with two friends last week and they were both in to it. I was less in to it than them but we will probably finish the campaign. But we arent even out of the tutorial yet. I might like it more if I hadn’t bought it, but it was only $38. Wish I had bought Spirit Island instead though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 13, 2024 02:04 |
|
|
wow thread is taking a sharp turn for the insanely wrong I see!!!
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2021 02:56
|
|