|
All that having been said about how it works, how much did you like Francis Drake? I own it but haven't gotten it out yet - have been hoping it was a good puchase!
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 07:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Just to confirm, the firefly boardgame is terrible right? I was given a free copy but I'm inclined to leave it in the shrink wrap and sell it unless I've heard wrong and it's good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
Jabor posted:Would you enjoy a mutual masturbation session while watching the Firefly tv show y/n I dunno, that sounds lots more fun than this game from the comments so far - anyway, it's getting the boot ASAP.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 02:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I may be interested in buying it off you. I enjoyed it when I played it at my FLGS' game night. And I've never even watched Firefly. I'm in Australia which may dampen your enthusiasm somewhat as shipping won't be cheap internationally; if you or anyone else is still interested just PM me.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 08:59
|
|
|
I would really love to play a privateer/elite style space trading game but I don't believe there is a good one out there. The three major ones I'm aware of now are Merchant of Venus, Firefly and Xia and all seem to be flawed at best. Merchants and marauders, minus theme, seems to be closest in practice. Is there anything major out there I am missing?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 05:50
|
|
|
Kemet would not be a good game with two people, regardless of its other merits or weaknesses. I would probably only play it with four or five as I think it needs that many for balance. The zero sum nature of a two player game would really enable snowball effects and reward strategies that aren't really in the spirit of the game, IMHO. I mean it still might not be the game for you but it should play quite differently at a higher player count with more competition over the board, so I'd keep that in mind.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
I reckon Power Grid, Panic on Wall Street and Chicago Express are the three that come to mind where the game really hinges on the auction, particularly with more players.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
Lorini posted:Backing up a bit: LeHavre has two major problems which is why I sold mine and problems Caverna doesn't have. I'm spoiling it in case you want to find out for yourself. I'm not sure this is entirely accurate. For one, I think depending what strategies all the players are pursuing, there are some big variations in terms of how you get to steel/coke or ships and what else you complement them with when other players are competing for them, and I also think you can rack up big scores focusing on buildings depending what everyone else is doing. I agree loans are a pretty major part of the game but I think they are just one of several ways to clear the food obligation in a high efficiency way - some methods will use one or two actions up front to clear food requirements early, loans postpone the actions until later (assuming you are using the building that clears loans later in the game). Edit: just to clarify as I am phone posting and using horrible grammar. Coke/steel financed with loans is without a doubt the dominant strategy in Le Havre, just like the extra workers are fundamental in Agricola. However, in a competitive four player game where everyone knows this it can be very difficult for anyone to pull it off to its most efficient extent, especially if the key cards are buried. This opens up other options, and generally forces most people to diversify strategies to some extent. All that having been said this is a big issue with the game in that new players are at a massive disadvantage until they see a coke/steel strategy generate a ton of points (although as I said, buildings can do this under the right circumstance too, but it's easier to block). Le Havre is almost two different games at the new and experienced player levels. Blamestorm fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
In my experience with TI3 combat is like a switch that only flips one way, it almost never happened until someone in our group started playing more aggressively and now it happens a lot. Eclipse even more so. I think in both games once people started getting their heads around mechanics and strategy they started focusing more on what other players were doing and interaction sky rocketed. In Eclipse in particular fighting starts early and keeps going heavy throughout the game. This also happened in Clash of Cultures so I think it's a civ game thing. Most people in my group would prefer to sit in their corners and get an engine going while stocking up defensively but once one person gets nearly annihilated the best defense being a good offense started to become a thing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
I'm actually not sure a streamlined version of TTA is really desirable in a sense, because at least for me the length and scope is a big part of why I enjoy it so much. I was looking forward to Nations but I then realised I didn't really want to cut anything back. In my mind Eclipse and maybe Clash of Cultures are the games which satisfy the same itch in less time, despite sharing only one major mechanism, because despite the inclusion of a map they are all still great thematic civ games. TTA is just the longest and deepest IMO. Looking forward to see what they do with TTA second edition though - I think the game can be improved, but not sure cutting it down is the way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 07:35
|
|
|
Lottery of Babylon posted:Maybe not for the person who has them. For the player across the table who gets chosen to be eaten because they've been too busy getting cursed to collect any items, it's not very fun. Surely you were getting some rules wrong. Six hours?? That's way too long, with four or five players EH should be like 2-3 hours. And the amount of cursed/detained/delayed stuff sounds way crazier than I've ever seen in a game.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 21, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
Also I would probably not get Through the Ages for two players. It's tricky because the game does take a long time to play with more players, but IMO the military side of the game doesn't work well in a two player zero sum game and the final age scoring cards really need more competition than two players can provide. Three player is probably optimal for most people (due to game length) but personally its four or bust for me, even though the game then does take a long, long time to play.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:That would be Caverna. It's basically Agricola, but with a bit more theme and a lot less punishing. Ora et Labora even more so, although it's a bit tighter than it initially looks - you don't have to feed anyone, but there are opportunities you need to prepare in advance for so the practical impact is similar (as either way you miss points if you don't plan ahead a bit).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Is Ora et Labora worker placement? It's been so long since I played it I'm not really sure but I don't remember it feeling like a typical WP game. As much as Le Havre/Agricola/Caverna - actually all of the Uwe games are a bit different than most other worker placements in that you have far less workers per player. I think they all start with two except for Ora which has three (one with a special go anywhere ability).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
I've only played the tutorial and one full game but so far I think it's awesome. I'm almost terrified to say this but I think I might end up preferring it to space alert. At least for some combinations of friends. Not sure yet if it has the longevity but whereas in space alert one mistake early on can bust the whole game (and that's fine, you play again because it's quick) xcom gives you a bit more slack while still remaining really challenging. The big thing which I expect would be a turn off for many is the push your luck element. Between that and the card draw I would think you might have some super unlucky sequences of events which could force a game loss relatively early. On the other hand you are given a lot of tools to mitigate and control the random elements, so I'd say it's only a real risk early in the game so probably ok to start over. This is based on pretty limited experience though, maybe not an actual problem. I'm fine with the push your luck stuff because as I said, you get a lot of ways to deal with it (abilities which let you reroll etc) and you can play conservatively or more reckless. What I really like about it relative to space alert is it gives the whole group a lot to do during the resolution phase, which some of my friends think is a weakness of space alert - the game itself is relatively short then there is a pile of effective bookkeeping to find out what happened. I'm keen to hear more about what other people think too. But I had a great time and can't wait to play again. It's a tense game with some strategic as well as tactical elements as you have to make decisions on upgrades, resourcing, re supplies etc which all affect the timed rounds, which I love.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
How does viticulture compare to vinhos? Particularly for two?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 8, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
Sadly Terra Mystica is nothing like Tigris and Euphrates, it's much milder and less interactive. There is some limited competition for board spaces, although mostly because you are incentivised to build next to your opponent. It doesn't have the same dynamism and there isn't real conflict to speak of.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2015 08:48
|
|
|
I think some of the buildings have been slightly redesigned for balance for the kickstarter. There might be other changes too. (I'm hoping as I also backed it.)
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
My wife loves RFTG as well. The playtime is the trickiest one of those criteria, otherwise I'd recommend something like Le Havre, or another engine-oriented worker placement. Some suggestions: 1) The Lord of the Rings card game, which TECHNICALLY matches most of those criteria except the competitive one - should mostly play less than 45 minutes, involves playing cards to build up a tablaeu, and its not too fiddly. 2) Keyflower - with experience you MIGHT be able to get it down under 45 minutes. 3) Netrunner is probably out as too destructive but its another one my wife really enjoys.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 12:08
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Didn't they absolutely fail to say anything about how Archipelago presents colonialism? Or am I forgetting something? They said a lot about it. Go check out the review again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
I'm a bit uncomfortable describing games as a form of media. For example, how is an abstract game like Hive analogous to a film or book in terms of artistic communication? What about tic tac toe? What differentiates a dexterity board game from a sport like lawn bowls? As a social experience do some games have more in common with team sports than film? How often do you get sport 'criticism' as opposed to commentary and how useful is it? Video games to my mind are often quite different in that they communicate a narrative through characters, storytelling and artistic content usually far more explicitly and with much more implicit social, artistic and cultural signalling than most board games?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:I agree that most (all?) games are closer to sports than literature, but sports also are pretty immutable. Like, people have written lots of loving words about how to make Baseball a more interesting game (and not just for spectators, but for players through rule interactions) but that poo poo will not change in any meaningful way. Occasionally you'll get some experimentation like Korean basketball rules, sure, but that's very rare and if you try that poo poo in your pickup game, well, lol. Board game design absolutely will continue to change and improve, and criticism - in theory, at least - will help that along. I think I was not so much speaking against board game criticism as making the point that I don't think it's a kind of criticism that is very comparable to those of forms of 'media' such as film and literature. It should be fundamentally oriented around the provision of the best social experience through game mechanics in most cases, rather than criticising it as a form of media or art.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 00:54
|
|
|
Jeez are there that many medium weight euros with as much going on as Keyflower that play in less than two and a half hours with six players?? That seems like an outstandingly quick game for that genre/complexity level.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 10:40
|
|
|
I'm not sure I'm up to arguing it from my phone but IMO Race for the Galaxy is going to be one of a very few all time classics in the board game genre which I regard as about as close to flawless at what it intends to do as you can get. Not saying it's for everyone or that other great (or better) games won't cover similar mechanics/design spaces, but I can't ever see myself falling out of love with it. Particularly the base set plus the latest expansion minus the orb variant. To my mind it's just a design masterpiece. I acknowledge many people don't like the iconography, but I think it is part of what enables the speed and tightness of the game once you get past it (really not a big deal for most people after one game).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
I also think RFTG kind of sideways demonstrates some ways a Puerto Rico v2 could work, which is basically Race without the randomness/variability. For a long time I thought PR was another all time classic but sufficient games have soured me a bit - I still love it but there is no doubt that amongst experienced players one mistake in the early turns can screw you and many of the buildings are rarely worth building. On BGG there is some guy who can more or less predict who will win amongst experienced players based on the initial crop distribution and the player order. I can believe it because with experience most of the game- especially the first two turns - is scripted. In a sense this is what Race improves on for my group (and especially two player) - the randomness and variability improves on PR, plus the games are so fast I don't mind some occasional bum luck. Anyway, I feel if a bad outcome arises from the randomness, it's less often that someone gets screwed and more often someone happens to get the perfect starting hand - still very rare though and almost always with military. I think there is a hypothetical version of PR which people who like race but are unhappy with the randomness would be very happy with, but it doesn't exist yet. I'm always surprised there aren't more simultaneous role mechanic games like PR/Race/Twilight Imperium because it seems like such an under explored space compared to say worker placement (which admittedly can be very similar).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 06:45
|
|
|
Active player chooses an action/role; everyone does the action but the active player gains an additional benefit. Actions reset once every player has had a turn and first player rotates. Edit: maybe I'm misremembering TI - but I think it works that way too? Race is obviously slightly different in that everyone can choose the same action simultaneously.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 07:27
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:I get the concept of "the game is often decided at 12 cards," but I feel that there's something to be said for ending the game the precise second it's decided. One of my biggest problems with Race is that most games are unsatisfying simply because you don't get to use the engine you create. Well, first I think it's not entirely fair to compare Race and Munchkin. I also think that good play in Race rarely involves farming the deck for 6-costs, it's usually more appropriate to play to your hand and either push for a fast finish (military, some rarer combinations) or develop and pump a goods engine. It's a risk/reward decision, I guess. The +military is probably more of an issue but again, you play your hand. I haven't played EmiDo to compare. I have never tried Race's takeover option, despite owning the expansion; haven't been terribly interested in it so I can't comment on that. I do feel like you are generally doing useful engine stuff pretty early in Race if you want to, but it's true that the game is usually about building your engine rather than getting to use it more than once or twice. Although, again, I think good gameplay in Race often (not always) involves a mix of a couple of strategies, which sometimes involves doing early produce/consumes for card draw or to try and take advantage of other people's actions. I think some of these things are a matter of preference rather than serious flaws; there is no denying that Race has pretty passive interaction and gives you variability at the cost of randomness, but I personally think the balance is good. I feel like the better player wins almost all the time and the stats on BGG and my personal anecdotal experience seem to bear that out. Married to the quick play time and the low politics I think it's an appropriately satisfying experience. Again, I personally think Race is a classic design and a good game because it aims to create a specific kind of experience and within those parameters delivers. When you suggest things like 'clumsily fuel your ability to even have the option of making your stupid space empire' I think you're being too hyperbolic; you can play the majority of cards in the game your first turn, depending on how much you're willing to sacrifice to do so. I play RFTG fairly quickly though so I do feel this may be something of a matter of personal preference rather than design flaws - how satisfied you or I am about the 'engine' you may have created versus simply the elements you put down is OK to vary, right? (eg. if I find it satisfying to place a valuable production world but you don't find it satisfying until it produces a good which is subsequently sold, this probably isn't an objective flaw?) That having been said, I should check out EmiDo if you think it's comparable but better; it might change my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
Jedit posted:You realise that this is a confirmation of every negative point BL has raised about RFTG, right? If you can't plan a strategy until you assemble one, then the first half of the game is just drawing cards until someone has a strategy. Then, because the game only lasts 2-4 turns after that point, the first player to assemble a strategy will probably win. That is the absolute definition of a bad game. Bluntly Race is not a game where you generally should make long term strategies except in the most general sense of playing efficiently and not overcommitting to a particular approach. When I originally said it was a great game at achieving what it wants to do, I was referring to the fact that it is a highly tactical game that rewards assessment of your current opportunities while remaining flexible to adapt as you draw more cards. I brought up Puerto Rico as a counterpart because it is most definitely a strategic game that demands almost perfect optimization to be competitive (and the decision tree is pretty closed off in comparison to RFTG as a consequence). Race, however, aims to give you an interesting set of decisions each turn as you seek to make the most of your very dynamic opportunities. I agree with Bubble-T that the explore/search options reveal a misunderstanding of good play. Generally speaking (and this does vary with the advanced two player option) you usually need to both play cards that leave room for emergent opportunities and attempt to build something productive from a combination in your hand. Given your hand is also your primary resource, the meat of the game is not trying to mill the deck for a perfect combo or executing a complex engine, it's about making turn to turn decisions about how your are going to spend and earn resources. I typically find a 'great' initial hand aggravating because if you have a ton of great complementary cards you are immediately faced with tricky decisions about how to get them out into your tableau, given you need to discard some of them to play others. Whereas a hand of seemingly discordant opportunities can often be as or more productive because you can play more adaptively and focus on immediate gains and emergent opportunities. I think this is a neat balancing effect but I accept others won't like it. Again, I initially stated that Race was an example of great design because it specifically aims to be a highly tactical game with low downtime and interesting decisions, but I think there are elements of the kind of game it aims to be which just won't suit a lot of people's personal preferences. But I reject that it is highly random. The most skilled players will win almost all of the time, at least as much so as in more 'strategic' games with purportedly less randomness. I vehemently disagree that you can pick the winner from seeing starting hands as a lot of the game has to do with the tempo of other players and most of the decisions are not at all obvious, particularly as you often need to sacrifice extremely high potential cards to play others. I have scored highly and won many times without six point developments or military, but with mishmash hybrid tableaux. I am not the hugest fan of Dominion, and I think this discussion made me reflect one thing I do enjoy about both games; you need to choose from a fixed set of options the most optimal sequence of purchase/play. But in Dominion you often make the decision once then play it out (test it) over the game, whereas in Race you decide each turn what you are going to do with your hand then next turn your decision space may be totally different. This is what I enjoy most about Race but I can see why others would hate it. Edit: BL posted while I did but I think here is the nub of our disagreement: "That game was just me trying to cobble whatever bullshit I drew into something functional." That's why I play Race and what I like about it. Also your comment re game length is nutballs. Why have any game end ever if it is good under your logic? Blamestorm fucked around with this message at 11:37 on Mar 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
The problem is that outside of the theme Rex is just plain a better version that keeps everything good about Dune and plays in half the time.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 02:44
|
|
|
SandersPacheco posted:Hey guys, I'd like some help. My group and I have been playing BSG (with Pegasus Expansion), Game of Thrones and X-Com lately; we also tried Axis&Allies and while it was fun, it took too drat long. So we're basically looking for games made for 4-8 players, with a playing time of 2 hours tops. Half of the group is also very prone to AP and mostly discouraged by long downtime (that's why A&A took so long and wasn't as fun as the others!). I know I could just go and type those lines into the BGG search engine, but I'd rather have some recommendations first from experienced players. I have the perfect game for you my friend. Panic on Wall Street is perfect at 6-8 players, is mostly timed so kills AP, and plays considerably under 2 hours. Other suggestions above have you covered for the four player or less range.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 11, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
I'm about to try out Tragedy Looper for the first time - I remember there was a bunch of advice in this thread for first games but I can't find it. I will be masterminding and it will be with two other players. Anything i should keep in mind?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
How good is Tammany Hall anyway? I love the idea of it but I thought it had been described as a bit overhyped due to being out of print for a while.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
Space Empires 4X can be a great game, particularly with the expansion, but with major caveats. By default the game often kind of relies on either players agreeing to end it after one player gets significantly ahead or risk an incredibly long slow grind to play the game out. It has the classic problem where one players economy and tech can jump ahead of the others, but the slog to eliminate everyone else's homeworld can take forever despite it being an eventual fait accompli. The game includes a lot of optional bits and pieces as well as alternative game modes, and the expansion adds even more, so finding a combination that hits the right balance for the player count, game experience level and desired game length can be challenging, especially in a 3+ player game. The combat can also be a bit fiddly and subject to major upsets. All that having been said there is no game that I'm aware of that is as pure a space war game. It has a great fog of war, mostly simultaneous turns, and the economic/research stuff is really good IMO although it will turn some people off (pen and paper on printed charts). If you agree on victory conditions that are not 'to the death' (eg. Such as VPs for controlling certain systems, turn limits) you can find the right balance for the game but it bothers me that there isn't more guidance on this in the box and that I have no idea if a particular set of conditions/addons is balanced until I play it quite a bit. I would like to play it more but a couple of never ending games kind of soured me on it a bit, although paradoxically I really enjoyed and was hyper engaged for most of that time. It just disincentivises getting it out given I have to decide how much to throw in for new players and what kind of game objective/end we should aim for. There might be better opinions on this online at BGG now, I haven't checked for ages. Basically it's a very sandboxy kind of game with tons of flexibility but also requiring more consideration upfront to make sure you aren't about to go through hell. If I recall correctly there is no system supported diplomacy/politics -like the victory conditions, it kind of requires the players to make a determination. This really bothers me on the victory side - there were more options provided in the expansion, but the designer has always been kind of "when do you call it quits? Up to the players, but here are some alternatives I just came up with if you prefer having a 'simpler' game." I am not happy with this approach, which kills me because otherwise I think there is a lot to like. Blamestorm fucked around with this message at 02:50 on Mar 24, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
Brass and Age of Steam (with newer versions Age of Industry and Steam) are his real classics. Brass in particular is a phenomenal game that's both highly thematic and extremely tense and competitive.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 25, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
PlaneGuy posted:Knizia had the touch back in the day. Like he actually made great games. Amun-re is another under appreciated Knizia game that more people should give a shot. Unless the reason I don't hear it talked about it that it has some glaring flaw I've never worked out.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
EBag posted:That's a shark and a centipede if ever I saw one... or a beetle. The two player variant is OK but I'm inclined to say that it really needs more players to shine and there are probably better games for two players that will scratch the same itch depending on exactly what you are after. I haven't played Age of Industry (the brass remake) but I believe it has maps specifically for two players - might be worth looking into. Some people will argue to the death that Brass is far superior but I doubt the changes make that much difference - AoI seems to sacrifice the theme a bit for more variety/scalability, but as I said I haven't played it. If you don't have key flower it might be a better fit for two and hit what you are after, for example. All that being said, I feel Brass is a fantastic and relatively unique game which is both extremely tight and very thematically satisfying. Ideally needs 3-4 players who are willing to give it a few games to get their heads around the strategies. With experienced players it becomes a very tense highly interactive experience as the opportunities on the board are very much shaped by what everyone else is doing - you need to work with other player's infrastructure to execute strategies. This is why I feel you need more than two players. Even with the variant, it's too zero sum - the key stuff in Brass is how to use other players more than they use you. Some other games that are kind of similar in one respect or another that might be better with two are Le Havre, Keyflower as mentioned, Roll for the Galaxy, maybe a Feld game like Macao? Now that I think of it I guess I'm having a hard time thinking of a good two player equivalent as I'm not sure any of those are that similar. Keyflower, probably. Blamestorm fucked around with this message at 10:28 on Apr 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2015 10:25
|
|
|
Any opinions on Panamax? I'm a sucker for economic games and it looks pretty good!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Bottom Liner posted:My copy of Caverna came in today, holy poo poo this is massive and heavy. Took me a good hour to punch everything out and organize it into plano boxes (just barely doesn't close all the way), but I can't wait to play this Wednesday at game night. Any recommendations for player count? Like most games I think four players is probably optimal. Two or three would be fine for the first game to learn it and would be a lot faster. Five or six will probably be hell with all new players and take forever, especially if people also aren't familiar with Agricola and/or have AP. Once you are across it I think 3-5 is best as you really need some competition for the improvement tiles.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
I really should stack mine horizontally but I'm too worried about stuff like manuals getting bent. Probably a silly concern. I use planos for games with lots of bits (uwe Rosenberg games, war games etc) and bags in most other cases. Mostly I try and cram expansions into the main box which means I usually chuck the inserts. 
Blamestorm fucked around with this message at 02:04 on May 29, 2015 |
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 22:46 |
|
|
Lord Frisk posted:Your collection is so big but your table is so small ... If you mean me, that is my GAME CHOOSING TABLE. My GAME PLAYING table is much larger.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2015 02:43
|
|
