Power Grid
We decided on the French board as we had never played it before. We randomly chose 2 of the edge regions, which turned out to be the western provinces. Carl was first to build and started in Paris, Matt joined him but intended to also use the north east, Leonie took the southern region with its seven cities close together, leaving me to start in the centre (an area of 6 cities separated from the north and south by expensive connections). Leonie went nuclear not just once but twice.
Carl made the first power play by jumping to seven cities well before anyone else. I grabbed the first 5 city power station and Matt the second. Matt soon had two finishing power stations but I moved north east into what he thought was his area and grabbed the cheap cities in that corner. Leonie also came north and grabbed some of the cities I was saving until later. She also went clean and green with some wind power.
Carl made his second power play and jumped to twelve cities and threatening to finish the game well before the rest of us were ready. Matt was now short of cities and running short of cash. But Carl couldn't quite get to seventeen before we all got our final power stations and it was a very close game in the end.
For the whole game I felt like I was chasing someone; first Leonie, then Carl, then Matt, then Carl again. Only in the last turn did I feel like I might have the lead.
Ian 18 (win on tie break by about $29)
Carl 18
Leonie 17 (third on tie break)
Matt 17
Palazzo
Matt and I chose the route of perfection while Carl tried to build as fast as he could.
Matt E 33
Ian 29
Leonie 25
Qarl 21
Trias
Even though I had played this game once before it was a long time ago and I wasn't really on the ball with my strategy. Carl went for the early points making lots of islands and scoring frequently. He also had a good end game being in powerful positions on the final islands. It payed off for a crushing victory.
Qarl 37
Matt E 25
Ian 21
Sunday 29 January 2006
Games at Craig and Leonie's - 23 January
We were invited to pizza and games at Craig and Leonie's place, in keeping with the layed back atmosphere scores were not kept. We played two games Palazzo and Anne pointed out that when I taught Palazzo on Friday night I had missed a rule - it costs a card to rearrange. I think Leonie won both games.
While Leonie put Siobham to bed, Craig, Anne and I played a game of Boomtown, and Governor Craig, mayor of most towns and general all-round fat cat won.
We finished with a game of Paris Paris (a first for Anne and Leonie and the first for a long time for Craig and I), which I won despite Craig's stranglehold on the best spots around the centre of Paris.
While Leonie put Siobham to bed, Craig, Anne and I played a game of Boomtown, and Governor Craig, mayor of most towns and general all-round fat cat won.
We finished with a game of Paris Paris (a first for Anne and Leonie and the first for a long time for Craig and I), which I won despite Craig's stranglehold on the best spots around the centre of Paris.
The second game of 1856
Once apon a time in Canada Anne and Ian and Jarratt and Lance and John (and Jarratt's laptop) sat down to build some railroads. Anne kicked off with a bid of $80 for the GLSC, I bid $45 for the Wellington, Jarratt bid $55 for the Canada Company, John bought the Flos for $20 which triggered the sale of the next three companies to the aforementioned. Lance - who really wanted to bid for the GLSC and preferred the Tunnel to the Bridge but didn't want to bid $105 - bought the Bridge. Nobody wanted to spend $100 on the Tunnel and everyone passed for three rounds; earning Lance $60, Anne $45, Jarratt and I $30 each and John $15. Finally I broke the impass and bought the Tunnel and so Jarratt started the GW, John the CPR, Lance the Welland, Anne the LPS and I (who wanted the LPS to go with the Tunnel) settled for the CA.
At the western end of the map the LPS, CA and GW connected together leaving the Welland and CPR each isolated in their own corners. Unsupprisingly the LPS bought the GLSC from Anne and layed the port token on its home city, the Welland bought the Bridge and the GW bought the Canada. The CA went into debt for $200 and bought both my private companies giving me the cash to start the GT. I intended to fold the CA into the CPR and keep the GT (perhaps more as an experiment than sound ecconomics!) but Jarratt had other plans and bought enough CA stock to steal the company off me. Just moments too late Lance realised that he had had the opportunity to steal the GW from Jarratt (who only owned 2 shares in his own railroad!).
Jarratt built the last OO tile and trapped the Welland into the SE corner, leaving Lance with nothing much to do until the 5 trains came out and the Welland without enough cash to buy a 5 train (Lance not wanting to incur so much debt). The CA was now flush with cash again and Jarratt bought it a 4 train. Wanting the 4 train for the GT and simutaneously transfering enough cash to the CA to buy it a perminant train I bought enough CA shares in the next stock round to take it back from Jarratt. (The CA had never withheld and was now 2nd equal on the share market and was worth keeping!)
Jarratt's GW bought the first 5 train, killing the private companies and allowing Lance's Welland to escape and start heading for Hamilton then Torronto. John started the WGB but his timing was suspect as we had reached the age of the 5 and 6 trains and the days of reckoning were comming. The LPS withheld and the GT (weakened by saving the CA) did the same.
Finally the Welland reached Torronto and Lance used its escrow money to buy a 6 train and loans had to be repaid and the 3 trains rusted. The CPR was in trouble and John got lots of advice to fold it into the CGR -- some probably motivated by a wish to see what would happen if the CGR started! He somewhat reluctantly decided to fold and exchanged his six CPR shares for three shares of the CGR. My two CPR became one CGR and Jarratt and Lance with one each lost out. (We made a minor mistake here; Jarratt and Lance's single CPR shares should have been tossed into the Bank Pool and then the CPR shares in the Bank Pool should have been converted into CGR shares at 2 for 1. We also had an argument over the wording of the CGR par price rule as to whether it means that the CGR par price rounds up or is set to the next value greater than the average of its predecessors.) John discarded the 4 train inherited from the CPR but unfortunately the CGR was confinded to the CPR/GT network for awhile (and hindered from connecting to the western network by non-share owning players) and hence took a long time to pay for its borrowed diesel.
Anne's LPS traded its 4 train for a diesel rusting the other 4s and leaving the GT without a train. Reaching into my pockets for a bit of extra cash I bought it the other 6 train.
The game was reaching its final stages and at the first big pay out everyone except Anne (who was last in the SR) started the four remaining companies parred at $100 (and starting with $1000 capital once six shares had been bought) adding $100 from our own pockets bought 4 diesels for them. Anne spread her money around the new companies (which together with the dividends from the LPS was a winning combination). I foolishly sold my LPS shares when Anne would have helped me float my new company! The following ST with even more cash to burn we bought up more shares in the new companies (plus the odd CGR share). There was a general dumping of GT :-( in an attempt to optimize share ownership into companies with diesels (though I foolishly bought a share of WGB which only had a 5 train!) We all hit the 18 certificate limit.
The final diesel runs were in the region of $900 despite the best attempts by the CGR and others to lay blocking tokens and helped by the even more creative ways people found to bypass them. We got within $40 of breaking the bank so had to play another SR and 3 ORs (which we abbreviated). The Welland, CA and GW all reached $450 per share.
When Jarratt was adding up the final scores, his own score was looking sick until he discovered a fault in his spreadsheet's summing of player's stock holdings. Anne won to her delight. Scores were:
Anne $12,641
Jarratt $12,222
Lance $11,116
John $10,727
Ian $10,105
Jarratt could probably provide information on the final breakdown of cash verses stock value, which should show Anne's advantage in divident income (cash) verses Jarratt's huge stock value.
We started around 10:30am and finished about 5pm.
At the western end of the map the LPS, CA and GW connected together leaving the Welland and CPR each isolated in their own corners. Unsupprisingly the LPS bought the GLSC from Anne and layed the port token on its home city, the Welland bought the Bridge and the GW bought the Canada. The CA went into debt for $200 and bought both my private companies giving me the cash to start the GT. I intended to fold the CA into the CPR and keep the GT (perhaps more as an experiment than sound ecconomics!) but Jarratt had other plans and bought enough CA stock to steal the company off me. Just moments too late Lance realised that he had had the opportunity to steal the GW from Jarratt (who only owned 2 shares in his own railroad!).
Jarratt built the last OO tile and trapped the Welland into the SE corner, leaving Lance with nothing much to do until the 5 trains came out and the Welland without enough cash to buy a 5 train (Lance not wanting to incur so much debt). The CA was now flush with cash again and Jarratt bought it a 4 train. Wanting the 4 train for the GT and simutaneously transfering enough cash to the CA to buy it a perminant train I bought enough CA shares in the next stock round to take it back from Jarratt. (The CA had never withheld and was now 2nd equal on the share market and was worth keeping!)
Jarratt's GW bought the first 5 train, killing the private companies and allowing Lance's Welland to escape and start heading for Hamilton then Torronto. John started the WGB but his timing was suspect as we had reached the age of the 5 and 6 trains and the days of reckoning were comming. The LPS withheld and the GT (weakened by saving the CA) did the same.
Finally the Welland reached Torronto and Lance used its escrow money to buy a 6 train and loans had to be repaid and the 3 trains rusted. The CPR was in trouble and John got lots of advice to fold it into the CGR -- some probably motivated by a wish to see what would happen if the CGR started! He somewhat reluctantly decided to fold and exchanged his six CPR shares for three shares of the CGR. My two CPR became one CGR and Jarratt and Lance with one each lost out. (We made a minor mistake here; Jarratt and Lance's single CPR shares should have been tossed into the Bank Pool and then the CPR shares in the Bank Pool should have been converted into CGR shares at 2 for 1. We also had an argument over the wording of the CGR par price rule as to whether it means that the CGR par price rounds up or is set to the next value greater than the average of its predecessors.) John discarded the 4 train inherited from the CPR but unfortunately the CGR was confinded to the CPR/GT network for awhile (and hindered from connecting to the western network by non-share owning players) and hence took a long time to pay for its borrowed diesel.
Anne's LPS traded its 4 train for a diesel rusting the other 4s and leaving the GT without a train. Reaching into my pockets for a bit of extra cash I bought it the other 6 train.
The game was reaching its final stages and at the first big pay out everyone except Anne (who was last in the SR) started the four remaining companies parred at $100 (and starting with $1000 capital once six shares had been bought) adding $100 from our own pockets bought 4 diesels for them. Anne spread her money around the new companies (which together with the dividends from the LPS was a winning combination). I foolishly sold my LPS shares when Anne would have helped me float my new company! The following ST with even more cash to burn we bought up more shares in the new companies (plus the odd CGR share). There was a general dumping of GT :-( in an attempt to optimize share ownership into companies with diesels (though I foolishly bought a share of WGB which only had a 5 train!) We all hit the 18 certificate limit.
The final diesel runs were in the region of $900 despite the best attempts by the CGR and others to lay blocking tokens and helped by the even more creative ways people found to bypass them. We got within $40 of breaking the bank so had to play another SR and 3 ORs (which we abbreviated). The Welland, CA and GW all reached $450 per share.
When Jarratt was adding up the final scores, his own score was looking sick until he discovered a fault in his spreadsheet's summing of player's stock holdings. Anne won to her delight. Scores were:
Anne $12,641
Jarratt $12,222
Lance $11,116
John $10,727
Ian $10,105
Jarratt could probably provide information on the final breakdown of cash verses stock value, which should show Anne's advantage in divident income (cash) verses Jarratt's huge stock value.
We started around 10:30am and finished about 5pm.
Gaming at Carl and Bab's - 20 January
Carl's words:
10 DAYS IN AFRICA
Matt and Susan brought around this lightish game. It was a hit, and was played six times in the evening. Each of the four players has two racks on which to place tiles that they are trying to build a ten day trip though Africa on. There is a board, which shows a map of Africa. The boards only purpose is to let you know which counties are next to each other. A valid trip consists of a line of ten countries, with the second next to the first and the third next to the second etc. There are a couple of different kind of wild cards that make it a bit easier. There are two parts to the game. First each player draws ten tiles one at a time. They have to decide which slot on their rack they place a tile before drawing another one. There is a lot of good work you can do here towards building a legal finished trip. After each player has a rack to work with they take turns drawing a tile, from a face down stack or one of three face up discard piles, and replacing with a tile on you rack. When someone has a complete trip, they win. Matt Morris showed himself to be very good at this game winning all four of the games he played. Interestingly he is also very good at Elfenland, also a node to node trip game.
Matt M won versus Matt E, Qarl and Sharon
Matt M won versus Matt E, Qarl and Sharon
Matt E won versus Qarl, Sharon and Susan
Qarl won versus Babs, Matt E and Sharon
Matt M won versus Babs, Matt E and Sharon
Matt M won versus Ian, Sharon and Susan
ELASUND
This is the latest game based on Settlers of Catan. The players are building up the first city of Catan, and place buildings in the city. They can place buildings that replace the buildings of other players, so its a development game where you can end up going backwards. This made for quite along game apparently. I watched it for a few minutes, but it is one of those games where the look of the game gives you no clues as to what is happening if you aren't familiar with it. Susan defeated Sharon, Ian and Matt M
HAZIENDA
This is the latest big box Hans Im Gluck game, and the latest Wolfgang Kramer game. Lance brought it along (with Elasund, and a few other new games). You play Argentinean ranchers trying to build up the best holdings. The players play tiles onto a board of two types, land tiles on the highlands, and animal tiles on the plains. Victory points for carious achievements are earned at two scoring rounds, one in the middle of the game, and one at the end. There is money to managed, as well as card drafting, as cards are used to buy cards. There are a lot of mechanics, so I won't describe it intricately, but despite all the rules it plays quite quickly and intuitively.
Positional play on the bard is very important, which makes for some strong tactical play. The many paths to victory and the balance between earning money and victory points makes for good strategies elements too. I thought it was a very good game and enjoyed it a great deal. One of the scoring elements grew geometrically and I based my game going for those points, this worked very well. Matt E noticed that everything you score in the first scoring round remains and will score in the second scoring round, so went for quick early points. Both strategies worked well. A tactical blunder I made (that Matt had to point out to me) cost em the game. The other players played a more balanced game, which didn't seem as successful as a more extreme strategy. Lance and John immediately competed in the same are of the board, which seems to be a very bad idea.
The board is two sided. We played on the symmetrical side recommended for new players. The other side looked very interesting. There is also a program available for printing out random maps, which can be useful for a game where positional play is so important.
Matt E 104
Qarl 103
Leonie 97
Lance 82
John 58
HAZIENDA
Lance 122
Sharon 117
Ian 78
PALAZZO
A Reiner Knizia auction game about building tall buildings with lots of windows. Its theme is a bit thin at times, but that never stops Knizia from making a good game. At first blush it has a lot in common with Alhambra. There are a few currencies you use to buy parts of buildings. You either take money, or buy something, or reorganise your buildings in some way. However, when you take money, everyone else gets some too, and when you want to buy something it is usually in an auction, so someone else might get it instead. Building tiles are numbered from 1 to 5, are in a variety of building materials and have a number of windows. Building floors must be put i na building immediately, and to add to a building the floor mist have a higher number than the last. So if you get a 3 building and start a new building with it, it can at most be three high (without rearranging).. Height is the most important element in assessing a buildings score, so this makes for a very interesting part of the game. This time I got to pip Matt E, winning of the tie break. Again we had very different strategies, I was going for lots of buildings thrown together as they came. Matt had just two tall building with all the same building materials (worth a bonus) and lots of windows (also worth more points). Leonie and John were very close behind, making it a very pleasingly close finish.
Qarl 35 (winning tie break with 13 money of one type)
Matt 35 (6 money of one type)
Leonie 34
John 30
DON
Ian likes to collect odd little light bidding card games. This one is one of the odder ones. Players bid for cards in 6 suits. Having multiple in one suit is worth geometrically more the more you own. Suits have five cars, and also have a number from 0 to 9. When you own a card of a number, you may not make a bid ending with that number. So if I owned a 0 a 5, a 6 and a 7, I cannot bid $5, $6, $7, $10, $15, $16 etc. This can get quite limiting when you own a spread of numbers. Additionally when a card is won, the money is split between the players who own the most of the numeral of the ones of the bid. So if the bid is $15, and I am the only player with a 5, I get all $15. The card are drawn and auctioned in varying amounts, first one card, then two, and then three, then back to one card again. It is a weird game, only Ian seems to have a handle on how to play it, but it was a lot closer the second time.
Strictly speaking I didn't collect this game so much as constructed it, from descriptions and a review using cards from Sticheln and what ever counters are handy for money.
First game:
Ian 21
Matt E 17
Qarl 8
Sharon 6
Lance 2
Second game:
Ian 13
Sharon 10
Matt E 10
Qarl 10
Lance 8
10 DAYS IN AFRICA
Matt and Susan brought around this lightish game. It was a hit, and was played six times in the evening. Each of the four players has two racks on which to place tiles that they are trying to build a ten day trip though Africa on. There is a board, which shows a map of Africa. The boards only purpose is to let you know which counties are next to each other. A valid trip consists of a line of ten countries, with the second next to the first and the third next to the second etc. There are a couple of different kind of wild cards that make it a bit easier. There are two parts to the game. First each player draws ten tiles one at a time. They have to decide which slot on their rack they place a tile before drawing another one. There is a lot of good work you can do here towards building a legal finished trip. After each player has a rack to work with they take turns drawing a tile, from a face down stack or one of three face up discard piles, and replacing with a tile on you rack. When someone has a complete trip, they win. Matt Morris showed himself to be very good at this game winning all four of the games he played. Interestingly he is also very good at Elfenland, also a node to node trip game.
Matt M won versus Matt E, Qarl and Sharon
Matt M won versus Matt E, Qarl and Sharon
Matt E won versus Qarl, Sharon and Susan
Qarl won versus Babs, Matt E and Sharon
Matt M won versus Babs, Matt E and Sharon
Matt M won versus Ian, Sharon and Susan
ELASUND
This is the latest game based on Settlers of Catan. The players are building up the first city of Catan, and place buildings in the city. They can place buildings that replace the buildings of other players, so its a development game where you can end up going backwards. This made for quite along game apparently. I watched it for a few minutes, but it is one of those games where the look of the game gives you no clues as to what is happening if you aren't familiar with it. Susan defeated Sharon, Ian and Matt M
HAZIENDA
This is the latest big box Hans Im Gluck game, and the latest Wolfgang Kramer game. Lance brought it along (with Elasund, and a few other new games). You play Argentinean ranchers trying to build up the best holdings. The players play tiles onto a board of two types, land tiles on the highlands, and animal tiles on the plains. Victory points for carious achievements are earned at two scoring rounds, one in the middle of the game, and one at the end. There is money to managed, as well as card drafting, as cards are used to buy cards. There are a lot of mechanics, so I won't describe it intricately, but despite all the rules it plays quite quickly and intuitively.
Positional play on the bard is very important, which makes for some strong tactical play. The many paths to victory and the balance between earning money and victory points makes for good strategies elements too. I thought it was a very good game and enjoyed it a great deal. One of the scoring elements grew geometrically and I based my game going for those points, this worked very well. Matt E noticed that everything you score in the first scoring round remains and will score in the second scoring round, so went for quick early points. Both strategies worked well. A tactical blunder I made (that Matt had to point out to me) cost em the game. The other players played a more balanced game, which didn't seem as successful as a more extreme strategy. Lance and John immediately competed in the same are of the board, which seems to be a very bad idea.
The board is two sided. We played on the symmetrical side recommended for new players. The other side looked very interesting. There is also a program available for printing out random maps, which can be useful for a game where positional play is so important.
Matt E 104
Qarl 103
Leonie 97
Lance 82
John 58
HAZIENDA
Lance 122
Sharon 117
Ian 78
PALAZZO
A Reiner Knizia auction game about building tall buildings with lots of windows. Its theme is a bit thin at times, but that never stops Knizia from making a good game. At first blush it has a lot in common with Alhambra. There are a few currencies you use to buy parts of buildings. You either take money, or buy something, or reorganise your buildings in some way. However, when you take money, everyone else gets some too, and when you want to buy something it is usually in an auction, so someone else might get it instead. Building tiles are numbered from 1 to 5, are in a variety of building materials and have a number of windows. Building floors must be put i na building immediately, and to add to a building the floor mist have a higher number than the last. So if you get a 3 building and start a new building with it, it can at most be three high (without rearranging).. Height is the most important element in assessing a buildings score, so this makes for a very interesting part of the game. This time I got to pip Matt E, winning of the tie break. Again we had very different strategies, I was going for lots of buildings thrown together as they came. Matt had just two tall building with all the same building materials (worth a bonus) and lots of windows (also worth more points). Leonie and John were very close behind, making it a very pleasingly close finish.
Qarl 35 (winning tie break with 13 money of one type)
Matt 35 (6 money of one type)
Leonie 34
John 30
DON
Ian likes to collect odd little light bidding card games. This one is one of the odder ones. Players bid for cards in 6 suits. Having multiple in one suit is worth geometrically more the more you own. Suits have five cars, and also have a number from 0 to 9. When you own a card of a number, you may not make a bid ending with that number. So if I owned a 0 a 5, a 6 and a 7, I cannot bid $5, $6, $7, $10, $15, $16 etc. This can get quite limiting when you own a spread of numbers. Additionally when a card is won, the money is split between the players who own the most of the numeral of the ones of the bid. So if the bid is $15, and I am the only player with a 5, I get all $15. The card are drawn and auctioned in varying amounts, first one card, then two, and then three, then back to one card again. It is a weird game, only Ian seems to have a handle on how to play it, but it was a lot closer the second time.
Strictly speaking I didn't collect this game so much as constructed it, from descriptions and a review using cards from Sticheln and what ever counters are handy for money.
First game:
Ian 21
Matt E 17
Qarl 8
Sharon 6
Lance 2
Second game:
Ian 13
Sharon 10
Matt E 10
Qarl 10
Lance 8
Games at Carl and Bab's - 13 January (the accidental Western theme)
Way out West
Carl's assessment:
Ian brought along this older Martin Wallace game. The players develop cattle herds, and build key buildings in six western towns. After things start to get crowded, then the players can turn their cowboys to less honest work, rustling cattle and strong arming buildings away. These things are much easier to do if you control the towns sheriff. As well the stores make money from cattle, the hotels make money from cowboys, stage coaches make money from cowboys when they move, banks make money form other buildings, and trains make cattle much more valuable. It has a lot of interesting ideas, and some great mechanics, but seems ultimately falls a little flat. There are several different limited actions, but only a few seem to matter at any given moment. Placing buildings and cattle is all that really matters at the beginning, then there is only fighting that will get you anything in the middle, and there is not much of anything to do in the end game. Once a player is shut out of the action, there is not effective way to get back into contention. An odd mix of development and risk really. The two experienced players fared best.
In Way out West you spend the first part of the game getting your cattle, buildings and coyboys onto the board and then there is a second phase of gaining control by sending your cowboys out to take over businesses and rustle cattle. In our previous games the game ends at that point but in this game there was a third phase where some people still had the ability to vie for control but other players couldn't do anything useful.
John 45
Ian 34
Leonie 33
Matt E 31
Oliver 2
This was the third game of Way out West and the first five player game. John and I were surprised and disappointed at the way it turned out. I don't think we experienced the lack of actions to anywhere near the same extent in the previous games. Though obviously the two building restriction forces you to move to gun fights regardless of the number of players. The first game was a three player game and we all made early mistakes but it wasn't clear until we added up the points who was winning, but the winner was Luke who concentrated more on buildings than cattle or gunfights. In the second game John tried an extreme strategy of not placing any cattle and concentrating on building and taking over building and rustling cattle, but ultimately it was too exteme and he didn't do well. But in those games nobody ended with nothing to do like Leonie or being totally wiped out like Oliver.
We didn't seem to get to that third phase in either of the first two games. Getting your cowboys into the right place at the right time is very important if you want to make the most of phase two.
Like Dutch Revolution there are lots of holes in the rules. e.g. what if both sides get wiped out simulateously? Or can you try to take over building and cattle if you don't have the replacement tiles yourself? There are lots of complaints on the geek about the rules and also about the unusual weaker side shoots first rule (which Leonie might have been able to use to her advantage if she was willing to take the risk).
Like a lot of multiplayer war games it will suffer from the temptation to pick on the weakest player, who will have little or no come back and have a miserable game. (The "slow death" phenomenom I call it.) I don't think Way out West should be played too seriously.
In John's view there are 28 corral spaces, more than 9 per player in a 3 player game, and 7 per player in a 4 player game but only 5.6 per player in 5 player game. Similarly there are 23 building spots, 7.6 per player in a 3 player game, 5.75 per player in a 4 player game and 4.6 per player in a 5 player game. Hence there is no crowding in a 3 player game, a little crowding in a 4 player game and much more in the 5 player game.
My thought was that:
Boomtown
Carl's assessment:
Back to the old west for the gold rush. This game is a great light game, that can also be played fairly analytically by looking at probabilities and payoffs. I enthusiastically pointed out it is quite a skillful game early on, but as my score became apparent it was all due to luck, of course :-). Matt locked the game in fairly early, and went on to a convincing win.
In my view Boomtown is a very chaotic game, cash can fluctuate wildly. Carl ran out of cash at one point and I was down to my last dollar at another.
Matt E 109
Ian 83
Leonie 76
Qarl 75
Mogul
Carl's assessment:
A little after the wild west (or the later part of the era), and little more to the east, we were now investing in the great early railroads. This is the first time I'd played three player. Its also the first time I've seen a lot of loans taken out. Matt E was taking out loans every turn and going for big investments to win. It made for an interesting game. Without any loans only $18 would circulate between the players. By the end all $45 that are in the game were in play. Matt did pretty well, and making a big come back. My slower building up a couple of companies had two big payoff towards the end giving me the win.
Qarl 43
Matt E 32
Ian 29
Carl's assessment:
Ian brought along this older Martin Wallace game. The players develop cattle herds, and build key buildings in six western towns. After things start to get crowded, then the players can turn their cowboys to less honest work, rustling cattle and strong arming buildings away. These things are much easier to do if you control the towns sheriff. As well the stores make money from cattle, the hotels make money from cowboys, stage coaches make money from cowboys when they move, banks make money form other buildings, and trains make cattle much more valuable. It has a lot of interesting ideas, and some great mechanics, but seems ultimately falls a little flat. There are several different limited actions, but only a few seem to matter at any given moment. Placing buildings and cattle is all that really matters at the beginning, then there is only fighting that will get you anything in the middle, and there is not much of anything to do in the end game. Once a player is shut out of the action, there is not effective way to get back into contention. An odd mix of development and risk really. The two experienced players fared best.
In Way out West you spend the first part of the game getting your cattle, buildings and coyboys onto the board and then there is a second phase of gaining control by sending your cowboys out to take over businesses and rustle cattle. In our previous games the game ends at that point but in this game there was a third phase where some people still had the ability to vie for control but other players couldn't do anything useful.
John 45
Ian 34
Leonie 33
Matt E 31
Oliver 2
This was the third game of Way out West and the first five player game. John and I were surprised and disappointed at the way it turned out. I don't think we experienced the lack of actions to anywhere near the same extent in the previous games. Though obviously the two building restriction forces you to move to gun fights regardless of the number of players. The first game was a three player game and we all made early mistakes but it wasn't clear until we added up the points who was winning, but the winner was Luke who concentrated more on buildings than cattle or gunfights. In the second game John tried an extreme strategy of not placing any cattle and concentrating on building and taking over building and rustling cattle, but ultimately it was too exteme and he didn't do well. But in those games nobody ended with nothing to do like Leonie or being totally wiped out like Oliver.
We didn't seem to get to that third phase in either of the first two games. Getting your cowboys into the right place at the right time is very important if you want to make the most of phase two.
Like Dutch Revolution there are lots of holes in the rules. e.g. what if both sides get wiped out simulateously? Or can you try to take over building and cattle if you don't have the replacement tiles yourself? There are lots of complaints on the geek about the rules and also about the unusual weaker side shoots first rule (which Leonie might have been able to use to her advantage if she was willing to take the risk).
Like a lot of multiplayer war games it will suffer from the temptation to pick on the weakest player, who will have little or no come back and have a miserable game. (The "slow death" phenomenom I call it.) I don't think Way out West should be played too seriously.
In John's view there are 28 corral spaces, more than 9 per player in a 3 player game, and 7 per player in a 4 player game but only 5.6 per player in 5 player game. Similarly there are 23 building spots, 7.6 per player in a 3 player game, 5.75 per player in a 4 player game and 4.6 per player in a 5 player game. Hence there is no crowding in a 3 player game, a little crowding in a 4 player game and much more in the 5 player game.
My thought was that:
- The 3 player game is 3 * 12 * 2 = 72 actions
- The 4 player game is 4 * 9 * 2 = 72 actions
- The 5 player game is 5 * 9 * 2 = 90 actions
Boomtown
Carl's assessment:
Back to the old west for the gold rush. This game is a great light game, that can also be played fairly analytically by looking at probabilities and payoffs. I enthusiastically pointed out it is quite a skillful game early on, but as my score became apparent it was all due to luck, of course :-). Matt locked the game in fairly early, and went on to a convincing win.
In my view Boomtown is a very chaotic game, cash can fluctuate wildly. Carl ran out of cash at one point and I was down to my last dollar at another.
Matt E 109
Ian 83
Leonie 76
Qarl 75
Mogul
Carl's assessment:
A little after the wild west (or the later part of the era), and little more to the east, we were now investing in the great early railroads. This is the first time I'd played three player. Its also the first time I've seen a lot of loans taken out. Matt E was taking out loans every turn and going for big investments to win. It made for an interesting game. Without any loans only $18 would circulate between the players. By the end all $45 that are in the game were in play. Matt did pretty well, and making a big come back. My slower building up a couple of companies had two big payoff towards the end giving me the win.
Qarl 43
Matt E 32
Ian 29
Train games at Lance's place (1856 & Railroad Tycoon)
1856
Jarratt found a problem in the spreadsheet while working out of the final
standings at this weekends game of 1856, he checked the spreadsheet of
the first game to see if the error existed, and it did.
The original scores were as follows :-
Jarratt - $5007 cash + $5400 shares = $10407
Lance - $5981 cash + $4100 shares = $10081
John - $5419 cash + $3675 shares = $9094
Anne - $4949 cash + $2150 shares = $7099
Ian - $4343 cash + $1425 shares = $5768
New updated proper scores :-
Lance - $5981 cash + $5450 shares = $11431
Jarratt - $5007 cash + $5950 shares = $10957
Anne - $4949 cash + $4750 shares = $9699
John - $5419 cash + $3875 shares = $9294
Ian - $4343 cash + $4875 shares = $9218
[ some mysterious other scores
Jarratt 2640 + 2367 = 10407
Lance 3194 + 2708 = 10002
John 3840 + 1579 = 9094
Anne 3218 + 1415 = 6783
Ian 2686 + 1262 = 5373
]
Railroad Tycoon
Anne 44
Ian 43
Andrew 40
John 39
Rob 37
Lance 33
Peter 33
Jarratt found a problem in the spreadsheet while working out of the final
standings at this weekends game of 1856, he checked the spreadsheet of
the first game to see if the error existed, and it did.
The original scores were as follows :-
Jarratt - $5007 cash + $5400 shares = $10407
Lance - $5981 cash + $4100 shares = $10081
John - $5419 cash + $3675 shares = $9094
Anne - $4949 cash + $2150 shares = $7099
Ian - $4343 cash + $1425 shares = $5768
New updated proper scores :-
Lance - $5981 cash + $5450 shares = $11431
Jarratt - $5007 cash + $5950 shares = $10957
Anne - $4949 cash + $4750 shares = $9699
John - $5419 cash + $3875 shares = $9294
Ian - $4343 cash + $4875 shares = $9218
[ some mysterious other scores
Jarratt 2640 + 2367 = 10407
Lance 3194 + 2708 = 10002
John 3840 + 1579 = 9094
Anne 3218 + 1415 = 6783
Ian 2686 + 1262 = 5373
]
Railroad Tycoon
Anne 44
Ian 43
Andrew 40
John 39
Rob 37
Lance 33
Peter 33
War of the Ring
Lance invited me over for a game of War of the Ring on Friday 6 January. This was my second game and this time I played the Fellowship and Lance played the Shadow side. This time as far as we know we didn't forget rules or make any major blunders.
I moved the ring quite frequently except when Lance committed lots of dice to the hunt box. I skipped my strongholds but made a mistake in not declaring when passing through Moria and hence got hurt by the Balrog.
Lance concentrated on Minas Tirith and took the stonghold. In the defense I used most of Gondor's forces and he had little trouble taking the rest. Then he tried to take Helms Deep which held out for awhile due to Ent attacks on Isengard with help from Gandalf the White. As the fellowship reached Mordor Lance concentrated on taking Lorien. Lance was close to a military victory so the ring bearers recklessly charged towards Mt Doom to be finally corrupted on the second attempt to fling the ring into the fire.
So Lance won again, but this time it was a very close run thing.
There is plenty of theme and replayability in this pretty war game.
I moved the ring quite frequently except when Lance committed lots of dice to the hunt box. I skipped my strongholds but made a mistake in not declaring when passing through Moria and hence got hurt by the Balrog.
Lance concentrated on Minas Tirith and took the stonghold. In the defense I used most of Gondor's forces and he had little trouble taking the rest. Then he tried to take Helms Deep which held out for awhile due to Ent attacks on Isengard with help from Gandalf the White. As the fellowship reached Mordor Lance concentrated on taking Lorien. Lance was close to a military victory so the ring bearers recklessly charged towards Mt Doom to be finally corrupted on the second attempt to fling the ring into the fire.
So Lance won again, but this time it was a very close run thing.
There is plenty of theme and replayability in this pretty war game.
Sunday 15 January 2006
Gaming at John's place - 3 January
When Anne and I arrived at John's house, Jarratt, Lance and John were finishing a game of Louis XIV. Jarratt won, what is one of his favourite games of 2005.
Jarratt 61, winning with excess shields, but notably, he finished first in virtually every round - and finishing later is generally helpful.
Lance 58, won Louis in every round and managed to stack up an incredible 10 (possibly 11) missions.
John 47
That done we started a game of Railroad Tycoon. Jarratt and Lance had both brought their copies and Jarratt was quicker off the draw so we used his game. This was John and Anne's first game of Railroad Tycoon and my second. I ended up with the tycoon card that gives you points for links build from Chicago, which dictated were I started. I went south to pick up goods but let Jarratt and Lance both build to Chicago in a competition to build between Chicago and New York in the process doing me out of 4 points. Most of the others concentrated on the east coast where the cities are close together. There certainly seems to be room for several players up and down the coast but probably only one or two north of New York.
This is fun game, not as serious as Age of Steam but with its own challenges as points can be achieved in various ways and players have control of the length of the game. We were too quick putting the game away to record the scores but the results were in this order:
Jarratt
John
Ian
Lance
Anne
Aqua Romana - we are not certain whether we had the rules correct - we only had the german rules available when we played it. Quite an interesting little game, which plays as Metro, in terms of placing tiles to help oneself while shafting opponents, but with substantiative control over the tiles played (of which there are only 4 types) - and good scope for planning turns in advance. Has a bit of puzzle aspect while still being directly competitive.
John 26
Lance 24
Anne 18
Ian 14
Lance's list of the things we played wrong in Aqua Romana:
Ian 34
Lance 29
Anne 19
John 18
Oasis, "That stupid game" according to Lance, who nevertheless was encouraged to play. John started camel herding early on, I was into steppe (yellow grass) with a side line in stones, Lance was into meadow and steppe with a sideline in camels and Anne was into meadow with a sideline in stones. I think everyone got a fair shot at the trading and apart from John the scores were fairly close at the end.
Lance 124
Ian 115
Anne 110
John 80
Thanks to John for hosting and recording the results for these games (some of his comments have been incorporated in this report)
Jarratt 61, winning with excess shields, but notably, he finished first in virtually every round - and finishing later is generally helpful.
Lance 58, won Louis in every round and managed to stack up an incredible 10 (possibly 11) missions.
John 47
That done we started a game of Railroad Tycoon. Jarratt and Lance had both brought their copies and Jarratt was quicker off the draw so we used his game. This was John and Anne's first game of Railroad Tycoon and my second. I ended up with the tycoon card that gives you points for links build from Chicago, which dictated were I started. I went south to pick up goods but let Jarratt and Lance both build to Chicago in a competition to build between Chicago and New York in the process doing me out of 4 points. Most of the others concentrated on the east coast where the cities are close together. There certainly seems to be room for several players up and down the coast but probably only one or two north of New York.
This is fun game, not as serious as Age of Steam but with its own challenges as points can be achieved in various ways and players have control of the length of the game. We were too quick putting the game away to record the scores but the results were in this order:
Jarratt
John
Ian
Lance
Anne
Aqua Romana - we are not certain whether we had the rules correct - we only had the german rules available when we played it. Quite an interesting little game, which plays as Metro, in terms of placing tiles to help oneself while shafting opponents, but with substantiative control over the tiles played (of which there are only 4 types) - and good scope for planning turns in advance. Has a bit of puzzle aspect while still being directly competitive.
John 26
Lance 24
Anne 18
Ian 14
Lance's list of the things we played wrong in Aqua Romana:
- The master builders only go around the board clockwise.
- If you can't play a tile due to there being no master builder in line of sight then you just move any master builder 1 space.
- When a master builder goes around the corner (over a fountain) you get to play another tile of the same kind anywhere (except to directly increase one of the aqueducts)
- When one of your aqueducts get closed off you get to place one of the reserve master builders.
- If a master builder's tiles have run out then you can place any tile (that master builder essentially becomes a joker)
Ian 34
Lance 29
Anne 19
John 18
Oasis, "That stupid game" according to Lance, who nevertheless was encouraged to play. John started camel herding early on, I was into steppe (yellow grass) with a side line in stones, Lance was into meadow and steppe with a sideline in camels and Anne was into meadow with a sideline in stones. I think everyone got a fair shot at the trading and apart from John the scores were fairly close at the end.
Lance 124
Ian 115
Anne 110
John 80
Thanks to John for hosting and recording the results for these games (some of his comments have been incorporated in this report)
Saturday 14 January 2006
New Year's Eve gaming
Peter and Michelle invited us over to their place for gaming on New Year's Eve. We took Carcassonne with "The Princess & the Dragon" expansion and we kicked off with that. I'll have to verify the results with Peter, but I think Michelle won.
Then we played Peter's christmas acquisition "Manila" by the designer who brought us Trans America. Manila is a game about the risky business of shipping goods to Manila, but I like to think of it as betting on a series of horse races. Each race starts with an auction for Harbour Master who gets to increase his stake in one of the types of good and rig the start of the race by deciding where each boat starts. Then everyone places an accomplice, paying for the privelige (think of placing a bet), the dice are thrown and the boats moved. This happens three times and the race is over and the lucky people collect their payouts.
There is of course a lot of luck involved, but the pieces are nice, the decisions interesting and the whole thing is a lot of fun. Michelle found two pirate hats and a harbour master's hat for us to wear. She also won, leaving Peter 99 Pesos behind, with Anne and I in between.
Then we played Peter's christmas acquisition "Manila" by the designer who brought us Trans America. Manila is a game about the risky business of shipping goods to Manila, but I like to think of it as betting on a series of horse races. Each race starts with an auction for Harbour Master who gets to increase his stake in one of the types of good and rig the start of the race by deciding where each boat starts. Then everyone places an accomplice, paying for the privelige (think of placing a bet), the dice are thrown and the boats moved. This happens three times and the race is over and the lucky people collect their payouts.
There is of course a lot of luck involved, but the pieces are nice, the decisions interesting and the whole thing is a lot of fun. Michelle found two pirate hats and a harbour master's hat for us to wear. She also won, leaving Peter 99 Pesos behind, with Anne and I in between.
Princess and the Dragon in Carcassonne
Anne and I were given "The Princess & the Dragon" expansion to Carcassonne for christmas by Jane and Mark. On 30 December had our first playing. This expansion add 30 new tiles, a cute dragon and a little white fairy. The dragon has a taste for meeples but as everyone has a say in the dragon's route it is not usually too destructive. The princesses are symbols on some new city tiles and are also distructive to meeples. The fairy is multi-purpose, protecting you from the dragon and as two sources of points. The game is naturally longer and the scores higher, but waiting for the dragon to start one of its 12 rampages adds to the tension.
The scores were close but Anne won. Anne 161, Ian 155.
The scores were close but Anne won. Anne 161, Ian 155.
Campground gaming with Annie
From christmas day to 30 December Anne and I were camping in Wanganui. While there I taught Anne "Lost Cities" and we played six hands for 3 wins each. Here are the results.
We also played three hands of Hornochsen, which Anne won three-zip, with single digit but positive scores! I put the low scores down to the randomness of the deal, but that just makes the game more tense.
I managed to redeem myself slightly with a win at Dracula (an interesting little game that is half memory and half strategy with a spot of bluffing). This game was very close with Van Helsing (me) finding the last coffin while Dracula (Anne) was hunting down the last victim.
| Anne | Ian |
|---|---|
| 46 | 65 |
| 34 | 71 |
| 61 | 86 |
| 100 | 49 |
| 57 | 12 |
| 44 | -16 |
We also played three hands of Hornochsen, which Anne won three-zip, with single digit but positive scores! I put the low scores down to the randomness of the deal, but that just makes the game more tense.
| Anne | Ian |
|---|---|
| 2 | -36 |
| 5 | -32 |
| 6 | -32 |
I managed to redeem myself slightly with a win at Dracula (an interesting little game that is half memory and half strategy with a spot of bluffing). This game was very close with Van Helsing (me) finding the last coffin while Dracula (Anne) was hunting down the last victim.
Sunday 1 January 2006
Antike (possibly early 2006)
There were eleven of us to start and Lance put his game of Antike on the table, so we split into six for Antike and five on the other table (where they played Taj Mahal). Antike is a civilization game that claims to play in two hours. It has a simple turn structure that consists of taking a coin (a sort of wild card resource), choosing one of 3 free actions or paying one or more resources to choose other actions. Finally there is an optional city building step. The actions include three resource collection actions, three corresponding spend resource actions and two identical movement actions. The resources are: iron which convert to military units, marble which convert to temples and gold which convert to technological advances. Points are gained from city building, temple building, sea control, being the first to gain each technological advance and destruction of temples.
Editor's note: I found this session report in an undated file. I'm note sure when this game was played, I'm guessing 2006)
Lance 7
Ian 5
Andrew 5
Nigel 5
John R 3
Eugene 2
Editor's note: I found this session report in an undated file. I'm note sure when this game was played, I'm guessing 2006)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)