I challenged my game group to come up with a rewrite of the Twelve Days of Christmas for a boardgamer. Anne's attempt was judged the best.
On the first day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
A Race for the Galaxy
On the second day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the fourth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the fifth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the sixth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the seventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Seven game expansions,
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the eighth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Eight days spent gaming,
Seven game expansions,
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the ninth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Nine days in Essen,
Eight days spent gaming,
Seven game expansions,
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the tenth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Ten days in Europe,
Nine days in Essen,
Eight days spent gaming,
Seven game expansions,
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the eleventh day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Eleven annual leave days,
Ten days in Europe,
Nine days in Essen,
Eight days spent gaming,
Seven game expansions,
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
On the twelfth day of Christmas, my true love gave to me...
Twelve thousand air-points,
Eleven annual leave days,
Ten days in Europe,
Nine days in Essen,
Eight days spent gaming,
Seven game expansions,
Six spinning fingers,
Five railway games,
Four game podcasts,
Three geek gold,
Two drawstring bags
And a Race for the Galaxy
Tuesday 20 December 2011
Saturday 17 December 2011
First Impressions of Discworld: Ankh-Morpork (December 2011)
Ankh-Morpork is a city state in Terry Pratchett's Discworld novels. It would be a disservice to Terry Pratchett and fans to make a serious, heavy boardgame set in Ankh-Morpork. You might expect a Discworld themed game to be designed by Steve Jackson (of Munchkin fame), but in fact Discworld: Ankh-Morpork is designed by Martin Wallace.
This is a much lighter game than I expected from Martin Wallace. Game play is basically play a card from your hand and do what it says. Everyone has their own secret objective, and a hand of cards which they use to establish minions and build buildings in various districts of the city of Ankh-Morpork. The cards are all illustrated in a style that is familiar from the book covers and most cards have special action text plus several icons at the top. These icons relate to the standard actions. Most actions on a card are optional but must be executed in order of the icons (from left to right). For each building you own, you may execute an additional action associated with the region it is in (only one building allowed per region). There is reverse hand limit, at the end of your turn if you have less than 5 cards you draw until you have five again. Many of the cards allow you hurt other players collectively or individually. For example the Fire Brigade card allows you to choose someone else's building. They must give you $5 or it burns down.
In addition to the main card deck and the 7 secret mission cards there is a card for each region and 12 random event cards. The secret missions are such things are gaining control of a set number of regions in the city or owning $50 worth of buildings and cash. As this is Ankh-Morpork, the throbbing economic heart of the Discworld, money plays an important part in the game. Given the designer; it is unsurprising that there are loans. There are also trouble markers. When a minion arrives in a region that already contains a minion, trouble follows. The existence of trouble prevents the erection of buildings and allows assassination.
In the first game we played my goal was to establish control in 4 regions to win. Peter guessed and blocked me the first time. But two turns later I managed it. I don't know what the others were trying to do, it wasn't obvious. My second game was Anne's first game. This time we concentrated on frustrating each other and the game took longer, before Peter won by getting minions into 10 areas of the city. There were attempts to confuse the other players by making it look like we could be going for two different goals. In the third game I started with the aim of making $50 which seemed hard. I grabbed what ever money I could and established as much control as possible to disguise my real goal. When the opportunity arrived to swap goals, I got the goal of 8+ trouble markers. Trolls and Demons arrived shortly after to create 10 trouble, though I expect I could have got to 8 without them.
If you are looking for a heavy strategy Martin Wallace game with multiple paths to victory then this is the wrong game for you. If you are looking for a non-serious, take-that, game with thematic art and jokes about the Discworld series then this is your game.
This is a much lighter game than I expected from Martin Wallace. Game play is basically play a card from your hand and do what it says. Everyone has their own secret objective, and a hand of cards which they use to establish minions and build buildings in various districts of the city of Ankh-Morpork. The cards are all illustrated in a style that is familiar from the book covers and most cards have special action text plus several icons at the top. These icons relate to the standard actions. Most actions on a card are optional but must be executed in order of the icons (from left to right). For each building you own, you may execute an additional action associated with the region it is in (only one building allowed per region). There is reverse hand limit, at the end of your turn if you have less than 5 cards you draw until you have five again. Many of the cards allow you hurt other players collectively or individually. For example the Fire Brigade card allows you to choose someone else's building. They must give you $5 or it burns down.
In addition to the main card deck and the 7 secret mission cards there is a card for each region and 12 random event cards. The secret missions are such things are gaining control of a set number of regions in the city or owning $50 worth of buildings and cash. As this is Ankh-Morpork, the throbbing economic heart of the Discworld, money plays an important part in the game. Given the designer; it is unsurprising that there are loans. There are also trouble markers. When a minion arrives in a region that already contains a minion, trouble follows. The existence of trouble prevents the erection of buildings and allows assassination.
In the first game we played my goal was to establish control in 4 regions to win. Peter guessed and blocked me the first time. But two turns later I managed it. I don't know what the others were trying to do, it wasn't obvious. My second game was Anne's first game. This time we concentrated on frustrating each other and the game took longer, before Peter won by getting minions into 10 areas of the city. There were attempts to confuse the other players by making it look like we could be going for two different goals. In the third game I started with the aim of making $50 which seemed hard. I grabbed what ever money I could and established as much control as possible to disguise my real goal. When the opportunity arrived to swap goals, I got the goal of 8+ trouble markers. Trolls and Demons arrived shortly after to create 10 trouble, though I expect I could have got to 8 without them.
If you are looking for a heavy strategy Martin Wallace game with multiple paths to victory then this is the wrong game for you. If you are looking for a non-serious, take-that, game with thematic art and jokes about the Discworld series then this is your game.
Monday 24 October 2011
Friday 21 October 2011
We started the evening with the obligatory game of Frank's Zoo. We only managed one hand before too many others arrived to continue. Anne was leading with 6, Andrew H on 5, Anna 3, Ian 1, Andrew P on -1.
We split into two groups to play games of building palaces in China and India.
In the Year of the Dragon
We played pretty fast with Andrew R buying an double privilege and leading pretty much from start to finish on both the person track and the VP track. I tried vainly to keep up but ended up restricting myself to 4 people for most of the game. While Andrew P tried an unorthodox strategy of playing a long way behind on the person track.
Anne and John divided the market tiles between them while the pachydermophobes (Anna and Andrew H) avoided conflict generally and built connecting palaces. The game was closely fought for second place.
After building palaces in India the Taj Mahal players went on to build ancient Greek cities. Andrew nearly build between two shrines, but was stymied. They played for places with Andrew H finishing first followed by John B, Anna and then Anne.
They then finished with a couple of hands of Frank's Zoo.
Andrew R and I were keen to play. So I taught Andrew P and refreshed Andrew R's knowledge of the game. The game is one of two halves. In the first (and longer) half the players build the American rail network. There are five rounds; each round starts by auctioning the right build the six companies. Then the six companies build one segment at a time trying to reach as many different coloured cities as possibly (and make money for their controllers by reaching lucrative cities and finishing the connection between New York and San Francisco). In the second half the companies pick up cubes from cities, aiming to collect sets of cubes. A set of 5 different is worth $150 per share, 4 different is worth $100 per share etc. More money is made in the second half of the game than the first.
We weren't far apart at the end of the first half of the game but the differences were more pronounced in the second half.
John built the circle line to give himself a strong lead (about 12 points) over Anne but she clawed her way back due to her better track layout which not only criss-crossed the centre of London but dominated the Western, Northern and Eastern suburbs.
With so many Andrews in the house I think I should start using nick-names.
We split into two groups to play games of building palaces in China and India.
In the Year of the Dragon
We played pretty fast with Andrew R buying an double privilege and leading pretty much from start to finish on both the person track and the VP track. I tried vainly to keep up but ended up restricting myself to 4 people for most of the game. While Andrew P tried an unorthodox strategy of playing a long way behind on the person track.
Andrew R 105 Ian 86 Andrew P 68Taj Mahal
Anne and John divided the market tiles between them while the pachydermophobes (Anna and Andrew H) avoided conflict generally and built connecting palaces. The game was closely fought for second place.
Anne 53 John B 45 Andrew H 44 Anna 44Attika
After building palaces in India the Taj Mahal players went on to build ancient Greek cities. Andrew nearly build between two shrines, but was stymied. They played for places with Andrew H finishing first followed by John B, Anna and then Anne.
They then finished with a couple of hands of Frank's Zoo.
John B 3 8 Anna 1 7 Andrew H 4 6 Anne 3 5Steel Driver
Andrew R and I were keen to play. So I taught Andrew P and refreshed Andrew R's knowledge of the game. The game is one of two halves. In the first (and longer) half the players build the American rail network. There are five rounds; each round starts by auctioning the right build the six companies. Then the six companies build one segment at a time trying to reach as many different coloured cities as possibly (and make money for their controllers by reaching lucrative cities and finishing the connection between New York and San Francisco). In the second half the companies pick up cubes from cities, aiming to collect sets of cubes. A set of 5 different is worth $150 per share, 4 different is worth $100 per share etc. More money is made in the second half of the game than the first.
We weren't far apart at the end of the first half of the game but the differences were more pronounced in the second half.
Andrew R $640 + $1310 = $1950 Ian $550 + $1120 = $1670 Andrew P $670 + $820 = $1490On the Underground
John built the circle line to give himself a strong lead (about 12 points) over Anne but she clawed her way back due to her better track layout which not only criss-crossed the centre of London but dominated the Western, Northern and Eastern suburbs.
Anne 83 John B 82
With so many Andrews in the house I think I should start using nick-names.
Monday 12 September 2011
Friday 9 September 2011
John arrived on time and keen to play Modern Art. But his wish was thrawted by other people arriving one by one. So we switched to Condottiere instead, with John explaining the rules three times as players arrived.
Condottiere
Condottiere is an even more unforgiving game than Taj Mahal. In both games you play cards one at a time, dropping out when you wish but losing all cards played regardless of reward. Unlike Taj Mahal there is only one reward in Condottiere, so the only incentive to drop out early in Condottiere is to cut your losses. Players are dealt 10 cards plus 2 for each province they own, leading to a run-away leader syndrome. I think this is a good thing as it tends to prevent the game dragging on too long.
I usually lose badly in this game but this time was an exception, I won three connected provinces before some people won their first. Most of the newbies didn't enjoy Condottiere and I don't blame them. I certainly didn't enjoy it the first few times I played it. Like most masochistic pursuits, its an acquired taste.
Mogul
Looking for a shortish six player game I suggested Mogul, which was new to Ceedee and Mark. I started off (as I did 2 years ago) with the classic mistake of selling off my first share (for 6 points). But it took quite awhile to build up the cash to buy a replacement share and then several more turns before I had the cash to do anything else. This game does tend to favour those who build up a portfolio and collect dividends for most of the game before selling off just before the crash and I should know this. Nigel made similar mistakes to me and we were both cash and share poor for most of the game.
After Mogel, Nigel and Mark left and we could teach Ceedee Modern Art. I started by putting up a Krypto for sale and Krypto turned out to be the only artist to sell for the first half of the game, making for a short game. Krypto even came in second in the third round! The fourth round saw four artist's paintings selling. It was a remarkably short and low scoring game.
We taught Ceedee this painful game to finish the evening. Andrew and John both had a handful of red cards which they gradually inflicted on us. I finished by taking two moderately negative piles to avoid getting one moderately negative pile followed by a very bad pile. The average score was -15, which is unusually bad.
Condottiere
Condottiere is an even more unforgiving game than Taj Mahal. In both games you play cards one at a time, dropping out when you wish but losing all cards played regardless of reward. Unlike Taj Mahal there is only one reward in Condottiere, so the only incentive to drop out early in Condottiere is to cut your losses. Players are dealt 10 cards plus 2 for each province they own, leading to a run-away leader syndrome. I think this is a good thing as it tends to prevent the game dragging on too long.
I usually lose badly in this game but this time was an exception, I won three connected provinces before some people won their first. Most of the newbies didn't enjoy Condottiere and I don't blame them. I certainly didn't enjoy it the first few times I played it. Like most masochistic pursuits, its an acquired taste.
Mogul
Looking for a shortish six player game I suggested Mogul, which was new to Ceedee and Mark. I started off (as I did 2 years ago) with the classic mistake of selling off my first share (for 6 points). But it took quite awhile to build up the cash to buy a replacement share and then several more turns before I had the cash to do anything else. This game does tend to favour those who build up a portfolio and collect dividends for most of the game before selling off just before the crash and I should know this. Nigel made similar mistakes to me and we were both cash and share poor for most of the game.
John B 24 Ceedee 17 Mark 16 Nigel 13 Andrew 11 (beating me on tie break) Ian 11Modern Art
After Mogel, Nigel and Mark left and we could teach Ceedee Modern Art. I started by putting up a Krypto for sale and Krypto turned out to be the only artist to sell for the first half of the game, making for a short game. Krypto even came in second in the third round! The fourth round saw four artist's paintings selling. It was a remarkably short and low scoring game.
Ian $369 Ceedee $361 Andrew $282 John B $259Hornochsen!
We taught Ceedee this painful game to finish the evening. Andrew and John both had a handful of red cards which they gradually inflicted on us. I finished by taking two moderately negative piles to avoid getting one moderately negative pile followed by a very bad pile. The average score was -15, which is unusually bad.
Ceedee 13 Ian 8 Andrew -8 John B -28
Saturday 23 July 2011
Friday 22 July 2011
Age of Steam: Korea
My second play of the Korea board. There seemed to be plenty of goods to go around, though the planning is slow due to the need to take into account the changing destination colours as cubes are moved out of cities. Two important points about the Korea expansion are:
John, Anne and Andrew started around Seoul and that area emptied of cubes almost immediately. Nigel started to the south of the others and I started in Busan (in the south western corner). As John and I joined Nigel, the area south of Seoul also emptied out. Andrew built north and Anne west. The cube shortage was intermittent, until the last turn when most of the board was empty (except one blue and red in each city in the south west - damn US troops).
I led on the share track until I cut back on shares, track building and bidding for turn order (I still had plenty of cubes). I remained on the old 4 link train technology while others had moved onto 5 links (which cost me in the final turn). Nigel issued far fewer shares than anyone else. John and I were neck and neck on the income track but he had fewer shares. On the last turn I lost a point in track due to John's hint to Nigel and another 2 points due to Anne's Urbanisation.
Frank's Zoo
We finished the evening with a few hands of Frank's Zoo. Nigel claimed this was the first 4 player game he had played and certainly the number of triples around the table caught some of us by surprise. The hedgehogs loved John.
My second play of the Korea board. There seemed to be plenty of goods to go around, though the planning is slow due to the need to take into account the changing destination colours as cubes are moved out of cities. Two important points about the Korea expansion are:
- firstly cities have no colour (even New Cities), they are destinations for the cubes they contain,
- secondly New Cities arrive on the board pre-populated with 2 cubes from the Goods Display (which are immediately replaced).
John, Anne and Andrew started around Seoul and that area emptied of cubes almost immediately. Nigel started to the south of the others and I started in Busan (in the south western corner). As John and I joined Nigel, the area south of Seoul also emptied out. Andrew built north and Anne west. The cube shortage was intermittent, until the last turn when most of the board was empty (except one blue and red in each city in the south west - damn US troops).
I led on the share track until I cut back on shares, track building and bidding for turn order (I still had plenty of cubes). I remained on the old 4 link train technology while others had moved onto 5 links (which cost me in the final turn). Nigel issued far fewer shares than anyone else. John and I were neck and neck on the income track but he had fewer shares. On the last turn I lost a point in track due to John's hint to Nigel and another 2 points due to Anne's Urbanisation.
John B 66
Nigel 63
Ian 62
Anne 54
Andrew P 53
Frank's Zoo
We finished the evening with a few hands of Frank's Zoo. Nigel claimed this was the first 4 player game he had played and certainly the number of triples around the table caught some of us by surprise. The hedgehogs loved John.
Nigel 3 9 11 17
Anne -1 2 9 13
Ian 3 2 4 7
John B 5 7 6 5
Thursday 21 July 2011
Brass on Wednesday 20 July 2011
We played another game of Brass on Wednesday, this time with Jarratt. We discussed the King Cotton and port strategies and Jarratt decided to try a port strategy. He mostly built ports and "burnt" stuff in his first few turns, while I concentrated on "burning" and then building cotton mills. I was so fixated on cotton that I missed an extremely obvious ironworks (which Jarratt then built), this wasn't the only ironworks opportunity I missed. Anne built ironworks (all 4 by the end of the game) coal mines (she had run out well before the end of the game) and shipyards (3 by the end of the game) with a few cotton mills and ports.
Jarratt's early ports had little affect on Anne or I in the canal phase and at the beginning of the rail phase I built 2 ports in Liverpool as a safety measure. We decided that a port strategy should be opportunistic in the canal phase (remember you can't build more than one building per town in that phase) and more determined in the rail phase. Anne's coal mines worked well to fund her shipyard building. Jarratt, at the other extreme, built no coal mines at all and lagged on the income track.
At the end of the rail phase I wanted to build 2 mills and 2 ports but didn't have the right cards for the 2 mills so built a shipyard in Barrow and Furness instead (and an opportunistic port which no-one flipped :-( ). In the end Jarratt's cotton mills were more valuable than mine, his port strategy had morphed into a King Cotton strategy. Both Anne and I had over forty pounds left at the end of the game which means that we failed to build enough rail (even though coal cost £5 by then it was still cost effective to spend £25 on two rail rather than £10 on one rail).
Anne's score of 181 would probably have been a winning score two years ago, and my score of 194 was possibly the best score I have seen except for Jarratt's winning score of 218!
Jarratt's early ports had little affect on Anne or I in the canal phase and at the beginning of the rail phase I built 2 ports in Liverpool as a safety measure. We decided that a port strategy should be opportunistic in the canal phase (remember you can't build more than one building per town in that phase) and more determined in the rail phase. Anne's coal mines worked well to fund her shipyard building. Jarratt, at the other extreme, built no coal mines at all and lagged on the income track.
At the end of the rail phase I wanted to build 2 mills and 2 ports but didn't have the right cards for the 2 mills so built a shipyard in Barrow and Furness instead (and an opportunistic port which no-one flipped :-( ). In the end Jarratt's cotton mills were more valuable than mine, his port strategy had morphed into a King Cotton strategy. Both Anne and I had over forty pounds left at the end of the game which means that we failed to build enough rail (even though coal cost £5 by then it was still cost effective to spend £25 on two rail rather than £10 on one rail).
Anne's score of 181 would probably have been a winning score two years ago, and my score of 194 was possibly the best score I have seen except for Jarratt's winning score of 218!
Jarratt 218
Ian 194
Anne 181
Sunday 17 July 2011
Friday 15 July 2011
Frank's Zoo
This week we managed to start while we waited for the late comers. In the second hand Carl took Andrew Parr's place. Each hand is scored separately below.
Glory to Rome
This time Anna came first, followed by Carl, then Andrew H and Nigel last. Meanwhile...
Traumfabrik
Sharon (mass producing B-movies) was starting on her 6th film before I finished my first film! But on the other hand I finished all of my movies by the penultimate party and cruised to the finish (to collect 35 points worth of awards).
Citadels
Carl had brought along a bag of games including this nasty little card game.
Patrician
I felt that I got stuck with too many purple cards and ended up in only 3 cities! I think we were all a bit tired and didn't concentrate enough to make the best of this game. It is also one of those games that you get more control with fewer players (so might be best with 3 players).
No Thanks!
There was a massive spread of scores in this game!! (Remember low score is good)
Modern Art
Nigel did OK despite some excessive bids, like paying more for a card than it could possibly be worth. At first glance it looks like you shouldn't pay more than 50% of the expected value of a piece of art but this isn't true (as explained here).
I did badly as usual.
Tichu
We couldn't finish the evening without the obligatory Tichu game. This time Carl and John versus Sharon and Anne. The boys clawed themselves back into the game.
This week we managed to start while we waited for the late comers. In the second hand Carl took Andrew Parr's place. Each hand is scored separately below.
Ian 6 8Once Nigel and John had arrived we abandoned Frank's Zoo and split into two groups.
Anna 4 3
Andrew H 1 2
Anne 3 -2
Sharon 1 3
Andrew P 7 -
Carl - 5
Glory to Rome
This time Anna came first, followed by Carl, then Andrew H and Nigel last. Meanwhile...
Traumfabrik
Sharon (mass producing B-movies) was starting on her 6th film before I finished my first film! But on the other hand I finished all of my movies by the penultimate party and cruised to the finish (to collect 35 points worth of awards).
Ian 86
Sharon 67
Andrew P 64
John B 56
Anne 52
Citadels
Carl had brought along a bag of games including this nasty little card game.
Andrew H 32
Carl 19
Anna 18
Nigel 15
Patrician
I felt that I got stuck with too many purple cards and ended up in only 3 cities! I think we were all a bit tired and didn't concentrate enough to make the best of this game. It is also one of those games that you get more control with fewer players (so might be best with 3 players).
John B 37 (played fewer bits which is the tie-breaker)
Andrew P 37
Ian 32
Sharon 29
Anne 15
No Thanks!
There was a massive spread of scores in this game!! (Remember low score is good)
Andrew H 3
Anna 18
Carl 47
Nigel 80
Modern Art
Nigel did OK despite some excessive bids, like paying more for a card than it could possibly be worth. At first glance it looks like you shouldn't pay more than 50% of the expected value of a piece of art but this isn't true (as explained here).
I did badly as usual.
Andrew P $384
Andrew H $370
Nigel $361
Anna $345
Ian $273
Tichu
We couldn't finish the evening without the obligatory Tichu game. This time Carl and John versus Sharon and Anne. The boys clawed themselves back into the game.
Hnd Cd+JB SH+AM
1. 0 300
2. 0 500
3. 150 550
4. 195 505
5. 295 505
6. 265 535
7. 335 565
8. 515 585
9. 715 585
10. 765 635
11. 840 760
12. 1000 700
Sunday 10 July 2011
Friday 8 July 2011
Six of us were about to play Frank's Zoo, but before we could sit down Sharon turned up after catching red lights all the way down The Terrace, so we split up to play Tichu and Glory to Rome.
Tichu
Sharon and Anne got off to a good start with a snappy Tichu 1-2. But in the next hand I called Grand Tichu on a Dragon, Phoenix and an Ace. I picked up another Ace and Andrew kindly gave me a third and then backed me up to make it a 1-2 as well. In the third hand Anne and I both called Tichu -- I made it. With the score on 525 to 275 the Boys were half way home, but that was as good as it got. We failed Tichu in the next 3 hands while they made Tichu over 4 consecutive hands. In the 8th hand no-one called Tichu but Sharon and Anne made 100 points to win 1005 to 395.
Glory to Rome
I was too busy getting thrashed in Tichu to pay much attention to what was happening during the rebuilding of Rome, but I have it on good authority that Andrew won, Nigel was second and Anna third.
While we were playing Ceedee and Rob turned up and played a game of Jaipur on the coffee table before joining Anna, Andrew and Nigel to play...
Rheinlander
Which was another new game for Ceedee and Rob.
John B arrived in time to play one hand of Coloretto before we reconfigured to play Taj Mahal at one end of the table and Vegas Showdown at the other.
Vegas Showdown
From what I could see Andrew P had a significant lead for most of the game so I was surprised to learn that Sharon won. Unfortunately no scores were recorded.
Taj Mahal
Ceedee's first game and she led from start to finish, playing an opportunistic strategy, having the Princess card for a few rounds and mostly avoiding big fights. Andrew went after the King and connections, while the rest of us (Anne most of all) went after the elephants, leading to some bruising fights. Ceedee demonstrated yet again why we shouldn't teach her new games.
Tichu
Sharon and Anne got off to a good start with a snappy Tichu 1-2. But in the next hand I called Grand Tichu on a Dragon, Phoenix and an Ace. I picked up another Ace and Andrew kindly gave me a third and then backed me up to make it a 1-2 as well. In the third hand Anne and I both called Tichu -- I made it. With the score on 525 to 275 the Boys were half way home, but that was as good as it got. We failed Tichu in the next 3 hands while they made Tichu over 4 consecutive hands. In the 8th hand no-one called Tichu but Sharon and Anne made 100 points to win 1005 to 395.
Hnd IA+AP SH+AM
1. 0 300 Sharon's Tichu 1-2
2. 400 300 Ian's GT 1-2
3. 525 275 Ian's Tichu, Anne fails
4. 465 435 Anne's Tichu, Andrew fails
5. 420 580 Sharon's Tichu, Andrew fails
6. 365 735 Sharon's Tichu, Ian fails
7. 395 905 Sharon's Tichu
8. 395 1005 Sharon & Anne make 100 points
Glory to Rome
I was too busy getting thrashed in Tichu to pay much attention to what was happening during the rebuilding of Rome, but I have it on good authority that Andrew won, Nigel was second and Anna third.
While we were playing Ceedee and Rob turned up and played a game of Jaipur on the coffee table before joining Anna, Andrew and Nigel to play...
Rheinlander
Which was another new game for Ceedee and Rob.
Anna 41
Ceedee 38
Rob 37
Andrew H 33
Nigel 30
John B arrived in time to play one hand of Coloretto before we reconfigured to play Taj Mahal at one end of the table and Vegas Showdown at the other.
Vegas Showdown
From what I could see Andrew P had a significant lead for most of the game so I was surprised to learn that Sharon won. Unfortunately no scores were recorded.
Taj Mahal
Ceedee's first game and she led from start to finish, playing an opportunistic strategy, having the Princess card for a few rounds and mostly avoiding big fights. Andrew went after the King and connections, while the rest of us (Anne most of all) went after the elephants, leading to some bruising fights. Ceedee demonstrated yet again why we shouldn't teach her new games.
Ceedee 53
Andrew H 50
Anne 44
Ian 34
Anna 22
Saturday 2 July 2011
Friday 1 July 2011
Carl came to dinner and afterwards I taught him Jaipur (a 2 player trading game).
Jaipur
Jaipur is a largely tactical card game where taking advantage of your opponent's proximity to the hand limit and situations where all the cards in the market are camels is the name of the game. There is also a game of chicken over holding out long enough to get a set of 5 in order to get the 8-10 point bonus tokens.
I won the first round, but Carl came back in the second round with a score of 85 (70-5 is more normal). I took out the third round, to win 2-1.
7 Wonders
Ceedee and Rob arrived with a stack of games including: First Train to Nuremberg, a shrink wrapped Hansa Teutonica and 7 Wonders (which Carl hadn't played). Ceedee taught Carl while Rob and I set up the pieces during it which felt like the start of a Tolkien novel as people arrived in ones and twos until there were ten of us. Andrew, Anna, Sharon and Anne decided to play Tichu, leaving 6 of us to play 7 Wonders. I sat between Rob and John. I decided to go after green and military cards. I thought I had enough access to resources but by the third era I found myself often unable to build. and I also allowed Rob to out build me in military a couple of times.
I don't have the final score sheet but I think Carl won.
Tichu
Sharon and Anna proved too good for Andrew and Anne winning two games of Tichu: 1180 to 520 (in 9 hands) and 1015 to 95 (in 8 hands). I suspect Anna's creative scoring penalized Anne and Andrew 190 points in the second game!
Princes of the Renaissance
Instead of doing the sensible thing and splitting into 2 threes, people started suggesting 6 player games. Princes caught Rob's imagination and Ceedee was happy to give it a go. I taught the game in a somewhat chaotic fashion, though roughly working backwards from the main sources of victory points through to the actions, what the various tiles are and the details of fighting battles. With the game under way Carl, John and I possibly handed out more advice than was welcome. Then again Ceedee's strategy of doing the opposite of the advice offered stood her in good stead.
Andrew had first pick of the family tiles and choose Baglioni (the warmonger), Rob chose d'Este (the gunner), Carl chose Bentivogli (the treacherous) as a self imposed challenge, I chose Montefeltro (the art collectors), Ceedee chose Gonzaga (the other art collector) and John was left with Malatesta (the treacherous). The Cavalry were snapped up quickly by the first few players (though Rob was persuaded to invest in Artillery instead). I followed my usual practice of auctioning off popular city tiles to entice people to spend cash and commit to cities. Wars broke out early on and Venice (red) gained in status while Naples (yellow) dropped to the bottom. There was plenty of treachery, for instance in one war Carl bribed my only troops to go home so that neither of my bonus tiles (which would have given me +3 on defense) were valid.
Ceedee was attracted to merchants particularly the yellow/Naples ones, and also to the Pope. Carl despite not having a discount on bidding for attack or defense was winning wars all over Italy. Andrew despite having a discount didn't win any wars but astutely bought into Venice. I bought art and initially invested in Naples and Milan. The first decade ended with everyone short of cash, no-one rushed the event tiles so each decade had its full complement of wars and gave everyone plenty of time to buy city tiles. The final decade saw Venice in an untouchable position on the status chart with Naples rising fast. Other than Venice the cities were close together but I tipped the balance in favour of Florence (green) because I thought I could get some Florence tiles (there were no Naples left).
At the end of three decades of war, investment and treachery Ceedee showed us how the merchant strategy plus good choice of city tiles works wonders (53 is a very good score).
Jaipur
Jaipur is a largely tactical card game where taking advantage of your opponent's proximity to the hand limit and situations where all the cards in the market are camels is the name of the game. There is also a game of chicken over holding out long enough to get a set of 5 in order to get the 8-10 point bonus tokens.
I won the first round, but Carl came back in the second round with a score of 85 (70-5 is more normal). I took out the third round, to win 2-1.
7 Wonders
Ceedee and Rob arrived with a stack of games including: First Train to Nuremberg, a shrink wrapped Hansa Teutonica and 7 Wonders (which Carl hadn't played). Ceedee taught Carl while Rob and I set up the pieces during it which felt like the start of a Tolkien novel as people arrived in ones and twos until there were ten of us. Andrew, Anna, Sharon and Anne decided to play Tichu, leaving 6 of us to play 7 Wonders. I sat between Rob and John. I decided to go after green and military cards. I thought I had enough access to resources but by the third era I found myself often unable to build. and I also allowed Rob to out build me in military a couple of times.
I don't have the final score sheet but I think Carl won.
Tichu
Sharon and Anna proved too good for Andrew and Anne winning two games of Tichu: 1180 to 520 (in 9 hands) and 1015 to 95 (in 8 hands). I suspect Anna's creative scoring penalized Anne and Andrew 190 points in the second game!
Princes of the Renaissance
Instead of doing the sensible thing and splitting into 2 threes, people started suggesting 6 player games. Princes caught Rob's imagination and Ceedee was happy to give it a go. I taught the game in a somewhat chaotic fashion, though roughly working backwards from the main sources of victory points through to the actions, what the various tiles are and the details of fighting battles. With the game under way Carl, John and I possibly handed out more advice than was welcome. Then again Ceedee's strategy of doing the opposite of the advice offered stood her in good stead.
Andrew had first pick of the family tiles and choose Baglioni (the warmonger), Rob chose d'Este (the gunner), Carl chose Bentivogli (the treacherous) as a self imposed challenge, I chose Montefeltro (the art collectors), Ceedee chose Gonzaga (the other art collector) and John was left with Malatesta (the treacherous). The Cavalry were snapped up quickly by the first few players (though Rob was persuaded to invest in Artillery instead). I followed my usual practice of auctioning off popular city tiles to entice people to spend cash and commit to cities. Wars broke out early on and Venice (red) gained in status while Naples (yellow) dropped to the bottom. There was plenty of treachery, for instance in one war Carl bribed my only troops to go home so that neither of my bonus tiles (which would have given me +3 on defense) were valid.
Ceedee was attracted to merchants particularly the yellow/Naples ones, and also to the Pope. Carl despite not having a discount on bidding for attack or defense was winning wars all over Italy. Andrew despite having a discount didn't win any wars but astutely bought into Venice. I bought art and initially invested in Naples and Milan. The first decade ended with everyone short of cash, no-one rushed the event tiles so each decade had its full complement of wars and gave everyone plenty of time to buy city tiles. The final decade saw Venice in an untouchable position on the status chart with Naples rising fast. Other than Venice the cities were close together but I tipped the balance in favour of Florence (green) because I thought I could get some Florence tiles (there were no Naples left).
At the end of three decades of war, investment and treachery Ceedee showed us how the merchant strategy plus good choice of city tiles works wonders (53 is a very good score).
Ceedee 39(Cities) + 8(Merchants) + 6(money) = 53
Ian 21(Cities) + 14(Artists) + 4(influence) = 39
Andrew P 36(Cities) + 3(Pope) = 39
Carl 14(Cities) + 21(Laurels) + 3(money) = 38
John B 29(Cities) + 6(Laurels) = 35
Rob 13(Cities) + 6(Laurels) = 19
Sunday 17 April 2011
Friday 15 April 2011
After a couple of weeks of low numbers (just Andrew and I on 1 April and 3 of us on 8 April) it was nice to fill the dinning room table with 8 people on a Friday night.
Coloretto
I picked a simple game to teach Natalia for whom English is a second language. It was new to Ceedee too. Coloretto has simple rules but you have to always keep an eye on the effect of your decisions on other people and there are long term strategies to learn.
Frank's Zoo
Anna decided that Frank's Zoo was just as easy to teach. The rules are much longer than Coloretto but the basic ideas are pretty easy. It seems that Anna taught Ceedee and Natalia too well!
Louis XIV
At the other end of the table the old hands got on with sucking up to the luminaries in the court of the Sun King. It was a rich game with plenty of cash to spend. In the first round Andrew screwed up and though he won two rewards he could not complete any of his mission cards and so had to discard a hard earned reward. In round two Travis failed to complete any missions and everyone except Anne earned 5 on #7. Andrew started his come back. By round three Sharon had the power to place 4 influence tokens with one card. Anne didn't have cards for #1..4 in rounds 2 or 4. In the final round Anne went after shields but she could not catch Andrew.
No Thanks!
Andrew easily won this game of avoiding taking cards
Expedition
We swapped around with an accidental gender split. Anne taught Expedition and Natalia taught how to pronounce Russian place names. In the first game 13 was a popular score. In the second game the scores were spread wider.
Metropolys
We taught Travis rather badly - he didn't understand what bridges were until the game was half over. Andrew continued his love of the ladies taking at least 5.
Battle Line
While the second Expedition was finishing at the other end and after Travis had gone home I challenged Andrew to a game of Battle Line. It was a close game but finally I won 5-4 once we had emptied the draw deck. It was a game without Tactics cards. Ending Andrew's winning streak.
Coloretto
I picked a simple game to teach Natalia for whom English is a second language. It was new to Ceedee too. Coloretto has simple rules but you have to always keep an eye on the effect of your decisions on other people and there are long term strategies to learn.
Ian 28 + 35 + 35 = 98
Anna 27 + 39 + 25 = 91
Ceedee 24 + 30 + 23 = 77
Natalia 18 + 29 + 22 = 69
Frank's Zoo
Anna decided that Frank's Zoo was just as easy to teach. The rules are much longer than Coloretto but the basic ideas are pretty easy. It seems that Anna taught Ceedee and Natalia too well!
Ceedee 7 14 22 25
Natalia 2 6 9 11
Anna 1 2 4 10
Ian 2 2 1 1
Louis XIV
At the other end of the table the old hands got on with sucking up to the luminaries in the court of the Sun King. It was a rich game with plenty of cash to spend. In the first round Andrew screwed up and though he won two rewards he could not complete any of his mission cards and so had to discard a hard earned reward. In round two Travis failed to complete any missions and everyone except Anne earned 5 on #7. Andrew started his come back. By round three Sharon had the power to place 4 influence tokens with one card. Anne didn't have cards for #1..4 in rounds 2 or 4. In the final round Anne went after shields but she could not catch Andrew.
Andrew H 47
Anne 45
Sharon 44
Travis 40
No Thanks!
Andrew easily won this game of avoiding taking cards
Andrew H -16
Travis -38
Anne -39
Sharon -41
Expedition
We swapped around with an accidental gender split. Anne taught Expedition and Natalia taught how to pronounce Russian place names. In the first game 13 was a popular score. In the second game the scores were spread wider.
Anne 13 16
Natalia 13 14
Anna 13 13
Sharon 13 13?
Ceedee 10 7
Metropolys
We taught Travis rather badly - he didn't understand what bridges were until the game was half over. Andrew continued his love of the ladies taking at least 5.
Andrew H 36
Ian 34
Travis 16
Battle Line
While the second Expedition was finishing at the other end and after Travis had gone home I challenged Andrew to a game of Battle Line. It was a close game but finally I won 5-4 once we had emptied the draw deck. It was a game without Tactics cards. Ending Andrew's winning streak.
Saturday 12 March 2011
Friday 11 March 2011
Six players, six games, six winners.
Frank's Zoo
I got off to a good start and unusually Nigel didn't show up in time for the second hand. Anna cornered the market in elephants on one turn but it didn't do her much good. Andrew P looked like he was going to come second until Andrew H made his run from the back. I seemed to spend a lot of the second half of the game with one card in hand while other people went out.
Glory to Rome
We split into two groups of three. At one end of the table Rome was rebuilt with Andrew H winning (probably by embezzling the most building materials).
Traders of Carthage
This is one of those games where cards have multiple uses. Cards in hand are mostly used as money (though they can also be used to protect goods from pirates). Cards on the table are goods to be bought and sent to Carthage. Cards face down are VP. We played one badly phrased rule slightly wrong. Anne won the first game and Andrew P won the second with an amazing improvement.
Attika
Carl got all his buildings down with a last flourish to beat Anna and Andrew.
Expedition
That left Anna to visit all her destinations first to win the last game of the evening. When Andrew was doing badly, Anne rashly declared that someone who does very badly has to do a down trou!
Frank's Zoo
I got off to a good start and unusually Nigel didn't show up in time for the second hand. Anna cornered the market in elephants on one turn but it didn't do her much good. Andrew P looked like he was going to come second until Andrew H made his run from the back. I seemed to spend a lot of the second half of the game with one card in hand while other people went out.
Ian 9 14 18 21 24
Andrew P 3 9 13 17 16
Anne -1 4 7 6 8
Anna 5 7 6 11 13
Carl 1 2 7 11 16
Andrew H 3 5 8 14 22
Glory to Rome
We split into two groups of three. At one end of the table Rome was rebuilt with Andrew H winning (probably by embezzling the most building materials).
Andrew H 42
Anna 29
Carl 29
Traders of Carthage
This is one of those games where cards have multiple uses. Cards in hand are mostly used as money (though they can also be used to protect goods from pirates). Cards on the table are goods to be bought and sent to Carthage. Cards face down are VP. We played one badly phrased rule slightly wrong. Anne won the first game and Andrew P won the second with an amazing improvement.
Game #1 #2
Andrew P 6 15
Anne 12 12
Ian 9 6
Attika
Carl got all his buildings down with a last flourish to beat Anna and Andrew.
Expedition
That left Anna to visit all her destinations first to win the last game of the evening. When Andrew was doing badly, Anne rashly declared that someone who does very badly has to do a down trou!
Anna 13
Ian 11
Carl 8
Andrew H 5
Andrew P 5
Anne -1
Monday 7 March 2011
Saturday 5 March 2011
On Saturday Babs and Carl were hosting games at their place partly in celebration of their birthdays and also as one of their new regular fortnightly Saturday games nights. We arrived as Craig and Sean and their kids were leaving. T and K had been given a couple of Chinese terracotta soldiers. But to make them more interesting they were each encased in a clay brick. Each brick came with little bamboo scraper and small brush to give the feel of archaeology. Judging how far the boys got in the first hour these bricks could keep them busy for days (if they don’t get bored and frustrated first). Overall a cute idea that I’d expect to see in gift shops at heritage sites around the world.
Expedition
We kicked the evening off with Expedition. The red route curled in tight loops around North America until we got bored with it. The blue route petered out very quickly in North Africa while the yellow route went around the world. I made a mistake of not going to a destination one link away from the one just got to, but luckily recovered to win.
Wyatt Earp
Carl then taught us Wyatt Earp, a Rummy game which in terms of its mechanics is part of the Mystery Rummy family of card games. Anne hadn't played Rummy before so the basic concept of pickup, optionally meld (create or add to a set of cards on the table) and then discard was new to her. In Mystery Rummy games the deck is divided into "normal" and "special" cards, with the special cards making up a quarter to a third of the deck. Each turn a player may meld or play one special card (in addition to melding normal cards). In Wyatt Earp most of the special cards relate to the scoring of sets, though the commonest special cards (the multi-use Wyatt Earp cards) can be, and often are, used to allow the player to draw more cards.
The theme of the game is hunting outlaws in the wild west. Each outlaw has a bounty which starts at $1,000. There are 7 suits (one per outlaw) with 7 identical cards in each suit. Melding 2+ cards in a suit increases the bounty on that outlaw by $1000 times the number of cards melded minus one. Some special cards can be added to melds of a particular outlaw that also increase the bounty. The cards played also indicate how much "knowledge" a player has of that outlaw (normal cards are worth 2 points). At the end of the hand the bounties may be paid out, but only if the total "knowledge" of all players is at least 8. If a player has at least 5 "knowledge" more than any other player they get the whole bounty otherwise it is share among the players. Unpaid bounties accumulate from hand to hand. I have been interested in this game for awhile as it has a sort of stock market idea.
At the end of the second hand I got to $24,000 but in next hand Carl prevented me from getting any more cash with a well timed Hideout card. Anne and I are keen to play Wyatt Earp again.
Tichu
By this time the boys were in bed and Carl was keen for Babs to learn Tichu. As it was after 10pm I suggested that we just play a couple of hands, but it turned out that we played a whole game. I felt that I had consistently poor hands (I must learn how to make the best of such hands).
There were very few Tichu calls though plenty of 1-2s, and on two hands the points were shared 50-50. Babs and Carl were ahead through the mid-game but in the final two hands we scored 105 and 95 points.
Expedition
We kicked the evening off with Expedition. The red route curled in tight loops around North America until we got bored with it. The blue route petered out very quickly in North Africa while the yellow route went around the world. I made a mistake of not going to a destination one link away from the one just got to, but luckily recovered to win.
Ian 18
Carl 17
Anne 10
Wyatt Earp
Carl then taught us Wyatt Earp, a Rummy game which in terms of its mechanics is part of the Mystery Rummy family of card games. Anne hadn't played Rummy before so the basic concept of pickup, optionally meld (create or add to a set of cards on the table) and then discard was new to her. In Mystery Rummy games the deck is divided into "normal" and "special" cards, with the special cards making up a quarter to a third of the deck. Each turn a player may meld or play one special card (in addition to melding normal cards). In Wyatt Earp most of the special cards relate to the scoring of sets, though the commonest special cards (the multi-use Wyatt Earp cards) can be, and often are, used to allow the player to draw more cards.
The theme of the game is hunting outlaws in the wild west. Each outlaw has a bounty which starts at $1,000. There are 7 suits (one per outlaw) with 7 identical cards in each suit. Melding 2+ cards in a suit increases the bounty on that outlaw by $1000 times the number of cards melded minus one. Some special cards can be added to melds of a particular outlaw that also increase the bounty. The cards played also indicate how much "knowledge" a player has of that outlaw (normal cards are worth 2 points). At the end of the hand the bounties may be paid out, but only if the total "knowledge" of all players is at least 8. If a player has at least 5 "knowledge" more than any other player they get the whole bounty otherwise it is share among the players. Unpaid bounties accumulate from hand to hand. I have been interested in this game for awhile as it has a sort of stock market idea.
At the end of the second hand I got to $24,000 but in next hand Carl prevented me from getting any more cash with a well timed Hideout card. Anne and I are keen to play Wyatt Earp again.
Carl $27,000
Ian $24,000
Anne $24,000
Tichu
By this time the boys were in bed and Carl was keen for Babs to learn Tichu. As it was after 10pm I suggested that we just play a couple of hands, but it turned out that we played a whole game. I felt that I had consistently poor hands (I must learn how to make the best of such hands).
There were very few Tichu calls though plenty of 1-2s, and on two hands the points were shared 50-50. Babs and Carl were ahead through the mid-game but in the final two hands we scored 105 and 95 points.
Hnd IA+AM C+BdV
1. 200 0 1-2
2. 200 200 1-2
3. 215 385 Carl's Tichu
4. 265 435 50 points each
5. 315 485 ditto
6. 315 685 1-2
7. 515 585 our 1-2 & Carl fails Tichu
8. 560 640
9. 860 640 Anne's Tichu 1-2
10. 965 635
11. 1060 640
Friday 4 March 2011
Tichu
On Wednesday night, Jarratt was keen on playing Tichu again, so I taught Andrew. We played with Anne and I versus Jarratt and Andrew. They got off to a good start with a Tichu 1-2. This was a portent of how the game was to go as we spent much of the time with a negative score. Finally we had a success but it was too little, too late. All very embarrassing.
Tichu
On Friday night, Jarratt and Andrew were both keen on playing Tichu again. Anne and I agreed (we had to avenge defeat on Wednesday) on the understanding that we would stop if Nigel (or someone else) showed up.
We got off to a good start with a Tichu 1-2 but then things went into a holding patten on our side of the score sheet while Jarratt practiced his Tichu 1-2s. Then Andrew got in on the act. It was an evening of freaky hands. Including a hand where I had 6 consecutive pairs (which Jarratt bombed).
Louis XIV
There are far more 4 player games in my collection than games for any other number and that number is swelled by the 5 and 6 player games that are better for 4 than for 5 or 6. After a lot of suggestions we settled on Louis XIV.
Anne tried my usual pro-shield strategy while I tried the more orthodox get-lots-of-missions strategy. Anne did better than I did, while Jarratt did better than anyone. Anne and I got 6 missions, Andrew got 7 and Jarratt got 8. There were an unusual number of draws for most shields of a type.
10 Days in Europe
Looking for something quick to finish the evening we encouraged Jarratt to play this frustrating game. I won the first 2 games (though Andrew was very close in game 2) and Anne won the third game.
On Wednesday night, Jarratt was keen on playing Tichu again, so I taught Andrew. We played with Anne and I versus Jarratt and Andrew. They got off to a good start with a Tichu 1-2. This was a portent of how the game was to go as we spent much of the time with a negative score. Finally we had a success but it was too little, too late. All very embarrassing.
Hnd IA+AM AP+JG
1. 0 300 Jarratt's Tichu 1-2
2. -90 390 Anne fails Tichu
3. -55 455
4. 15 485
5. -60 560 Anne fails Tichu
6. 50 650 Ian's low scoring Tichu
7. 55 745
8. 55 945 Andrew & Jarratt 1-2 again
9. 180 1020 Anne's Tichu
Tichu
On Friday night, Jarratt and Andrew were both keen on playing Tichu again. Anne and I agreed (we had to avenge defeat on Wednesday) on the understanding that we would stop if Nigel (or someone else) showed up.
We got off to a good start with a Tichu 1-2 but then things went into a holding patten on our side of the score sheet while Jarratt practiced his Tichu 1-2s. Then Andrew got in on the act. It was an evening of freaky hands. Including a hand where I had 6 consecutive pairs (which Jarratt bombed).
Hnd IA+AM AP+JG
1. 300 0 Anne's Tichu 1-2
2. 375 25
3. 375 325 Jarratt's Tichu 1-2
4. 375 625 ditto
5. 285 715 Ian fails Tichu
6. 365 635 Andrew fails Tichu
7. 365 935 Andrew's Tichu 1-2
8. 460 940
9. 460 1140 Andrew & Jarratt 1-2
Louis XIV
There are far more 4 player games in my collection than games for any other number and that number is swelled by the 5 and 6 player games that are better for 4 than for 5 or 6. After a lot of suggestions we settled on Louis XIV.
Anne tried my usual pro-shield strategy while I tried the more orthodox get-lots-of-missions strategy. Anne did better than I did, while Jarratt did better than anyone. Anne and I got 6 missions, Andrew got 7 and Jarratt got 8. There were an unusual number of draws for most shields of a type.
Jarratt 54
Anne 49
Andrew 45
Ian 42
10 Days in Europe
Looking for something quick to finish the evening we encouraged Jarratt to play this frustrating game. I won the first 2 games (though Andrew was very close in game 2) and Anne won the third game.
Saturday 5 March 2011
Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix
Recently I got a copy of Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix in the NZ Only Math Trade. Published by Mayfair Games in 1996 it is the newest in a family of very similar car racing games by Wolfgang Kramer, which started with Niki Lauda's Formel 1 from 1980. The design seems to have changed very little over the 16 years.
Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix comes with a double sided board (unsupprisingly Detroit race track is on one side and Cleveland on the other). Six car race regardless of the number of players. Players are dealt a hand of cards which have movement numbers for one or more of the cars. When a card is played, the cars are advanced the number of spaces indicated in order from top to bottom. However, if the track is blocked, then that movement is lost. After the deal the cars are auctioned off to the players and there is prize money for each race ($200,000 for 1st place down to $10,000 for 6th place but nothing for cars that don't finish). Each race is one lap. The winner of the game is the richest player after 3 races.
The deck is 49 cards. 39 of the cards move 1 to 6 cars, 1 to 6 spaces. The other 10 cards include a 10 movement card for each car that is auctioned off with the car, 10 movement wild card which is not part of the standard deck (and seems overly powerful) and 3 switch cards (that seem very weak). According to the rules all the cards apart from the 10 point cards are dealt out and it doesn't matter if some players get more cards than others. That felt wrong to me and I suspect it would feel wrong to many of the people I play with. So I unilaterally decided to deal out as evenly as possible and then give any remaining cards face down to the owners of the cars at the back of the starting grid. (I also decided to leave out the weak sounding switch cards and overpowered wild 10).
The first game I played was a 2 player game with Anne. We played the Detroit race track. This meant we were playing 3 cars each. We ended each race with at least 6 cards in hand (no risk of any cars not finishing). There was one odd card with 2 players. This game took a very long time to play, in particular Anne took a long time to play each card. Possibly having 3 cars each and 22 or 23 cards each made it too complex for what it is.
A few days later we introduced Jarratt and Peter to the Cleveland circuit. There were 3 odd card and in each race half the players had 2 cars while the other half had one. This meant that hand sizes varied between 10 and potentially 13 cards. Sometimes people didn't have enough cards to finish, which made the game more interesting.
The following week we switched back to the Detroit track and this time had 5 players (Andrew and Lance being the newbies). Only one person got a second car each race and there were 4 odd cards so hand sizes varied between 8 and 11 cards. Anne won first race, I won the second race, possibly Peter won the last race. Everyone agreed that we should swap seats after the auction so that players sit in the order of their cars on the starting grid (which is suggested as a tornament variant in the rule book).
The next game was a 6 player game on the Detroit track again. Following our discussion on Wednesday we did swap seats after the auction. But the auction wasn't really that interesting - a couple of cars were fought over but otherwise people only paid $10,000. Surprisingly the cars all finished. There were 3 extra cards and with one car each so each player had 7 or 8 cards. It seemed that the cars at the back of the grid had a better chance of winning (possibly due to the extra card). The races were won by Nigel, Andrew P and Anna. Anne came last in every race.
Our latest game was with 3 players. The 39 cards deal out nicely. Andrew paid lots for his cars in the first race but came in 1st. In the second race he came in 1st and 2nd and had a substantial lead in cash.
Having played 5 games in about 3 weeks with 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 players I am left with the strong impression that this is a game for 3 or 4 players. With 2 players it seems that there are too many cards, giving too many choices (potentially causing analysis paralysis) and hence that it is too easy to get all 6 cars home. With 3 players there are 2 cars each (2 cars give more opportunities for clever play than 1 car) and the 39 “basic” cards deal out evenly – things are nicely balanced. With 4 players half will get 2 cars and half will not and the 3 odd cards seem to benefit the players with cars at the back of the grid, on the positive side the game is competitive, it is a pity that there aren’t 40 basic cards. With 5 players most players will get only 1 car (which is a little boring) and the 4 odd cards counts against the players at the front of the grid. With 6 players the auction becomes a lot less relevant with most people getting a car for the minimum $10,000. With only 1 car and less interesting auctions the game is not as interesting for 5 or 6 players as it is for 3 or 4.
It does seem odd that even though this game has gone through 5 incarnations over 16 years the basic rules seem to be the same and even the basic card deck hasn't changed much including the over powered 10 point wild card, the wierd switch cards and the lack of a satisfactory way of dealing out cards with variable numbers of players. The changes seem mostly to be in the different race tracks and extra rules (slipstreaming and banked curves in Daytona 500, betting and pitstops in Top Race etc).
There are a number of variants discussed on BGG and other websites -- many of them to do with alternative uses for the switch cards. Though I didn't see any to do with uneven deal. So perhaps I am making too much out of this perceived problem.
I had thought that the extra cards could be auctioned off either before or after the cars were auctioned. But would anyone pay $10,000 for a card if they had paid $10,000 for a car? My idea of adding the cards to the cars at the back of the grid is not perfect (it seems to advantage those cars too much), so I’d be keen on trying a different solution, perhaps even the original uneven deal idea.
I am also keen on trying my hand at designing my own track, and the basic structure of the game seems sound enough to allow us to bolt on extra rules like the slipstreaming rule for Daytona 500 or Andrew’s suggestion that instead of auctioning the total ownership of the cars, that share are sold instead (a bit like Manila or Cable Car).
Ultimately this game has more than justified the trade I made for it.
Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix comes with a double sided board (unsupprisingly Detroit race track is on one side and Cleveland on the other). Six car race regardless of the number of players. Players are dealt a hand of cards which have movement numbers for one or more of the cars. When a card is played, the cars are advanced the number of spaces indicated in order from top to bottom. However, if the track is blocked, then that movement is lost. After the deal the cars are auctioned off to the players and there is prize money for each race ($200,000 for 1st place down to $10,000 for 6th place but nothing for cars that don't finish). Each race is one lap. The winner of the game is the richest player after 3 races.
The deck is 49 cards. 39 of the cards move 1 to 6 cars, 1 to 6 spaces. The other 10 cards include a 10 movement card for each car that is auctioned off with the car, 10 movement wild card which is not part of the standard deck (and seems overly powerful) and 3 switch cards (that seem very weak). According to the rules all the cards apart from the 10 point cards are dealt out and it doesn't matter if some players get more cards than others. That felt wrong to me and I suspect it would feel wrong to many of the people I play with. So I unilaterally decided to deal out as evenly as possible and then give any remaining cards face down to the owners of the cars at the back of the starting grid. (I also decided to leave out the weak sounding switch cards and overpowered wild 10).
The first game I played was a 2 player game with Anne. We played the Detroit race track. This meant we were playing 3 cars each. We ended each race with at least 6 cards in hand (no risk of any cars not finishing). There was one odd card with 2 players. This game took a very long time to play, in particular Anne took a long time to play each card. Possibly having 3 cars each and 22 or 23 cards each made it too complex for what it is.
A few days later we introduced Jarratt and Peter to the Cleveland circuit. There were 3 odd card and in each race half the players had 2 cars while the other half had one. This meant that hand sizes varied between 10 and potentially 13 cards. Sometimes people didn't have enough cards to finish, which made the game more interesting.
The following week we switched back to the Detroit track and this time had 5 players (Andrew and Lance being the newbies). Only one person got a second car each race and there were 4 odd cards so hand sizes varied between 8 and 11 cards. Anne won first race, I won the second race, possibly Peter won the last race. Everyone agreed that we should swap seats after the auction so that players sit in the order of their cars on the starting grid (which is suggested as a tornament variant in the rule book).
The next game was a 6 player game on the Detroit track again. Following our discussion on Wednesday we did swap seats after the auction. But the auction wasn't really that interesting - a couple of cars were fought over but otherwise people only paid $10,000. Surprisingly the cars all finished. There were 3 extra cards and with one car each so each player had 7 or 8 cards. It seemed that the cars at the back of the grid had a better chance of winning (possibly due to the extra card). The races were won by Nigel, Andrew P and Anna. Anne came last in every race.
Our latest game was with 3 players. The 39 cards deal out nicely. Andrew paid lots for his cars in the first race but came in 1st. In the second race he came in 1st and 2nd and had a substantial lead in cash.
Having played 5 games in about 3 weeks with 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 players I am left with the strong impression that this is a game for 3 or 4 players. With 2 players it seems that there are too many cards, giving too many choices (potentially causing analysis paralysis) and hence that it is too easy to get all 6 cars home. With 3 players there are 2 cars each (2 cars give more opportunities for clever play than 1 car) and the 39 “basic” cards deal out evenly – things are nicely balanced. With 4 players half will get 2 cars and half will not and the 3 odd cards seem to benefit the players with cars at the back of the grid, on the positive side the game is competitive, it is a pity that there aren’t 40 basic cards. With 5 players most players will get only 1 car (which is a little boring) and the 4 odd cards counts against the players at the front of the grid. With 6 players the auction becomes a lot less relevant with most people getting a car for the minimum $10,000. With only 1 car and less interesting auctions the game is not as interesting for 5 or 6 players as it is for 3 or 4.
It does seem odd that even though this game has gone through 5 incarnations over 16 years the basic rules seem to be the same and even the basic card deck hasn't changed much including the over powered 10 point wild card, the wierd switch cards and the lack of a satisfactory way of dealing out cards with variable numbers of players. The changes seem mostly to be in the different race tracks and extra rules (slipstreaming and banked curves in Daytona 500, betting and pitstops in Top Race etc).
There are a number of variants discussed on BGG and other websites -- many of them to do with alternative uses for the switch cards. Though I didn't see any to do with uneven deal. So perhaps I am making too much out of this perceived problem.
I had thought that the extra cards could be auctioned off either before or after the cars were auctioned. But would anyone pay $10,000 for a card if they had paid $10,000 for a car? My idea of adding the cards to the cars at the back of the grid is not perfect (it seems to advantage those cars too much), so I’d be keen on trying a different solution, perhaps even the original uneven deal idea.
I am also keen on trying my hand at designing my own track, and the basic structure of the game seems sound enough to allow us to bolt on extra rules like the slipstreaming rule for Daytona 500 or Andrew’s suggestion that instead of auctioning the total ownership of the cars, that share are sold instead (a bit like Manila or Cable Car).
Ultimately this game has more than justified the trade I made for it.
Tuesday 22 February 2011
Saturday 19 February 2011
We started the afternoon with Andrew R, Andrew H, Anna, Carl, Jarratt, Anne and I. On one table Andrew R, Anna and Anne make some films in Traumfabrik. Anna won with over 100 points and Andrew lost. He says that there are several rule difference between Traumfabrik and Hollywood Blockbuster. In particular he says the rule in Hollywood Blockbuster for choosing tiles at the party involves counting the number of stars on actor and guest start tiles, also he says that Hollywood Blockbuster has different end game awards. This interested me but I couldn't find any references to this on BGG.
Meanwhile on the other table Carl and I took on Jarratt and Andrew H at Tichu. As is often the case we started cautiously without a Tichu call on the first hand (and A&J slapped us 80-20). After that Carl got his confidence back and called Tichu the next two hands, with a 50% success rate that put us back in front. The lead swapped back and forth and either side could have won. The game climaxed with a pair of Tichu 1-2s in the last two hands.
While we continued to play Tichu the others played a hand of Coloretto which Andrew Rae won before he hurried back to his family. Andrew P took his place and won a couple of games of Attika against Anna and Anne, with shrine to shrine victories.
Anna and Anne who had been jealous of our game of Tichu challenged Andrew and Jarratt to a game. The boys started off with a rush with 3 successful Tichus. After a couple of quite hands both Anna and Andrew called Tichu and both failed. Finally Anna and Anne started their come back.
On the dining table I tried to teach Havoc to Jim, Margot and Carl. Unfortunately this turned out to be one of my less successful teaching efforts and Carl in particular ended up with the wrong idea of how to play a battle. I obviously need to brush up on my teaching technique. Andrew P beat me on the tie-break.
After Jarratt left, Anna and Andrew H taught Anne Glory to Rome. Anne played a military strategy but was weak in other areas.
During the dinner break Jim, Andrew H, Carl and I learnt my new game of The Bottle Imp and played one hand. I'd now like to try a full game of this odd trick taking game.
After dinner Andrew and Anna taught Carl Glory to Rome. But I was busy teaching Jim and Margo On the Underground. Which was draw between Jim and Anne.
By 10 pm everyone had gone home and after we tidied up Anne and I played a final game. Jaipur is our current two player game of choice. I won 2 out of 3 rounds.
Overall it was a pretty successful day even though I only played in 4 of the 11 games.
Meanwhile on the other table Carl and I took on Jarratt and Andrew H at Tichu. As is often the case we started cautiously without a Tichu call on the first hand (and A&J slapped us 80-20). After that Carl got his confidence back and called Tichu the next two hands, with a 50% success rate that put us back in front. The lead swapped back and forth and either side could have won. The game climaxed with a pair of Tichu 1-2s in the last two hands.
Overall Carl called Tichu 7 times in 13 hands and only failed twice. On the other hand I was way too cautious to call Tichu; while Andrew and Jarratt were more balanced calling twice each. The joke of the game was that whenever Carl called Tichu it meant that I had the stronger hand, this turned out to save our bacon at least once!
Hnd C & I A & J
1. 20 80
2. 235 65 Carl's Tichu
3. 185 115 Carl failed to make Tichu
4. 220 180
5. 220 480 Andrew's Tichu and 1-2
6. 280 520
7. 425 575 Carl's Tichu
8. 425 475 Carl and Jarratt failed Tichu but we scores all the points
9. 565 435 Carl's Tichu and Andrew failed
10. 570 530
11. 760 540 Carl's Tichu
12. 760 840 Jarratt's Tichu and 1-2
13. 1060 840 Carl's Tichu and 1-2
While we continued to play Tichu the others played a hand of Coloretto which Andrew Rae won before he hurried back to his family. Andrew P took his place and won a couple of games of Attika against Anna and Anne, with shrine to shrine victories.
Anna and Anne who had been jealous of our game of Tichu challenged Andrew and Jarratt to a game. The boys started off with a rush with 3 successful Tichus. After a couple of quite hands both Anna and Andrew called Tichu and both failed. Finally Anna and Anne started their come back.
The game was abandoned because Jarratt had to go and cook dinner, amid protests from the others!
Hnd A & J A & A
1. 165 35 Jarratt's Tichu
2. 360 40 Jarratt's Tichu
3. 505 95 Andrew's Tichu
4. 575 125
5. 655 145
6. 600 100 Andrew & Anna both failed Tichu
7. 600 400 Anna's Tichu and 1-2
On the dining table I tried to teach Havoc to Jim, Margot and Carl. Unfortunately this turned out to be one of my less successful teaching efforts and Carl in particular ended up with the wrong idea of how to play a battle. I obviously need to brush up on my teaching technique. Andrew P beat me on the tie-break.
Andrew P 30
Ian 30
Margot 26
Jim 22
Carl 9
After Jarratt left, Anna and Andrew H taught Anne Glory to Rome. Anne played a military strategy but was weak in other areas.
During the dinner break Jim, Andrew H, Carl and I learnt my new game of The Bottle Imp and played one hand. I'd now like to try a full game of this odd trick taking game.
After dinner Andrew and Anna taught Carl Glory to Rome. But I was busy teaching Jim and Margo On the Underground. Which was draw between Jim and Anne.
Jim 48
Anne 48
Ian 41
Margot 38
By 10 pm everyone had gone home and after we tidied up Anne and I played a final game. Jaipur is our current two player game of choice. I won 2 out of 3 rounds.
Ian 54 57 86
Anne 89 49 72
Overall it was a pretty successful day even though I only played in 4 of the 11 games.
Thursday 13 January 2011
First Impressions of London (8 January 2011)
Recently I spent a day gaming at Peter N’s place. While we were deciding what to play I noticed Eric’s copy of London. Being a fan of Martin Wallace I was keen to play, but for most of the day there were 6 of us. In the evening two more players arrived and Eric, Peter, Andrew and I got to play London.
London is a development/economic game covering the development of London from the Great Fire of 1666 to the 20th Century. The board shows a map of London divided into boroughs. The players build buildings and businesses in London but unlike his earlier games these do not get built on the map. The map is used to indicate the "ownership" of boroughs and the development of the Underground. Most of the game play centres around the cards rather than the board. The deck of 110 cards is divided into three parts A, B, C which represent the division of 400 years of history into 3 chucks. Each part of the deck is shuffled separately and stacked. Like Brass, the deck controls the length of the game. The end game phase starts once the draw deck is empty.
When drawing cards one can take cards from both the draw deck and from a number of face up cards (which are arranged in two rows). Most games that use this mechanism (e.g. Liberté, Ticket to Ride or Union Pacific) have a fixed number of face up cards which are refilled from the face down deck. London takes a fresh approach. The face up cards come from player’s hands. These are cards that are spent to play or activate other cards or cards discarded when over the hand limit of 9. Cards added to the display are added to the top row if possible. If there are no spare spaces in either row the top row is discarded and the bottom row becomes the new top row.
The cards are complicated, most of them are unique and they all have pictures. They are best compared with those in card driven games like Twilight Struggle. They come in 4 colours (brown - economic, blue - science and culture, pink - political and grey - paupers). Most of them represent buildings or businesses. The implicit base cost to play a card is to "spend" another card of the same colour (the spent card ends up in the face up display for players to pickup if they wish). Some cards have additional costs (usually cash). Most of the cards are played in front of the player. Most cards are worth a number of points at the end of the game but some have additional advantages that are available as long as the card is face up and not over-built. At the bottom of these cards is a section that relates to "activating" the card. Activating a card often has a cost (a card or money). It gives a benefit (and possibly a penalty) and in most cases means the card is turned face down. Though some cards remain face up for multiple activations. The two part process of building a building and later activating it seems to be a development of the building and flipping of buildings in Brass.
A turn consists of drawing a card (from display or draw deck), then do an action and finally discard down to 9 cards (discards go to display). The action is one of four choices:
As in other Card Driven Games, cards in hand represent the opportunities that you have. Playing/building a card cost you another card/opportunity of the same type/colour. Interestingly you are penalised at various points in the game for having cards in hand (hogging your opportunities?).
The Play Cards action is mostly about building one or more cards/things. Though there are a few cards (Wren and the 3 Refugee cards which are discarded rather than built).
The Run City action is when you get to activate one or more of your face-up cards. In most cases this will result in the card being turned down. It is just about the only way to get more money and possibly reduce poverty. Poverty Points are a similar concept to the Loss Points in Automobile. Everyone starts the game with 5 and at the end of the game they gain one for each card left in their hand. Every time a player chooses the Run City action they count the number of cards in hand, add the number of stacks of cards they have built and subtract the number of boroughs they have bought. If this is a negative number (highly unlikely) they reduce the number of Poverty Points (black cubes) they have otherwise they increase it by this number. A number of the buildings have penalties or benefits which also change the number of Poverty Points you have. In the final scoring the player with the fewest Poverty Points discards them all, the other players discard the same number and then use a chart on the board to determine what the remaining Poverty Points will cost them in VP.
The Poverty Point system provides an incentive to over build buildings rather than create more stacks. It also provides an incentive against choosing the "Run City" action too often.
The Buy Land action allows the player to buy a borough. This cost money, but you immediately draw a number of cards and will score victory points at the end of the game. It will also reduce the Poverty gained by one each time you "Run City". There are also extra points available when the Underground cards come into play.
Of course there are loans in the game. They can be taken at any time but only paid back at the end of the game. The interest rate is 50% and there is a steep VP penalty if you can't pay.
As is common in Martin Wallace games it wasn't clear what the strategy should be at the beginning of the game. Buying land could give you some useful cards but that advantage is minimized as you near/reach the hand limit. Run City didn't seem useful until you had a number of buildings built. But how many buildings should you built side by side (rather than on top of each other) given the Poverty Point penalty of having lots of building stacks?
Hand management plays a big part in London. A big hand of cards gives you plenty of choices but comes at a cost. It is also important to develop your "engine" so that you have a source of cash, points, cards and a way of avoiding too many poverty points. Though as building turn over or get built over your "engine" is very dynamic.
There is the possibility from time to time of choosing when to cause the top line of the display to be discarded, reducing the number of face up cards for players to your left to choose from. Similarly when you add cards to the display you might consider how useful they might be to your fellow players (though this may have little impact if that card is the only spare one of its colour in your hand).
You might consider the other players when choosing which borough to buy, and there are also a few cards that allow targeted actions against other players. But overall I suspect the two main influences on the other players are keeping your Poverty Points much lower than them and choosing when to end the game by using up the draw deck.
Like many cards games with lots of different cards, knowledge of the deck will give a seasoned player an advantage over a newbie.
It was the first time for all of us and due to over hasty rule reading we played a few things wrong. Most importantly we misunderstood the Wren and Refugee cards. We understood that they weren't buildings so we didn’t play them in front of us like the other building cards, we "played" them to the display (where Wren in particular got eagerly picked up by the next player) rather than "playing" them to the discard pile. So Wren got played about 8 times in the game rather than just once! There as a tendency for eager players to want to play/build a card and then immediately activate it in the same turn!
Overall I think London was an interesting Martin Wallace economic/development game with a novel card drafting mechanic, and elements of Brass like two phase builds and the loss/poverty points from Automobile. I'm a little worried by the lack of interaction between players (though some people may see that as an advantage!). I'd play it again but I am not yet convinced that I need to buy it.
London is a development/economic game covering the development of London from the Great Fire of 1666 to the 20th Century. The board shows a map of London divided into boroughs. The players build buildings and businesses in London but unlike his earlier games these do not get built on the map. The map is used to indicate the "ownership" of boroughs and the development of the Underground. Most of the game play centres around the cards rather than the board. The deck of 110 cards is divided into three parts A, B, C which represent the division of 400 years of history into 3 chucks. Each part of the deck is shuffled separately and stacked. Like Brass, the deck controls the length of the game. The end game phase starts once the draw deck is empty.
When drawing cards one can take cards from both the draw deck and from a number of face up cards (which are arranged in two rows). Most games that use this mechanism (e.g. Liberté, Ticket to Ride or Union Pacific) have a fixed number of face up cards which are refilled from the face down deck. London takes a fresh approach. The face up cards come from player’s hands. These are cards that are spent to play or activate other cards or cards discarded when over the hand limit of 9. Cards added to the display are added to the top row if possible. If there are no spare spaces in either row the top row is discarded and the bottom row becomes the new top row.
The cards are complicated, most of them are unique and they all have pictures. They are best compared with those in card driven games like Twilight Struggle. They come in 4 colours (brown - economic, blue - science and culture, pink - political and grey - paupers). Most of them represent buildings or businesses. The implicit base cost to play a card is to "spend" another card of the same colour (the spent card ends up in the face up display for players to pickup if they wish). Some cards have additional costs (usually cash). Most of the cards are played in front of the player. Most cards are worth a number of points at the end of the game but some have additional advantages that are available as long as the card is face up and not over-built. At the bottom of these cards is a section that relates to "activating" the card. Activating a card often has a cost (a card or money). It gives a benefit (and possibly a penalty) and in most cases means the card is turned face down. Though some cards remain face up for multiple activations. The two part process of building a building and later activating it seems to be a development of the building and flipping of buildings in Brass.
A turn consists of drawing a card (from display or draw deck), then do an action and finally discard down to 9 cards (discards go to display). The action is one of four choices:
- Play cards
- Run city
- Buy land
- Draw 3 more cards
As in other Card Driven Games, cards in hand represent the opportunities that you have. Playing/building a card cost you another card/opportunity of the same type/colour. Interestingly you are penalised at various points in the game for having cards in hand (hogging your opportunities?).
The Play Cards action is mostly about building one or more cards/things. Though there are a few cards (Wren and the 3 Refugee cards which are discarded rather than built).
The Run City action is when you get to activate one or more of your face-up cards. In most cases this will result in the card being turned down. It is just about the only way to get more money and possibly reduce poverty. Poverty Points are a similar concept to the Loss Points in Automobile. Everyone starts the game with 5 and at the end of the game they gain one for each card left in their hand. Every time a player chooses the Run City action they count the number of cards in hand, add the number of stacks of cards they have built and subtract the number of boroughs they have bought. If this is a negative number (highly unlikely) they reduce the number of Poverty Points (black cubes) they have otherwise they increase it by this number. A number of the buildings have penalties or benefits which also change the number of Poverty Points you have. In the final scoring the player with the fewest Poverty Points discards them all, the other players discard the same number and then use a chart on the board to determine what the remaining Poverty Points will cost them in VP.
The Poverty Point system provides an incentive to over build buildings rather than create more stacks. It also provides an incentive against choosing the "Run City" action too often.
The Buy Land action allows the player to buy a borough. This cost money, but you immediately draw a number of cards and will score victory points at the end of the game. It will also reduce the Poverty gained by one each time you "Run City". There are also extra points available when the Underground cards come into play.
Of course there are loans in the game. They can be taken at any time but only paid back at the end of the game. The interest rate is 50% and there is a steep VP penalty if you can't pay.
As is common in Martin Wallace games it wasn't clear what the strategy should be at the beginning of the game. Buying land could give you some useful cards but that advantage is minimized as you near/reach the hand limit. Run City didn't seem useful until you had a number of buildings built. But how many buildings should you built side by side (rather than on top of each other) given the Poverty Point penalty of having lots of building stacks?
Hand management plays a big part in London. A big hand of cards gives you plenty of choices but comes at a cost. It is also important to develop your "engine" so that you have a source of cash, points, cards and a way of avoiding too many poverty points. Though as building turn over or get built over your "engine" is very dynamic.
There is the possibility from time to time of choosing when to cause the top line of the display to be discarded, reducing the number of face up cards for players to your left to choose from. Similarly when you add cards to the display you might consider how useful they might be to your fellow players (though this may have little impact if that card is the only spare one of its colour in your hand).
You might consider the other players when choosing which borough to buy, and there are also a few cards that allow targeted actions against other players. But overall I suspect the two main influences on the other players are keeping your Poverty Points much lower than them and choosing when to end the game by using up the draw deck.
Like many cards games with lots of different cards, knowledge of the deck will give a seasoned player an advantage over a newbie.
It was the first time for all of us and due to over hasty rule reading we played a few things wrong. Most importantly we misunderstood the Wren and Refugee cards. We understood that they weren't buildings so we didn’t play them in front of us like the other building cards, we "played" them to the display (where Wren in particular got eagerly picked up by the next player) rather than "playing" them to the discard pile. So Wren got played about 8 times in the game rather than just once! There as a tendency for eager players to want to play/build a card and then immediately activate it in the same turn!
Overall I think London was an interesting Martin Wallace economic/development game with a novel card drafting mechanic, and elements of Brass like two phase builds and the loss/poverty points from Automobile. I'm a little worried by the lack of interaction between players (though some people may see that as an advantage!). I'd play it again but I am not yet convinced that I need to buy it.
Saturday 1 January 2011
Games played in 2010
Total played 362 games (about 131 distinct games - all the prototypes count as one and expansions probably count separately). Just short of my aim of 365. Going to Peter's Wednesday night games and hosting my own games on Friday nights really drove the total up this year.
Most played game Frank's Zoo (18), which has become a favourite Friday night opener, beats Tichu (13) and my other dimes.
Five and Dimes Frank's Zoo (18), Tichu (13), Beowulf: The Legend (12), 10 Days in Europe (12), Metropolys (11), On the Underground (11), Masters Gallery (10).
Ave Caesar (8), Hornochsen (8), Vegas Showdown (8), Expedition (7), Jaipur (7), No Thanks! (6), Age of Industry (5), Aton (5), Buccaneer (5), In the Year of the Dragon (5), Rheinländer (5), Samarkand: Routes to Riches (5), Sylla (5), TransEuropa (5), Walk the Dogs (5), Diamant (5).
Favourite Game At the beginning of the year I really enjoyed Sylla which I liken to a more interactive In the Year of the Dragon. Overall Frank's Zoo was my favourite lighter game and Tichu as a more serious game.
Gaming Moment According to the Friendless Stats Server my Birthday Games was the best day of gaming in 2010. Wellycon and its mini-con were also good days. It was also good to play so many unpublished prototypes (8).
Gamer of the year Anna and Andrew for being the most consistent attendees on Friday nights and toughest Tichu opponents, and Anne as the winner of far too many 2 player games and my Tichu partner.
Looking forward to this year more games.... and may be 400 plays.
Most played game Frank's Zoo (18), which has become a favourite Friday night opener, beats Tichu (13) and my other dimes.
Five and Dimes Frank's Zoo (18), Tichu (13), Beowulf: The Legend (12), 10 Days in Europe (12), Metropolys (11), On the Underground (11), Masters Gallery (10).
Ave Caesar (8), Hornochsen (8), Vegas Showdown (8), Expedition (7), Jaipur (7), No Thanks! (6), Age of Industry (5), Aton (5), Buccaneer (5), In the Year of the Dragon (5), Rheinländer (5), Samarkand: Routes to Riches (5), Sylla (5), TransEuropa (5), Walk the Dogs (5), Diamant (5).
Favourite Game At the beginning of the year I really enjoyed Sylla which I liken to a more interactive In the Year of the Dragon. Overall Frank's Zoo was my favourite lighter game and Tichu as a more serious game.
Gaming Moment According to the Friendless Stats Server my Birthday Games was the best day of gaming in 2010. Wellycon and its mini-con were also good days. It was also good to play so many unpublished prototypes (8).
Gamer of the year Anna and Andrew for being the most consistent attendees on Friday nights and toughest Tichu opponents, and Anne as the winner of far too many 2 player games and my Tichu partner.
Looking forward to this year more games.... and may be 400 plays.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)