Carl's assessment:
Ian brought along this older Martin Wallace game. The players develop cattle herds, and build key buildings in six western towns. After things start to get crowded, then the players can turn their cowboys to less honest work, rustling cattle and strong arming buildings away. These things are much easier to do if you control the towns sheriff. As well the stores make money from cattle, the hotels make money from cowboys, stage coaches make money from cowboys when they move, banks make money form other buildings, and trains make cattle much more valuable. It has a lot of interesting ideas, and some great mechanics, but seems ultimately falls a little flat. There are several different limited actions, but only a few seem to matter at any given moment. Placing buildings and cattle is all that really matters at the beginning, then there is only fighting that will get you anything in the middle, and there is not much of anything to do in the end game. Once a player is shut out of the action, there is not effective way to get back into contention. An odd mix of development and risk really. The two experienced players fared best.
In Way out West you spend the first part of the game getting your cattle, buildings and coyboys onto the board and then there is a second phase of gaining control by sending your cowboys out to take over businesses and rustle cattle. In our previous games the game ends at that point but in this game there was a third phase where some people still had the ability to vie for control but other players couldn't do anything useful.
John 45
Ian 34
Leonie 33
Matt E 31
Oliver 2
This was the third game of Way out West and the first five player game. John and I were surprised and disappointed at the way it turned out. I don't think we experienced the lack of actions to anywhere near the same extent in the previous games. Though obviously the two building restriction forces you to move to gun fights regardless of the number of players. The first game was a three player game and we all made early mistakes but it wasn't clear until we added up the points who was winning, but the winner was Luke who concentrated more on buildings than cattle or gunfights. In the second game John tried an extreme strategy of not placing any cattle and concentrating on building and taking over building and rustling cattle, but ultimately it was too exteme and he didn't do well. But in those games nobody ended with nothing to do like Leonie or being totally wiped out like Oliver.
We didn't seem to get to that third phase in either of the first two games. Getting your cowboys into the right place at the right time is very important if you want to make the most of phase two.
Like Dutch Revolution there are lots of holes in the rules. e.g. what if both sides get wiped out simulateously? Or can you try to take over building and cattle if you don't have the replacement tiles yourself? There are lots of complaints on the geek about the rules and also about the unusual weaker side shoots first rule (which Leonie might have been able to use to her advantage if she was willing to take the risk).
Like a lot of multiplayer war games it will suffer from the temptation to pick on the weakest player, who will have little or no come back and have a miserable game. (The "slow death" phenomenom I call it.) I don't think Way out West should be played too seriously.
In John's view there are 28 corral spaces, more than 9 per player in a 3 player game, and 7 per player in a 4 player game but only 5.6 per player in 5 player game. Similarly there are 23 building spots, 7.6 per player in a 3 player game, 5.75 per player in a 4 player game and 4.6 per player in a 5 player game. Hence there is no crowding in a 3 player game, a little crowding in a 4 player game and much more in the 5 player game.
My thought was that:
- The 3 player game is 3 * 12 * 2 = 72 actions
- The 4 player game is 4 * 9 * 2 = 72 actions
- The 5 player game is 5 * 9 * 2 = 90 actions
Boomtown
Carl's assessment:
Back to the old west for the gold rush. This game is a great light game, that can also be played fairly analytically by looking at probabilities and payoffs. I enthusiastically pointed out it is quite a skillful game early on, but as my score became apparent it was all due to luck, of course :-). Matt locked the game in fairly early, and went on to a convincing win.
In my view Boomtown is a very chaotic game, cash can fluctuate wildly. Carl ran out of cash at one point and I was down to my last dollar at another.
Matt E 109
Ian 83
Leonie 76
Qarl 75
Mogul
Carl's assessment:
A little after the wild west (or the later part of the era), and little more to the east, we were now investing in the great early railroads. This is the first time I'd played three player. Its also the first time I've seen a lot of loans taken out. Matt E was taking out loans every turn and going for big investments to win. It made for an interesting game. Without any loans only $18 would circulate between the players. By the end all $45 that are in the game were in play. Matt did pretty well, and making a big come back. My slower building up a couple of companies had two big payoff towards the end giving me the win.
Qarl 43
Matt E 32
Ian 29
No comments:
Post a Comment