Some thoughts and opinions about some more games I played for the first time in November.
Gravediggers
(Played: 14 & 17 November at home and at Peter's place)
When Anne bought this game I had never heard of it and so I surprised when I looked it up on BGG to see it on my wishlist! It turns out to be a renaming and re-theming of Banküberfall from bank fraud to grave robbing. I had read about the earlier version a few years ago and thought that sounds like fun.
This is a very simple game of memory, bidding, guessing, bluff and greed. Even simpler than High Society. There is a deck of cards, which is mostly money but also characters and multipliers. Everyone starts with a hand of 5 cards and there are 5 graveyards to rob, each starts with a face down card. People add cards to the graveyards during the game and at various points in the game the graveyards are robbed.
Robbing a graveyard consists of everyone secretly bidding an amout of money. The cards are turned up and if any of the cards are people, they take effect in a predetermined order. This sometimes means the grave robbers go home empty handed. But if they are lucky there is some money. Then starting with the players who bid the least, the players are payed out on an all or nothing basis. Be too greedy and you might end up with nothing.
It takes about 2 minutes to learn and about 20 minutes to play. This is fortunate because your action each turn is dictated by turning over the top tile of a small stack of tiles, which removes a lot of decision making. And sometimes when you do have a decision it is not a particularly meaningful one. It pays to regard this as a filler. And maybe replace the Graverdigger card with a pawn or meeple.
Jaipur
(Played: 20 November at home)
Jaipur was my impulse buy, designed by Sébastien Pauchon (who also designed Metropolys, Yspahan and Jamaica). It is a two player card game.
Jaipur, like Yspahan, uses camels as a form of currency. It is a competition between two traders to be the best. The players don't trade directly with each other, but with the same market, which provides most of the tension in the game. Each turn a player either sells cards for points or buys cards. Players "buy" cards in one of three ways. Either they take all the camel cards that are face up in the market and add them to their pile of camel cards (the empty spaces in the market are refilled from the draw deck). Or they take one goods card into their hand from the market and it is replaced from the draw deck. Or they swap 2 or more cards with the market (the cards they take must be goods cards, they cards they put back can be a mixture of goods cards and camel cards). Because both players are buying from the same market any buy action provides opportunities for the opponent. Selling provides tension between speed and quantity. The victory point tokens for sales descend in value so early sales give you more points, but there are also bonus points for selling 3, 4 or 5 goods of a type at once encouraging players to put off selling.
The game is played for the best of three hands (an idea that could be used in Lost Cities as well). Anne won the first game two-nil, winning 78-72 and 65-50. By the time she won the first hand of our second game 78-69, I was considering how much I could make by selling this stupid game on TradeMe. But then I won the next hand 84-74 and it was all on for the final hand.
From a strategy point of view one has to decide which types of goods to concentrate on, whether to go for quick points or to save up and collect sets of 3 or more. These decisions will probably be influenced by what you see your opponents doing. Tactically it is important to watch the hand limit - six is so much more flexible than seven.
Age of Steam: Beer and Pretzels
(Play tested: 21 November at home)
When I read about Ted Alspach's "Beer and Pretzels" variant for Age of Steam I was intrigued. Most game variants change or add rules to games. This one mostly takes rules away. By taking away the share track, income track, expenses and income reduction and by giving money directly for moving goods do you still have a viable game?
Anne and I ran 4 player play-test playing 2 players each, rather than use Ted's official board we used the standard "Rust Belt" Age of Steam board.
On the "Rust Belt" board it becomes too easy to make money and there is not enough money in Age of Steam to pay everyone. Ted's official Beer & Pretzels board includes several mountain ranges and a number of rivers. Many of the cities are quite a long way apart. Overall it looks like a more expensive map to build on than "Rust Belt". Anne also mentioned that perhaps we didn't compete enough with each other in the auctions.
My conclusion is: yes this is a viable (and simpler) game. Though you need a more expensive board to consume excess cash. Playing this on the “Rust Belt” board at $5 per cube per link is too easy. It may be worth considering shortening the game by a turn or two.
Endeavor (European Powers)
(Play tested: 24 November at Peter's)
Jarratt brought along an Endeavor play test board which I have called "European Powers" for want of a better name.
It is a substantial redesign of the board plus some extra rules, but the cards, tokens, buildings and other pieces are the same as the original game.
Europe is represented by five main colonizing powers (Portugal, Spain, France, England and the Netherlands). Each Power has a couple of city spaces. Before the game starts each player places a piece in one of these Power cities that no-one else has chosen. Each Power has special advantages. France has defensive advantages (attacking French tokens in Europe costs an extra piece). The Netherlands gets access to special shipping spots that function more like cities. There are no normal shipping routes for the Americas. Each of the 3 America card decks are open to specific European Powers.
The shipping routes to Africa, India etc cross region boundaries with pieces counting for influence depending on which side of the boundary they are (which makes the building that allows a joint shipping and colonizing action to be more useful). Some places have multiple routes and some routes only become available once other regions have opened up. The Slave deck has been moved to Africa.
The changes add a bit more complexity to Endeavor, and make it seem less abstract and more historic.
I tried to get as many cities as possible. Though Jarratt managed to almost eliminate me from Europe. I enjoyed it more than previous plays of the standard game.
Showing posts with label Anne and Ian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anne and Ian. Show all posts
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Labour Weekend Gaming
Friday Night - Around the World
Anne challenged me to a game of Expedition which I won 25-16. She then demanded a rematch which was a closer event. This time I finished all my cards scoring 22, but I had started the game so Anne got the final turn, finishing her last card and an extra card to beat me 23-22. In our final game I got my lowest score of the evening -- winning 19-15.
Saturday - Indian Summer
Jarratt and Lance organised a game of 1853 at Lance's house. It was the first time for all of us, so none of us were familiar with the map, companies and the opening bidding procedure. 1853 is an older design than 1830 and owes its design more to railway pioneering 1829 than the Robber Baron 1830. The stock market works in a simple way and is not susceptible to manipulation. In other 18XX games there are private companies which need to be bought before the players can buy shares in the main companies. These private companies are usually on sold to the majors mid-game for a profit. This serves a dual purpose, reducing the players' initial capital by varying amounts and providing a reward for company directors. In 1853 there are no private companies, instead the players' initial capital is reduced by a simultaneous bid which determines the initial seating order and first player. The bid amount is held in escrow until the towns you nominate in second part of the process are linked up. The amount you bid limits which towns you undertake to link up. These towns limit which shares you can initially buy. As in the other 18XX games, the amount you have left over determines which of the major companies you can capitalize in the first turn. Once the towns you nominated are linked to each other by railway then you get your escrowed money back.
At beginning at least three of us had the same idea about with towns to nominate and which initial shares to buy. We also all bid pretty low (Anne bid £85, I bid £82 and Lance and Jarratt bid £80). None us took into account that bidding less than £90 means you can't nominate a £50 city. Anne took a share of the North Western Railway and it was clear that she had the same idea that Jarratt and I had, so we had to rethink our ideas. I took Bombay, Baroda and Central India (BBCI) share and Jarratt took an East Coast Railway (ECR) share. Lance hadn't formulated a plan when bidding and after a bit of thinking bought a Bengal Nagpur Railway share.
Another point of difference with 1853 is that there are two types of track (and engines): broad gauge and narrow gauge. This adds an extra level of decision making. Jarratt built his ECR as a narrow gauge railway, which is cheaper to build but the trains have a shorter "reach". Anne's initial planning and highest bid paid off as she got an early lead in making income. I found myself stymied initially by the tile options. There are no yellow city tiles with a straight piece of track (cities are all on curves) and later on by the territorial limitations. Each company has a territory and it can't upgrade track outside its area, hence I couldn't link up to the BNR network and join Delhi to Calcutta.
Like the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad which failed to build to Santa Fe, the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway never built to Bombay, preferring to stay near Delhi. There was a bit of selling off of stock (especially in Anne's NWR) as players started second rail companies (but unlike 1830 and 1856 selling stock doesn't necessarily lead to a share price drop). Near the end of the game I switched three shares to a better performing stock but otherwise people kept the shares they bought.
Lance's shareholdings in the best performing companies and Jarratt's southern narrow gauge loop propelled them past Anne. In the end we called the game early and faked two operating rounds to give the final result.
1853 is a game which had a large number of suggested rule changes over the years to fix its original faults. Lance owns the latest version which has quite a number of changes to the original rules, map etc.
Saturday night - Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
After a quick stop in J'ville to pick up some KFC and in Thorndon to drop of Anne, I was off to Nigel's place to play Mare Nostrum.
I was keen to try Greece, so while John was getting his fish and chips, Travis chose Rome, Andrew took Babylon and Nigel grabbed Egypt, leaving John with Carthage. I made more mistakes than last week. Initially by letting Rome convert one of my provinces. Later when I was military leader I intended to move last so I could leave my North African safely empty while I raided some Carthaginian caravans. But I forgot to give Egypt his turn and he took back the province.
Egypt got the first hero, then Rome and Carthage got a couple of heroes/wonders each threatening to win, prompting Babylon and Greece into a military strategy which merely prolonged the game. Greece in particular was too busy attacking to build up its own resources. Babylon played a more balanced strategy of attacking sometimes and developing other times.
Egypt finally got a third and fourth hero/wonder to win.
We made one mistake with the rules. When someone conquers a province they can only sack one caravan, city, temple or market.
I would be interested to see how the game would play with the "Advanced Setup" where players get to choose what they start with. They get 36 "build points" to spend on initial stuff. Three points for each: influence marker, city, caravan or military unit and 6 points for each temple or market. Buying a country's own hero is optional and costs 9 points. It is unclear from the rules whether players choose their setup in some turn order or if it is simultaneous.
Reading the expansion rules and the various variants it seems that Mare Nostrum is a flexible game that handles modifications well. Most of the modifications involve strengthening Greece. For instance the expansion gives Greece a temple, a trireme and an extra caravan (but also gives other countries extra stuff). A few strengthen Carthage and weaken Rome (my suggestion for that is to swap their heroes). The expansion gives reduces Julius Caesar to cheap legions only. Some people play without Helen.
Anne challenged me to a game of Expedition which I won 25-16. She then demanded a rematch which was a closer event. This time I finished all my cards scoring 22, but I had started the game so Anne got the final turn, finishing her last card and an extra card to beat me 23-22. In our final game I got my lowest score of the evening -- winning 19-15.
Saturday - Indian Summer
Jarratt and Lance organised a game of 1853 at Lance's house. It was the first time for all of us, so none of us were familiar with the map, companies and the opening bidding procedure. 1853 is an older design than 1830 and owes its design more to railway pioneering 1829 than the Robber Baron 1830. The stock market works in a simple way and is not susceptible to manipulation. In other 18XX games there are private companies which need to be bought before the players can buy shares in the main companies. These private companies are usually on sold to the majors mid-game for a profit. This serves a dual purpose, reducing the players' initial capital by varying amounts and providing a reward for company directors. In 1853 there are no private companies, instead the players' initial capital is reduced by a simultaneous bid which determines the initial seating order and first player. The bid amount is held in escrow until the towns you nominate in second part of the process are linked up. The amount you bid limits which towns you undertake to link up. These towns limit which shares you can initially buy. As in the other 18XX games, the amount you have left over determines which of the major companies you can capitalize in the first turn. Once the towns you nominated are linked to each other by railway then you get your escrowed money back.
At beginning at least three of us had the same idea about with towns to nominate and which initial shares to buy. We also all bid pretty low (Anne bid £85, I bid £82 and Lance and Jarratt bid £80). None us took into account that bidding less than £90 means you can't nominate a £50 city. Anne took a share of the North Western Railway and it was clear that she had the same idea that Jarratt and I had, so we had to rethink our ideas. I took Bombay, Baroda and Central India (BBCI) share and Jarratt took an East Coast Railway (ECR) share. Lance hadn't formulated a plan when bidding and after a bit of thinking bought a Bengal Nagpur Railway share.
Another point of difference with 1853 is that there are two types of track (and engines): broad gauge and narrow gauge. This adds an extra level of decision making. Jarratt built his ECR as a narrow gauge railway, which is cheaper to build but the trains have a shorter "reach". Anne's initial planning and highest bid paid off as she got an early lead in making income. I found myself stymied initially by the tile options. There are no yellow city tiles with a straight piece of track (cities are all on curves) and later on by the territorial limitations. Each company has a territory and it can't upgrade track outside its area, hence I couldn't link up to the BNR network and join Delhi to Calcutta.
Like the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad which failed to build to Santa Fe, the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway never built to Bombay, preferring to stay near Delhi. There was a bit of selling off of stock (especially in Anne's NWR) as players started second rail companies (but unlike 1830 and 1856 selling stock doesn't necessarily lead to a share price drop). Near the end of the game I switched three shares to a better performing stock but otherwise people kept the shares they bought.
Lance's shareholdings in the best performing companies and Jarratt's southern narrow gauge loop propelled them past Anne. In the end we called the game early and faked two operating rounds to give the final result.
Lance £8424
Jarratt £7744
Anne £7004
Ian £6785
1853 is a game which had a large number of suggested rule changes over the years to fix its original faults. Lance owns the latest version which has quite a number of changes to the original rules, map etc.
Saturday night - Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
After a quick stop in J'ville to pick up some KFC and in Thorndon to drop of Anne, I was off to Nigel's place to play Mare Nostrum.
I was keen to try Greece, so while John was getting his fish and chips, Travis chose Rome, Andrew took Babylon and Nigel grabbed Egypt, leaving John with Carthage. I made more mistakes than last week. Initially by letting Rome convert one of my provinces. Later when I was military leader I intended to move last so I could leave my North African safely empty while I raided some Carthaginian caravans. But I forgot to give Egypt his turn and he took back the province.
Egypt got the first hero, then Rome and Carthage got a couple of heroes/wonders each threatening to win, prompting Babylon and Greece into a military strategy which merely prolonged the game. Greece in particular was too busy attacking to build up its own resources. Babylon played a more balanced strategy of attacking sometimes and developing other times.
Egypt finally got a third and fourth hero/wonder to win.
We made one mistake with the rules. When someone conquers a province they can only sack one caravan, city, temple or market.
I would be interested to see how the game would play with the "Advanced Setup" where players get to choose what they start with. They get 36 "build points" to spend on initial stuff. Three points for each: influence marker, city, caravan or military unit and 6 points for each temple or market. Buying a country's own hero is optional and costs 9 points. It is unclear from the rules whether players choose their setup in some turn order or if it is simultaneous.
Reading the expansion rules and the various variants it seems that Mare Nostrum is a flexible game that handles modifications well. Most of the modifications involve strengthening Greece. For instance the expansion gives Greece a temple, a trireme and an extra caravan (but also gives other countries extra stuff). A few strengthen Carthage and weaken Rome (my suggestion for that is to swap their heroes). The expansion gives reduces Julius Caesar to cheap legions only. Some people play without Helen.
Monday, 31 May 2010
Aton (30 May 2010)
Anne and I haven't played Aton for awhile. I like Temple 4 and Sunday's results show that:
- I aimed for Temple 4 but we had a scoring round and were on the second time through the decks before I managed to fill it.
- Luck was on my side my first hand was (4, 4, 3, 3), ditto the second hand and the third hand also had a pair of 4s -- I didn't need a fourth hand.
- This was a much closer game I switched to Temple 1 fought over colours too.
- Back to Temple 4, Anne didn't get many 4s and it finished on the fourth hand.
- This time Anne won with a Temple 1 victory.
Monday, 2 November 2009
Twilight Struggle (1 November 2009)
Anne is happy because she won game 3. For the third time she got the scoring cards but this time she managed to mostly make them useful to her. She got to 18VP in turn 4 before I pulled back 4VP from her. But in turn 5 she got to 20.
Tuesday, 27 October 2009
Twilight Struggle (26 October 2009)
Anne and played again yesterday. This time the game ended at the beginning of turn 4. I was aiming for control of Europe as a way to a quick victory, which I didn't achieve. The Europe score card came up twice (in Anne's hand) which annoyed her as it was a nett 5 VP to me each time. Anne was doing well in Asia and while we were evens points-wise in the ME, she probably had the better long term position. I was getting a lot of her events so I rushed up the Space race for another 7 VP (man in Earth Orbit) and as turn 3 came to an end I speculatively grabbed a bunch of weak African countries.
At the start of turn 4 I was on 16 VP and was dealt the Africa scoring card. Anne felt a bit jipped at how quickly it ended. Nett 7 VP for me.
Obviously quite a bit of luck was involved!
At the start of turn 4 I was on 16 VP and was dealt the Africa scoring card. Anne felt a bit jipped at how quickly it ended. Nett 7 VP for me.
Obviously quite a bit of luck was involved!
Wednesday, 21 October 2009
Twilight Struggle (18-20 October 2009)
We started playing Twilight Struggle on Sunday night and played 2 moves on Monday night and finished on Tuesday.
The game went the whole 10 turns, and I (the USA) won with 9 points.
The final regional scores were:
Asia 7-6 to USA
Middle East 3-10 to USSR
Africa 3-3
Europe 8-3 to USA
Central America 5-2 to USA
South America 4-3 to USA
(The US finished with the China card and had 5 VP before the final scoring)
Anne thought it was easier to understand than 1960 and she is keen to play again now that she understands it.
At the end of the 9th turn I had control of Europe (but no Europe Scoring Card) but even though NATO was in play the USSR clawed back to the point where neither of us had domination. Nobody had domination in Africa or South America either.
Apart from one or perhaps two scoring cards very early on in the game Anne had all the scoring cards, some of which she used quite well but in other cases I could deduce she had them and concentrate my efforts to minimize the effects. She found the scoring cards limiting as it was an action she couldn't use for gain position.
She dominated the Space Race almost getting to the end while I only got half way. I think she only failed one roll whereas I failed at least 66% of my Space Race rolls.
Through the mid-game we were playing the Influence rules wrong in that we didn't use 2 Ops points to add influence in countries controlled by our opponents. From turn 6 we realised our mistake and reverted to the real rules.
I found the Realignment rolls the most random feature of the game, whereas I liked the Coup mechanic (the idea that it is easy to do a coup in a country with a stability of 1 or 2 but very difficult in a country with a stability of 3 or 4 makes thematic sense).
The USSR scored well early and then the US made a comeback. Neither of us got close to 20 VP but that might have been due to the mid game where we were playing a rule wrong. It is also possible that we played a scoring rule wrong occasionally. For some reason at one point we both thought that Domination meant that you had to have at more Battle ground states and more non-Battle ground states. On the whole I don't think it made much difference.
I think it is harder to pick who is doing well compared with 1960, but Anne thinks the reverse, she finds it hard to pick who is winning in 1960.
The game went the whole 10 turns, and I (the USA) won with 9 points.
The final regional scores were:
Asia 7-6 to USA
Middle East 3-10 to USSR
Africa 3-3
Europe 8-3 to USA
Central America 5-2 to USA
South America 4-3 to USA
(The US finished with the China card and had 5 VP before the final scoring)
Anne thought it was easier to understand than 1960 and she is keen to play again now that she understands it.
At the end of the 9th turn I had control of Europe (but no Europe Scoring Card) but even though NATO was in play the USSR clawed back to the point where neither of us had domination. Nobody had domination in Africa or South America either.
Apart from one or perhaps two scoring cards very early on in the game Anne had all the scoring cards, some of which she used quite well but in other cases I could deduce she had them and concentrate my efforts to minimize the effects. She found the scoring cards limiting as it was an action she couldn't use for gain position.
She dominated the Space Race almost getting to the end while I only got half way. I think she only failed one roll whereas I failed at least 66% of my Space Race rolls.
Through the mid-game we were playing the Influence rules wrong in that we didn't use 2 Ops points to add influence in countries controlled by our opponents. From turn 6 we realised our mistake and reverted to the real rules.
I found the Realignment rolls the most random feature of the game, whereas I liked the Coup mechanic (the idea that it is easy to do a coup in a country with a stability of 1 or 2 but very difficult in a country with a stability of 3 or 4 makes thematic sense).
The USSR scored well early and then the US made a comeback. Neither of us got close to 20 VP but that might have been due to the mid game where we were playing a rule wrong. It is also possible that we played a scoring rule wrong occasionally. For some reason at one point we both thought that Domination meant that you had to have at more Battle ground states and more non-Battle ground states. On the whole I don't think it made much difference.
I think it is harder to pick who is doing well compared with 1960, but Anne thinks the reverse, she finds it hard to pick who is winning in 1960.
Monday, 7 September 2009
1960: The Making of the President (30-31 August & 6 September 2009)
I have quite a number of 2 player games that Anne and I play (plus a few multi-player games we play 2 player) but I realised recently that most of them are 15-45 minutes in length. So I started looking around for meatier 2 player games that might appeal to both Anne and I.
Research on Boardgamegeek led me to 1960: The Making of the President and Twilight Struggle. 1960: The Making of the President is a game about the US presidential election between Nixon and Kennedy while Twilight Struggle is about the Cold War 1945-89. Both of these games are based on the "card driven" idea I first came across in We the People (one of the few war games I enjoy). Basically there is a deck of cards (most of which have a number and an event), and the game is played as a series of hands. During each hand the players alternately play a card and either use it's event to do the corresponding special action or use the number on the card in some way, typically to gain influence somewhere on the board or reduce the opponent's influence. Each game has a randomising mechanism: in 1960 it is red and blue cubes drawn out of a bag, in Twilight Struggle it is dice. We found the games 3-4 hours long but Twilight Struggle has instant win conditions that can shorten the game considerably.
As both of these games are expensive I wanted to try them before making a buying decision. I noticed that Andrew Hubbard owns one and Andrew Rea owns both. Luckily, due to the generosity of both Andrews we got to borrow and try out both games.
We started this game on Sunday with the idea of this being a learning game of the first 2 or 3 turns, but then we carried on the next evening. This had the disadvantage as we hadn't read the rules to the debates carefully before we arrived at the debates. The debates were a bit of a fiasco as we had kept cards with our opponent's symbol on them! We made sure that didn't happen with election day. We also made a mistake of forgetting that media control trumps carrying a state. Which probably cost Anne a couple of cubes in NY (probably reducing me from 4 to 1 rather than 4 to 3). Anne won every initiative draw except for the one on election day.
Nixon (Ian) 307
Kennedy (Anne) 230
In our second game, Anne was Kennedy again. Early on she concentrated on the East and South and later the Mid-West by the mid game she had had a lock on those three regions. I/Nixon moved through to the East and took over NY and then started to attack PA.
Nixon (Ian) 283
Kennedy (Anne) 246
Research on Boardgamegeek led me to 1960: The Making of the President and Twilight Struggle. 1960: The Making of the President is a game about the US presidential election between Nixon and Kennedy while Twilight Struggle is about the Cold War 1945-89. Both of these games are based on the "card driven" idea I first came across in We the People (one of the few war games I enjoy). Basically there is a deck of cards (most of which have a number and an event), and the game is played as a series of hands. During each hand the players alternately play a card and either use it's event to do the corresponding special action or use the number on the card in some way, typically to gain influence somewhere on the board or reduce the opponent's influence. Each game has a randomising mechanism: in 1960 it is red and blue cubes drawn out of a bag, in Twilight Struggle it is dice. We found the games 3-4 hours long but Twilight Struggle has instant win conditions that can shorten the game considerably.
As both of these games are expensive I wanted to try them before making a buying decision. I noticed that Andrew Hubbard owns one and Andrew Rea owns both. Luckily, due to the generosity of both Andrews we got to borrow and try out both games.
We started this game on Sunday with the idea of this being a learning game of the first 2 or 3 turns, but then we carried on the next evening. This had the disadvantage as we hadn't read the rules to the debates carefully before we arrived at the debates. The debates were a bit of a fiasco as we had kept cards with our opponent's symbol on them! We made sure that didn't happen with election day. We also made a mistake of forgetting that media control trumps carrying a state. Which probably cost Anne a couple of cubes in NY (probably reducing me from 4 to 1 rather than 4 to 3). Anne won every initiative draw except for the one on election day.
Nixon (Ian) 307
Kennedy (Anne) 230
In our second game, Anne was Kennedy again. Early on she concentrated on the East and South and later the Mid-West by the mid game she had had a lock on those three regions. I/Nixon moved through to the East and took over NY and then started to attack PA.
Nixon (Ian) 283
Kennedy (Anne) 246
Tuesday, 16 May 2006
Temple wins - 14 May
Anne wanted to play more Aton. So we played four more games, all ending in a temple victory.
- I tried for temple 4 and Anne tried for temple 1. I won when the scores were 27-25.
- I tried for temple 3 and Anne tried for temple 2. She won when the scores were 4-8.
- I tried for temple 2 and Anne tried for temple 1. I won when the scores were 24-27.
- I tried for temple 4 again. I won when the scores were 2-8.
Thursday, 11 May 2006
Aton, Anne's second win - 7 May
Anne challenged me to some more Aton. The first game was won by me on points 51 to 30. In the second game I tried for a temple victory in the forth temple and was successful. In the third game it was Anne's turn to try for a fourth temple victory. The TV was on and we both got distracted and Anne missed a win. Then I missed a way to stop her letting her win in the end.
I won 2 games to 1 bringing my overall record against Anne to 8-2.
I won 2 games to 1 bringing my overall record against Anne to 8-2.
Sunday, 30 April 2006
More Aton at home - 30 April
Anne and I played two games of Aton tonight.
In game one I initially tried for a temple three victory but was successfully blocked so I switched my attention to temple one. In the end we both passed forty during the second scoring round. I got 55 and Anne got 46.
In game two I tried for a temple two victory, unusually we both played low in the first cartouche most of the time. Anne blocked me sufficiently to stop me getting a victory before the first scoring round, and she roared ahead of me around the score track. I switched my attention to yellow as I already had 4 in temple two and I grabbed 4 more in temple one. I then grabbed the 3 in temple four and temple three became the battle ground. I was pretty reckless when it came to points and other majorities, but unluckily for Anne she wasn't drawing many threes and fours at this point and I grabbed the last yellow for victory before the second scoring round. Anne got 30 points to my 8.
So a yellow or green victory is possible.
In game one I initially tried for a temple three victory but was successfully blocked so I switched my attention to temple one. In the end we both passed forty during the second scoring round. I got 55 and Anne got 46.
In game two I tried for a temple two victory, unusually we both played low in the first cartouche most of the time. Anne blocked me sufficiently to stop me getting a victory before the first scoring round, and she roared ahead of me around the score track. I switched my attention to yellow as I already had 4 in temple two and I grabbed 4 more in temple one. I then grabbed the 3 in temple four and temple three became the battle ground. I was pretty reckless when it came to points and other majorities, but unluckily for Anne she wasn't drawing many threes and fours at this point and I grabbed the last yellow for victory before the second scoring round. Anne got 30 points to my 8.
So a yellow or green victory is possible.
Aton at home - 29 April
Anne and I played 5 games of Aton tonight (Anne's first games and my second to sixth games).
Neither of us tried for a green or yellow victory. On reflection both of us think that a yellow or green victory is the hardest type. There are 14 green (or yellow) squares to occupy (compared with 12 in a temple), no guarantee of points while you are doing it and it is easy to spot and counter.
- I won with a points victory
- I changed strategy and won with a first temple victory
- Anne went for a first temple victory and I went for a 4th temple victory. I gave away lots of points and got very close but Anne got closer and filled her temple
- I went for a first temple victory but won on points
- I won on points
Neither of us tried for a green or yellow victory. On reflection both of us think that a yellow or green victory is the hardest type. There are 14 green (or yellow) squares to occupy (compared with 12 in a temple), no guarantee of points while you are doing it and it is easy to spot and counter.
Saturday, 14 January 2006
Princess and the Dragon in Carcassonne
Anne and I were given "The Princess & the Dragon" expansion to Carcassonne for christmas by Jane and Mark. On 30 December had our first playing. This expansion add 30 new tiles, a cute dragon and a little white fairy. The dragon has a taste for meeples but as everyone has a say in the dragon's route it is not usually too destructive. The princesses are symbols on some new city tiles and are also distructive to meeples. The fairy is multi-purpose, protecting you from the dragon and as two sources of points. The game is naturally longer and the scores higher, but waiting for the dragon to start one of its 12 rampages adds to the tension.
The scores were close but Anne won. Anne 161, Ian 155.
The scores were close but Anne won. Anne 161, Ian 155.
Campground gaming with Annie
From christmas day to 30 December Anne and I were camping in Wanganui. While there I taught Anne "Lost Cities" and we played six hands for 3 wins each. Here are the results.
We also played three hands of Hornochsen, which Anne won three-zip, with single digit but positive scores! I put the low scores down to the randomness of the deal, but that just makes the game more tense.
I managed to redeem myself slightly with a win at Dracula (an interesting little game that is half memory and half strategy with a spot of bluffing). This game was very close with Van Helsing (me) finding the last coffin while Dracula (Anne) was hunting down the last victim.
| Anne | Ian |
|---|---|
| 46 | 65 |
| 34 | 71 |
| 61 | 86 |
| 100 | 49 |
| 57 | 12 |
| 44 | -16 |
We also played three hands of Hornochsen, which Anne won three-zip, with single digit but positive scores! I put the low scores down to the randomness of the deal, but that just makes the game more tense.
| Anne | Ian |
|---|---|
| 2 | -36 |
| 5 | -32 |
| 6 | -32 |
I managed to redeem myself slightly with a win at Dracula (an interesting little game that is half memory and half strategy with a spot of bluffing). This game was very close with Van Helsing (me) finding the last coffin while Dracula (Anne) was hunting down the last victim.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)