August 2006 Archives
We played a game of Hacienda at SpielByWeb. It was a pleasantly quick match, just a week.
You can see the final results. I won, but it was a bit of a surprise. I was the only player to try the massive land chain -strategy, so perhaps that was it? I made a mistake, though: I thought it was possible to pile up several haciendas on the same land chain, Carcassonne style. It's not. Oops.
Well, I only bought one useless hacienda and that was repayed by another player, who had the same wrong idea of the rules and blocked me by buying a water area that netted me six points in the end. So, that kind of balanced it. In the end, I scored huge points for land, haciendas and water, while connecting to three markets (I could've connected a fourth one in the end, but buying water was more profitable at that point) and those primarily for money.
The web version is nice, as it offers the possibility to use different board layouts easily. That's hard to do with the real board game. We played using the chewed dog bone asymmetrical board, which was a refreshing change from the symmetrical dog bone board.
Since two people have already asked: no, I'm not going to Essen this year. I won't be going to Essen before I get a steady job, which at the moment seems to be quite far in the future. Even then, there's my son to consider, and it's likely I won't go to Essen again until he's old enough to come with me.
Which is not as bad as it sounds like. While I enjoyed my trip - it was a blast - I can live without. After all, you can get pretty much everything after the fair and if there's something specific I want, I probably know someone who's going and can pick it up for me.
My last board game session this summer involved me, Olli and Memoir '44: Pacific Theatre. The latest Memoir '44 expansion turned out to be a blast.
We played two scenarios. Japanese counter-attack on Guam was faster thing, while playing through the Iwo Jima Meat Grinder took almost an hour. Both were interesting, well-developed scenarios. The Japanese counter-attack featured interesting terrain and the new night-time rules, while Meat Grinder had my Japanese troops defending a strong defensive fortification complete with minefields, artillery in bunkers and cave networks.
I won both, but since Olli forgot to use his USMC special ability (activate one more unit with each card) for one and a half scenario, it might've been different. Well, I did win the first one 6-1 so maybe that would've been mine, but I came out from the Meat Grinder with just one medal more than Olli, so perhaps that would've been his victory. Hard to say.
We finished off with Rat Hot, this time with proper mix of tiles. Didn't change the experience much; I still like the game. It's quick, it offers some neat tactical play and it still feels fresh.
It's official now: as of yesterday, it's Mikko Saari, M. Soc. Sc.; that is, I've graduated from university. In States, that would probably be MA, MSIS (Master of Science in Information Studies) or MLIS (Master of Library and Information Studies) or something like that. In Finland, information studies is part of social sciences. Anyway, it's been six years, and I'm starting to have enough of studying for now.
We've been playing Werewolf on the Board Game Society forums lately and it's been a riot. I never quite understood the buzz on the Geek for Werewolf, but now I do. It's a great game to play on a message board. When spread over several days, with all the history there to check... the accusations get a whole new twist.
Right now things look bad for the village: 10 people remain and all three wolves remain. The seer just came out of the closet, but is he a seer? Who knows? Am I a wolf? Maybe, maybe not - won't tell you quite yet. But things are really heating up in the village now.
Farlander reviewed in Finnish.
Estonian Revaler published Farlander back in 2002, but now it's out from Finnish Tactic. This pretty game is warfare as simple as it gets. The medieval theme is pretty stale, but actually the game is very abstract.
The game is split into two parts: setup and fighting. In the setup phase, players divide their troops to the 24 areas of the modular map. Each area can hold pieces from one player, up to five pieces per area. Players have enough pieces to cover each area they get (provided they are split even) with three pieces.
Then the fighting starts. Each player must attack if they can. To attack, you choose a target area. If you have more pieces in the areas that neighbour the area, you can attack. The victim loses all their pieces, while attacker loses nothing. Attacker moves in with up to five pieces.
Fight for mobility
Saying that attacker loses nothing is not true. Attacker loses mobility: when you have only one piece per area, you can't attack, because to attack, you need to able to move in pieces and vacating areas is not possible. The game reminds me of Dvonn here: maintaining your mobility while limiting your opponent's mobility is the key.
The game is over when nobody can attack anymore. Areas held are counted and most areas wins the game. The whole process is over in 10-20 minutes, depending on the slowness of the players.
Different experiences
Farlander is different game with different amount of players. I've tried with two and four. With two, the game is a decent brainburner, though I'm a bit doubtful how much play the game lasts before the strategies become obvious. Still, it's fast and reasonably entertaining. I, however, would rather play Dvonn.
With four, the game is total chaos. There's no planning ahead and the fate of your troops is in the hands of your whimsical opponents. Choosing who to attack can lead to kingmaking situation in the end and allows players to gang up on leader. I don't enjoy that. I haven't tried the game with three, but since it should fall between the two extremes, it might be pretty good.
Farlander is nice themed abstract. The simple rules make it easy to learn and teach, even children should have no problems playing the game. There's some subtlety and depth, particularly in the two-player game, but there are better options. With more players, Farlander is quick, chaotic filler.
I met the two Ollis and Antti from Board Game Society forums (he was picking up the Power Grid he bought from me) for games last Thursday. Little I knew that our peaceful off-season university cafe would be overrun by the attendents of a psychology conference... Well, we had a table for ourselves nonetheless, so no problems there.
We started off with Elasund. The game is different with four. With two, it's pleasant 30 minutes, with four it was dragging 90 minutes... First it appeared that Antti would win, as he placed the first big building, scoring loads of points thanks to trade squares. He got to seven points. I decided I'd have to tackle him down and well, that's what I did. It took a lot of time and many cards, but finally I had the goods: bunch of building permits (and since we were playing on rows 10-12, it was hard work to get them in place), loads of money and influence to overrun his big building.
That hit him pretty bad, as he lost a total of four points. He never quite recovered. Meanwhile, I only got to five points with that move, so when looking at the game state, it was a backwards move. The rest of it was slow and steady build-up - in the end it was between me and the two Ollis and in the end I won. I don't know - the end game didn't feel quite satisfying. There was tension until I crushed Antti's big building with mine, then the game felt fairly flat.
I'm not sure anybody really enjoyed the game. Antti was quite disgusted with it, after this and his earlier experience from Ropecon and I think Olli M. (and I) preferred the game with two. It's just so... well, there's too much conflict for me, I suppose. I just don't like that sort of struggling and fighting, at least not in this form.
We also played a game of Farlander. That was some proper chaos with four! The game felt completely random. My rating for the game plunged, as that was totally not fun. With two players the game works and I could still see myself playing the game that way, but not with more.
In the end Olli M. won, probably thanks to his earlier experience (I think this game is pretty hard for newbies, but once you've played it before even once, you'll see how it works). My troops were neatly cleaned out, so I was out of the competition. I think it's fairly easy to gang up on someone in this game, not that anything remotely like that happened in our game.
Ugh, play this one with two or don't play at all, that's my tip.
My copy of Roads and Boats came with two lower wonder boards but zero upper wonder boards. If your copy, by chance, has two upper boards and you want a lower board, drop me a line and we can switch. I've sent a replacement board request to Splotter, but I'm not expecting a swift reply...
Hooray! Gameblog turns four today! Pretty amazing. Turns out many of my projects have longevity that surpasses what is generally expected from web fads. I suppose Gameblog will be there after next four years (it should get pretty interesting then, as Nooa will be four years old and in a prime age for his gaming education to start).
Feel free to suggest good stuff I've written and should highlight, if there are any.
Woot! I'm a proud owner of a spanking new third edition Roads & Boats. Now I only need to find time to play it... And I also have to visit a fishing supply store to get some tackle boxes to sort all the bits and pieces.
Just reading through the scenario book gets saliva running... This needs to get on the table as soon as possible, but unfortunately that looks quite unprobable. Helcon, perhaps? (Looks like I'm going to play about dozen long games at Helcon, where I'll be probably at most one full day. Yeah right.)
I also got Memoir '44: Pacific Theatre, which looks neat. The new figures are pretty, particularly the artillery pieces. The scenarios look interesting, too. Now all I need is the Carrying Case.
Elasund is the latest Catan spinoff. Players are building the first city in Catan, trying to reap glory by getting their buildings to fill the city.
The game has surface similarities to Catan - the resource-producing die roll, the ten victory points, using resources to build buildings that produce new resources, robber when seven is rolled - but deep down it's a different world. There's a lot more conflict in Elasund.
Buildings and permits
Building is based on permits. To build, you need one to three permits, depending on the size of the building. Of course, they don't have to be all yours, as long as your permits are more valuable than those of the other players and you pay some compensation gold to those players whose permits you use.
There's also limited space, particularly on the better areas (the rows that match the most common die rolls six and eight). Fortunately you can build over smaller buildings, and if you use your influence (the other resource in the game), you can build over same-sized buildings. That's a big deal in the end.
So, that's how the game proceeds: you plunk down permits, then try to build stuff over them, first to produce resources (gold and influence), then to score victory points. There are other ways to score victory points than buildings: you can try to collect trade points (build in certain positions), build the city wall (which has benefits when the robber strikes) and build the church (expensive, but trumps any other building beneath it).
Mean settlers
It's a mean game, particularly when compared to Catan. There's lots of direct beating, when you use someone's permits and build over their buildings. Surprise moves are hard to pull off, because you build before you place permits in turn order, but a well-placed permit is sure to put pressure on your opponents. I kind of like that - there's good tension in the game.
What I don't like the game is the fact that the game state can move backwards. When replacing someone's building, the game can end up in a situation where end is farther away. This can cause slight drag in the end, and I do think the four-player game somewhat overstays it's welcome. With two players, Elasund is short and sweet 30-minute building competition. With four, it just doesn't work that well.
Overview
So, my suggestion would be to play the game with two, except there are better two-player games available. Still - my rating for the game would be worse, if the two-player game wasn't that good. I wouldn't play again with four unless Elasund is the only decent game available.
For someone who enjoys Catan, Elasund is recommended only if they feel they need more conflict in their games. If you like beat-the-leader and that certain pushing and shoving between players (and don't mind if the game drags a bit sometimes), Elasund might be your cup of tea.
Mark Jackson has resurrected The Apples Project for a new run after a four-year break (here's the original Apples Project).
The idea is to get a group of experienced gamers to list their favourite games in certain genres or by certain designers. That is, to compare apples to apples (as opposed to comparing wildly different games to each other just because they were published on the same year).
Which are the best train games? Which are the best light fillers? And so on. It's not another award, just a way to get a bunch of interesting top lists. The results are published in a blog piece by piece, but it'll take a while before anything comes up - the nominations just began.
Met Olli today. The dish of the day was Elasund, the latest Settlers spin-off. The Settlers element is pretty much resource production roll to start the turn, 10 victory points to gather and... well, that's about it.
The game is about building a city. Smaller buildings produce influence and money, both of which are needed during the game. There are few way to produce victory points, but mostly it's buildings. One catch is in the building: you can build bigger buildings over smaller buildings and with influence you can replace buildings of the same size. Also, to build, you need building permits, which have to be laid down on earlier turns.
There's some clever stuff in there. You only need X amount of permits (one to three, depending on building size), but they don't have to be yours. You can use permits from other people, if you just have the best permits and you compensate your buddies with gold. Shrewd moves are possible, but having to telegraph your moves one turn ahead takes some of the bite away. The game is still quite confrontational.
The game worked surprisingly well with just two players. 30 minute play time was a definite plus. The playing area is smaller with two, which made sure the competition was pretty fierce. We got the impression that building the church (a huge 9-point extravaganza, which is built piece by piece; each piece costs 7 gold, which is a lot) was a bad move with two players, because the one who tried that lost...
We had time for three rounds. I won the first easily, when Olli wasted his money to church early on (church is one victory point, but no production). The second game was better for Olli, and he won it fairly easily - surprised me completely. Teaches me to check the VP situation constantly... The last game was a tougher match, a really good game. I won it in the end, but it could've been different. Olli made a little mistake, which cost him lot of gold during the game, so that was probably the reason I won.
I'm curious to see how this all works with more players. I suppose it's just as good. I'd rate it about seven... Good, I would play if someone suggests it, I might even suggest it myself, but I don't think I need to own it after I get the review done.
Thanks, Alfred. After reading that, I'm not sure I can hold off from getting a 18xx game anymore.
Once again I met Olli for games, this time focusing on new material. We started with Farlander, since Olli had just bumped into it in a shop. The game looks nice, and inside the pretty box lies a simple war game. It's so simple and minimalistic that I'm having a hard time calling it a war game, actually - it's themed on conflict and sure, pieces are beaten by other pieces, yet even Chess has more theme to its mechanisms.
The game is played on a small map formed of tiles to provide randomness. First players lay their pieces on the board (there are 24 areas and 36 pieces per player, which means three pieces per area if they are evenly distributed). Each area holds only pieces of one colour and only up to five pieces.
Then starts the war. Each turn a player must attack. You can attack, if you have more troops than your opponent. Opponent counts only the province you're attacking, you can count every province adjacent to that province. You remove your opponent's pieces and move in up to five pieces from neighbouring provinces, so that each area contains at least one piece after your move.
As you can see, the combat isn't very realistic. Supreme force takes it all, with no losses. You only lose maneuverability, because a province with just one piece is fairly useless (it can support, but since you have to move troops to the new province, a group of one-troop provinces can't attack).
It all kind of reminds me of Dvonn: two phases, the conquering moves which lead to decreasing maneuverability... it's fairly superficial, but still, there's a bit of a connection.
Is it fun? Not much, at least with two players. The first game was a tie, second was my victory after Olli made some blunders. There's some strategy in it, or tactics, more than meets the eye first - the order of provinces to conquer is significant. However, I just can't see an even match with two experienced players as very interesting.
With more players, it's different. It's very chaotic and tactical, I'd say, and I'm afraid it's going to be even worse. Well, that'll be seen when I try it. As our two-player games took just 10 minutes each or less, I'm willing to give it another go with more players. No more two-player games, however.
The game looks very nice, though. The pieces are cylinders and thus annoying; I'd prefer non-rolling cubes. It's an interesting exercise in minimalism, and could be an interesting game for kids.
Next up was another new game, Terra Nova. The game sounds a lot like multi-player Amazons: you move your men on board, setting up borders and trying to divide the area into smaller lands.
I didn't like Amazons much, so I guess it's no surprise I didn't enjoy Terra Nova either. The game is very open in the beginning - you've got a board full of men, but no borders set, so the game feels very open. It's a bit tough for a newbie. As the game progresses and the borders are set, the decisions are constricted and the game gets easier to play.
I won't play this again with two players. It just wasn't fun. Terra Nova isn't a bad game (it's chock full of tactical decisions on how to make the best move on each turn), but it's certainly one I don't enjoy. I'm willing to try it with three players, though. I think that's optimal, because there's a point-sharing mechanism in play (area is scored by the player with most men inside, if multiple players are tied they split points), which doesn't quite come into play with two players. With four, there's way too much chaos for my tastes.
We wrapped up the session with three rounds of Battle Line, bringing my total games played count for that game over the 50 game milestone. Hooray! It's a great game... I particularly enjyoed the last round, which was a clean 3-0 victory for me (I built 9-9-9, 10-10-10 and 6-6-6 in the middle).
(Edit: had to close commenting on this when the entry became a total spam-trap.)
Got Elasund and Farlander from Tactic. Both are interesting games in their own way.
Elasund is, of course, the latest game in the Catan franchise. The Catan basics are there (die roll for resource production, building to ten victory points), but outside that it's something fairly new compared to other Catan games. There's one aspect I have doubts about, and that's the ability to remove points from your opponents: based on the comments from people, there's potential to drag. I prefer games, where the game can only progress.
Farlander will be covered in the next entry.
Rat Hot is a small two-player tile-laying game from Michael Schacht. It was previously web-published as Dschunke: das Legespiel, but this edition is from Queen Games and Rio Grande Games.
The game is about merchants storing goods in a storage; they try to pack similar goods together for easy access. They also have to worry about rats. The theme doesn't make complete sense, but the game is quite abstract in the end, so it doesn't really matter.
Piles of boxes
Players pile 3x1 tiles on the board, two each turn. Each square in a tile can have goods of either player, nothing or a rat (which are also colour-coded). When a tile is placed so that two similar goods are together, the owner of the goods scores one point. If a group of three or more is formed, it's two points.
Rats are a threat. If player has three rats of her own colour showing up in the end of her turn, she loses immediately. So, better cover up those rats! It's a great mechanic to add tension in the game; unfortunately it can rarely lead to situations where players loses on the last turn without any chance to prevent that.
However, it's easy to recognise those situations (and separate them from failed risk-taking) and avoid them, so I wouldn't count this as a big issue. Also, as I said, it should be fairly rare.
Simple rules
The rules of the game are fairly simple and intuitive. The only thing I had problems with was one restriction for the tile placement: you can't place a tile directly on top of another tile. It must always cover at least two tiles. That's an important rule, but it's also a bit non-intuitive.
Otherwise the game is very straightforward and fun, in it's own dry way. It's not a riot, but something I found quite enjoyable, particularly as it's so fast to play. The three-dimensional approach of the game is refreshing, as it's fairly rare in tile-laying games.
Limited recommendations
The game is a tad expensive for a short filler, at least here in Finland, so I wouldn't recommend it, unless you play two-player games regularly. In that case Rat Hot is worth a try, it should give you something new and fresh for a while.
I know I won't be buying the game, as my two-player gaming is occasional and I don't think I'd get enough bang for a buck from Rat Hot. With a regular opponent (for example if my wife were more into games), I would get this without a doubt.
I got a copy of Margin for Error, the first game from Sagely Games, to test. Unfortunately I can't see myself having an opportunity to test the game in near future, so I thought I'd write a bit of a preview based on the rules. The game is familiar enough, so I'm quite confident of my initial impression.
Basics of game play
Margin for Error is a fairly simple trick-taking game played with a four-suited deck with 14 cards (1-14) in each suit. The game is played in partnerships. One of the players is the Captain, who chooses the point suit and a goal, high or low. High goal means their team tries to win tricks in the point suit, low goal means they try to avoid.
There's no trump, which is untypical, and the point suit must be broken like in Hearts before it can be lead. The point suit is obviously public, but the goal is kept hidden until about half of the hand is played. I don't think that matters a lot.
Scoring
Captain's team scores 15 points if they make the goal (get at least 10 point cards of the 14 for high and four or less for low goal). If they fail, opponents get 10 points. There's a bonus for collecting all or none of the point cards, according to the goal.
The game is over when one team has at least 60 points. With five players, the partnerships rotate and the players keep individual scores; the first to reach 50 points wins.
Verdict
The game sounds quite solid. There's a card exchange (three cards for the Captain's team, two cards for the opponents) and you can pass being a Captain (in which case the next player is given the chance); that means it should be possible to get good play with any hand.
So, it's basically a good game. However, I wouldn't recommend it to anyone. First of all, it's hard to get: only Fair Play Games has it. What's more important, the game is rather bland. While the combination of features from different trick-taking games sounds nice, there's nothing in Margin for Error that would make it memorable and even slightly unique.
There are plenty of other similar games that are good or even better than Margin for Error, and many of them are free traditional games. The four-player card game corner is crowded with good games, and Margin for Error doesn't stand out. Great visual appeal could've made a difference, but no - it's not downright ugly, but the game art is very dull. When (or if) I play the game, I'll probably use some other cards.
Overview
Margin for Error is a good game and the price is right (less than 10 dollars; I think 5 euros is pretty much the maximum price for something like this), so if you are ordering something from Fair Play Games and would like to add a decent trick-taking game to your collection, it's not a bad choice. However, I wouldn't make any extra effort to get the game. Also, if you already play a trick-taking game or two, you probably have something at least as good and have no need for this.
Another children's game tested: Mago Magino goes in the closet towait for Nooa to grow up. The game is clever and fun, but offers little to adults. It's just roll-and-move, with some risk assessment and some scope for tactics (how to use the wizard, how to use the two pawns each player has). The game didn't quite shine with two players, I think four or five would be better.
I met Olli for a session of Memoir '44. We ended up exploring the Eastern Front expansion.
Both scenarios we played - Gates of Moscow and Breakout to Lisyanka - were excellent. Add the excellent Suomussalmi scenario to that and the expansion pack starts to feel like a pretty good purchase. The scenarios are great.
I played Axis on both and also lost both. Too bad. I almost made it to Moscow, but failed in the end. I also almost made it Lisyanka. The goal for Germans is to make it across the map over a frozen river, and I got three units very close to the river. If two of them had made it, I would've won. All were slaughtered before they made it to the river.
Anyway, both scenarios could've gone my way as well. Particularly the first, where I had the advantage from Blitz rules and Russian command rules. Next time I'll show them...
I played a game of Nacht der Magier with Johanna yesterday. We played in light; it was nice to see the game worked well without the darkness effect. It's better in the dark, but fine in light. Thus, a review in Finnish.
Nacht der Magier, Magician's Night, has a rare gimmick. The game is played in dark; not in low light, but pitch black. This causes most of the components of the game to disappear completely, while others are highlighted by their glow. The challenges created by the invisible components make the game stand out.
Push until it clicks
The basic premise is simple: the board, raised up from table level, is full of wooden discs and trees and other bits. There's a ring of fire in the middle, covered by a cardboard disc and a blazing fire. Cauldrons circle that disc. The goal is to get one's own cauldron to the ring of fire by pushing the bits on the board.
You start pushing from the side of the board and push in one continuous movement until you hear a clack; something has fallen off the board. Your turn ends there. Next player is up, and this continues until someone's cauldron is in the ring of fire.
Simple challenges
The idea is simple, but it works. It's not quite easy, you see: the round discs have a tendency to go in unexpected directions when you push them. Getting your cauldron to move straight forward is nearly impossible - particularly as you only see the cauldrons, the fire, the ring and the wizards of other players (the pieces you use to push).
In light, the game is slightly different; more tactical, perhaps. It's still fun, though not quite as special. Still, even in light of the day, Nacht der Magier is nice, different dexterity game. It's physical, but doesn't require steady, non-trembling hands or deep understanding of the workings of gravity.
Recommendations
As is typical with Drei Magier Spiele games, Nacht der Magier is pretty. The deep shades of blue are very cool in daylight, but the real magic happens in dark. The game looks stunning - anybody should be impressed. This game ranks highly on my list of the prettiest games.
Because the game is so simple, it has little to offer to people looking for serious strategy games. However, Nacht der Magier is a must-buy for three groups: children, childish adults and collectors looking for curious, unique games.
I got this year's Marektoy children's games lineup. It's a nice bunch of games from Drei Magier and Selecta, mostly. Selecta games impressed me: like Haba, Selecta is a producer of wooden toys and the games have great components.
I played two rounds of Viva Topo! with Johanna yesterday. The game is the Kinderspiel des Jahres 2003, and well worth the award. The idea is simple: mice try to race towards the cheese paradise. Too bad there's a cat after them...
The dice has 1-1-2-3-4-5, and the ones move the cat. At first the cat moves just one step, but fastens the pace later on. That means the mice better run fast if they wish to make it to the paradise!
Each player has four or five mice. The board has four stops in the corners; those are worth 1, 2, 3 and 4 points for each mouse that stops there. If a mouse makes it to the cheese paradise in the end, they're worth six points.
So, it's a risk-reward-thing. Are you happy with just one or two points, or will you try to make it to the very end? The further you go, the higher the risk that your mice will be eaten by the cat. Do you focus on one mouse, or do you try to move all mice to safety?
The game is easy and should be good for the 4+ age group it's aimed at, but the decisions are interesting enough for adults. I know we had a good time yesterday, and we'll probably play the game a lot before Nooa is four. The secret of the game lies in its brutality: the cat is fast. In our two games, only one mouse made it to the cheese paradise; most were eaten by the ever-hungry feline monster.
If you're looking for a game for kids that the adults can enjoy as well, Viva Topo! is a good choice. It works well with two, and is probably best with three.
