The Preacher's Gameroom

Urban Sprawl

2011-11-28T14:36:00.001-08:00

This weekend I played URBAN SPRAWL for the first time. This is a Euro style game published by GMT games that seems to be getting good reviews.

For now.. I'll opt to reserve my opinion on the game, but offer you a few first impressions.

FIRST, the game is BIG!!! Lots and lots of cards, along with a nice map, and some neat colored wooden blocks.

Second, there is a lot of stuff going on. Maybe too much! Lots of events occur that make me feel completely out of control. This is one of those games where you cannot really figure out the strategy without playing it a time or two, knowing that certain events happen and being prepared for them. Once you have an idea of the possible events you realize that you have to set yourself up for them. Sadly, for most of the game I sat back and watched events earn the other players money, victory points, etc. while I lagged terribly behind. One event, despite a reshuffle and only one copy in the deck happened THREE TIMES in one turn, pushing one player ahead in both money and victory points.

The basic design (outside of the events) is clever, with profits occuring for nearly every player on nearly every player's turn. The concept of bidding on projects (by selecting them using action points) and then having the leftover projects become cheaper for the next player's turn is neat. Having to have the appropriate "permits" to build these projects is also a neat design.

I really believe I was overwhelmed by my first play of this game and therefore, I reserve judgment.. overall, it looks and seems cool, but the extent of the events sort of put me off a bit. That may change with future play.

Building Your Kingdom in Kingsburg

2011-10-06T09:48:00.000-07:00

I recently had several occasions to play a combination dice-driven/placement game called "Kingsburg." This is not your typical placement game because it allows players to create their own path to victory based on the buildings that they build.

The dice rolling and placement element of the game can be sort of cut-throat. Each player throws 3 dice (though there are sometimes extra) and then uses the results. There are advisors each numbered 1-18 on the board. In turn order (from the lowest number to the top number) Each player may make a placement. He can place all of the dice, one die, or two dice on one of the spaces (once a space is taken, no other player can select that advisor) Each advisor grant a different benefit. An advisor may grant one or more resources, military strength, or even a die-roll modification chit (which can be used to add +2 to a dice placement, but not alone).. Often, a player will have one die left over because the turn order allowed another player with the same die result to place before him. While this is something I normally don't like in placement games, something I call getting cheated by the turn order, in this game it seems to work because player's choices are all limited to what their die results are. A player might choose to make a choice that body checks another player, but he can only do so based on his die roll so it is not simply making a placement in order to be cruel to another player.

At the end of the "season" (the name for a round in play) each player can use the resources he has gained to "build." The buildings he builds can provide extra benefits like increased military strength, the ability to affect a die roll, a possible reroll, increased victory points, etc. Each player has a mat (shown below) and can build on any level, but cannot build to the right until he has built the buildings on the left.

At the end of the year, all players have to fight the "monster" card. Some players may know how strong the monster is because they were permitted to look at the card based on their dice placement. Each player who has a strong enough military strength + the die roll (same roll for one player) to beat the monster gains a benefit. Each player who is defeated by the monster suffers a penalty-- which may mean losing a building or victory points. The blue section at the bottom of the card show the Victory points gained by players who defeated the monster.

Two samples of monster cards are shown above (these are among the stronger monsters).. the number at the top, next to the name, indicates the number that the player needs to beat in order to defeat the monster. The middle section of the card show the penalties for losing against the monster. For example, it is a straight -5 Victory point loss if the dragons defeat the player while if the demons do so the player loses 1 bulding and number of victory points. When a monster kills a building it always kills the rightmost (most expensive) building. If two buildings are both in the same column then the buiding highest on the player's mat is the one that is eliminated. Also, any victory points that the player obtained for building that particular building are also lost. Players have to provide military strength to add to a single die roll in order to built the monster.

This game mechanics reward cuthroat die placement! Still, players are forced to balance the choices of building for Victory points or other benefits and building for military strength to protect from the end of the year and the monster's attack.

For our group, it was an interesting change of pace. The game does not have a steep learning curve and plays fairly quickly, though we haven't managed to complete a game in less than an hour and forty-five minutes or so. While browsing boardgamegeek I see that there is an expansion available and I'm wondering what it has to offer. In the meantime, we'll probably get a few more plays of this one under our belts in the near future. It isn't the greatest game I've ever played, but for now, it is one that is worth playing. It combines a lot of neat elements into a nice building game that works for me, a player who normally doesn't care for building and placement games.

We all live in a non-yellow Submarine!

2011-06-03T12:13:00.000-07:00

Imagine being on a submarine where everything is going wrong! The oxygen level is dropping, the atmospheric pressure is increasing, and heat from a malfunctioning reactor is becoming intense. In addition, some compartments are flooding, others are on fire, and your fellow crew members have got into the captain's store of "grog" and are passing out. That would be the premise of Fantasy Flight Game's "Red November" a cooperative game from their silver line of smaller, less expensive games.

I guess I should begin by saying that I normally don't care for cooperative games. I like games that let me "stick it to the other guy" and that offer fierce competition. However, Red November intrigues me because its system reminds me of an addictive computer game where the player moved crates around. As the player moved crates around he either improved or harmed his situtation and ability to complete the mission. Red November offers the same challenge. It seems like the more the player does to resolve problems the more problems seem to pop up.

The Submarine board shown above is small and if you note the track around the edge, it is very difficult to use that mini-track. This was the biggest annoyance in the game, so I thought I would get that complaint out of the way. On each turn, the player can move about freely and even choose to fix problems, etc. How many minutes the player decides to use to repair a problem becomes a target number. For example, if a player choose to spend 5 minutes attempting to repair the reactor he would have a 50% chance of accomplishing this fix by rolling a five or less on a ten sided die. Here's where the really tricky part comes in... The more time he spends trying to accomplish this task, the more time marches on. As the time marker is tracked in minutes, almost every other space on the track has an event card. Events can range from the "respite" card (nothing happens.. and that's good) to a random fire breaking out, a hatch becoming jammed, missile malfunction, oxygen disaster track increasing, reactor heating up, pressure increasing, etc. Even sudden death events occur which set up a ten minute track window of resolving a problem or dying immediately. Players have to balance the use of time and the urgency of a repair because as time marches on those events keep happening. By the way, a failed repair doesn't make matters worse, it just allows time to keep on slipping into a future filled with more and more frustrating events.

Tiles represent objects that the players find to assist them in their tasks. For example, a crowbar gives a postiive modifier to unjamming a hatch. A fire extinguisher allows the player to put out a fire (so does grog, but we will get to that in a moment. One item, the lucky charm, allows a player to use up minutes but skip drawing new event cards. Events often cause a player (or all players) to discard tiles (and they are out of the game until all tiles are drawn.

Players can go to the Captain's quarters in order to draw grog tiles. Grog gives the player the fortitude to enter a room that is on fire and attempt to put the fire out. The fire extinguisher does the same thing but without the intoxicating result. A player who uses his grog (for a nice die modifier in fighting a fire) also risks becoming inebriated. When he uses the grog he indicates with his character card the inebriation status (levels 1-4) of his character. At the end of his turn he does a faint check by drawing an event card. If the inebriation number is equal to or less than the number on the card, the character passes out and ten minutes are added to the chart. This can and does happen at the worst moments. Sometimes, it causes the "ghost marker" to cross the minute where a catastrophic game ending event occurs. In one game, a fire fighting gnome used grog to fight a fire and passed out, causing the marker to go over the missile malfunction and BOOM!!! Game over.

This is the place where players either will love or hate the game. Personally, I like the uncertainty and inability to completely game the system. I like a game that has enough strategy to keep a player interested with enough wacky random stuff to keep the game uncertain. On the other hand, an individual gnome can pass out and get burned up and die halfway through the game, and it is not fun to get shut out of a game. The rule booklet suggests an optional rule for players who don't like getting eliminated from a game. Since games are social, elimination is sometimes not the best option.

I found "Red November" to be a quirky niche game. I would love to see someone program this one for the computer. It would be a great solitaire computer game.

It's Really a Wonder!

2011-04-20T11:20:00.000-07:00

I recently was introduced to an innovative game called "7 Wonders." Apparently, the U.S. incarnation of this game is published by "Asmodee." I found this quick game to be fun and pleasureable, though not necessarly addictive. In fact, our gaming group enjoys a few rounds of it, but it isn't one of those games folks can play all night long. The really cool thing is that every game is different.

Here's how it works. Every Game begins with the selection of a Wonder. This can be done by choice or randomized. Our group has been doing it randomly. Each wonder has its own board indicating the beggining resources that position generates and the costs and rewards for building each of the wonder, whether it is the Colossus of Rhodes or the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. Then each player is given three gold and seven cards. Now the fun begins.

The player will select a card from his hand and then pass his hand to the left. (During the second round the hands are passed to the right, and then back to the left again for the third round). All players will use their chosen card at the same time and then repeat, until six cards have been chosen and played. (The 7th card is discarded) There are a number of types of cards. First, there are cards that produce resources such as wood, brick, stone, ore, or cloth. A player needs to be able to generate resources in order to pay the costs for other cards. Most resource cards can be put into play for free, but some of the better ones cost a gold token. There are grey resources (used more for later game purposes) and brown resources (that are more basic).

Then there are yellow "trade" cards which allow players to use resources generated by players to the left or the right (or sometimes both) at a discount. A player can always "trade" for a resource a neighboring player (immediate left or right) generates by paying that neighbor 2 gold, but the trade cards allow such a purchase to be made cheaper.

Then there are green cards representing technological advancement. These cards can combine in the end game to multiply victory points.

The red military cards provide military strength. At the end of each age, military victory points are awarded in increasing numbers, based on a player's military strength compared to his immediate neighbors. For example, Steve is sitting between Scott and Marty. At the end of the age Steve has 1 military point while Scott and Marty both have 2. Steve will receive two -2 military victory points from each of his neighbors who are beating him. Scott and Marty receive victory points for beating his military strength. In the first age, such points are 1's, in the second age, such points are worth 3, and in the final age, they are worth 5 victory points each. While Scott may be beating Steve with 2, Arash is sitting on the other side of Scott with level three military. Scott reeceives a -1 token because Arash was beating him.

The blue cards represent straight victory points provided by the artistic achievements of a culture. Cards that represent things like temples and theaters with victory points are put into play.

The purple cards come in later, offering guilds that provide victory points based on a number of things. They may offer a bonus based on the number of blue cards a player has in play. One of them offers a bonus based on the number of military cards a player's immediate neighbor has in play. Another offers bonus points based on the number of trade cards. In other words, depending on the symbols on the card the player will receive a bonus based on either his own tableu or that of his immediate neighbors.

Now that you have a basic summary of the cards, let me tell you how they are used. A player may put a card into play by generating or trading for resources, if there is a cost. (Remember, some resources come into play for free). So if a card costs one ore and one brick to put into play and I manufacture only ore, I could purchase brick from an immediate neighbor who generates brick by paying that neighbor 2 gold. Some cards are free if you have another companion card. These cards are clearly marked. A player can "burn" a card by simply discarding it and by doing so earn three gold tokens. Finally, a player can "burn" a card by using it to build a stage of his wonder, placing it face down on his board and paying the required resources either by generating them or buying them.

In the above image, you can see the player's setup of the Pyramids of Giza. At the bottom of the board you can see by the face down card tucked, he has completed the first stage of the pyramids which cost him a card play and two stone. In the upper left corner of his board his setup BEGAN the game making stone and later on he added a resource card which generated the other stone he needed in order to complete his wonder. He is also generating wood and brick. He has one military strength (indicated by the red military card) and recieved a -1 token from both left and right players, meaning that each of them had at least 2 military strenght. He has no green cards in play and one blue card, which will be worth 3 victory points at the end of the game.

Why is this fun? Because as a player looks through his hand he has to look at what cards benefit the player he is going to pass the hand to as well as what he can afford to put into play. So there are times a player passes a card (for example a military card) that helps his opponent. There are also times when a player will burn a card to collect 3 gold (which=1 victory point if they still have it at the end of the game) just to prevent the next player from getting it into play.

The game is easily played in thirty minutes and because of the mix of where a player sits, the cards, the randomized choice of wonders (which have an A or B side that also are different and can be played by randomization or choice, depending on the group) there is lots of variety in the game. Players get to choose over and over what they are going to do to maximize points in all areas. No player can win simply based on scoring well in one area, but must be able to play a balanced game.

This isn't a game I would spend money to add to my collection. However, we have to have some games that are quick and easy in our collections. This is one I would definitely sit down and play once or twice as a filler and feel like I enjoyed it.

So how could this game be better?

We have been tempted to randomize the passing of the cards every time by rolling a die. Even we pass to the right, odd, we pass to the left. This offers extra randomization and we have not tried this yet and it may lead to chaos when we do.

Perhaps an extra reward for military strength could be offered at the end of the game, allowing the player with the most military victory points the opportunity to destroy one card from the first age that belongs to a neighborn. Such a reward would exclude the big bonus victory guild cards from the third Age, but also cut a point or two off of another player's score. It would also increase the importance of military might in the game, which may be repulsive to some players.

Both of these suggestions are untried variants thus far, I guess if we ever get around to trying them I'll tell you how they work. In the meantime, I'm waiting for a promo based on King Kong-- after all, I remember from the film that he was the 8th Wonder of the World. :-)

Quoting Charlie Sheen: A first Look at Merchants and Marauders

2011-03-12T20:41:00.000-08:00

Today I had to choose between being a pirate or a sailing merchant in a Pirate\Trade game set in the Caribbean during the Pirate\Colonization era. Of course, I choose being a pirate and it cost me the game, sort of.

My opponents drew me in by telling me that the game was a cross between a trade game and a wargame. Not only was it a cross between the two, but it was an EXCELLENT blend of merchant\delivery vs. Pirate attacks. The Game was Z-Man games' "Merchants and Marauders" and delivered a very satisfying afternoon. I can see how the game would move much more quickly once players learned the system and there is nothing too complex here.

Players get to choose whether they will act as merchants or pirates and both have benefits as well as drawbacks. The game has excellent balance between the two choices (usually made based on the skills of player's captain (randomly chosen at the beginning of the game). Each player has three actions on each turn which are either move, search for enemy ships, or conduct business in court. Players get Glory points (victory points) for delivering three of a commodity to a port where it is in demand, defeating an enemy in battle, or defeating a non-player ship (pirate or a National Navy).

The basic mechanics of the game are clean and easily comprehended. They offer a careful balance that prevents a player from doing too many things in one turn or jumping around getting multiple victory points per turn. A player can also purchase Victory Points at a cost of 10 each, but is limited to money he put into his stash (which he can only do at his home port) to do so and can only purchase a maximum of 5 points in this manner. This means a player has to earn 5 Victory points and then balance returning to his home port to stash his gold.

Combat is pretty neat. Players can shoot, board, or flee from a combat and various items assist. For example, everytime a player earns a Glory point he gets a glory card that has a special ability (usually a one time use) and ships can be upgraded to improve either its merchant or combat ability.

The deal breaker for some gamers will be the events. Each game turn begins with a random event card being flipped and read. One event brought war between Spain and England and one of my opponents was unable to enter the port of the opposing nationality to deliver the goods with the demand he needed. Another event brought storms and minimized the number of actions my opponents could perform on that turn. Other events brought in National naval forces that were looking for Pirates, or added non-player pirates. The random events added lots of flavor but I think to a staunch wargamer these events offered a great deal of luck factor and skewed the game to some extent. One player had the worst luck with these events almost always coming at the worst possible time for him and therefore he could not wait for the game to be over.

The most fun I had in the game was holding the lead for most of the game. This allowed me to taunt the other players by quoting Charlie Sheen and saying repeatedly "Winning." I did attempt to avoid calling my opponents "trolls" however.

I had a great time playing this game, but I think the luck factor would cause thie one to get old pretty fast. I can see how a couple of bad events could really leave a player feeling cheated. Still, I prefer events that actually have a chance of impacting the game in a strong way, so I think it is a game I will enjoy.

Player's Remorse- Not Buyer's Remorse

2011-03-01T09:25:00.000-08:00

Internet shopping for used wargames has become an addiction for me. I browse through ebay regularly. I sort through hundreds of posts weekly on the for sale forum on Consimworld. The sad thing is that I keep buying games, often which I have no time to play. Recently, I purchased several CD-ROMs from Ebay containing older, out of print (and claimed to be in the public domain) Avalon Hill titles. Will I have time to even print these out, search for a cyberboard version of them, and play them.

Recent purchases have included Z-Man's "Campaign Manager 2008" (okay, not a wargame, but by one of my favorite designers, Jason Matthews of "Twilight Struggle" fame), MMP's "Shifting Sands", and an American Civil War game from Compass games that I cannot even recall the name of. I have a copy of Avalon Hill's "Afrika Korps" that I would love to play and its rules seem simple enough to learn in a short time, however, just having a place to set it up long enough to learn can be a challenge.

If I could only stop feeding this addiction, purchasing games I don't have time to play. However, the addiction spills over into the new game department. I have purchased a number of new games in the last year. GMT's remake of "Successors," and "Washington's War" are among the new, unpunched titles in my collection. (I have played Washington's War several times, but never with my own personal copy). GMT was selling UGG's "History of the Roman Empire" at such a steep discount that I ordered two copies and sent one to my brother, Johnny, with hopes of figuring it out and playing, perhaps via cyberboard. It seems to be a lot like the old "History of the World" only limited to the Roman Empire. Still, I've done little more than lovingly and longingly skim over the rules in hopes of being prepared to play.

I have an old copy of Avalon Hill's "Wizard Quest" that I have played once with my wife. We had a good time, but she was not persuaded to try it again. I created a simple rules summary so I could teach it to my usual gaming group, but one critic ruined it for me by telling one of the player is was "Risk! with Orcs!" Having never actually played "Risk!" I don't why this is such a terrible criticism, but it was enough to kill it the night that I tried to get the guys to try it.

Once in awhile I manage to "flip" a game via ebay or Consimworld. This offers me an excuse to continue my buying.. but the truth is, I would really like to play some of the games that are filling my collection so rapidly. Playing them is preferable to making money on them.

Cyberboard (or perhaps Vassal) offers me the opportunity to play long-distance opponents, but I have to go to all the trouble to downloading and setting up, and hoping I remember to save files, etc. If that was the biggest challenge, I'd do it more. However, the biggest challenge is visualizing a game. I find it difficult to visualize a game on the computer screen that I have not played in person. The rules and the movement and the goals just don't make sense to me. I guess this means I have a larger learning curve if trying to learn a game electronically instead of face to face.

My remorse is not being able to play more. Our game club meetings have become sporadic due to not finding a good, steady place to meet. For example, last month we were supposed to meet at the local game store and I showed up for the meeting (as did a number of others) only to discover that the game store management had made an error and scheduled a miniatures tournament at the same time our club was supposed to meet. It was an honest mistake, but will likely hurt attendance at meetings at the store in the future. The store is not the best venue due to space considerations (as well as the feeling that we ought to make a purchases while we are there since they are allowing us to meet there for free).

I guess that sums up today's whining and complaining. I just wish I had more time to play. That was true when I was a kid, too! Will I ever grow up?

Dumbhead David Plays Another Napoleonic Game

2010-11-27T17:55:00.000-08:00

I encourage those of you interested in a BIG Napoleonic miniatures game to direct your browser to www.fantasyflightgames.com and check out Battles of Napoleon. This game has a hefty price tag but there is a lot of game in the box. Multiple scenarios, hard mounted map boards, and neat miniatures. There has been some flap over on fantasy flgiht's message board over some misprinted cards (U.S. buyers can get a replacement deck at no cost and we played with the replacement cards!) The cards are quite beautiful, very nice glossy finish with quality artwork. The miniatures are nice, but the horseman needed to be glued to the saddle seats.

Still, there was lots of flavor in the game, most of it centering around what players could do and when they could do it. An interesting initative system uses a number of chits. The chits have numbers on them. A player may attempt to "change orders" for a unit in an attempt to obtain a lower number. He also may end up with a higher number that forces that particular unit to move or attack later in the turn. Changing orders is not a certain thing, however. Communicating with subordinate generals during the heat of a battle isn't always easy. Sometimes, they are out of reach and sometimes they just don't listen. Therefore, a die roll result of 11 (the standard success number in this game) is required to change orders. Oh, and the game only comes with 10 sided dice. Obviously, a number of modifiers are added for almost everything.

Formations count in this game. Players can be in column, in line, or form a square against a cavalry charge. Each formation governs some of the modifiers and permits or restricts movement.

On top of the other stuff thrown in that make this game cool is the combat system. players fire and\or melee and then add up the modifiers to combine with their die roll. An attack of a modified 11 is considered a success. There is no complex battle chart and no automatic hits. The attacker flips over the top card of the event deck and checks the result (indicated by an icon) based on the actual number of his modified roll. Results are more devastating with larger die roll results, but the various icons offer results.

The event cards are pretty cool. I had one in my hand that would have won me the game I played today, and I played it at the wrong time. My French troops had one of the three Victory hexes under control and on the last turn was in position to take the second one. In order to prevent the British from slipping in and taking that hex, I meleed an adjacent unit and got a result > 11. I was overjoyed.. it was the result I needed to play the card and move those Brits further away and they could not take the square. Then I had another melee with a result greater than 11 and could have forced his unit OFF of the Victory hex and moved onto it and would've controlled two of the three victory hexes... which would have won me the game since it was the last turn. A typical Dumbhead David move, I assure you!!!

I've decided I like miniature games, but don't care for handling a tape measure or yeardsitck around a gaming table with miniatures. Typical Dumbhead David move # 2 would be knocking over miniatures with the measuring implement. A Napoleonic battlefield should never look like a nuclear bomb went off on it or like Godzilla just stomped through. This is especially bad because I am not artistic at all and can't paint minis worth a darn. Since my gaming buddies CAN and actually CARE about all the hard work they have put into painting miniature figures they tend to become a bit cranky when this happens in a game.

So this game offers a huge gaming experience without the measuring, without the painting (though I am sure that there are some artistic fellows who will paint theirs) and without the constant purchases to keep adding to a collection. In other words, the $99.00 retail box is HUGE and OVERSIZED and packed with a lot of great, great stuff.

This game also offers a variety of rules-- we played with the simplest rules and had a great time, but I can sure see that the optional rules add even more depth and Napoleonic flavor.

Finally, while the game may look like a Port of Memoir '44, Battlecry, etc. it is not. There is much more depth here and I don't think players will be disappointed.

you Say You want an American Revolution (again!)

2010-10-09T20:42:00.000-07:00

I've now played Washington's War two different times. As a longtime fan of its predecessor, We the People, I had the potential to be either WOWED or DISMAYED. In this case, I lean a bit more toward the WOW side.

For those who are unware, Washington's War is a reboot of Mark Herman's ground-breaking American Revolution based game of Avalon Hill's We the People . GMT games has done a wonderful job with the graphics and game components. The hard-backed board appears to be a new standard for most GMT products, replacing the folded poster sized maps. The player aid card provided is simply gorgeous , very well organized and utilitarian.

In both my games I played the American Side and in both my games I lost. This limited experience might lead some players to believe that the American side is weak, but I'll have to admit that my losses both stemmed from a lack of comprehension of rules and mechanics and inability to utilize them to my advantage.

Players who are familiar with the original We the People can pick this one up and play it almost immediately. There are three major differences. First, the combat system has been completely revamped. Sadly, for me, the Battle Cards (a major innovation first introduced in We the People) are gone. Now, combat is won by the highest die roll with a number of modifiers. In regards to combat, I have to state that the Americans have to beware that the Brits have a slight edge in most cases, especially if they have the British regulars-which they usually do. The British side also gets a ton of reinforcements, especially in the early turns of the war. The second major difference is the "pick up" event cards. If an opponent discards one of your events you can play an ops card to pick up and play that event. The third change is that a player can play a battle card and after the combat he is permitted to draw a replacement card for his hand. This adds a new strategy-- fighting for the express purpose of using a battle card that may or may not help in order to draw another card and maybe improve your hand.

When I get a few more plays of this one under my belt I'll share more. At this time, I have to state my opinion that Washington's War is a really good game. After a few more plays I may revise that opinion, but thus far I have enjoyed the game and have a very positive regard for it.

In today's game, the war ended in 1781 (due to a mandatory card play) and I held 4 colonies while my opponent held 9. A clear loss, and if the war had gone further it would have been even worse for my side. I had lost almost all of my combat units due to Washington's inability to defeat a force entrenched in Philadelphia. Today, war was truly Hell for the Americans... we only hope that the next time I roll this one out I'll be able to turn those lobsterbacks into the sea.

How to Improve on Saint Petersburg

2010-09-08T09:44:00.000-07:00

I don't know about you, but I am not a fan of games where the entire game is wrapped up in taking turns making choices of offered items. For example, I strongly dislike Saint Petersburg, a game by Rio Grande games that, like Alea's Puerto Rico, is more of an exercise in frustration than an evening of fun.

I much prefer games where players get a chance. After playing Puerto Rico a number of times with cut-throat players I got fed up with other players taking the "job" that did not really help them, but would've greatly benefited me. Saint Petersburg is a bit more of the same. Players end up "hiring" cards (which represent various vocational characters or buildings). Many times, this means another player will make a selection just to prevent another player from taking that card. All of this based on a revolving turn order in which each player will go first in one of the four phases.

At least wargames have objectives that can be fought over. In games like Saint Petersburg a player is simple stuck with the luck of the turn order and can almost rest assured that the player who makes his selection/purchase will take the card that he wants. No fighting over it. No combat, just picking what someone else wants. The only actual restrain is cost.

So, I was thinking.. how could one improve Saint Petersburg. I've got several untested ideas I'll throw out. I haven't been able to convince my friends that like this game to try them yet, but if they want me to keep playing they will have to at least experiment with one or more of them.

ASSASINATION

First, I would propose an assasin variant. Perhaps a player could pay a certain amount to have another player's card assasinated. The cost of the assasination should be more expensive than the actual purchase of the card. I would suggest trying such a variant where the cost of an assasination would be COST + 3 of the card. So if a card initially cost 12 for a player to purchase, another player could pay 15 and destroy it. This action would, of course, be instead of making a purchase of a card.

DUEL

Or perhaps we could propose a duel variant. A player could, instead of purchasing a card, use on of his orange character cards to challenge another player's orange character card to a duel. The challenging card would have to be of equal or lessor cost of the card being challenged. Then, both players roll a 6 sided-die. High die roll wins and the losing card is eliminated OR "reincarnated" to the board, immediately available for purchase. Perhaps a die roll modifier should be added to prevent a 4 value character from challenging a 10 value character. Give a +1 to the die roll for the difference between values to the player with the highest value character. Perhaps a "Fine" for dueling should be paid by the loser to the bank.

WAR

How about an all out War? During the orange phase, a player could pay something like 10 and declare an attack on another player. Both players add up the value (cost + VP's) on the orange cards they wish to send into the battle. Each player rolls 2 six-sided dice and adds that result to their value. Player with the highest total value wins. The losing player must eliminate orange cards equal to the difference between the totals, not to exceed the number of cards he sent into battle. Therefore, a player who lost that only sent one card into the battle would only lose one card. The attacking player will not be able to count the victory points or collect money for cards that were in battle for that phase. The attacking player would have to declare which cards were going into battle. This system could be more throughly explored, adding rules for losing green cards in place of orange cards, etc.

All I am saying is that players deserve a fighting chance. Turn order should not determine the outcome of a game. Far too often, that is the case in Saint Petersburg, and I'm tired of seeing my ship fail to come in over and over and over.

I'd also like to add that while I loathe Puerto Rico, I thoroughly enjoy its sister game San Juan. Go figure!

Napoleonic Miniatures for Beginners!

2010-09-02T09:57:00.000-07:00

I got my first taste of "Napoleon's War" from Worthington Games last weekend and thought I would share my initial thinking. My opponent and I played from the first scenarios of this series, offered in a boxed set called "Napoleon's War: The Hundred Days." Rules range from simple to intermediate and then to advance, but honestly, there were no complex rules in the game. A basic 8 page rules set that lets the players scan and play is provided.

The maps have large hexes (similar to Avalon Hill's Battlecry!) and the terrain is essential to the strategy of both defensive and offensive players. On the Ligny map (shown above) the ridges played a huge role in combat. First, it blocked line of sight so that offensively players could not fire over it. Second, when shooting at a unit on the Ridge the attacker received one less die to cast. Third, a unit can shoot or move, but not both. Therefore, a unit moving onto a ridge becomes a sitting duck for units sitting on the other side. The unit moving onto the ridge will be fired upon before getting a chance to shoot. At least twice during our two games I moved a unit onto the Ridge in hopes of getting a shot at an opponent and then my opponent got lucky with his limited number of dice, rolling two sixes and thus eliminating my artillery unit with one volley. Artillery units may not be rebuilt.

The miniatures are simple plastic miniatures. The set we played with featured only two colors, grey and blue. I imagine other colors will be added in other expansions, judging by the photo above which comes from the Worthington Games website. The pieces were utilitarian, meaning they they were not works of art but worked well for gaming purposes.

I mentioned that artillery may not be rebuilt. Leaders, however, may "rally" a wounded unit (assuming the leader began the turn in the spot with the unit and that the unit or leader will not do anything else on that turn). It isn't automatic, a die roll is compared to the current morale of the hex, but if successful a figure that matches the unit being rallied is placed back into the hex.

Cavalry can charge and attack, but only if they are not "engaged" (in contact with an enemy unit) at the beginning of the turn. We did have problems interpreting the "Cannot shock combat, i.e. melee, across a stream" rule. The problem? Does that mean you cannot charge across a stream and move two hexes and shock, or does it only mean you cannot shock across a hex into a hex that is adjacent to the same stream? We took the most restrictive interpretation meaning that Cavalry could not shock if they crossed a stream on that turn. When Cavalry charges infantry, the infantry have a chance to form a square by rolling against their morale. If they are successful it becomes harder for Cavalry to effectively hit them. However, then the infantry is still in the square formation and the only thing that they can do on their next turn is fire at greatly reduced effect (only getting 1 die) or unform the square, which of course makes them vulnerable to another attack.

The system using a varying number of action points for each side. It costs one action point to move, shoot, melee (shock) rally, etc. At the beginning of the turn, a player is normally granted 4 action points and then rolls a die. Depending on the die roll, the player may have 5, 6 or 7 action points. (7 was the maximum). My opponent, a pleasant fellow who always has problems with hot and cold dice, seemed to always be hot when rolling for his extra command points and had 7 points per turn for nearly the entire game. I was lucky to have 5 most turns and only managed to obtain 7 two or three times in a twenty round game.

Combat is normally conducted using 3 dice. Normal rolls of 6's count as hits. Artillery will hit on 5's and 6's if they are adjacent. Cavalry can shock and obtain hits on 4's, 5's and 6's. A unit attacking a unit in some types of terrain will only be permitted to roll two dice instead of the normal 3.

This turned out to be a neat system and I really enjoyed the game. In a three hour period we managed to play the game twice. Setup is very simple because each map has a letter indicating what units go in that hex. There were minimal rules lookup and the game moved quickly once we knew the basics of movement and combat. We used the simple rules for the first game and intermediate rules for the second game.

If you're looking for a simple miniature game, I don't think it gets any simpler than this. I can easily see players substituting their painted miniatures for the plastic pieces and playing this one over and over again. Simple and very action-filled. Also, this would make a good introductory wargame for players about age 10 and up. Players who like games like "Battlecry" or "Memoir '44" or "Commmand and Colors" will definitely want to play this one.

I'm old, but I don't want to wear glasses to read those rules!

2010-08-11T12:02:00.001-07:00

Recently I was looking for a good five player game to play in our local gaming group. Since I prefer Wargames over Euro style games I am really tired of St. Petersberg, which I don't enjoy at all. So, I pulled out a copy of Avalon Hill's "Wizard's Quest" which I view as sort of a cross between a Euro and a wargame. Since it had been a very long time since I have played this classic (except a computer version I downloaded from somewhere) I felt it was probably wise fro me to look over the rules.

The rules for the game aren't really complex. However, I decided to create a quick start summary of the rules for my friends who had not played before. As I went through the rules I discovered some very interesting factors. I discovered two problems with the rules as I viewed them.

The first problem was the miniature type face on the printed page. I mean, I'm fifty-two years old, and the font used was proabably the correct size for the adventurers in Isaac Asimov's classic novel "Fantastic Voyage." I pulled out several other Avalon Hill titles from this period and discovered that indeed, almost all of the typeface used for these games were teensy-weensy.

As I proceeded with my project I found the reason for such a small typeface. The author(s) of the rules had written everything in such a wordy format that they took twenty-five words to say what could be communicated in ten or twelve. My 12 point font quickstart came in at 3.5 pages with minimal margins (top and bottom) and I feel that I communicated everything that was in the rules fairly thoroughly. In fact, when our group gets together I am certain that the rules summary I wrote will be pretty much all that is necessary to play the game.

Over the years, I have been daunted by rules for other Avalon Hill games. I never understood "Up Front" at all. I finally sold my copies of the game as unplayable, though I know that many players manage to play and derive great pleasure. I've got a copy of "Mosby's Raiders" that proved to be an exercise in frustration the one time I set the game up and tried to comprehend it. However, viewing the rules for "Arika Korps" was hardly daunting at all (except for the small print used).

I understand that writing rules is a complex operation. However, using more words is not necessarily better. At least the rules for "Wizard's Quest" were well organized and proceeded properly from phase to phase of the game. They were not confusing at all.

Over the next few weeks I'm going to pull out a few more of these beloved titles and see if I have avoided them because of small print or incomprehensible rules.

Now if I can just get the other guys in my group interested in a game that features FRENZYING ORCS!

Jazzed over Jena 20

2010-01-27T10:10:00.000-08:00

If you like the Napoleonic era you want to know about the products offered by Victory Point Games. Jena 20 is reasonably priced at $20.95 and offers a quick game that is exciting and fresh nearly everytime you play. I have played this one about five times and am delighted with its simplicty, ease of play, and of course, its fun factor. Jena is based on Napoleon's invasion of Prussia in October 1806.

First, there are only 20 counters in the game. That's right, only 20 counters. Unlike many wargames, you can have this game on the table an playing in literally minutes.

There are a number of strengths in this game. First, sticky zones of control. What this means is that once a player moves a unit adjacent to an enemy unit he cannot continue moving. Also, he cannot freely move in and out of an enemy zone of control. Players may be forced to retreat after a battle. This really is a strong point to the game because it forces some conflict and at times, forces a player to avoid conflict.

The morale point system creates a sturdy foundation for play. If a player's morale level ever drops to zero he loses immediately. A player can use morale points to do things like increase his defensive or offensive strength for a battle or to force march a unit (increase its movement by one). The most common loss of morale points comes from losing a battle. If a unit loses a battle and is forced to retreat (determined by a die roll) more than its normal movement factor than the overall morale drops a point. Players must work diligently to protect these morale points and to use them properly.

A randomizing factor are the events. The events are well-designed, none of them being super-powerful and none of them being game breakers. an event can bring in reinforcements or restore a morale point. An event may bring morning fog which would effect movement. While each event can impact the play of the game no event is likely to swing the momemtum of the game too far to one side or the other. The events add to the flavor and unpredictability of the game and add an extra level of pleasure to play.

The only drawback to these games is that they are printed from a desktop computer. However, let me say that the art is very high end and the quality of the components are far superior to most of the desktop printed products hawked on the internet. Alan Emrich and his team at Victory Point Games are doing things right.

Jena 20 is only one of a series of these small Napoleonic games. The others are just as good. Other titles include:
Albion 20
Dresden 20
Austerlitz 20
Borodino 20
Bussaco 20
Waterloo 20
Katzbach 20
Vittoria 20

There are also several expansion kits available to extend your gaming pleasure with these titles.

A deluxe version of Jena 20 is available in the most recent issue of C3i magazine.

For more on the Napoleonic 20 series (and many other wonderful small wargames) check out the website:

http://www.victorypointgames.com/

For more on the deluxe version of Jena 20 published in C3i # 23 check out the gmtgames website:

http://www.gmtgames.com/p-290-c3i-magazine-issue-23.aspx

Petroglyph Develops a Panzer Blitz of Its own!

2010-01-16T14:19:00.000-08:00

I recently bought an Xbox 360 (refurbished- do you think I am nuts enough to pay full price for a video game machine) and started playing over the internet via Xbox live. I'm too cheap to buy a new game so I settle for purchasing used games from my local GameStop! One of my favorite titles is the Quantum of Solace game, based on the 007 movie of the same name (but actually a mixture of action sequences based on both Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace). However, during a break I made an exciting discovery. I played a demo of "Panzer General: Allied Assault" and was instantly hooked. In moments, I had pulled out my credit card and purchased the full game. I was delighted later to discover that the game is in reality a boardgame that is being published by Petroglyph games. (The Xbox version is designed by Ubisoft).

So, how can I describe this one. It is a mixture of board and cardgame. The board is something like a chess board, with individual rectangles representing areas that are controlled by one side or the other. The goal of most games is to capture the home row of your opponent. Player may hold ten cards and the cards truly drive the game. Some cards are units, which allow placement of combat units. The units are fairly standard artillery, infantry, armor, mechanized, etc. Units can normally move one square. Moving into an enemy occupied square creates a combat situation.

Combat it really very, very cool. Each attacking unit has a specific attack level. Other surrounding units may be used for to support an attack. If a force attack a unit that is "dug in" then that unit gets to fire first. In the midst of a combat, players are allowed to play combat cards that can change the flow of the battle. Some of these do immediate damage to an enemy unit, some of them increase attack or defensive levels, etc. After both player finish playing combat actions players can burn ANY type of card using its level (7 is the highest I remember seeing) to boost their attack or defense level. Then, as if that wasn't enough, a die is rolled. The die has positive and negative 1-3) That number is either added or subtracted from the total attack being made and then the results are computed.

Another key element to the game is the use of prestige points. Players earn prestige points for holding territory or elimintating enemy units. Prestige points must be used to play cards (each card has a value of 0-7 on it).

The game has a great ebb and flow to it, whether playing another player online or simply playing against the artificial intelligence of the program. There is a large luck factor which will put some gamers off. After all, having the right cards in your hand may not be the easiest thing to accomplish. Still, players must use the proper strategic movement, plan the use of cards, and then choose when to make attacks, etc.

This game was a wonderful discovery and I can't wait to get my hands on an actual copy of the boardgame. In the meantime, my Xbox 360 is getting a lot of use between Quantum of Solace multiplayer, watching Netflix films, and playing Panzer General: Alllied Assault.

Stalingrad is burning & the Kaiser has Pirates

2009-09-28T09:29:00.000-07:00

Our most recent game club meeting was shortened due to another group that was supposedly going to meet in our shared space. My usual opponent brought shorter games to play and I'm glad he did. We played The Hell of Stalingrad which is a new offering from Clash of Arms. What we discovered was a very involved card game. I know, just the idea of a card game/wargame turns some people off. However, this complex card game did a wonderful job of simulating fighting from building to building.

The goal of the game is for the Germans to fight their way through a series of building and read the Volga river at four points. In order to accomplish this goal they may have to fight through a number of buildings at each point and these building are drawn randomly.

There are three decks for each player. A campaign deck, which applies affects that may be positive or negative to each player. (One campaign card is chosen per "round" for each player and its affects applied. The card might force the destruction of a unit, bring in a new leader, or offer reinforcements, etc.) Each player also has a deck of units and a deck of strategy cards. The German player decides which buildings he will be assaulting on this particular "round" (He might assault all four points, but it seemed best to me to concentrate on a couple at a time) and then assigns his attacking units. The defender then does the same. The German player determines in what order the assaults will be resolved. Then the assaults begin.

An initiative card is drawn from the "carnage" deck and it determines which side will have the initiative in the battle. Each building has an initiative result that benefits the player who wins initiative. They are all different. (By the way, the number of units that may be assigned to each building are all different as well) An initiative effect might increase the fire level of the building (which helps the Germans) or the bucket level (for the Russians of course) or it might provide an extra unit, a sniper shot, or some other action. Players then play their "vanguard" actions (based on the units in play) which might add units, kill opposing units, spread fire, etc. Then player alternate playing combat cards which are limited by their symbols. For example to play a combat card with a general symbol you must have a general in the battle. The same is true of infantry or armor combat cards.

At the beginning of the battle a carnage card also tells how long the battle will last. A battle lasts a particular number of "hold" actions. A hold action is not quite a "pass" because a player still gets to take some action, like a sniper shot, but does not play a card and the battle moves one step closer (usually 1-4) towards being resolved. Once the last "hold" action is used, players resolve the combat based on the number of counters that have been placed and survived the various card plays, the fire level of the building, etc. Dice are rolled. The player with the hightest rolled number wins. However, a tie may cause another round of dice to be rolled which may have a different number of dice. This randomness really added to the game. I was playing the Germans and thought several times I had lost a battle at a building only to get the right roll at the right time.

I don't feel that I have done a great job of describing this enjoyable game, but it was a blast and I can't wait to try it again. Oh, the Germans lost. I had to take one more building to win, but did not manage to do so.

We also played The Kaiser's Pirates, a newly released GMT product that has been described as Naval War on Steroids. There are no salvo cards, but there are a lot of neat features in this game which is a lot like Naval War. Players attack merchant ships belonging to the other players and attempt to identity raider ships or enemy warships. Each card is rated as to what type of dice it gets to use for battle. Once again, only the highest rolled die matters. Ships can be damaged (resulting in lower die modifiers) or sunk.

My opponent described it as pretty mindless, but there was definitely more meat provided than Naval War. Players could try to escape (and put their ships in their own reward pile) or plant mines. It was fun, even though my normal dice rolling ability failed me that afternoon.

Both games made for great filler games on a day when our normal 4-6 hour games could not be completed.

Reality Vs. Playability

2009-09-02T12:15:00.000-07:00

Are historical outcomes more important than balance in historical wargames? This is one discussion taking place on the internet right now. Some historical wargames seem to feel that their games should provide a history lesson. Others want to have a game that gives their side a chance to win.

This is certainly a problem for designers. How can you teach history and create a game that is fun at the same time. I have heard players describe Brittania (published by Fantasy Flight) as being too scripted and controlled. I disagree with that assesment.

Obviously when Worthington Games created Blood of Noble Men, a block based game on the Alamo, there was never any intention for the Texicans to be able to break out of the Alamo and drive Santa Ana's forces back to Mexico. In order to provide both sides an opportunity for a win, the Texans earned points which could amount to victory based on the number of losses that they caused. They still get slaughtered in the end, though. Some players would have a game balanced so that the Texans could rout the Mexican army. I think that would completely ruin the game.

What about a game depicting Custer's charge into the Native American encampment on the Little Big Horn? Would we want an actual chance for Custer to eliminate the Indian forces? Isn't it enough to give Custer a chance to escape with his scalp intact?

Once I managed to win a game of For the People as the Confederates. I managed to sneak around north and then move east in order to capture Washington, D.C. My opponent had miscounted the spaces and did not think I could get there. The South never invaded the North as I did. Did that mean the game was ruined because it violated historical probabilities?

I've rambled on and don't have much of an answer. I want to be able to win from either side, but I also want some level of historicity. I don't want to give Hitler the atomic bomb. I don't want machine guns at Saratoga. I want an outcome that COULD have happened, though, even if it was unlikely.

It's a Small World After All

2009-08-11T09:15:00.001-07:00

I had the privilige of playing a fairly simple Wargame Called Smallworld several months ago and was impressed with the way this multiplayer game (and the more the merrier would be my opinion works) fits together. This is one of those games where a player gains points for conquering territory. Combat is automatic (no dice or Combat Results Tables). Our game was fun and despite the fact we had five players the game lasted no more than 90 minutes.

The unique thing about the game is that it is based on a bit more complex game called Vinci that normally takes a bit longer. Each player will have a chance to play multiple races of fantasy types. There are trolls, orcs, wizards, halflings, vampires, amazons, etc. Each race obtains a special power as they come into play. Some can skip spaces, some have special benefits in certain terrain areas, some don't require as many "units" for battle. The special powers are randomly matched to the races at the beginning of the game. With a number of races and a number special powers some hilarious combos can come up. In ourgame we had beserker Halflings and we all laughed a lot about the damage these do.

The game plays something like History of the World, minus the dice, in that the players attempt to extend their empires and try to protect previous empires (to a small extent) so that they can continue to earn victory points. Players may obtain a second race by declaring that their current race is going into "decline" which means it stops being active.

For some, the game is nothing more than picking up chits and moving them around, rinse and repeat. If the combat was a bit more risky it might have a stronger appeal to those folks. However, I found the game to be a neat filler game with some fun flavors and laughter. It isn't your typical wargame, and I think after a dozen or so games it will tend to lose its appeal. However, I found it to be a lot of fun and a neat change of pace.

Days of Wonder has done an excellent job with the components and artwork with the exception of the annoying mountains {loose cut moveable terrain} that we did not understand the purpose of since the mountains were already printed on all of the boards (different boards are used depending on the number of players in a game). I won't rush out and buy this one, but if I'm waiting to play something and someone brings it out-- I'm in!

Finally, an optional rule probably ought to be instituted that any players who begins to hum the tune from Disneyland's "It's a Small World After All" ride will immediately be forced to leave the game, the table, and the gaming room.

Is Conan Really A Barbarian?

2009-03-30T10:27:00.000-07:00

"Age of Conan" is an interesting hybrid of Eurogame and wargame. The game was more of a Euro-style game than a wargame, but I wasn't disappointed in the wargame elements. The game is published by Nexus and Fantasy Flight Games.

The game is divided into three "ages." Each epic age is divided into four adventures. These adventures vary in length but really serve as a static method of determining when a scoring round begins. There are four adventures and when the final adventure of an "age" is completed, a scoring round occurs. Players can see how close they are to that scoring round at all times. It may take more or less turns in order to complete an adventure. When a new adventure is placed a number of tiles based on the adventure card (usually 3-4 in our game) are placed on the board. The adventure is over when the last of those tiles is claimed.

Those tokens are divided into several different categories that have no real bearing on the game except players that collect the most tokens in a particular category earn bonus points at the conclusion of the game. There are several ways to claim these tokens. A player may take a fate die with the Conan emblem on it in order to gain a token. The player who controls Conan earns one of these tokens by moving Conan towards the destination revealed on the current adventure card.

One player will control Conan until the completion of an adventure. At that point, players have chits and cards in which they bid in order to control Conan. The highest bidder (card value + chit value) earns the privilege of controlling Conan. All bidders lose the cards and the chits that they used to bid with. When I say "lose" I mean that the cards return to the deck and the chits are removed from the game. However, there some really interesting factors to be applied. If a player bids using his 3 chit he may keep that chit. If a player bids using his zero chit, the other chits are placed back in the game and available for his use.

The player who controls Conan gets to move the Conan figure at the beginning of each of his turns. If the player moves Conan towards the current adventure destination he obtains an adventure token. However, he may choose to move Conan to a destination that is away from that destination which discards the adventure token. He might wish to do this so that he can enlist Conan into one of his armies in order to earn a combat bonus. He might also be attempting to prevent his opponents from crowning Conan as King in the final age. He may also be attempting to move Conan into his home province so that he himself can crown Conan. An attempt to crown Conan may not succeed. In fact, if the player is unable to crown Conan (by having him in his home province and having the most adventure tokens in a particular category) then Conan slays the player and he is immediately eliminated from the game. Crowning Conan does not assure a victory, but the bonus points certainly do help.

All actions in the game are determined by a choice from the fate dice. Unlike some of the Euro style games that I strongly dislike where a player may be left with a choice that cannot help him in any shape form or fashion (Puerto Rico) every choice helps the player. Fate dice have symbols on them and players take turns choosing one of the fate dice (as rolled) until they are all used up and they are immediately rerolled. Players are limited in their choices by the icons that were rolled on the seven fate dice. The military icon allows a player to build a military unit, move armies, or attack with armies. The Intrigue icon allows a player to establish a diplomatic alliance with a neutral territory, or to send a diplomat to an opponent's territory and obtain gold. A court action allows a player to draw new cards either from his own deck or the common strategy deck.

Cards play an important part of this game. Adventure cards define the length and locations of a Conan adventure. Each player power has his own customized deck of cards which are built towards specific strengths of that power. Another set of cards provide extra objectives. (At the end of an adventure players check to see if they met any of those objectives and earn extra victory points.) Strategy cards may provide a bonus for a battle or an intrigue action, but also may be used in bidding for Conan at the beginning of an adventure.

However, the center point of the game is the conquering of territories via a campaign. Most areas have multiple areas of terrain. A Player must beat the enemy strength in the first terrain area before moving on to the next. Therefore, a player may need to take multiple turns to defeat a neutral territory. He may also choose to "force march" and continue a campaign by eliminating one of his army units and continuing the fight.

Our game did not see very much player attacking other players and perhaps we played a bit too conservatively. The game system rewards players who conquer enemy armies with Crom tokens (this is not the case in conquering neutral territories) and the player with the most of these tokens at the end of the game earns extra victory points.

Battles are fought using specialty dice created for the game. They have multiple icons that I won't take the time to explain except to state that at times player will play strategy cards which allow them to earn a "hit" result on icons that normally would count as misses. This made the game more interesting because we weren't just comparing numbers like one through six, but had to look carefully at each icon to determine whether it counted as a hit or not.

We took about four hours to play this game, but this included having rules explained to us. I can see the game being played easily in 2 or 2.5 hours. This also would have been easier if the rules and player reference cards were more in sync. Some steps in the rules were in a different order than on the player card. Also, we had difficulty with some of the cards which referred to moving into and attacking a friendly area. Why would a player want to attack an area that was friendly to himself? We finally decided that there has to be some sort of problem with translation, but this did cause several short delays.

I believe all four players enjoyed the game and are anxious to play it again. My buddy, Mark Kazmarek, stated that he was glad he had ordered the game because he really enjoyed it. There are lots of things to do in this game and multiple ways to win. I don't believe any player lacked the opportunity to win the game. There are lots of fiddly little components and plastic miniatures, towers, and cities. The game is chocked full of cards and thick cardboard chits and tokens. I believe it would be hard for an owner of this game to claim that he did not get his money's worth.

You don't have to read the Conan books to enjoy this game, but it probably might add to its flavor. If he were still around, Robert E. Howard would likely be more thrilled with this incarnation of Conan than any of Arnold's movies featuring the mighty warrior.

When is too much errata too much?

2009-03-27T08:16:00.000-07:00

I recently accidentally started a bit of a flame war. Yes, it really was accidentally. Okay, it was very short and all the flames were directed at me. I discovered that I am a whiney little runt. I just asked a very simple question over on Consimworld in the folder established for discussion of Compass Games' "Spartacus." The header of the folder listed (at the time) ten items of errata or clarification and the game has only been in the public arena for a few weeks. My question was "Doesn't that seem like a lot of errata/clarifications for a brand new game?"

The developer, Neil Randall, responded that most errata and clarifications occur within the first few months after a game is released. Players are quick to discover rules that are not as clear as the design team felt they were. Rules Lawyers quickly discover loopholes large enough to drive an army through. Fortunately for "Spartacus" most of the eleven items (as this is being written, anyway) are actually just clarification statements, though there are a few actual rule changes.

I've never gone through the huge process of publishing a game and making certain that the rules make sense to all involved so one day I may delete my comments here, should I ever go through the pains of creating a game. However, it just seems that some design teams seem destined to design games that are so overwrought with errors, design flaws, and incomprehensible rules that they have to be completely rewritten. Design Teams are extremely defensive about such problems. Of course, the designer and developer and probably the majority of the playtest team understand the rules.

One example of such a mess was GMT's version of "Blackbeard", designed by Richard Berg and developed by Neil Randall. A discussion ensued in the GMT folder of Consimworld. Someone mentioned that the game was terrible and full of incomprehensible rules. Other players claimed that one mechanic seemed broken. Richard Berg chimed in that indeed that particular exploitation was problematic, but that it was being fixed in the new edition. I asked how much errata was there for the game and the designer Neil Randall immediately declared that there was absolutely no errata for "Blackbeard." This was very confusing because Mr. Berg was defending the game as playable while it seemed that a number of people who had actually played the game either agreed OR disagreed strongly. The major complaint that those who disagreed was over the huge volumns of errata and clarifications that had been made. Yet, here was the developer stating boldly that the game had absolutely no errata. Eventually, the muddy waters were cleared when we discovered that the game and its rules had been entirely rewritten and the latest version had yet to receive any errata. Come on-- if you have to rewrite a rules set based on a number of flubs, flaws, goofs, and lack of clarity it is not really 100% honest to state that a game has no errata.

Once again, though, should we throw stones at these guys? I have difficulty getting our church bulletin done without mistakes. I've had some embarrassing misprints, too. Listing wrong days or times for events causes confusion. I would prefer not to mention (but I will for your enjoyment) the times the bulletin called for us to sing hymns like "What a fiend we Have in Jesus" and "O For a Thousand Tongues to Sin." Documents which describe game mechanics, concepts, and ideas must be so much more difficult to put together.

However, then we tell ourselves, "but these guys are professionals, they should know how to do it correctly." Gamers either forget or don't understand that most designers are hobby gamers who have real life jobs. The designer of "1960: The making of the President" and "Twilight Struggle," (two very successful games with multiple printings) hasn't resigned from his day job as an aide to a Congressman. Most designers have to work at another job in order to support their hobby. Even the prolific Richard Berg mentioned that he was obtaining a "reverse mortgage" on his house. There is very little, if any, money to be earned from designing games. Should we pour our complaints onto these hobbyists turned designers?

Flip the coin over and examine the other side. You just shelled out $50-$60 for a new game and the rules are so difficult you put the game on the shelf and give up. It is a rotten feeling to buy a game that seems unplayable. The publishers owe it to the gamers to get the game right. Gamers will tolerate silly spelling errors on the map. They should not mind if a comma or two get misplaced in the rules. But the game should be playable out of the box because that what the $50 or $60 was for. If you buy a DVD player that doesn't play DVD's then there should be some sort of warranty. If a game is so badly written that the rules have to be completely rewritten then the publisher obviously did not fulfill his end of the contract-- providing the buyer with an actual game.

The old Avalon Hill was afflicted with the errata bug. Of course, this was before my time, but I've seen copies of "The General" that offered errata on games. I've heard of those who used to send their rules questions via snail mail and wait for weeks or months for a response. There are some who would argue that in today's internet entrenched world we should not worry about errata or clarifications too much because they are instantly provided. While I am grateful for the internet, I don't think it should become a crutch to prop up a poorly written set of rules. Developers, designers, and publishers have become lazy. They justify the publication of games that are not quite fully playtested because they can publish a fix for their errors very quickly on the internet.

Designers defend themselves in Consimworld forums everyday. In the case of "Blackbeard" Richard Berg pointed out that many players purchased the first GMT edition, understood the game, enjoyed it, and recommended it to their friends. The fact that there was enough interest in a second GMT printing is evidence in itself that the game wasn't as bad as some folks felt. Some developers declare that a lot of the errata is really nothing more than clarifications and seem to feel as if clarifications don't count because no two people read a sentence the same way. Yet a number of players were disappointed in the game because of confusing rules and exploitable mechanics.

Sometimes, they are right. It is often very difficult to communicate via the written word. After all, you probably didn't understand very much of what I have written here, have you?

Priority Mail Usually Works for Me

2009-03-11T10:09:00.000-07:00

As a frequent buyer and seller of wargames on Ebay, etc. I usually prefer to use priority mail for most of my shipping. It is fairly simple to add tracking/delivery confirmation and therefore I can know where my package is whether I am sending or receiving.

Until now. This last week I experienced the first shortfall with priority mail. I purchased a copy of the classic "Hannibal at Bay" from a user on Consimworld. He shipped the package promptly and provided me with a tracking number. That was last Monday. This Monday, when the package still hadn't arrived I checked the tracking number only to be told that the package was delivered at 12:46 P.M. on Thursday, March 5. The sad thing is that this package was not delivered to our house.

This minor crisis (Hey, I'm about to be out $20.00- including the shipping) led me to call the United States Postal Service. Of course, such a call really accomplishes nothing. Then, yesterday, after receiving no response, I placed a call to the local post office. Once again, someone took my information and promised to return my call after 5 P.M. Of course, I never received that phone call and the package still hasn't shown up.

I can't blame the shipper. The post office says they made the delivery. So what do I do?

In the future, I can pay for postal insurance and I wouldn't be out my $20.00, but that isn't really the issue. So what is the issue? I want my game! So I guess I will cry like a baby to the post office again today. After that, I guess I'll just do all that I can to keep myself from going postal.

The Speed Round

2009-03-03T10:10:00.000-08:00

We've all had those experiences with a gamer who experiences "analysis paralysis." You know what I mean, don't you? You have time to fall asleep when an opponent is taking his turn because he takes so much time thinking out his move. He repetitively reviews his position, his resources, and possible moves while you begin to snore. Just before your head hits the table and upsets the board he announces his move only to immediately decide that move isn't going to work for him and he needs to rethink the move. Back to square one.

We discovered a game that really punishes the player who attempts to over-think his game. The name of the game is Galaxy Trucker and it is a real hoot, though our slowpoke player really despises the game because it forces him to rush.

This is not a typical strategy game by any means, but it is a lot of fun. Each player has a placard that represents a spaceship. Tiles are placed face down on the table and players must pick up tiles and either place them (according to placement rules) on his ship. There are cargo compartments, alien life support systems, engines, lasers, shields, etc. At any point during this segment of the game another player can flip an hourglass making it a timed process. Players madly attempt to find the component that they need with the proper type of connnection, etc. before the time expires. When time expires, players check each other's ships for illegal configurations and those illegally placed items are removed and players are penalized during the scoring round for each one of these.

You can well imagine that the more thoughtful player doesn't enjoy being rushed in his building process. After the build, players venture forth on a trek. Along the way, they will encounter asteroids, have a chance to land and pick up cargo, fight pirates or slavers, etc. These events (represented by cards) all interact with the manner in which a player has built his ship. For example, a player may need a certain number of lasers to defeat pirates. A player may have parts of his ship destroyed by asteroids or he may have placed shields to protect him. Then, there is a scoring round. Players lose points for parts of their ships that are destroyed and gain points for delivering cargo, etc.

Players then flip their placards to a more advanced ship (holds more tiles) and go through the process over again. This time, more difficult event cards are randomly added and players have a little longer adventure. After the third round, the player with the most victory points wins.

The whole game can be played in about forty minutes or so and provides a great deal of laughter-from most of our group anyway. The slowest player still doesn't really enjoy it much. Galaxy Trucker isn't the most strategic of games, but it makes a good "filler" game. No deep thinking required here and Rio Grande offers a few expansions if the basic game becomes stale.

David "the preacher" Wilson