Oh, I rather enjoy the game. Great warm-up. Just not a $45 warm-up. I paid $25 for Castellan, and that was definitely worth it.
Castellan is a bullshit game. It mathematically breaks down to the dots game. Directional heuristics are fiddly. To play truly effectively, you need to perform long and complex calculations.
If you play Castellen, and spend less than 10 minutes each turn deciding what to do, you are playing sub-optimally.
Well, I don't know that it's "bullshit" just because it breaks down to the Dots game. I mean, all games break down to something.
I could see calling it bullshit because Dots requires a pen and paper, but then you don't get to fiddle with plastic castle bits. Who doesn't love plastic castle bits?
Oh, I love plastic castle bits. But here's how my first game of it went down:
1. Learn rules
2. Look at hand, realize that the last two moves of the game will literally be the only ones that matter, just like with dots and the "long chains" problem (the moves before are both so small in scale and meaningless to the final knowable result at the end of the game that they had might as well be random unless fully analyzed at every juncture)
3. Realize that the only way to actually play to win is to fully analyze the decision tree every turn, including before I make my second move.
4. Play the longest, most interminable game of Castellan ever seen by man or beast, fully calculating odds and results of each move at every stage, including taking into account what cards (the game is symmetric, after all) my opponent has not yet played.
5. Calculate who definitively wins several moves before the end.
6. Vow to never play Castellan again.
Castellan and Dots require the exact same types of mental calculations. ANYONE who plays these games in person without the aid of a computer is mostly acting randomly until the last n turns. More skilled players simply have a higher value for n.
n, however, is always significantly smaller than the total number of turns in the game.
The game is random bullshit (unless you make lengthy, difficult calculations at every single decision point) until the last n turns, whereupon it collapses immediately into a foregone conclusion.
There is an illusion of skill or making a big comeback (just as in Dots), but this is provided almost entirely by the typical disconnect between each player's value for n. If my value for n is two more than yours, then I know that the game is a foregone conclusion (and know the result) two turns before you do. My decisions and actions from that point forward will seem blithe, as though I have some level of skill or gnosis beyond you, when in fact the difference is nothing more than one's willingness to engage in petty, time-consuming calculation.
"Strategies" don't exist until you hit your n value. You have three courses of action available, one of which illusory except against very inept opponents.
1. Take your turns quickly and make highly destabilizing placements. The goal is to unnerve your opponent and disrupt their calculations, while hoping that you are able to calculate the endgame before they are able to.
2. Fully analyze the game each turn, and make no moves until you have synthesized literally all extant information. To wit, this means literally not taking your turn until you have calculated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, who will win because of the move that you just made.
3. Act semi-randomly and play until someone wins.
Course 1 doesn't work if your opponent is apt: she'll just take as long as necessary to calculate and ignore your psychological warfare.
Course 2 will likely cause your opponent to quit (in which case, you win I suppose).
Oh, I rather enjoy the game. Great warm-up. Just not a $45 warm-up. I paid $25 for Castellan, and that was definitely worth it.
Castellan is a bullshit game. It mathematically breaks down to the dots game. Directional heuristics are fiddly. To play truly effectively, you need to perform long and complex calculations.
If you play Castellen, and spend less than 10 minutes each turn deciding what to do, you are playing sub-optimally.
Well, I don't know that it's "bullshit" just because it breaks down to the Dots game. I mean, all games break down to something.
I could see calling it bullshit because Dots requires a pen and paper, but then you don't get to fiddle with plastic castle bits. Who doesn't love plastic castle bits?
[Explination]
Now I personally have not played it myself but has anyone tried the 4 player aspect of this game (buying two copies in the appropriate color) to see if it breaks down the same way or are we just talking two player?
Oh, I rather enjoy the game. Great warm-up. Just not a $45 warm-up. I paid $25 for Castellan, and that was definitely worth it.
Castellan is a bullshit game. It mathematically breaks down to the dots game. Directional heuristics are fiddly. To play truly effectively, you need to perform long and complex calculations.
If you play Castellen, and spend less than 10 minutes each turn deciding what to do, you are playing sub-optimally.
Well, I don't know that it's "bullshit" just because it breaks down to the Dots game. I mean, all games break down to something.
I could see calling it bullshit because Dots requires a pen and paper, but then you don't get to fiddle with plastic castle bits. Who doesn't love plastic castle bits?
[Explination]
Now I personally have not played it myself but has anyone tried the 4 player aspect of this game (buying two copies in the appropriate color) to see if it breaks down the same way or are we just talking two player?
That was a really solid explanation, actually. I usually play semi-randomly for the first turn or two, and then do coarse odds calculations until roughly half the cards are played. So I suppose I ramp up the "odds calculation" game over time.
I have no idea about the 4 player game. I imagine it's just a vastly more complex iteration of the 2 player game.
The majority of the times that I play games with friends, I am playing with people who don't over analyze, and play in the moment from early to mid game, then some of them will start to think their moves out more thoroughly in the end, but in general, they are playing to have fun. I use it as practice to figure out strategies work, and what doesn't, but in the end, playing for the pure social aspect of playing.
Went to the Uncommons board game cafe backer party on Saturday w/ a friend. Bumped into Scott and played a bunch of games. The selection of games was OK, nothing to write home about and missing a lot of ideal games to play in that sort of setting, but since the place is brand new the selection was skewed very much towards new releases.
Got to check out Relic Runners, which is the new Days of Wonder game that came out like, yesterday, and Augustus, which was up for the Spiel last year against Hanabi.
Relic Runners is a refined Tikal (a "classic" that has not aged well). Once we got into it, turns were lasting <30 seconds, so the game really moved. I can see it being a hit w/ people who haven't played a lot of board games, but I think most people here would be too experienced for it. There's a nice arc to the game, with early exploration turns and "big move" later turns, and shiny bits, so newbies will love it.
However, there are three skills you can build up, one of which nets massive VP, and dwarfs the other two. Scott pegged this ability right away and charge it up twice to stomp the table (while I completely botched my play by misremembering some key rules, even though I was the one who read the book). I just can't see a winning strategy coming out of a focus on the other two skill columns, so it's a pretty crappy illusion of choice. Honestly, I'd only play it again b/c I'm stubborn and want to not fuck it up. If I'd won, I'd probably be done with this game.
Augustus was bingo set in ancient Rome. 7 bingo cards completed ends the game. Everyone plays 3 at once, and refills from a public market of 5 bingo cards. There are some longest road/largest army type bonuses, so you judge the following things on a card: how hard it is to complete, how many VPs you get for the card, any special ability it triggers, how close it will get you to an end-game bonus. Make those decisions w/ a bit of an eye towards whether other players are likely to nab those bonuses before you, or end the game in a hurry, but for the most part, it's solitaire. You are also limited to 7 bingo marker dots a time (roman meeples), and most cards take 3 to 6 to complete (you can earn an extra meeple or 2 if you nab a good card).
It's totally random but I'd play Augustus again. It was super short and easy to teach. I read the whole book in half a turn of Dungeon Roll.
Speaking of Dungeon Roll: avoid. It's random built on random, and turns take way too long for a dice game where nobody else does anything else on their turn. It's Diablo dice, but if you roll a few treasure chests and randomly pick the good treaure chits, you can run away with the game.
Last game was Wufhel Bohnanza, the German Bohnanza dice game, which I am a big fan of and have talked about before. Please do not play this with 5 people, or even 4. You'll want to blow your brains out. It's great with 2 or 3, but again, too much waiting.
I can say one good thing about dungeon roll, and that is the mechanics and the theme match really well. You roll dice to create a "party" of adventurers. They get expended to fight guys in the dungeon. As you go deeper, there are more evil dice per level. It's just that, as you said, it's random and takes too long for such a light dice game.
Just don't play Dungeon Roll with four players. A few months ago I got trapped in an hour-long game with no way to politely excuse myself doing that!
I somehow ended up playing a bunch of new games after Burning Con:
Neuroshima Hex is kind of perfect for playing on a phone or tablet - I can't imagine dealing with it in cardboard form. It's similar to Summoner Wars in some ways, but I strongly prefer the way its combat cascades across the entire board in a deterministic fashion.
Ambivalent about Nothing Personal. Enjoyed my first play, possibly too long (box says two hours, our game took four with the rules explanation). Once a game gets past 90 minutes I have to really like it for it to see multiple plays... but I would play this again if it actually took two hours.
Also ambivalent about Firefly. Very punishing if you don't know how to properly mitigate failure, which makes the first game an entertaining experience as reavers kill all of your crew, then come back next turn just to kill Jayne. The one player with experience didn't do any better than the rest of us, so the dice and cards might control your fate more than I suspect. You could probably play this with a simultaneous turn variant, which could nearly eliminate downtime in a four-player game. Another "two hour" game that I'm actually looking forward to playing again.
And finally, those play-by-post Hacienda games. Hacienda gives you a lot of granularity in determining actions for your turn: half a dozen ways to score points, two ways to make money, all of them are available every turn, and your decisions actually get easier as the game goes on. If that doesn't bother you (it doesn't really bother me), it's actually quite good.
We're doing the 25-hour Extra Life charity gaming marathon this weekend and it's going to be a fucking stellar event, made even more so by the fact that we just hit our fundraising goal of $1,000. This triggers a $100 gift card giveaway from our local game store (which also has an online shop), so if you're interesting in kicking in even just $5, it'll get you one entry into the raffle. Donate here, and maybe win money to buy gaaaaaaames
We're doing the 25-hour Extra Life charity gaming marathon this weekend and it's going to be a fucking stellar event, made even more so by the fact that we just hit our fundraising goal of $1,000. This triggers a $100 gift card giveaway from our local game store (which also has an online shop), so if you're interesting in kicking in even just $5, it'll get you one entry into the raffle. Donate here, and maybe win money to buy gaaaaaaames
I am also doing a board game charity thingy this weekend in West Chester, best of luck with yours.
Got my copy of Velociraptor! Cannibalism! yesterday as well as our copy of King of Tokyo with Power Up and Halloween expansion. The Halloween xpac has an exclusive card for the next set which deals with New York. I am hoping to play Velociraptor! Cannibalism! soon as well.
I am also doing a board game charity thingy this weekend in West Chester, best of luck with yours.
I played 12 solid hours of games, culminating in a game of Netrunner against an opponent who listens to the podcast. If you read this, PM me so I know what your forum name is. :P
So how it shook down over this past weekend is that Pence and I played almost every game together so be warned: this list is long (and in no particular order).
KingMaker - Yes the Avalon Hill classic was placed on the table, and although we did the basic rules the game was really good that could use some adjustments to make it suited better for modern gaming times.
I won with an alliance but to be fair the only reason he broke his alliance to join with me was due to the fact I was the only Archbishop on the table.
Innovation - I went down the special achievement path and lost, sadly the lack of attack the score pile cares did not enter my hand quick enough to have the tides turn
Freaky Floor - A Friedman Freese game that is the normal get out of the dungeon, avoid the monster scenario. My spacial ability/robo rally experience allowed me to dominate and get my two guys before 1 turn into the second round.
Glen More - I somehow lost exactly 6 coins and need to find dimed sized proxies -_-. However the game was fun and made a euro hater enjoy the light euro style of this game.
Caylus - Finally was able to play this with Pence and came in a close second, sadly I knew he was going to win the game, however if I stopped him I would have went from 2nd to 4th while denying him 1st place. So as the saying goes, let someone else do the dirty work and no one did.
Power Grid - We did Qubec with Robots making it a four player game and I made two critical errors end game that allowed me to not win, namely due to not predicting when the game would have ended wrong twice.
It was fun having three players and a robot when I was the one who made the robot screw people over and used him to create a barrier into Quebec.
I am probability missing a game or two but I will let it be for now.
What Coldguy said - Caylus, Fearsome Floors, and Glen More were all new to me. Caylus is great, Fearsome Floors fills a niche by playing up to seven people, and Glen More is in my wheelhouse.
The other two games we played on Saturday are Fairy Tale and Glory to Rome.
At our Extra Life marathon, we played a lot of board games, including some new/recent releases I hadn't previously played:
Robinson Crusoe - At its heart, another bullshit co-op game. Pretty cool theme, incorporated in some pretty cool ways. You might convince me to play again but I'd never ever consider owning it. I strongly suspect most of the plays are downright impossible to win even w/ perfect play due to numerous low-odds elements of luck stacking on top of each other (think Ghost Stories). This has a reputation as a brutally difficult co-op due to it being filled with bullshit.
Suburbia - AWESOME GAME! Finally, a strategy game that is tight and competitive, and doesn't overstay its welcome. Was very skeptical of the designer (his claim to fame is crappy Werewolf variants?) but oh wait! he also specializes in making Age of Steam expansions. Huge board game nerd genius alert.
Anyways, Suburbia is awesome. It's city-building, which is a very underutilized theme (those who have attempted usually get it wrong). Suburbia plays fast. <60 min with 2 players. Easy enough to teach and play but w/ a fair amount of strategy. It's got enough mechanics in place to force you to really consider your actions. It might look like "multiplayer solitaire" but you can score points off of your opponents actions (and they can do the same off of yours) so it keeps you engaged a bit. You are also buying from a public market, and can manipulate it, so there's some indirect interaction there as well.
It's got some public end-game bonuses, and some hidden individual ones as well, so between that, and everything I mentioned above, it's got enough heuristics and enough of a challenge to warrant playing again and again in my eyes.
I want to try both it and Castles of Burgundy again to see how they compare. Both 60 min 2-player strategy games, and I suspect Burgundy is the better game, but Suburbia is the first thing to come along in 2 years that has come close.
I want to try both it and Castles of Burgundy again to see how they compare. Both 60 min 2-player strategy games, and I suspect Burgundy is the better game, but Suburbia is the first thing to come along in 2 years that has come close.
Come join the PA Forumites sometime and I can teach you Burgundy.
Suburbia IS quite good, and between new buildings and the addition of borders, the upcoming expansion looks like a good ratio of variety to complexity.
Burgundy is a really good game. I just feel that after playing it 2-3 times I've mostly figured it out. I do want to play a few more times with different maps, though.
I want to try both it and Castles of Burgundy again to see how they compare. Both 60 min 2-player strategy games, and I suspect Burgundy is the better game, but Suburbia is the first thing to come along in 2 years that has come close.
Come join the PA Forumites sometime and I can teach you Burgundy.
Oh, I own and have played Burgundy, but it's just been a while, and I want to play again to see how it compares. I put it up against Suburbia b/c they both strike me as 4p strategy games that work quite well with 2 players. The additional maps are indeed fun and extend the shelf life of the game quite a bit.
Burgundy is a really good game. I just feel that after playing it 2-3 times I've mostly figured it out. I do want to play a few more times with different maps, though.
Once you hit that point when you can crush everyone with the basic maps, go to BGG and print out the Speilbox and tournament maps they turn the game into a whole new level of hard.
One of my friends locally got their Ogre box, holy shit is that thing freaking huge and awesome. Rym I'm not sure you can hold that game in your apartment. Didn't play the game though so can't say how it plays. but that game easily should be 300 dollars.
Shame... pretty sure that will get errata, but still annoying that it's already printed on the tile in broken form.
It doesn't lessen my interest in Caverna at all, since it doesn't seem like a fundamental problem ala the degenerate strategy in A Few Acres of Snow - just one broken piece of the game.
Nooooooo. I had just watched a video overview of the gameplay and it looked so so good. Was almost about to plunk down for expensive pre-order. Will hold off now.
Comments
D-Day Dice: Taught someone how to go and play the game and sprinted to the end so they get the idea on how to play the game.
Hannabi: Always fucking 18!
Glen More: I won with 40, although it has been very long since I played last, the table disagreed with me.
I also now have a copy of Channel A, MAGFest can not come soon enough.
1. Learn rules
2. Look at hand, realize that the last two moves of the game will literally be the only ones that matter, just like with dots and the "long chains" problem (the moves before are both so small in scale and meaningless to the final knowable result at the end of the game that they had might as well be random unless fully analyzed at every juncture)
3. Realize that the only way to actually play to win is to fully analyze the decision tree every turn, including before I make my second move.
4. Play the longest, most interminable game of Castellan ever seen by man or beast, fully calculating odds and results of each move at every stage, including taking into account what cards (the game is symmetric, after all) my opponent has not yet played.
5. Calculate who definitively wins several moves before the end.
6. Vow to never play Castellan again.
Castellan and Dots require the exact same types of mental calculations. ANYONE who plays these games in person without the aid of a computer is mostly acting randomly until the last n turns. More skilled players simply have a higher value for n.
n, however, is always significantly smaller than the total number of turns in the game.
The game is random bullshit (unless you make lengthy, difficult calculations at every single decision point) until the last n turns, whereupon it collapses immediately into a foregone conclusion.
There is an illusion of skill or making a big comeback (just as in Dots), but this is provided almost entirely by the typical disconnect between each player's value for n. If my value for n is two more than yours, then I know that the game is a foregone conclusion (and know the result) two turns before you do. My decisions and actions from that point forward will seem blithe, as though I have some level of skill or gnosis beyond you, when in fact the difference is nothing more than one's willingness to engage in petty, time-consuming calculation.
"Strategies" don't exist until you hit your n value. You have three courses of action available, one of which illusory except against very inept opponents.
1. Take your turns quickly and make highly destabilizing placements. The goal is to unnerve your opponent and disrupt their calculations, while hoping that you are able to calculate the endgame before they are able to.
2. Fully analyze the game each turn, and make no moves until you have synthesized literally all extant information. To wit, this means literally not taking your turn until you have calculated, to a reasonable degree of certainty, who will win because of the move that you just made.
3. Act semi-randomly and play until someone wins.
Course 1 doesn't work if your opponent is apt: she'll just take as long as necessary to calculate and ignore your psychological warfare.
Course 2 will likely cause your opponent to quit (in which case, you win I suppose).
Course 3 is a boring and meaningless game.
I have no idea about the 4 player game. I imagine it's just a vastly more complex iteration of the 2 player game.
Got to check out Relic Runners, which is the new Days of Wonder game that came out like, yesterday, and Augustus, which was up for the Spiel last year against Hanabi.
Relic Runners is a refined Tikal (a "classic" that has not aged well). Once we got into it, turns were lasting <30 seconds, so the game really moved. I can see it being a hit w/ people who haven't played a lot of board games, but I think most people here would be too experienced for it. There's a nice arc to the game, with early exploration turns and "big move" later turns, and shiny bits, so newbies will love it.
However, there are three skills you can build up, one of which nets massive VP, and dwarfs the other two. Scott pegged this ability right away and charge it up twice to stomp the table (while I completely botched my play by misremembering some key rules, even though I was the one who read the book). I just can't see a winning strategy coming out of a focus on the other two skill columns, so it's a pretty crappy illusion of choice. Honestly, I'd only play it again b/c I'm stubborn and want to not fuck it up. If I'd won, I'd probably be done with this game.
Augustus was bingo set in ancient Rome. 7 bingo cards completed ends the game. Everyone plays 3 at once, and refills from a public market of 5 bingo cards. There are some longest road/largest army type bonuses, so you judge the following things on a card: how hard it is to complete, how many VPs you get for the card, any special ability it triggers, how close it will get you to an end-game bonus. Make those decisions w/ a bit of an eye towards whether other players are likely to nab those bonuses before you, or end the game in a hurry, but for the most part, it's solitaire. You are also limited to 7 bingo marker dots a time (roman meeples), and most cards take 3 to 6 to complete (you can earn an extra meeple or 2 if you nab a good card).
It's totally random but I'd play Augustus again. It was super short and easy to teach. I read the whole book in half a turn of Dungeon Roll.
Speaking of Dungeon Roll: avoid. It's random built on random, and turns take way too long for a dice game where nobody else does anything else on their turn. It's Diablo dice, but if you roll a few treasure chests and randomly pick the good treaure chits, you can run away with the game.
Last game was Wufhel Bohnanza, the German Bohnanza dice game, which I am a big fan of and have talked about before. Please do not play this with 5 people, or even 4. You'll want to blow your brains out. It's great with 2 or 3, but again, too much waiting.
I somehow ended up playing a bunch of new games after Burning Con:
Neuroshima Hex is kind of perfect for playing on a phone or tablet - I can't imagine dealing with it in cardboard form. It's similar to Summoner Wars in some ways, but I strongly prefer the way its combat cascades across the entire board in a deterministic fashion.
Ambivalent about Nothing Personal. Enjoyed my first play, possibly too long (box says two hours, our game took four with the rules explanation). Once a game gets past 90 minutes I have to really like it for it to see multiple plays... but I would play this again if it actually took two hours.
Also ambivalent about Firefly. Very punishing if you don't know how to properly mitigate failure, which makes the first game an entertaining experience as reavers kill all of your crew, then come back next turn just to kill Jayne. The one player with experience didn't do any better than the rest of us, so the dice and cards might control your fate more than I suspect. You could probably play this with a simultaneous turn variant, which could nearly eliminate downtime in a four-player game. Another "two hour" game that I'm actually looking forward to playing again.
And finally, those play-by-post Hacienda games. Hacienda gives you a lot of granularity in determining actions for your turn: half a dozen ways to score points, two ways to make money, all of them are available every turn, and your decisions actually get easier as the game goes on. If that doesn't bother you (it doesn't really bother me), it's actually quite good.
Battle Balls
So who wants to play?
We're doing the 25-hour Extra Life charity gaming marathon this weekend and it's going to be a fucking stellar event, made even more so by the fact that we just hit our fundraising goal of $1,000. This triggers a $100 gift card giveaway from our local game store (which also has an online shop), so if you're interesting in kicking in even just $5, it'll get you one entry into the raffle. Donate here, and maybe win money to buy gaaaaaaames
KingMaker - Yes the Avalon Hill classic was placed on the table, and although we did the basic rules the game was really good that could use some adjustments to make it suited better for modern gaming times.
I won with an alliance but to be fair the only reason he broke his alliance to join with me was due to the fact I was the only Archbishop on the table.
Innovation - I went down the special achievement path and lost, sadly the lack of attack the score pile cares did not enter my hand quick enough to have the tides turn
Freaky Floor - A Friedman Freese game that is the normal get out of the dungeon, avoid the monster scenario. My spacial ability/robo rally experience allowed me to dominate and get my two guys before 1 turn into the second round.
Glen More - I somehow lost exactly 6 coins and need to find dimed sized proxies -_-. However the game was fun and made a euro hater enjoy the light euro style of this game.
Caylus - Finally was able to play this with Pence and came in a close second, sadly I knew he was going to win the game, however if I stopped him I would have went from 2nd to 4th while denying him 1st place. So as the saying goes, let someone else do the dirty work and no one did.
Power Grid - We did Qubec with Robots making it a four player game and I made two critical errors end game that allowed me to not win, namely due to not predicting when the game would have ended wrong twice.
It was fun having three players and a robot when I was the one who made the robot screw people over and used him to create a barrier into Quebec.
I am probability missing a game or two but I will let it be for now.
The other two games we played on Saturday are Fairy Tale and Glory to Rome.
Also Fairy Tale was ok.
Robinson Crusoe - At its heart, another bullshit co-op game. Pretty cool theme, incorporated in some pretty cool ways. You might convince me to play again but I'd never ever consider owning it. I strongly suspect most of the plays are downright impossible to win even w/ perfect play due to numerous low-odds elements of luck stacking on top of each other (think Ghost Stories). This has a reputation as a brutally difficult co-op due to it being filled with bullshit.
Suburbia - AWESOME GAME! Finally, a strategy game that is tight and competitive, and doesn't overstay its welcome. Was very skeptical of the designer (his claim to fame is crappy Werewolf variants?) but oh wait! he also specializes in making Age of Steam expansions. Huge board game nerd genius alert.
Anyways, Suburbia is awesome. It's city-building, which is a very underutilized theme (those who have attempted usually get it wrong). Suburbia plays fast. <60 min with 2 players. Easy enough to teach and play but w/ a fair amount of strategy. It's got enough mechanics in place to force you to really consider your actions. It might look like "multiplayer solitaire" but you can score points off of your opponents actions (and they can do the same off of yours) so it keeps you engaged a bit. You are also buying from a public market, and can manipulate it, so there's some indirect interaction there as well.
It's got some public end-game bonuses, and some hidden individual ones as well, so between that, and everything I mentioned above, it's got enough heuristics and enough of a challenge to warrant playing again and again in my eyes.
I want to try both it and Castles of Burgundy again to see how they compare. Both 60 min 2-player strategy games, and I suspect Burgundy is the better game, but Suburbia is the first thing to come along in 2 years that has come close.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1067128/inifinite-ore
It doesn't lessen my interest in Caverna at all, since it doesn't seem like a fundamental problem ala the degenerate strategy in A Few Acres of Snow - just one broken piece of the game.