This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Why is The Board Game Category Primarily for European Strategy Games?

I'm sure there are plenty of board gamers who prefer non-Euro board games, like Titan, Mage Wars, Runewars, Tash-Kalar, and Mage Knight, but there definitely seems to be some bias towards Euros. Why is this?
«1

Comments

  • What is the difference between a "Euro" and a "Non-Euro" game?
  • Rym said:

    What is the difference between a "Euro" and a "Non-Euro" game?

    Euro games tend to focus more on engine building, resource management, and outperforming the opponent whereas Ameritrash games are more centered on direct player conflict. For example, in Puerto Rico, players can't actively send marauders and pillage plantations or buildings, but in Titan, the whole point of the game is to slay opposing Titans (hence the name). Of course, there will always be exceptions such as Mage Knight and Civilization, both of which draw mechanics from both genres.
  • In 2014? Individual perspective. From the most thumbed review of Mage Knight on BGG:

    "If, like me, you are one of those Magic Realm fans who hoped that MK would be the new MR, then you just shouldn't even bother with it. Or, better still, if you're open to a Euro-puzzly, action-optimizing kind of experience with a comparatively thin fantasy theme to it, update your expectations and try to enjoy MK for what it is. If you've read this far, then you should by now at least know what to expect."

    Tash-Kalar is arguably an abstract. I enjoy many kinds of games, I just roll with it. I'll talk about Mage Knight for pages and pages if you want. :P
  • edited August 2014
    The PvP in Mage Knight can quickly kill all fun for the one player voted out and I've seen some games where the lead player just continues to snowball out of control. The game feels like an incredibly satisfying single player puzzle with other people the rest of the time.

    Mage Wars would have had more going for it had the core set not done the incredible bullshit move of giving an incredibly incomplete set of cards. This is made even more dickish with there being 2 core expansion sets specifically designed to give extra copies of core cards. Both of which still don't give a player a full set of cards.

    Can't comment on Tash-Kalar since I've only convinced one other person to play it. Although, for all the complaints people have for flourishes, they do almost nothing if a person has total control of the board.
    Post edited by ThatGent on
  • So you're saying that "Non-Euro" games are just highly political games of any sort essentially.

    There are plenty of directly competitive highly political "Euro" games. Look at Vinci as a prime example.
  • To go back to the original poster's question, the reason why the Board Game category is primarily filled with discussion of European games is because that's what most people here like to play. If you want to discuss a non-European-type game (I dislike the term Ameritrash), go ahead!
  • Rym said:

    So you're saying that "Non-Euro" games are just highly political games of any sort essentially.

    There are plenty of directly competitive highly political "Euro" games. Look at Vinci as a prime example.

    You could say that; they're basically games where direct player conflict, especially combat, plays a very large part in achieving the ends as opposed to just engine building, individual optimization, or out-racing your opponent. I think this article sums it up adequately.

    They are broad categories and there are plenty of exceptions, but I still think they're decent terminologies since I generally prefer games where direct player conflict is a major part of the game, and Eurogames usually don't give me that experience.
  • edited August 2014
    pence said:


    Tash-Kalar is arguably an abstract. :P

    You have a point. But, when I play TK, even High Form, it feels very much like a wargame since most tasks involve controlling key locations. Attacking others is sometimes necessary to claiming even non-destruction related objectives or disrupting their formations to prevent them from calling in "reinforcements"

    I categorize Tash-Kalar is an abstract with a wargame-like feel that's essentially a mix between Go, Tetris, Magic the Gathering, and some random area control game.

    Post edited by Hethalos on
  • ThatGent said:


    Can't comment on Tash-Kalar since I've only convinced one other person to play it. Although, for all the complaints people have for flourishes, they do almost nothing if a person has total control of the board.

    Do you play High Form or Deathmatch? The latter is incredibly snowbally, but it's not uncommon to hear people pulling off victories in High Form even if they're materially disadvantaged.

  • pence said:

    I'll talk about Mage Knight for pages and pages if you want. :P

    Fire away! I like that game, despite some of its egregious flaws like runaway leaders...

  • Hethalos said:

    Rym said:

    So you're saying that "Non-Euro" games are just highly political games of any sort essentially.

    There are plenty of directly competitive highly political "Euro" games. Look at Vinci as a prime example.

    You could say that; they're basically games where direct player conflict, especially combat, plays a very large part in achieving the ends as opposed to just engine building, individual optimization, or out-racing your opponent. I think this article sums it up adequately.

    They are broad categories and there are plenty of exceptions, but I still think they're decent terminologies since I generally prefer games where direct player conflict is a major part of the game, and Eurogames usually don't give me that experience.
    These terms seem incredibly forced, I've never heard of the term 'Ameritrash'. Based on the article you linked any game that is thematic, has plastic miniatures, have convoluted rules, are asymmetrical and immersive.

    Kind of broad don't you think?

    Why not ignore stupid subcategories and just talk about the boardgame you want in the boardgame thread.
  • sK0pe said:



    These terms seem incredibly forced, I've never heard of the term 'Ameritrash'. Based on the article you linked any game that is thematic, has plastic miniatures, have convoluted rules, are asymmetrical and immersive.

    Kind of broad don't you think?

    Why not ignore stupid subcategories and just talk about the boardgame you want in the boardgame thread.

    They're supposed to be broad. Let me reiterate: I don't think they're perfect categories, but they're still useful nonetheless.

    I don't like games where direct player conflict is limited so I find categorizing economy-engine building games as Euros a useful way to categorize games since there are a surprisingly large number of people who will only play games without direct player conflict whereas others find multiplayer solitaire games too dry.

    Maybe the best way to categorize board games is to use a horizontal gradient scale with the left side representing a "pure" Eurogame, and the right side representing a "pure" Ameritrash or conflict-oriented game and plot board games on the scale depending on where they fit. For example, I would plot Puerto Rico, Terra Mystica, and Caylus near the extreme left whereas something like Tigris and Euphrates would be somewhere in the middle of the scale, perhaps leaning a little more to the Euro side. On the extreme right, there are games like Titan. It features some economic principles such as filling up the board with your own stacks and producing powerful creatures, but they're ultimately means to an end, but not the end in themselves. In fact, turtlers will get crushed by more aggressive players.

    For games that allow for diverse playstyles with varying levels of aggression, such as 4x games with multiple races, I would use brackets to show the range of "Euroness" or "Ameritrashiness/level of conflict" they encompass. In Civilization: The Board Game, there are highly aggressive nations, such as the Germans, the Russians, and the English. But, there are more turtling oriented nations like the Romans and the Chinese as well as some flexible nations. Nonetheless, even turtling strategies have a way to negatively impact other players', and fighting battles is key to most paths to victory. Therefore, Civilization: The Board Game would have a bracket encompassing an area close to the right.
  • edited August 2014
    sK0pe said:



    These terms seem incredibly forced, I've never heard of the term 'Ameritrash'. Based on the article you linked any game that is thematic, has plastic miniatures, have convoluted rules, are asymmetrical and immersive.

    Kind of broad don't you think?

    I agree that speaking solely about genre can sometimes limit a medium, but there are some styles I really dislike, such as rap, so categorizing is not necessarily bad.
    Post edited by Hethalos on
  • I don't mean to sound stupid, but I have literally no idea what distinctions you are making between your two broad categories. How is T&E more near the middle of any line than any other board game if Titan is one end and Caylus on the other? Is a single gradient really so helpful in this? I can't see what the gradient is measuring.
  • I don't mean to sound stupid, but I have literally no idea what distinctions you are making between your two broad categories. How is T&E more near the middle of any line than any other board game if Titan is one end and Caylus on the other? Is a single gradient really so helpful in this? I can't see what the gradient is measuring.

    The amount of emphasis on direct player conflict in the game. In Caylus, you cannot destroy your opponent's buildings by inciting angry mobs whereas in Titan, player conflict is the core of the game, at least in high-level play anyways.

    Most European-style board games do not involve the destruction of your opponents' pieces, buildings, territories, etc., so the category "Eurogame" is used to denote European-style board games which involve more engine construction than player destruction.

    I'm actually a little surprised that some posters on this forum have never heard of the terms "Ameritrash" and "Eurogame". These terms get used so frequently on BGG, another site where I frequently post.
  • We've heard those terms plenty. We just don't use them because they aren't very useful. Also your definitions are ridiculous and don't line up with anyone else's.
  • So engine building is eurogame and piece destruction is ameritrash. Right. If that's the extent of it, why not just talk about games that put more weight on engine building or other factors, rather than conflating those aspects with other terms?
  • edited August 2014
    Isn't the definition of Ameritrash games that put theme over mechanics? Usually you can replace the results by playing Candyland.
    Post edited by ThatGent on
  • Ameritrash is like pornography - you know it when you see it. Any attempt at definition will fail, and produce a relevant counterexample. Tigris & Euphrates has direct targeted player conflict with a randomizer. Imperial has dudes on a map that fight and destroy one another. I can directly attack my opponent with the provost in two-player Caylus. We can negotiate the provost move in multiplayer Caylus. These are clearly (self-evidently?) Euros.

    Galaxy Trucker is near the top of my list, along with Battlestar Galactica and Innovation - all unlikely to be accused of being Euros. Eclipse and Mage Knight, despite being full of plastic and dice, can (and have!) been deemed Euros by some percentage of BGG. One person's thematic strategy game is another person's soulless Euro.

    Are you finding a general preference for Euros overall, or this board's preference for Euros? The second one is much easier to explain. (The first, I'd argue is a matter of perception)
  • The Ameritrash/Eurogame definitions are absolutely stale. You could list the qualities of each type of game: mechanics, art style, themes, etc. For most hobby-market games made 5-10+ years ago, it would be easy to place them towards one end of this spectrum or the other.

    These concepts barely apply anymore, though. Both schools of design are liberally borrowing from each other, and designers are just making games, not eurogames or ameritrash games. You will constantly find mechanics from one in games that you would have otherwise associated with the other, perhaps due to theme, visual style, the name on the box, country of origin, etc.

    It's just a silly discussion.
  • OK, I get the point. I'm the fucking retard and the rest of you are exalted masters of board gaming lore. Thanks for showing how much I'm an idiot and maybe next time, I'll just play some random engine-building game even though it'll bore the hell out of me because having categories THAT AT THE VERY LEAST HELP ME DECIDE WHICH GAMES ARE WORTH MY TIME is somehow absolutely wrong.
  • No one here can denounce Candy Land. It's the kumite of boardgames.
  • No one's calling you a retard. ;^)

    This forum debates fast and hard. It's how we roll.

    What people are taking issue with is your nomenclature. The terms seem to have too many edge cases, and don't apply neatly to very many games. T&E is considered extremely "Euro" by most people, so your categories don't really line up with current discussion. They line up better with "political vs apolitical" instead.
  • Hethalos said:

    OK, I get the point. I'm the fucking retard and the rest of you are exalted masters of board gaming lore. Thanks for showing how much I'm an idiot and maybe next time, I'll just play some random engine-building game even though it'll bore the hell out of me because having categories THAT AT THE VERY LEAST HELP ME DECIDE WHICH GAMES ARE WORTH MY TIME is somehow absolutely wrong.

    Hey, welcome to the forum!

    A difference in terminology doesn't make anyone a retard. If we thought you were an idiot we wouldn't even have asked for clarification.
  • Hethalos said:

    OK, I get the point. I'm the fucking retard and the rest of you are exalted masters of board gaming lore. Thanks for showing how much I'm an idiot and maybe next time, I'll just play some random engine-building game even though it'll bore the hell out of me because having categories THAT AT THE VERY LEAST HELP ME DECIDE WHICH GAMES ARE WORTH MY TIME is somehow absolutely wrong.

    Hey, welcome to the forum!

    A difference in terminology doesn't make anyone a retard. If we thought you were an idiot we wouldn't even have asked for clarification.
    You might have some anger issues, though. You should work on that.
  • So, "Ameritrash" is just "highly political, direct conflict, unit destruction/area control." Euro sounds like "Engine driven." The scales are orthogonal to one another, being largely independent.

    A nomenclature is only useful if you can clearly categorize most games by it, with few edge cases. If you have a lot of edge cases or games that don't clearly and directly fit, then the nomenclature is largely meaningless.
  • That is the best starting point I've seen so far that scaled the differences down enough to avoid all of the troublesome edge cases, making the discussion less silly.

    Some factors that I see lumped in on occasion:
    - Overall game length: This separated older games quite well, but plenty of "Ameritreash" designers have challenged themselves to package "Ameritrash" into shorter 60-90 minute games, and the list of edge cases is now way too long.
    - Turn length/amount of decisions in a turn (placing 1 worker vs moving a whole army, too specific?): Likely only works to classify certain types of "Ameritrash." There are more rapid-turn games that are of the political nature that don't necessarily use "dudes on a map."
  • Rym said:

    So, "Ameritrash" is just "highly political, direct conflict, unit destruction/area control." Euro sounds like "Engine driven." The scales are orthogonal to one another, being largely independent.

    A nomenclature is only useful if you can clearly categorize most games by it, with few edge cases. If you have a lot of edge cases or games that don't clearly and directly fit, then the nomenclature is largely meaningless.

    Yeah, that's what I sort of meant, although as I mentioned a couple of posts earlier that it's probably best just to use a gradient scale. Of course, categorizing board games isn't a hard science, but scientists use gradient scales all the time to identify properties of a substance. For example, lemon juice and 1.0 mol/L hydrochloric acid are both acids, but you certainly wouldn't drink the latter. The pH scale is still useful even though 90% of the substances are not extremely acidic or alkaline.

    Likewise, even though many board games, such as Tigris and Euphrates and Eclipse, are neither purely engine-building or purely direct-conflict, such games still have varying degrees of focus towards engine-building or direct conflict. The level of conflict in a game significantly impacts the overall gaming experience, so that's why I think it's a good idea to categorize games by conflict level.

    Maybe we should just use other terms as opposed to "Eurogame" and "Ameritrash" since they seem to push a lot of buttons.


  • Rym said:

    No one's calling you a retard. ;^)

    This forum debates fast and hard. It's how we roll.

    What people are taking issue with is your nomenclature. The terms seem to have too many edge cases, and don't apply neatly to very many games. T&E is considered extremely "Euro" by most people, so your categories don't really line up with current discussion. They line up better with "political vs apolitical" instead.

    I normally post on Deviantart (I do art on my spare time as well) and Boardgamegeek where debates tend to be slightly more formal, so I suppose I'm not used to this style.

    By the way, has anyone actually played Titan? I'm curious...

  • edited August 2014
    Matt said:

    That is the best starting point I've seen so far that scaled the differences down enough to avoid all of the troublesome edge cases, making the discussion less silly.

    Are you referring to the idea about the gradient scale?
    Post edited by Hethalos on
Sign In or Register to comment.