I personally can't see playing without Minor Improvements and Occupations. Of course, I quite like drafting and don't mind the length it adds to the game. The game is already super long, what's an extra 10 minutes?
VH: That friend deserves a sock in the face. He should just tell you why he thinks what you are doing is suboptimal so your learning can be accelerated so everyone can play on the same level faster. What an utter tool.
you might want to give it a try. Besides the benefit of removing the games crippling ameritrashy balance problem removing the cards made it play so much faster which made it a lot more fun. Less downtime, more playtime.
Also, what the fuck are you on about that a lack of random elements makes a game "solvable". That is utterly false.
Maybe "solveable" wasn't the most accurate term, but it does reduce things down to a "perfect information" scenario, which should be solveable as long as you remove the human element from it.
Have you ever played solo Agricola? Ignoring what cards you get, you basically have to do things in a specific order or you'll never clear the first year. That's kind of what I meant. There's not really any opportunity to try out different strategies since you've lost a ton of options.
You know, I really can't think of any game that doesn't begin to break down somewhat after 100+ games at a highly competitive level. There was a very fascinating debate about Race for the Galaxy. People were complaining about the learning curve of the latest expansion. Tom Lehmann stepped in. He proposed a thought experiment. You have strategy A and strategy B. You also have strategy A^2 and strategy B^2 which are slightly more advanced versions of the original. For example A could be development and B could be warfare. But A^2 could be development with a splash of colonize and B^2 could be military with a splash of trade. Then at the advanced level you get A^3 and B^3 which incorporate even more elements into an increasingly complex but more successful version of the original. Tom explained that yes, in RFTG, at the beginning level strategy A always beats strategy B. And at the advanced level, strategy A^3 always loses to strategy B^3. But in the mid level of competition, where he figures most players are, strategy A^2 is generally equal to strategy B^2. There was then significant debate about whether the statistics people had gathered from online plays supported or condemned the theories that Tom Lehmann were putting out there and I don't think it went anywhere conclusive.
But I think it's a concept that holds true to a great many games. Obviously it applies to games with varied but distinct paths to victory that you have a hard time deviating from once your committed to them. It likely also holds true to more abstract games with less rigid paths to victory. I guess the question, with respect to the lifespan of a game, is how many plays can you get out of it before you hit that level of optimized play, where it's obvious on the face of it that a person owning a certain occupation card in Agricola will make them win. Or pursuing a certain set of cards in Dominion is 100% victory. Most people seem to complain about this after 100+ plays. Which is good value in my book. The only reason you can complain about it now, is because the game was good enough to play 100 times in the first place!
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Also, what the fuck are you on about that a lack of random elements makes a game "solvable". That is utterly false.
Maybe "solveable" wasn't the most accurate term, but it does reduce things down to a "perfect information" scenario, which should be solveable as long as you remove the human element from it.
Have you ever played solo Agricola? Ignoring what cards you get, you basically have to do things in a specific order or you'll never clear the first year. That's kind of what I meant. There's not really any opportunity to try out different strategies since you've lost a ton of options.
All of the most complex (and most fun, and best designed) games I can think of are perfect information games (or nearly so. sometimes there is a little hidden info) with no randomness.
You know, I really can't think of any game that doesn't begin to break down somewhat after 100+ games at a highly competitive level. There was a very fascinating debate about Race for the Galaxy. People were complaining about the learning curve of the latest expansion. Tom Lehmann stepped in. He proposed a thought experiment. You have strategy A and strategy B. You also have strategy A^2 and strategy B^2 which are slightly more advanced versions of the original. For example A could be development and B could be warfare. But A^2 could be development with a splash of colonize and B^2 could be military with a splash of trade. Then at the advanced level you get A^3 and B^3 which incorporate even more elements into an increasingly complex but more successful version of the original. Tom explained that yes, in RFTG, at the beginning level strategy A always beats strategy B. And at the advanced level, strategy A^3 always loses to strategy B^3. But in the mid level of competition, where he figures most players are, strategy A^2 is generally equal to strategy B^2. There was then significant debate about whether the statistics people had gathered from online plays supported or condemned the theories that Tom Lehmann were putting out there and I don't think it went anywhere conclusive.
But I think it's a concept that holds true to a great many games. Obviously it applies to games with varied but distinct paths to victory that you have a hard time deviating from once your committed to them. It likely also holds true to more abstract games with less rigid paths to victory. I guess the question, with respect to the lifespan of a game, is how many plays can you get out of it before you hit that level of optimized play, where it's obvious on the face of it that a person owning a certain occupation card in Agricola will make them win. Or pursuing a certain set of cards in Dominion is 100% victory. Most people seem to complain about this after 100+ plays. Which is good value in my book. The only reason you can complain about it now, is because the game was good enough to play 100 times in the first place!
I tend to agree. Though you happened to mention one of the few games that think does stand up to several hundred or more plays: RFTG. At least with the first two expansions. And if you have a table of people who are experts on those then adding the third expansion adds a lot of depth (at the expense of a learning curve and a game that vastly favors experienced players over new ones).
Attacked by tweeeeeeees!
0
Options
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
Maybe "solveable" wasn't the most accurate term, but it does reduce things down to a "perfect information" scenario, which should be solveable as long as you remove the human element from it.
This to me is the same as saying that a game is solveable as long as you don't actually play it. The human element should be a large aspect of any good game. My example would be Puerto Rico, which has almost no randomness (except for which plantations are revealed), and almost perfect information (except for facedown victory points), and is an excellent game, because the human element is integral to it.
Having said that, I think I understand what you mean, it's the same issue I had with rts's like starcraft, in that there's usually one single optimized path which is so much better than the others, you're not making many meaningful choices, and the choices of other players don't really impact what your choices are.
Maybe "solveable" wasn't the most accurate term, but it does reduce things down to a "perfect information" scenario, which should be solveable as long as you remove the human element from it.
This to me is the same as saying that a game is solveable as long as you don't actually play it. The human element should be a large aspect of any good game. My example would be Puerto Rico, which has almost no randomness (except for which plantations are revealed), and almost perfect information (except for facedown victory points), and is an excellent game, because the human element is integral to it.
Having said that, I think I understand what you mean, it's the same issue I had with rts's like starcraft, in that there's usually one single optimized path which is so much better than the others, you're not making many meaningful choices, and the choices of other players don't really impact what your choices are.
1870 and Navegedor are great examples of perfect information (well, ok technicially how much money you have his hidden in 1870) games with no randomness at all that play out vastly differently every game. Tiny, tiny changes in choices (especially in 1870. the initial auction of private companies changes everything. not just in who bought what but in exactly how much they paid) can totally change up what is a good strategy to follow.
Navagedor in particular is a great game for training people in strategic thinking. Because if you try and play the game using a "winning" strategy you read about (or even came up with on your own in a previous game!) you will lose and lose hard. You absolutely have to evaluate the game state on your own without relying on premade strategies.
I personally can't see playing without Minor Improvements and Occupations. Of course, I quite like drafting and don't mind the length it adds to the game. The game is already super long, what's an extra 10 minutes?
VH: That friend deserves a sock in the face. He should just tell you why he thinks what you are doing is suboptimal so your learning can be accelerated so everyone can play on the same level faster. What an utter tool.
you might want to give it a try. Besides the benefit of removing the games crippling ameritrashy balance problem removing the cards made it play so much faster which made it a lot more fun. Less downtime, more playtime.
I really have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you talk about ameritrashy imbalance in Agricola. To the point where I wonder if we are even playing the same game. Agricola is only somewhat above my threshold in terms of how boring it is. Without occupations and minor improvements I might fall asleep.
I personally can't see playing without Minor Improvements and Occupations. Of course, I quite like drafting and don't mind the length it adds to the game. The game is already super long, what's an extra 10 minutes?
VH: That friend deserves a sock in the face. He should just tell you why he thinks what you are doing is suboptimal so your learning can be accelerated so everyone can play on the same level faster. What an utter tool.
you might want to give it a try. Besides the benefit of removing the games crippling ameritrashy balance problem removing the cards made it play so much faster which made it a lot more fun. Less downtime, more playtime.
I really have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you talk about ameritrashy imbalance in Agricola. To the point where I wonder if we are even playing the same game. Agricola is only somewhat above my threshold in terms of how boring it is. Without occupations and minor improvements I might fall asleep.
the problem is that the random deal of cards at the start of the game have such huge swings in utility that there will be a huge disparity between the players based purely on that random deal.
I really have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you talk about ameritrashy imbalance in Agricola. To the point where I wonder if we are even playing the same game.
There are most definitely some cards, spread across all three decks*, that are completely and utterly busted. I believe for competitive play like at WBC they have an actual list of cards that are not to be included for just this reason.
*E, I and K only. I won't touch the others with a flaming pole, as they're pretty much all 100% stupid overpowered nonsense.
I personally can't see playing without Minor Improvements and Occupations. Of course, I quite like drafting and don't mind the length it adds to the game. The game is already super long, what's an extra 10 minutes?
VH: That friend deserves a sock in the face. He should just tell you why he thinks what you are doing is suboptimal so your learning can be accelerated so everyone can play on the same level faster. What an utter tool.
you might want to give it a try. Besides the benefit of removing the games crippling ameritrashy balance problem removing the cards made it play so much faster which made it a lot more fun. Less downtime, more playtime.
I really have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you talk about ameritrashy imbalance in Agricola. To the point where I wonder if we are even playing the same game. Agricola is only somewhat above my threshold in terms of how boring it is. Without occupations and minor improvements I might fall asleep.
the problem is that the random deal of cards at the start of the game have such huge swings in utility that there will be a huge disparity between the players based purely on that random deal.
Sorry for not specifying it again but, assume when I am talking about the minor improvement and profession deck that I am assuming they are being drafted. Because no sane person would not draft them. So, the random deal of the cards is a non-issue and there is no huge disparity between the players based on a random deal because there is no random deal.
The same player, playing with minor improvements and professions (drafted), has won 90% (at least) of our Agricola games. The strongest player consistently wins.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
edited June 2012
As someone who has played Agricola all of 4 times and went from Like it > Love it > Meh > No urge to play again, I don't exactly feel like an expert on the topic. However it sounds to me like Vyolynce and Inquisitor can both be correct here ...
It's a fair judgement that the cards are not all created equal, and the right few can offer an unwieldily advantage. It's also a fair possibility that the one player Inquisitor mentions is simply far better at the game than the rest of them, and can play better around the cards he has, or the rest of them cannot capitalize as strongly. These things are both easily true and neither one has a particularly large impact on the other.
That being said, I'm kind of losing sight over what people are even discussing. The game has some randomness in those cards, it can be minimized, people have differing feelings on the best way to play ...? *shrug*
As someone who has played Agricola all of 4 times and went from Like it > Love it > Meh > No urge to play again, I don't exactly feel like an expert on the topic. However it sounds to me like Vyolynce and Inquisitor can both be correct here ...
It's a fair judgement that the cards are not all created equal, and the right few can offer an unwieldily advantage. It's also a fair possibility that the one player Inquisitor mentions is simply far better at the game than the rest of them, and can play better around the cards he has, or the rest of them cannot capitalize as strongly. These things are both easily true and neither one has a particularly large impact on the other.
That being said, I'm kind of losing sight over what people are even discussing. The game has some randomness in those cards, it can be minimized, people have differing feelings on the best way to play ...? *shrug*
It's also worth noting that said friend that wins 90% of Agricola game is also, hands down, the best Magic The Gathering draft player that I know. So, the fact that he is good at drafting strong minor improvement and profession hands is one of the (several) reasons why he wins so much. But being a strong drafter isn't random.
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
As someone who has played Agricola all of 4 times and went from Like it > Love it > Meh > No urge to play again, I don't exactly feel like an expert on the topic. However it sounds to me like Vyolynce and Inquisitor can both be correct here ...
It's a fair judgement that the cards are not all created equal, and the right few can offer an unwieldily advantage. It's also a fair possibility that the one player Inquisitor mentions is simply far better at the game than the rest of them, and can play better around the cards he has, or the rest of them cannot capitalize as strongly. These things are both easily true and neither one has a particularly large impact on the other.
That being said, I'm kind of losing sight over what people are even discussing. The game has some randomness in those cards, it can be minimized, people have differing feelings on the best way to play ...? *shrug*
It's also worth noting that said friend that wins 90% of Agricola game is also, hands down, the best Magic The Gathering draft player that I know. So, the fact that he is good at drafting strong minor improvement and profession hands is one of the (several) reasons why he wins so much. But being a strong drafter isn't random.
Oh no, absolutely not.
Out of curiosity, has he played 7 Wonders? I'd be interested to know it there's yet another correlation there.
As someone who has played Agricola all of 4 times and went from Like it > Love it > Meh > No urge to play again, I don't exactly feel like an expert on the topic. However it sounds to me like Vyolynce and Inquisitor can both be correct here ...
It's a fair judgement that the cards are not all created equal, and the right few can offer an unwieldily advantage. It's also a fair possibility that the one player Inquisitor mentions is simply far better at the game than the rest of them, and can play better around the cards he has, or the rest of them cannot capitalize as strongly. These things are both easily true and neither one has a particularly large impact on the other.
That being said, I'm kind of losing sight over what people are even discussing. The game has some randomness in those cards, it can be minimized, people have differing feelings on the best way to play ...? *shrug*
It's also worth noting that said friend that wins 90% of Agricola game is also, hands down, the best Magic The Gathering draft player that I know. So, the fact that he is good at drafting strong minor improvement and profession hands is one of the (several) reasons why he wins so much. But being a strong drafter isn't random.
Oh no, absolutely not.
Out of curiosity, has he played 7 Wonders? I'd be interested to know it there's yet another correlation there.
Only a couple of times, and his performance has always been good but never outstanding. I don't think he particularly likes the game all that much for whatever reason, but Agricola he is super passionate about (like, at one point we indulged him two games of Agricola in a row and he was begging for a third, like a man possessed. We said no) for some reason.
0
Options
jakobaggerLO THY DREAD EMPIRE CHAOS IS RESTOREDRegistered Userregular
If anything I am far, far too eager to hand out advice to my enemy that exposes a hard to notice but vital chink in my plan's armor.
I am a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and handing it to my opponent on a silver platter.
Oh hey, this is me in any game ever.
Yeah, I'm pretty good at that.
samesies. though, i dont mind when im playing against someone who is not a usual board-gamer type, or if this is their first time playing this specific game
edit: but i still do it, even to experienced players. i think it just might be a form of pre-winning gloating.
I am very good at learning new games, so I usually win the first one or two times. Then I stop.
Also I never win when I am teaching a game, partly because I am too busy concentrating on helping others, partly because it's kinda mean to try really hard when everyone else is new.
Played my first game ever of War of the Rings today, I played as the Shadow Armies, final game state:
Please note me being at 8 of 10 victory points, the fellowship being at 10 of 12 corruption, and the ring wraith easterling death bomb that was poised to go off on the last remaining Gondor stronghold. Of the hunt tiles left that my opponent won to win the game, 3 would have let him win, 2 would have put on corruption and also stopped him.
So. Damn. Close.
Needless to say I can't wait to play the game again (both of us made some huge blunders while we were still feeling things out).
If anything I am far, far too eager to hand out advice to my enemy that exposes a hard to notice but vital chink in my plan's armor.
I am a master of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and handing it to my opponent on a silver platter.
Oh hey, this is me in any game ever.
I somehow managed to frak up my last moves and do something dumb right when I'm about to win. I start to overthink my plans, I start to breathe faster out of excitement, and give myself away.
One game of Chaos, I look back when I played Blue Scribes to move 2 of my corruption somewhere else and that region didn't ruin because of some bad dice rolls and I wonder, "Why the hell did I do that?!" I remember at the time that I had some convoluted plan in my mind that didn't make any sense... That dumb move cost me the win.
I'm in a narrow lead, 2 piles are empty, so I buy a Colony and 10 curses to end the match.
When Dominion first came out, and the gaming group where I lived at the time got hold of it, we somehow managed to miss the fact that the Curse pile size depended on the number of players. There were a number of 2 player games that went on quite a bit longer than they should have, and, at least once, ended with both players scores in the negative.
So, question. Are there any C&C style warboardgames that utilize Fog of War?
Origin for Dragon Age: Inquisition Shenanigans: Inksplat776
0
Options
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
Woot, successful night.
Played 4-player Core Worlds and won by 1 point (35, 34, 32, 28). I felt like I was actually getting down some management technique in this game, which was nice. We did play with the 'draw an extra card if more worlds than units' rule, but not with the capitol city, as is basically standard now. I also only took 1 core world (Quetzalcoatl for 9), although I did snag the World Ship, so I basically had 2. Overall, as usual, everyone had fun. This game should almost certainly be ranked higher on BGG.
Extra win: A guy was selling a few games to make money for new ones, so I managed to pick up a pretty much mint copy of Fresco for $25. I guess it wasn't really a bad thing when I traded it before after all. ^_^
So, question. Are there any C&C style warboardgames that utilize Fog of War?
I can't say I know of any. The problem with games like that is that to work the way you want, there's a high level of book keeping and potentially a referee. The closest I know of would be Space Empires 4x, but I don't think it's what you're looking for.
Posts
you might want to give it a try. Besides the benefit of removing the games crippling ameritrashy balance problem removing the cards made it play so much faster which made it a lot more fun. Less downtime, more playtime.
Maybe "solveable" wasn't the most accurate term, but it does reduce things down to a "perfect information" scenario, which should be solveable as long as you remove the human element from it.
Have you ever played solo Agricola? Ignoring what cards you get, you basically have to do things in a specific order or you'll never clear the first year. That's kind of what I meant. There's not really any opportunity to try out different strategies since you've lost a ton of options.
But I think it's a concept that holds true to a great many games. Obviously it applies to games with varied but distinct paths to victory that you have a hard time deviating from once your committed to them. It likely also holds true to more abstract games with less rigid paths to victory. I guess the question, with respect to the lifespan of a game, is how many plays can you get out of it before you hit that level of optimized play, where it's obvious on the face of it that a person owning a certain occupation card in Agricola will make them win. Or pursuing a certain set of cards in Dominion is 100% victory. Most people seem to complain about this after 100+ plays. Which is good value in my book. The only reason you can complain about it now, is because the game was good enough to play 100 times in the first place!
Rock-Paper-Scissors
...
>_>
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
All of the most complex (and most fun, and best designed) games I can think of are perfect information games (or nearly so. sometimes there is a little hidden info) with no randomness.
You should try out 1870 or Caylus or Navegador.
I tend to agree. Though you happened to mention one of the few games that think does stand up to several hundred or more plays: RFTG. At least with the first two expansions. And if you have a table of people who are experts on those then adding the third expansion adds a lot of depth (at the expense of a learning curve and a game that vastly favors experienced players over new ones).
Psh. Since humans are notoriously incapable of random actions, I bet you would see patterns. I have the real answer: Go.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
This to me is the same as saying that a game is solveable as long as you don't actually play it. The human element should be a large aspect of any good game. My example would be Puerto Rico, which has almost no randomness (except for which plantations are revealed), and almost perfect information (except for facedown victory points), and is an excellent game, because the human element is integral to it.
Having said that, I think I understand what you mean, it's the same issue I had with rts's like starcraft, in that there's usually one single optimized path which is so much better than the others, you're not making many meaningful choices, and the choices of other players don't really impact what your choices are.
1870 and Navegedor are great examples of perfect information (well, ok technicially how much money you have his hidden in 1870) games with no randomness at all that play out vastly differently every game. Tiny, tiny changes in choices (especially in 1870. the initial auction of private companies changes everything. not just in who bought what but in exactly how much they paid) can totally change up what is a good strategy to follow.
Navagedor in particular is a great game for training people in strategic thinking. Because if you try and play the game using a "winning" strategy you read about (or even came up with on your own in a previous game!) you will lose and lose hard. You absolutely have to evaluate the game state on your own without relying on premade strategies.
I really have absolutely no idea what you are on about when you talk about ameritrashy imbalance in Agricola. To the point where I wonder if we are even playing the same game. Agricola is only somewhat above my threshold in terms of how boring it is. Without occupations and minor improvements I might fall asleep.
the problem is that the random deal of cards at the start of the game have such huge swings in utility that there will be a huge disparity between the players based purely on that random deal.
There are most definitely some cards, spread across all three decks*, that are completely and utterly busted. I believe for competitive play like at WBC they have an actual list of cards that are not to be included for just this reason.
*E, I and K only. I won't touch the others with a flaming pole, as they're pretty much all 100% stupid overpowered nonsense.
Sorry for not specifying it again but, assume when I am talking about the minor improvement and profession deck that I am assuming they are being drafted. Because no sane person would not draft them. So, the random deal of the cards is a non-issue and there is no huge disparity between the players based on a random deal because there is no random deal.
The same player, playing with minor improvements and professions (drafted), has won 90% (at least) of our Agricola games. The strongest player consistently wins.
It's a fair judgement that the cards are not all created equal, and the right few can offer an unwieldily advantage. It's also a fair possibility that the one player Inquisitor mentions is simply far better at the game than the rest of them, and can play better around the cards he has, or the rest of them cannot capitalize as strongly. These things are both easily true and neither one has a particularly large impact on the other.
That being said, I'm kind of losing sight over what people are even discussing. The game has some randomness in those cards, it can be minimized, people have differing feelings on the best way to play ...? *shrug*
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
It's also worth noting that said friend that wins 90% of Agricola game is also, hands down, the best Magic The Gathering draft player that I know. So, the fact that he is good at drafting strong minor improvement and profession hands is one of the (several) reasons why he wins so much. But being a strong drafter isn't random.
Oh no, absolutely not.
Out of curiosity, has he played 7 Wonders? I'd be interested to know it there's yet another correlation there.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Only a couple of times, and his performance has always been good but never outstanding. I don't think he particularly likes the game all that much for whatever reason, but Agricola he is super passionate about (like, at one point we indulged him two games of Agricola in a row and he was begging for a third, like a man possessed. We said no) for some reason.
Oh hey, this is me in any game ever.
Yeah, I'm pretty good at that.
samesies. though, i dont mind when im playing against someone who is not a usual board-gamer type, or if this is their first time playing this specific game
edit: but i still do it, even to experienced players. i think it just might be a form of pre-winning gloating.
edit2: oh god that means im the supervillain
Also I never win when I am teaching a game, partly because I am too busy concentrating on helping others, partly because it's kinda mean to try really hard when everyone else is new.
Please note me being at 8 of 10 victory points, the fellowship being at 10 of 12 corruption, and the ring wraith easterling death bomb that was poised to go off on the last remaining Gondor stronghold. Of the hunt tiles left that my opponent won to win the game, 3 would have let him win, 2 would have put on corruption and also stopped him.
So. Damn. Close.
Needless to say I can't wait to play the game again (both of us made some huge blunders while we were still feeling things out).
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201206/22/game-20120622-043301-4fb54d55.html
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
HA!
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I was all like, "I'm in the lead and I've got 11 buys and 23 money surely I can buy out a pile, damn need 27 money to buy out any p... WAIT A MINUTE!"
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
I'm in a narrow lead, 2 piles are empty, so I buy a Colony and 10 curses to end the match.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
I somehow managed to frak up my last moves and do something dumb right when I'm about to win. I start to overthink my plans, I start to breathe faster out of excitement, and give myself away.
One game of Chaos, I look back when I played Blue Scribes to move 2 of my corruption somewhere else and that region didn't ruin because of some bad dice rolls and I wonder, "Why the hell did I do that?!" I remember at the time that I had some convoluted plan in my mind that didn't make any sense... That dumb move cost me the win.
Yup, that's me on Steam.
If you are interested in playing, discussing, or hosting Arkham Horror, click here!
<--- So pro.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
When Dominion first came out, and the gaming group where I lived at the time got hold of it, we somehow managed to miss the fact that the Curse pile size depended on the number of players. There were a number of 2 player games that went on quite a bit longer than they should have, and, at least once, ended with both players scores in the negative.
Played 4-player Core Worlds and won by 1 point (35, 34, 32, 28). I felt like I was actually getting down some management technique in this game, which was nice. We did play with the 'draw an extra card if more worlds than units' rule, but not with the capitol city, as is basically standard now. I also only took 1 core world (Quetzalcoatl for 9), although I did snag the World Ship, so I basically had 2. Overall, as usual, everyone had fun. This game should almost certainly be ranked higher on BGG.
Extra win: A guy was selling a few games to make money for new ones, so I managed to pick up a pretty much mint copy of Fresco for $25. I guess it wasn't really a bad thing when I traded it before after all. ^_^
I can't say I know of any. The problem with games like that is that to work the way you want, there's a high level of book keeping and potentially a referee. The closest I know of would be Space Empires 4x, but I don't think it's what you're looking for.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
I don't know of any personally; maybe check out this geeklist for ideas to research more.