So Commands & Colors has me reading all about ancient history now. Funny how that works. The best part is there are a ton of free history books on kindle! I'm quite impressed actually. Still catching up on my history to where I am in the base games scenario list. Just getting to the second Punic war, which is what most of the base game focuses on.
Just packed up a box with a small subset of my gaming collection as I'm mving house to a smaller flat. Managed ot fir in Dominion (Base,Sea,Hinterlands,Prosperity & Alchemy) C&C:A, Lost Cities, Babel, Kahuna, jords, Ticket to Ride, Zertz, Kings Gate, Carcassone, Dragon Parade, Ra, Medici and Race for the Galaxy.
So apparently the game night I had with my brother made an impression on him. He'd been playing games with coworkers for a while, but evidently they were all AP prone as fuck. Case in point, a game of Agricola took 6 hours, and has permanently scared my brother away from the game. So after having played 3 games in 4 hours on Satuday, he asked to come over again today to play games with me. Which is great because we haven't always had the best relationship, and honestly neither of us have much family left we relate to. It's been a goal of mine for a while to have a better relationship with my brother, and I'm glad board games are helping in that regard.
So maybe tonight I'll break him into Commands & Colors.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
I expect your next message to be in the form of, "I think I ruined my relationship with my brother by flinging C&C dice at him while screaming and chasing him out of my house. That's what he gets for killing a heavy infantry unit and a leader with an unsupported auxila."
It's a distinct possibility. But we both inherited an intolerance for losing and extreme competitiveness from our dad, so the post game fight will just be more family bonding!
0
ArcticLancerBest served chilled.Registered Userregular
edited May 2012
Alternatively, play a co-op and then co-op rage at the game when you lose. More bonding!
I expect your next message to be in the form of, "I think I ruined my relationship with my brother by flinging C&C dice at him while screaming and chasing him out of my house. That's what he gets for killing a heavy infantry unit and a leader with an unsupported auxila."
Uncanny. I did ALMOST this exact thing to my wife, except even worse because it was her turn and I played a "first strike", winning the game and robbing her of her certain win. My wife is pretty even-keeled, but she was quite annoyed. That would be enough to nerd-rage just about anybody (and I would probably have totally lost it).
So Commands & Colors has me reading all about ancient history now. Funny how that works. The best part is there are a ton of free history books on kindle! I'm quite impressed actually. Still catching up on my history to where I am in the base games scenario list. Just getting to the second Punic war, which is what most of the base game focuses on.
Who says games aren't good for you?
Roman history is great. Rome was the Microsoft of the ancient world. Seriously. Big, plodding, but adaptable. The first few times they tried to do something new they got kicked in the teeth, but they just wouldn't quit. In fact, it would often produce something so effective that they could dominate the region even more. It's true in Roman politics, engineering, warfare, administration, and so on. Like their method of bringing newly-conquered regions deeper and deeper into alliance, with promises of higher levels of privilege and tax relief, culminating in Roman citizenship itself... really amazing.
I expect your next message to be in the form of, "I think I ruined my relationship with my brother by flinging C&C dice at him while screaming and chasing him out of my house. That's what he gets for killing a heavy infantry unit and a leader with an unsupported auxila."
Uncanny. I did ALMOST this exact thing to my wife, except even worse because it was her turn and I played a "first strike", winning the game and robbing her of her certain win. My wife is pretty even-keeled, but she was quite annoyed. That would be enough to nerd-rage just about anybody (and I would probably have totally lost it).
A friend of mine did that to me. I nerd raged. Hard. He did it for his 3rd straight win in a row, out of only 3 games I'd played. I was feeling pretty hopeless losing to him ALL THE TIME. Regardless of which side of the battle I played. No matter how lop sided my initial advantage, it seemed I always rolled straight misses and he always rolled straight hits and crushed the shit out of me.
Now with 10 games under my belt things have evened out more considerably.
Does Ticket to Ride work well with kids around 10? Playing the digital version with three bots made the game feel hyper-competitive, so I'm a little worried that it could easily lead to a group of pouting and angry children. Even I was starting to get irritated towards the end of the bot game. (I'm used to playing it 2P with adults, so there's never been much direct competition.)
acidlacedpenguinInstitutionalizedSafe in jail.Registered Userregular
I liked ticket to ride the one or two times I've played it. . . If I were to buy it now is there some particular edition or version that could be considered the definitive, if you own only one this is the one to own, version?
Depends on how many players you want to be able to use it with, if I recall correctly. Europe was the first to introduce the tunnels and ferries, Märklin adds passengers and goods, Nordic is the best for 2p but only handles up to 3. So Märklin might be the "definitive" version, but it adds complexity to a game that otherwise works fine as a light, introductory game.
Personally, I've been happy with the basic USA version (with the 1910 expansion for larger, easier to shuffle cards and enough long routes to use the Big Ticket variant for 2p games).
Thanks for the buying advice, guys. I went with Twilight Struggle, because the lady is mad into that kind of thing and also, I think my dad would dig it. So, next question.
Puerto Rico or Agricola. Agricola is always expensive, but using the coupons on yoyo would really alleviate that. Also, I'm trying to remember...is Puerto Rico or Agricola a lot like Stone Age? I swear I heard that one of those was very similar.
0
admanbunionize your workplaceSeattle, WARegistered Userregular
Agricola and Stone Age are roughly similar. Stone Age is a lighter, easier worker placement game for newcomers. Although so far as I'm concerned, Lords of Waterdeep has replaced it rather completely in my collection.
Boom, that's what I needed, great, thanks. I'll do Puerto then and then later, maybe Le Havre or Ora & Labora sometime later.
I just got Alvin and Dexter and it seems like a silly way to add some flavor to Ticket to Ride. I'll read up on the instructions tonight, see if it adds any confrontation to a game I feel contains almost negative confrontation.
0
EvilBadmanDO NOT TRUST THIS MANRegistered Userregular
Boom, that's what I needed, great, thanks. I'll do Puerto then and then later, maybe Le Havre or Ora & Labora sometime later.
I just got Alvin and Dexter and it seems like a silly way to add some flavor to Ticket to Ride. I'll read up on the instructions tonight, see if it adds any confrontation to a game I feel contains almost negative confrontation.
A locomotive moves Alvin or Dexter 3 towns along a route, 2 moves them 6. Each monster can only be moved once a round (If player B moves Dexter, Dexter cannot be moved until player B's next turn). Locations where Alvin or Dexter are can not be built to. At end game, the towns with Alvin and Dexter on them have their ticket values halved. Also the player that moves Alvin and the player that moves Dexter the most gets a 15 point bonus.
Depends on how many players you want to be able to use it with, if I recall correctly. Europe was the first to introduce the tunnels and ferries, Märklin adds passengers and goods, Nordic is the best for 2p but only handles up to 3. So Märklin might be the "definitive" version, but it adds complexity to a game that otherwise works fine as a light, introductory game.
Personally, I've been happy with the basic USA version (with the 1910 expansion for larger, easier to shuffle cards and enough long routes to use the Big Ticket variant for 2p games).
I would consider either USA or Europe. Europe is my own personal preference. We also have it with the India/Switzerland expansion for better 2-3 player play. USA and Europe both keep the rules simpler, which is appropriate to the game, I think, as a more casual experience.
Edit: Alvin and Dexter feels almost sacrilegious to me, but that's because we specifically pull Ticket to Ride off the shelf for times when we want minimal cut-throatness and brain burning.
Starlit Citadel put an article up demonstrating how the Tabletop web series boosted sales of the games featured by a fair amount, which is nice to see. Settlers of Catan saw much less of a boost, because that's stocked everywhere, whereas stuff like Small Worlds saw a big ol' jump.
Does Ticket to Ride work well with kids around 10? Playing the digital version with three bots made the game feel hyper-competitive, so I'm a little worried that it could easily lead to a group of pouting and angry children. Even I was starting to get irritated towards the end of the bot game. (I'm used to playing it 2P with adults, so there's never been much direct competition.)
Kids that age can certainly handle the intellectual side of the game - I've played it with 10 year-olds, and have often played it with my friend's son, who is 11.
Winning and losing is not likely to be a problem - kids play games all the time and have plenty of practise at both. If there's a problem, it will be because the game's long and someone has a short attention span.
Starlit Citadel put an article up demonstrating how the Tabletop web series boosted sales of the games featured by a fair amount, which is nice to see. Settlers of Catan saw much less of a boost, because that's stocked everywhere, whereas stuff like Small Worlds saw a big ol' jump.
A girl walked into my game meeting via Meetup wanting to play Small World as her first boardgame ever, literally because of Tabletop.
Now she's a convert and comes to all the game meetings. Likes Defenders of the Realm and Saboteur best, so far.
We played a store copy of Puzzle Strike today, and it was actually a lot of fun.
Surprisingly, I seem to be the only human being in that store that remembers Puzzle Fighter. I have never even played the game, but I do know that it exists.
Puzzle Strike is playable online at http://fantasystrike.com/ if anyone wants to check it out. (They make two characters available for free each week, and playing quick matches lets you earn credits to permanently unlock additional characters.)
Board game night was a 5p game of Shogun (Wallenstein family variant); went very well and everyone had fun with it. The tower of uncertainty is a great way to resolve battles. Ended up winning the game on tiebreakers (money), with the game coming down to a two major battles in the final round.
Boom, that's what I needed, great, thanks. I'll do Puerto then and then later, maybe Le Havre or Ora & Labora sometime later.
I just got Alvin and Dexter and it seems like a silly way to add some flavor to Ticket to Ride. I'll read up on the instructions tonight, see if it adds any confrontation to a game I feel contains almost negative confrontation.
A locomotive moves Alvin or Dexter 3 towns along a route, 2 moves them 6. Each monster can only be moved once a round (If player B moves Dexter, Dexter cannot be moved until after player B's next turn). Locations where Alvin or Dexter are can not be built to. At end game, the towns with Alvin and Dexter on them have their ticket values halved. Also the player that moves Alvin and the player that moves Dexter the most gets a 15 point bonus.
It is pretty much cut all the throats.
Play Alvin And Dexter 3 or 5-player Big Cities for the mega-lols. A clever A&D tactic is, as the game is drawing to a close and you know you can't score a route, to move one of them onto your city as that halves the penalty you take.
Personally my Game Group think that 15 points for moving the monsters each is too much given that globetrotter and longest route are 15 and 10 points respectively.
Played Robo Rally for the first time yesterday, and won. That is a pretty fun game, but man, is it tough to plan ahead when too many of the other robots are nearby.
But the weirdest thing was that one of the other new players played, like, half the game without understanding the goal of the game. When I reached the third flag, he asked what the deal with the flags was :P Turns out he thought the goal was to kill the other robots...
Later he ended up screwing up a game of Lords of Waterdeep by moving another players scoring token instead of his own without any of us noticing. So no one knew who the real winner was. Pretty stupid day for him :P
Games went well with my brother. Played the first scenario of Commands & Colors: Ancients. He didn't care for it because it was too luck based. Ah he reminds me of myself when I first got into games. 100% deterministic games only. That way I can win 100% of the time, like I rightfully should! I'm sure he'll grow out of it as he plays more games. We played Eminent Domain after that which I think baffled him quite a bit. I think by the end he enjoyed it though.
Ah he reminds me of myself when I first got into games. 100% deterministic games only. That way I can win 100% of the time, like I rightfully should!
I'm starting to think that this is really the reason why so many people around my area flock to certain type of games. Which I find increasingly strange.
When I started out, I was mostly opposed to strongly confrontational games, and now my favourites include Cosmic Encounter, Game of Thrones and Chaos in the Old World. I wonder if people eventually let go of this necessity of removing randomness in their games, as they get more comfortable with different gameplay styles.
Thanks for the insight on lords of waterdeep. Gives me something to think about.
I'm considering picking up one or two games while that deal is going. How would you advise between the following: 7 wonders, core worlds, race for the galaxy, betrayal at house on the hill,
. I've played 7 wonders once, and none of the others.
Haven't played Core Worlds, but definitely 7 Wonders over the other two.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is like playing Candyland for half an hour followed by another half hour of braindead Hero Quest where half the players can't really do anything. I am not exaggerating about that Candyland comment; they both have the exact same level of interactivity. People will say it's an atmospheric game but they don't even put any effort into making the cards fun to read. At that point instead of playing a game your group might as well watch a cheesy horror movie together.
7 Wonders is Race for the Galaxy done a hundred times better. RftG has pretty artwork and plays quickly, but the theme is way too vague and as long as all players have hit the plateau of knowing how to play off actions, the game just comes down to luck. There are some hardcore Dominion experts in our group, but everyone eventually gave up on RftG when no one could find any strategy for improvement.
7 Wonders has clear goals, a clearer theme, almost as pretty art, and more interactivity with other players.
0
jergarmarhollow man crewgoes pew pew pewRegistered Userregular
7 Wonders is Race for the Galaxy done a hundred times better. RftG has pretty artwork and plays quickly, but the theme is way too vague and as long as all players have hit the plateau of knowing how to play off actions, the game just comes down to luck. There are some hardcore Dominion experts in our group, but everyone eventually gave up on RftG when no one could find any strategy for improvement.
7 Wonders has clear goals, a clearer theme, almost as pretty art, and more interactivity with other players.
I don't think I can quibble with any of your statements here, but directly comparing RftG and 7 Wonders (in which one replaces the other) is strange to me. What possible category do they both fit into?
How are they hugely different? They're both tableau-building "empire" card games where it's mostly multi-player solitaire except for a couple mechanics where you can deny opponents a card or two here and there.
Posts
Who says games aren't good for you?
So many left behind. For now.
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.
WOOOHOOOOOO!
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch
So maybe tonight I'll break him into Commands & Colors.
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Uncanny. I did ALMOST this exact thing to my wife, except even worse because it was her turn and I played a "first strike", winning the game and robbing her of her certain win. My wife is pretty even-keeled, but she was quite annoyed. That would be enough to nerd-rage just about anybody (and I would probably have totally lost it).
Just wanted to contribute that C&C:A does NOT seem to bring out the worst in AP players. I'm partly referring to myself, here.
EDIT:
Roman history is great. Rome was the Microsoft of the ancient world. Seriously. Big, plodding, but adaptable. The first few times they tried to do something new they got kicked in the teeth, but they just wouldn't quit. In fact, it would often produce something so effective that they could dominate the region even more. It's true in Roman politics, engineering, warfare, administration, and so on. Like their method of bringing newly-conquered regions deeper and deeper into alliance, with promises of higher levels of privilege and tax relief, culminating in Roman citizenship itself... really amazing.
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
A friend of mine did that to me. I nerd raged. Hard. He did it for his 3rd straight win in a row, out of only 3 games I'd played. I was feeling pretty hopeless losing to him ALL THE TIME. Regardless of which side of the battle I played. No matter how lop sided my initial advantage, it seemed I always rolled straight misses and he always rolled straight hits and crushed the shit out of me.
Now with 10 games under my belt things have evened out more considerably.
I'm sure they could comprehend it assuming they're intelligent. But asking if they'll enjoy it is anybody's guess ...
Perhaps I can interest you in my meager selection of pins?
Personally, I've been happy with the basic USA version (with the 1910 expansion for larger, easier to shuffle cards and enough long routes to use the Big Ticket variant for 2p games).
Puerto Rico or Agricola. Agricola is always expensive, but using the coupons on yoyo would really alleviate that. Also, I'm trying to remember...is Puerto Rico or Agricola a lot like Stone Age? I swear I heard that one of those was very similar.
I just got Alvin and Dexter and it seems like a silly way to add some flavor to Ticket to Ride. I'll read up on the instructions tonight, see if it adds any confrontation to a game I feel contains almost negative confrontation.
A locomotive moves Alvin or Dexter 3 towns along a route, 2 moves them 6. Each monster can only be moved once a round (If player B moves Dexter, Dexter cannot be moved until player B's next turn). Locations where Alvin or Dexter are can not be built to. At end game, the towns with Alvin and Dexter on them have their ticket values halved. Also the player that moves Alvin and the player that moves Dexter the most gets a 15 point bonus.
It is pretty much cut all the throats.
I would consider either USA or Europe. Europe is my own personal preference. We also have it with the India/Switzerland expansion for better 2-3 player play. USA and Europe both keep the rules simpler, which is appropriate to the game, I think, as a more casual experience.
Edit: Alvin and Dexter feels almost sacrilegious to me, but that's because we specifically pull Ticket to Ride off the shelf for times when we want minimal cut-throatness and brain burning.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3
Kids that age can certainly handle the intellectual side of the game - I've played it with 10 year-olds, and have often played it with my friend's son, who is 11.
Winning and losing is not likely to be a problem - kids play games all the time and have plenty of practise at both. If there's a problem, it will be because the game's long and someone has a short attention span.
A girl walked into my game meeting via Meetup wanting to play Small World as her first boardgame ever, literally because of Tabletop.
Now she's a convert and comes to all the game meetings. Likes Defenders of the Realm and Saboteur best, so far.
Surprisingly, I seem to be the only human being in that store that remembers Puzzle Fighter. I have never even played the game, but I do know that it exists.
Board game night was a 5p game of Shogun (Wallenstein family variant); went very well and everyone had fun with it. The tower of uncertainty is a great way to resolve battles. Ended up winning the game on tiebreakers (money), with the game coming down to a two major battles in the final round.
Play Alvin And Dexter 3 or 5-player Big Cities for the mega-lols. A clever A&D tactic is, as the game is drawing to a close and you know you can't score a route, to move one of them onto your city as that halves the penalty you take.
Personally my Game Group think that 15 points for moving the monsters each is too much given that globetrotter and longest route are 15 and 10 points respectively.
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.
But the weirdest thing was that one of the other new players played, like, half the game without understanding the goal of the game. When I reached the third flag, he asked what the deal with the flags was :P Turns out he thought the goal was to kill the other robots...
Later he ended up screwing up a game of Lords of Waterdeep by moving another players scoring token instead of his own without any of us noticing. So no one knew who the real winner was. Pretty stupid day for him :P
I'm starting to think that this is really the reason why so many people around my area flock to certain type of games. Which I find increasingly strange.
When I started out, I was mostly opposed to strongly confrontational games, and now my favourites include Cosmic Encounter, Game of Thrones and Chaos in the Old World. I wonder if people eventually let go of this necessity of removing randomness in their games, as they get more comfortable with different gameplay styles.
Haven't played Core Worlds, but definitely 7 Wonders over the other two.
Betrayal at House on the Hill is like playing Candyland for half an hour followed by another half hour of braindead Hero Quest where half the players can't really do anything. I am not exaggerating about that Candyland comment; they both have the exact same level of interactivity. People will say it's an atmospheric game but they don't even put any effort into making the cards fun to read. At that point instead of playing a game your group might as well watch a cheesy horror movie together.
7 Wonders is Race for the Galaxy done a hundred times better. RftG has pretty artwork and plays quickly, but the theme is way too vague and as long as all players have hit the plateau of knowing how to play off actions, the game just comes down to luck. There are some hardcore Dominion experts in our group, but everyone eventually gave up on RftG when no one could find any strategy for improvement.
7 Wonders has clear goals, a clearer theme, almost as pretty art, and more interactivity with other players.
I don't think I can quibble with any of your statements here, but directly comparing RftG and 7 Wonders (in which one replaces the other) is strange to me. What possible category do they both fit into?
My BoardGameGeek profile
Battle.net: TheGerm#1430 (Hearthstone, Destiny 2)
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar