2008 Thoughts

I consider 2008 to be an excellent year in new and "new to us" games.

New games:

Race for the Galaxy, Glory to Rome, Agricola, In the Year of the Dragon, Pandemic, Perikles, Phoenicia, Battlestar Galactica, Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!, Thebes.

New to Us games:

Imperial, Hollywood Blockbuster, I'm the Boss!, In the Shadow of the Emperor, Pillars of the Earth, Wings of War, Atlantic Star, Medici.

New to my collection, but unplayed at WAGS

Red November, Space Alert

With the exception of Phoenicia, I would consider them all good to very good (well, Atlantic Star was a little bland, but it certainly wasn't bad). That's a pretty good success rate!

The first few years for me at WAGS were about catching up to the backlog of great german style games already released (the Alea line, Knizia's catalogue, the top 10 at BGG, etc). Last year was mostly about finding good/ great games that filled in niches that were kind of lacking (Last Night on Earth = horror, Jungle Speed = filler, Blue Moon City = casual strrategy, Dungeon Twister= well themed abstract, Nexus Ops = a better Risk). This year, I felt a little more in tune with the cult of the new at BGG, because I had caught up with most of what I wanted to try, and my game collection covered most of the bases I wanted it to (well, I'm still looking for a great civ type game, and a great negotiation game).

This is my take on the trends in this year's crop of new games:

1) Space seems to be the new renaissance Italy for game settings.
2) Cooperative games have become all the rage, and/or games that play well solo (often the same, but not always).
3) Pure German type games are starting to be a hard sell. Games that are mainly exercises in manipulating clever mechanics for victory points are starting to feel a bit "samey". I have already played a number of these, I already own a number of these, and although I still *love* them... I don't feel a burning desire to discover more. This year, the only successful new game that fits the classic mold is In the Year of the Dragon. Agricola sort of fits, but to me it feels like something different... which brings me to my next point:
4) The most significant change I've noticed this year is the gradual takeover of cards as the driving mechanic for game design. From Agricola to Dominion, Race for the Galaxy to Space Alert, the main innovation this year seems to be that strategy games are meeting card games in the middle. This happened in wargames with the introduction of CDGs (card driven wargames) and ameritrash games have used this tactic for quite some time. Did the trend in other types of games coincide with the rise of Magic the Gathering? I can't really say, but the impact is starting to cross-over to german games. The advantages of cards are obvious: base mechanics can be simple while the card powers can add chrome. Theme becomes much easier to convey through the use of imagery/ flavour text/multiple specific events or actions on the cards. The downside, however, is that cards bring their own share of issues: randomness, lack of balance between the cards, over-reliance on the cards to make the game interesting, etc. and some of these run in direct contradiction to what german games were all about.

For me, Agricola is the poster boy for this shift. Since Agricola has been such a big deal this year, I'll dwell on this one for a bit.

At it's core, Agricola is akin to being asked to make the tallest possible pile from a bunch of random objects. Your goal is to efficiently use what is at your disposal to make that tall tower. In the game, you are just picking from the vast selection of actions available, and trying to make those points add up to as many points as possible. The only thing Agricola brings to the table of game design is an enormous pile of cards. This takes an otherwise perfect information game and gives each player a different set of additional things to consider (or, to get back to the previous analogy, their personal pile of random objects to use to build their tower). Don't get me wrong, I like Agricola. The process of efficiently ordering what is in front of you can be enjoyable, but that doesn't change the fact that there is very little in the way of clever game mechanics underneath it all... which was previously the hallmark of german games (well, that and brevity, which is also AWOL here). Still, the immediacy of the theme combined with potentially endless combinations of cards has come together to make a game popular enough to unseat Puerto Rico as the #1 game on BGG... unbalanced cards and all. I can't help but think that Agricola is a sign of things to come, but that ultimately a better game will come that combines cards and great and interesting game mechanics will soon do it better.

So, crossover games, wargames and card games have been more interesting to me this year. With the exception of Perikles, none of the following games would have been possible without cards as the central mechanic.

Perikles is primarily a euro, but there are some definite elements of wargames in the design. When I played it earlier this year, Ireally enjoyed how the various elements came together, and I felt that the players had enough influence in the game that the die based combat was fun rather than frustrating.

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! is a wargame that integrates an action point system and a quest for brevity, simplicity and economy that feels heavily influenced by euro design principles. I've played this mostly outside of WAGS, but I really like it. The action point system it uses, particularly the concept of Command Points vs Action Points, is brilliant.

Race for the Galaxy and Glory to Rome have used the same basic system as San Juan/ Puerto Rico to make a card game that almost feels like a boardgame. Although there is an issue with the "multiplayer solitaire" nature of the gameplay in RftG, I still quite enjoy playing it. I like that the expansion to RftG allows for solo play, but I haven't had a chance to test it out very often. I personally find playing Glory to Rome more fun, but I do like both. RftG does a really remarkable job of minimizing the inherent problems with card games, particularly the card balance and randomness issues. Glory to Rome, as much fun as it is, doesn't even try.

Battlestar Galactica takes primarily from the ameritrash side (long, lots of chrome, huge swings of luck resulting from the order cards come out, etc), but the result has clearly been polished by some euro sensibilities (much like Fury of Dracula, also by FFG). The traitor mechanic and the way players are forced to deal with a growing number of emergencies over the course of the game is very similar in theory to Shadows over Camelot, but the implementation is significantly more successful. The game system breeds suspicion and yet provides many means to keep the traitor's identity secret. Based on my single play, it seems like a winner. I do wish it was shorter, though.

Pandemic is a great, quick, euro style cooperative game. The way the deck reshuffles to amplify the danger is simple but very clever.

Space Alert captured my imagination with the promise of a cooperative version of Robo-Rally that plays in just 10 minutes. I played the intro scenario solo and I'm not quite sure what to make of it yet. I suspect we will be screwing up very badly because there is a lot to take in, and not a lot of time to take it in with... hopefully it will at least be funny! There are only 10 or so soundtracks that come with the game, but since the soundtrack primarily tells you when to draw from a deck of cards and what to do with them, the game should stay fresh and variable.

I currently have the new edition of Cosmic Encounter (the grand daddy of games where a basic system meets a deck of powers) in my sights. II suppose it's possible Magic the Gathering was inspired in part by this game. Regardless, it looks like a really fun negotiation/ war game. I'd also love to try Chinatown, since I'm still looking for a great deal-making game (though I'm the Boss! was quite a lot of fun a few weeks ago).

Ticket to Ride continues to be the most popular game to play with friends and family outside of WAGS, but Hollywood Blockbuster, Wings of War and Nexus Ops gave it a good run for it's money this year. Occasional wargaming with Kozure has been a great deal of fun and a nice change of pace.

I can only hope that 2009 is as good a year as 2008 was.

2008 Year end stats

2008 was another great year at WAGS.

Here's a rundown of what was played (I haven't included anything played outside of WAGS, even if it has been recorded in the blog). I'll talk a little bit more about my impressions in a future post.

9 plays
Race for the Galaxy (7 base game + 2 with The Gathering Storm expansion)

5 plays
Glory to Rome

4 plays
Agricola

3 plays
Imperial
In the Year of the Dragon
Pandemic
Perikles
Phoenicia
Ra
Railroad Tycoon (1 base game + 2 with Rails of Europe expansion)

2 plays
Blue Moon City
Colossal Arena
Diamant
Entdecker
Fairy Tale
Goa
Hollywood Blockbuster
I'm the Boss
In the Shadow of the emperor
Jumpgate (prototype)
Last Night on Earth
Pillars of the Earth
PowerGrid
Princes of Florence
Puerto Rico
Shogun
The Kaiser's Pirates
Transeuropa
Wings of War
Zooloretto

1 play
A Game of Thrones
Aladdin's Dragons
Atlantic Star
Battlestar Galactica
Beowulf
China
Citadels
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!
Corn (prototype)
Die Macher
El Grande
For Sale!
Funny friends
High Society
Jungle Speed
Mall of Horror
Medici
Nexus Ops
Plunder
RoboRally
Santiago
Sid Meier's Civilization
Taj Mahal
Thebes
Tigris and Euphrates
To Court the King
Traders of Genoa
Transamerica
Vegas Showdown
Wildlife
Zombie (prototype)

So, there you have it. 110 sessions played of 61 different games. 31 of those different games played more than once, 30 played a single time.

The fact that Race for the Galaxy was the most played game doesn't surprise me. The fact that Glory to Rome beat out Agricola for #2 does.

The fact that El Grande, my favorite game, is only here once makes me sad. Luckily, just about my entire game collection got played (though not all at WAGS). Although I am aware that it's getting very big, there isn't anything really gathering too much dust.

Notably missing, however: Carcassonne/ Antike/ Fury of Dracula/ Tikal/ Through the Desert/ Duel of Ages

Even older skool (I'm the Boss!, Medici, Atlantic Star)

JayWowzer was back for a surprise visit as he wraps up some of his loose ends in Toronto. He offered to bring some games, and Luch picked a number of games we hadn't ever played before. Although I had never heard of Atlantic Star, the other two have long been on my list of games to try.

I'm the Boss!

We started the evening with I'm the Boss! This is a 15 year old game by Sid Sackson which has a lot of lovers and haters on BGG. Having played it, I can see why.

The board features a number of spaces, each featuring a deal that can be made. Players start the game as one of the wealthy characters that can get involved in the deals. An example of a deal would be "Cashman + either Dougherty or Goldman split 3 shares". Theoretically, that means that the player with the Cashman card would negotiate with either the player with the Dougherty or the Goldman card to decide how to split up the share and complete the deal. Problem is that everyone else wants to get in on the deal, too. I haven't yet mentioned that all players get a hand of cards, and that those cards contain events such as "Cashman goes on a trip". Cashman can't very well participate in a deal is she's off on a trip, now can she? Not coincidentally, other cards represent relatives and friends of the various characters that are more than willing to step in and make a deal in the place of a suddenly unavailable character. There are also cards that allow a player to steal a character card away from someone else, "I'm the Boss!" cards that change who is in the position to decide if a deal is made, and "Stop!" cards that cancel a card being played.

The way it usually plays out is that the acting player (the "boss") lands on a space and proposes a deal to one or more players. counter proposals are made, other players try to get in on the action by sending some of the characters involved on trips and suggesting their own related characters instead. If a deal seems particularly lucrative, someone else might take control of the turn to cash in, but of course someone else might play a "stop" card, or play a card that makes him the boss!

Sound chaotic? It is.

But it's fun, too. At first, we weren't sure how to handle the negotiations. It felt mean interrupting a deal in progress. There was a reluctance to participate in negotiations with someone that had displaced someone else. That soon passed. I should say, however, that in the first few deals there was more focus on trying to railroad the deal maker but as the game progressed it became much more about screwing the other participants in the deal OR becoming the boss.

We enjoyed the game so much we played twice in a row. You'll have to search long and hard through the blog to find another game in recent history that was played twice in a row. Shemp immediately declared he wanted to buy it.

Our first game was a learning experience. I wasn't really sure why being the boss was an advantage, I was missing opportunities to put my hat in the ring at the right time, etc. However, everyone else was likely having similar problems. On what turned out to be the last turn, I closed a really lucrative deal and it put me in first place. It felt a little random, but no matter.

In our second game, I played with a bit more purpose. I snagged three character cards and was using them to underbid everyone with the intention of getting small amounts from a lot of deals in the game (in this game, when you use your character card instead of cards from your hand, they are not used up so you can afford to bid lower). I felt like it was working ok, but I missed out on a really big deal and split my earnings with Luch a few too many times. He won.

Medici

Next up was Medici. This is a Knizia auction game that is commonly compared to Ra... now that I've played it I'm not surprised. Although the two games are substantially different, they are very similar in feel and weight.

In Medici, players are traders trying to accumulate wealth through shrewd acquisition of spices and other goods. Just like Ra, however, the theme is rather thin. The result is a somewhat mathematical set collection game, but fun in it's own way. Here, the tiles have two attributes: colour and value. Points are scored for leading in number of tiles in each colour and for having high total values of all tiles in the current set. After three rounds, the players with the most points wins. One interesting twist is that players bid for the lots using the points they've accumulated, so excellent set collecting can be undone by overbidding. Another interesting aspect is that the 5 tile maximum means that, for example, once you've taken a lot with three tiles you are excluded from subsequent 3 tile lots, since you only have two spaces left. This restriction was used to good effect on a number of occasions by players who would effectively block a player from getting a tile they needed by growing the lot to a bigger number of tiles than that player could take.

My first impression is that Medici is simpler to understand than Ra, largely because the scoring is easier to grasp. I'd also say it's a little less fun, because the "push your luck" element in Ra is more compelling in my mind. Still, it was a good game that I'd happily play any time.

Luch destroyed us in this game. He simultaneously had the highest lot totals and climbed colour ladders as fast as the rest of us. I didn't notice at the time, but he must have been auctioning fairly conservatively as well. Shemp and I had a few notable turns where we dramatically overbid (20!). I think I finished tied for third place, which was decent considering how badly I was trailing for most of the game.

Atlantic Star

The final game for the evening was Atlantic Star, a card game about completing cruise itineraries (apparently it is mechanically identical to Showmanager, a game about completing plays).

It's a pretty simple system. There are 5 different routes to try to complete, and each turn you choose a card that represents one leg of the trip from the 4 cards available. Each route can only be completed once by each player, and once it is completed it is added to a chart in order of VPs accumulated. The game system is such that all players will complete all their routes on the same turn, and that is when the game ends.

I don't know. It was fine, but not exceptional. There was some tension in hoping that cards that worked particularly well with your hand would make it to you without getting chosen by another player... but there isn't much that can be done about it either way. Completing routes early is an advantage because ties are broken by the first player to have completed the route.

Luch once again demolished us. He managed a number of high scoring routes, though I couldn't tell what he did that was different than what I was doing. Anyway, it was nice way to end the evening.

A particularly fun evening of gaming. JayWowzer, it is unfortunate we won't be seeing you too often in the future... It's been great gaming with you.

Cyclops. Cylon. Cyclon. (Battlestar Galactica, Zombie game prototype)

Just as one american guest Wagster, JayWowzer, slowly ends his visits to Canada, another comes along. Mvinarcik, a BGG user from Ohio( I think) joined us this week and brought along his copy of Battlestar Galactica.

Battlestar Galactica

Battlestar Galactica is a cooperative game with a traitor similar to Shadows over Camelot. Players play the various characters from the show as they try to work together to defend Galactica from the incoming cylons, hunger, demoralization, infighting, etc. However, some of the characters might be cylons working against them... suspicion ensues.

In my opinion, the game works much better than SoC did. There is much more going on, and the system builds in possibilities for subterfuge on the part of the hidden cylons. We made a few errors in our first game which led to an easier than normal game (we accidentally had fewer cylons than the game called for), but even though we won the game by the skin of our teeth. The whole package is very thematic and appears to be an excellent adaptation of the source material into a game. My only complaint is that the game is long at 2-3 hours, and from what I read it's unlikely to get shorter. Not a big deal, but it will limit how often it gets out.

I played Tyrol the deck engineer, Luch played Helo, Mvinarcik played Laura Roslin and Kozure played Lee Adama. After Helo came back from the colonies, he quickly took the title of Admiral from Lee. Clearly drunk with power, Helo then proceeded to steal the title of president from Roslin. We were obviously suspicious of him. Of course, until then Roslin had been doing nothing but drawing Quorum cards and doing nothing with them. We were obviously suspicious of her, too.

When Roslin suggested it was dangerous for all this power to be in the hands of one man, I didn't know who to vote for. They were both suspect in my book.

Lee and Tyrol where both fairly obviously on the side of the humans, because they were working tirelessly to defend and repair the ship. In fact, I came to the conclusion that trying to play the game without Tyrol on the human's side would be significantly more difficult. Unfortunately, as we approached Kobol Lee decided he liked the cylons after all and switched sides. Perched far away on a cylon baseship, Cylon lovin' Lee did his best to take us down to no avail. We made the jumps we needed and made it home.

We had very little space combat, and no cylons boarded the ship. I suspect our game was atypical, or that there is a substantial variability in the way things swing from game to game. That's a good thing in my book.

I had a good time with this one. I look forward to playing again in the future.

We finished up with a play of a prototype zombie game that Kozure is working on. Since it's a prototype, I won't talk about it much.

An evening at war (Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear!, Wings of War)

This evening started with a healthy debate on the pros and cons of the current plans for a coalition governments in Canada during this economic crisis. I think we came to the conclusion that's it's a good thing. Also, that it's a bad thing. Glad we got that all cleared up.

With only four players this week, I took advantage of my pick and chose to try out Conflict of Heroes on the group. I've played a number of scenarios already, and already knew that I liked it as a two player wargame, but I wasn't sure how the 4 player scenarios would work out or if Shemp and Luch would like it.

We played the online scenario "Smolensk Breakout". It's a beginner's scenario for 2-4 players where the germans are hold up in a series of buildings trying to defend from the surrounding russians until their own reinforcements arrive. It's entirely infantry based, but there are cards in the mix. On first inspection, it seemed perfect for the occasion.

Mechanically, I'd say Shemp and Luch caught on very quickly. Shemp tamed up with Kozure as the attacking russians, and Luch and I played the defending germans. Once the concept of action points, command action points and opportunity actions are understood this game is a walk in the park rules-wise. For a wargame, that's an admirable achievement.

In the end, though, the experience wasn't as much fun as I'd hoped. There was a couple of factors which led to this:

1) We were playing too slowly. The game is easy enough to play quickly, and so with a bit more experience with the system we should get there. If the scenario played out to 5 rounds in an hour, as the scenario suggests, the experience would have been much improved.
2) I was on the defending side, and I played too aggressively. By taking unnecessary risk, I lost some important units. As the game progressed, the lost units contributed to a somewhat boring losing proposition for the germans. There was little tension or sense of struggle for either side... the germans were going to lose, it was just a matter of how badly.
3) We messed up with the reinforcement schedule, placing all the russians on the board in the first round. This, of course, added to the lopsided scenario.

By the end of the third round, we called it a win for the russians. All of my units were eliminated, and Luch had maybe two left. It wasn't pretty.

I don't want to fault the scenario or the game. As I said, I think Luch and Shemp would be willing to give it another go. With a bit of experience under our belt, I still think it could be a really fun 4 player experience. We had a couple of questions regarding the 4 player game rules, but nothing too serious.

(as an aside: Having played a 5 scenarios at this point, I'm starting to feel the limitations of the system a little more than I had in the beginning. The loss of leaders, the integration of squads and their weapons into a single counter, etc all add up to a simpler experience than a slightly more complex game such as the Ln'L system. There was a moment in Wednesday's game where Shemp destroyed a machine gun squad, and I realized there was no way for him to use it. It was a little disappointing to notice that such small things mattered to me more than I initially expected).

We finished up with another round of Wings of War. As the Red Baron (again) I flew literal circles around Kozure's Spad. However, my shooting left something to be desire, and Shemp eventually joined the fray to finish me off. I could't defend myself and was the first player eliminated. Somehow, Luch recovered from my loss and managed to take down Shemp and Kozure. Victory for the forces of GOOD!!!" It was lots of fun.