Wednesday, December 22, 2010
...but also staying here.
If you've ever been to Bruno Faidutti's website (www.faidutti.com), he has a very cool feature called the Ideal Game Library, where he keeps track of games he thinks are worth having around. I intend to use this blog (or maybe eventually another website) to do the very same, except I intend to add a little more detail, in particular, I will have excerpts on why games were excluded (and if the game it isn't in either side, then I haven't played it yet). I'll list the parameters and whatnot after I begin the process of picking what games go where, and hopefully will have some convenient links to keep the whole thing organized. Actual game reviews will be on meepletown, and I'll link to them here. These will be more like rants. So this is the post just to say, keep checking back, there will be cool content here in the future.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Moving to MeepleTown!
Starting next year, I'm going to write for meepletown.com, and posts here will show up about 2 weeks after that... so... see you in a bit. :)
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The problem with pure auction games.
Last weekend, I was finally able to get my first 5-player game of Cyclades in. Cyclades sure seems like a wargame, but the goal of the game is actually economic: be the first player to build two metropolises. Furthermore, to do any particular action in the game, you must win an auction for the Greek god that grants that action: you need Ares to move troops, Poseidon for ships, Zeus to get discounts, etc. It was a great game, easily my favorite of the night. It got me thinking why the very lauded bidding games of Reiner Knizia (Ra, Taj Mahal, Modern Art) have fallen a bit flat for me, and I think I have the answer.
In a game like Cyclades, after you win the auction, you are simply setting up the turn order and what options you have for your turn... but then you actually take turns, and through this process, you "feel" the benefit of the bid that you won. You tangibly utilize your bid on Ares by buying troops and taking over other islands, and after the turn is over, you have a bit more of an understanding of which god you need next and how much money you're willing to spend. It's a very good system.
On the other hand, in a game like Ra or Taj Mahal, when you win your bid, you collect some tokens or tiles, and then... that's it. Rinse and repeat. The only tangible way of understanding, or maybe I should say appreciating, the result of your bid is the resultant change in score. However, at least for me, that isn't the least bit satisfying. Especially since both of those games have static scoring. The only difference here is that in Modern Art, when popularity is determined for each artist at the end of the round, you can see if your gambits paid off as much as you thought they would. But that satisfaction is short-lived, and isn't tangible until the end of the round. Furthermore, it's something easily ruined by other players. Though your plans in Cyclades might be ruined later on, in the moment that you take your turn and perform your actions, you can feel the satisfaction of earning the right to those moves. (Well, I guess I should also add that in Ra, the benefit of gaining a new, higher sun in a bid is something that you will use to some satisfaction in the following round.)
I'm not trying to say that any of these Knizia designs are poorly designed, because these are probably the best in their genre. For me, though, there's no joy in bidding just to bid. I want to experience the benefit of the bid, directly within the game. And none of those three games give that feeling much at all. I wonder if Amun-Re is different.
In a game like Cyclades, after you win the auction, you are simply setting up the turn order and what options you have for your turn... but then you actually take turns, and through this process, you "feel" the benefit of the bid that you won. You tangibly utilize your bid on Ares by buying troops and taking over other islands, and after the turn is over, you have a bit more of an understanding of which god you need next and how much money you're willing to spend. It's a very good system.
On the other hand, in a game like Ra or Taj Mahal, when you win your bid, you collect some tokens or tiles, and then... that's it. Rinse and repeat. The only tangible way of understanding, or maybe I should say appreciating, the result of your bid is the resultant change in score. However, at least for me, that isn't the least bit satisfying. Especially since both of those games have static scoring. The only difference here is that in Modern Art, when popularity is determined for each artist at the end of the round, you can see if your gambits paid off as much as you thought they would. But that satisfaction is short-lived, and isn't tangible until the end of the round. Furthermore, it's something easily ruined by other players. Though your plans in Cyclades might be ruined later on, in the moment that you take your turn and perform your actions, you can feel the satisfaction of earning the right to those moves. (Well, I guess I should also add that in Ra, the benefit of gaining a new, higher sun in a bid is something that you will use to some satisfaction in the following round.)
I'm not trying to say that any of these Knizia designs are poorly designed, because these are probably the best in their genre. For me, though, there's no joy in bidding just to bid. I want to experience the benefit of the bid, directly within the game. And none of those three games give that feeling much at all. I wonder if Amun-Re is different.
Strategy Post: Dominion
I'll get around to talking about pure-auction games eventually, but today here is something I wrote a while ago about Dominion strategy (excluding anything that might change with the addition of the Prosperity expansion, which makes quite a difference.) I'm now up to 65% win-rate on BSW with close to 500 games, so I stand by the comments I made in this post, though most of them are beginner's tips.
I'm no master at Dominion, but after 250 plays on BSW with about a 60% win ratio (no idea if that is good), I've learned a few basic things I thought I'd share.
1.) The first few turns: Every time you play this game, you begin on the first two turns either with a 4/3 or 5/2 split of money. You will most likely buy 2 cards, then reshuffle your 12-card deck for turn 3. This game exponentially punishes early mistakes/rewards early advantages, so these turns are crucial. Here are the common things I see -
1a.) Buying two terminal actions: by "terminal" I mean actions that do not give extra actions. For example, say you bought a Woodcutter and a Smithy. When drawing 5 cards out of 12, you've got a decent shot at drawing both actions, and thus having one card just being dead in your hand. And even if it's not a HUGE percentage, say you just draw the Smithy. Then you play the Smithy, and now you've drawn 8 out of 12 cards - do you really think it is unlikely that you will now have the Woodcutter wasting space in your hand? On one of those turns (probably the turn with 3 money), you should have bought a Silver that you could actually use.
1b.) Buying a Village: Village is a great, and very stupid, card. It is so good, though, that people play it terribly and make it eve more annoying. Let's say you buy a Village and another action, or a Village and a Silver (since you could not buy a Gold in the first few turns, and you wouldn't buy a Copper or Estate, I'd think). Let's compare both scenarios to if you'd bought a Silver instead of the Village:
If you bought the Village and another action, and you draw them both, you play both and are very excited. Your hand consists of whatever you drew from the Village, the 3 other cards, and whatever happened from the action. The card you drew from the Village is either a Copper or an Estate. If the Village has been a Silver, you would have still played your other action, but the card you drew with the Village would be a Silver instead, which is better than either a Copper or an Estate. You blew it.
If you only draw the other action, it doesn't matter - UNLESS your action draws you into the now-unplayable Village, that you wish was a silver.
If you only draw the Village and don't draw into the other action, you are looking at a Copper or an Estate from the draw, that you wish was a Silver.
The other scenario, where you have a Village, and a Silver as your two buys is even more obvious: That Village, when first played, translates merely into another Copper or Estate.
So, to summarize, buying a Village before you actually have two actions to use it with (especially in the first two turns) is always worse than buying a Silver.
1c) Not buying a Chapel: If the Chapel is available, you should buy it immediately, even on your 3 with a 3/4 split. If you do not, and your opponent does, and they play it correctly, you will lose. I could rant forever about the Chapel, but safe to say that at least among the cards available on BSW, no other strategy can trump the Chapel, which is unfortunate, as it's the only "broken" card I've found in the game so far. This scenario is not as important as the other two.
2) In general, people undervalue Silver and Gold and overvalue their Coppers and Estates.
2a) Estates: These do not help you until the game is actually over. Depending on how many turns you take, you are denying yourself that many cards in your hand, over and over. It is prudent to trash these as soon as possible, whether it be with Remodel, Upgrade, Chapel, or whatever else. Now, if there is no good trashing card available, then you have to make do. Certainly in some scenarios you may try to get an advantage first - for example, in a set with the Baron, you may end up keeping them the whole time. And Islanding them may be better than Trashing them, depending on the setup. But in general, you have to realize these are a measily one point - and especially now that Prosperity adds ways to score points in more efficient ways (i.e. Monument), it's time to let go.
2b) Copper: Next to Estates and Curses, Copper is the worst card you can have in your deck! Buying extra Copper is a very common thing to do when you first play, but every Copper you add decreases the likelihood of drawing everything else, and almost everything else is better! I will sometimes buy Copper in the late game if it is becoming awkward and I keep drawing too many actions (due to my own fault) or too many Green/Curse cards (whether it be my fault or theirs), to try to even the distribution. And there are certainly cards that justify their purchase (Gardens, Coppersmith, Counting House). A corollary of this section is that you should never feel justified to utilize all your buys, or to even fully utilize your available Treasure. It is almost never correct to spend all extra buys, and to a lesser extent, it is not always correct to spend all of your Treasure just to feel like you maximized.
2c) Silver: Take a minute and look at the cards Chancellor, Woodcutter, and Swindler. They all give 2 coins, just like Silver, AND do something else. How is that fair to Silver? Is Silver a strictly worse card? No, because being an action is a DISADVANTAGE! You can run out of actions! You cannot run out of Treasure plays! The sooner you realize that your deck can only support a certain ratio of actions, the better. I make one caveat: Swindler is busted in the early game, so I would advocate buying that in one of the first two rounds, because it is so good then and so much worse later on. I would possibly even break my own rule above and buy two Swindlers in the first two turns, even though it is terminal.
2d) Gold: Things have changed quite a bit with Prosperity, but from at least the base set, Intrigue, and Seaside (Potions in Alchemy also make things awkward), I would say that Gold is a more powerful card than ANY of those action cards across all three seats. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Most every game I lose IRL in Dominion is because I am deceived by shiny new actions I haven't played with yet, and that's the curse of this game: People want to play with all the new cards, then do terrible, then hate the game because it isn't fun when you can't do anything (and is definitely an advantage of newer games like Ascension, where you can pretty much do whatever you want). I've said before Dominion is a game of discipline, and that's pretty much the key to the game.
I'm no master at Dominion, but after 250 plays on BSW with about a 60% win ratio (no idea if that is good), I've learned a few basic things I thought I'd share.
1.) The first few turns: Every time you play this game, you begin on the first two turns either with a 4/3 or 5/2 split of money. You will most likely buy 2 cards, then reshuffle your 12-card deck for turn 3. This game exponentially punishes early mistakes/rewards early advantages, so these turns are crucial. Here are the common things I see -
1a.) Buying two terminal actions: by "terminal" I mean actions that do not give extra actions. For example, say you bought a Woodcutter and a Smithy. When drawing 5 cards out of 12, you've got a decent shot at drawing both actions, and thus having one card just being dead in your hand. And even if it's not a HUGE percentage, say you just draw the Smithy. Then you play the Smithy, and now you've drawn 8 out of 12 cards - do you really think it is unlikely that you will now have the Woodcutter wasting space in your hand? On one of those turns (probably the turn with 3 money), you should have bought a Silver that you could actually use.
1b.) Buying a Village: Village is a great, and very stupid, card. It is so good, though, that people play it terribly and make it eve more annoying. Let's say you buy a Village and another action, or a Village and a Silver (since you could not buy a Gold in the first few turns, and you wouldn't buy a Copper or Estate, I'd think). Let's compare both scenarios to if you'd bought a Silver instead of the Village:
If you bought the Village and another action, and you draw them both, you play both and are very excited. Your hand consists of whatever you drew from the Village, the 3 other cards, and whatever happened from the action. The card you drew from the Village is either a Copper or an Estate. If the Village has been a Silver, you would have still played your other action, but the card you drew with the Village would be a Silver instead, which is better than either a Copper or an Estate. You blew it.
If you only draw the other action, it doesn't matter - UNLESS your action draws you into the now-unplayable Village, that you wish was a silver.
If you only draw the Village and don't draw into the other action, you are looking at a Copper or an Estate from the draw, that you wish was a Silver.
The other scenario, where you have a Village, and a Silver as your two buys is even more obvious: That Village, when first played, translates merely into another Copper or Estate.
So, to summarize, buying a Village before you actually have two actions to use it with (especially in the first two turns) is always worse than buying a Silver.
1c) Not buying a Chapel: If the Chapel is available, you should buy it immediately, even on your 3 with a 3/4 split. If you do not, and your opponent does, and they play it correctly, you will lose. I could rant forever about the Chapel, but safe to say that at least among the cards available on BSW, no other strategy can trump the Chapel, which is unfortunate, as it's the only "broken" card I've found in the game so far. This scenario is not as important as the other two.
2) In general, people undervalue Silver and Gold and overvalue their Coppers and Estates.
2a) Estates: These do not help you until the game is actually over. Depending on how many turns you take, you are denying yourself that many cards in your hand, over and over. It is prudent to trash these as soon as possible, whether it be with Remodel, Upgrade, Chapel, or whatever else. Now, if there is no good trashing card available, then you have to make do. Certainly in some scenarios you may try to get an advantage first - for example, in a set with the Baron, you may end up keeping them the whole time. And Islanding them may be better than Trashing them, depending on the setup. But in general, you have to realize these are a measily one point - and especially now that Prosperity adds ways to score points in more efficient ways (i.e. Monument), it's time to let go.
2b) Copper: Next to Estates and Curses, Copper is the worst card you can have in your deck! Buying extra Copper is a very common thing to do when you first play, but every Copper you add decreases the likelihood of drawing everything else, and almost everything else is better! I will sometimes buy Copper in the late game if it is becoming awkward and I keep drawing too many actions (due to my own fault) or too many Green/Curse cards (whether it be my fault or theirs), to try to even the distribution. And there are certainly cards that justify their purchase (Gardens, Coppersmith, Counting House). A corollary of this section is that you should never feel justified to utilize all your buys, or to even fully utilize your available Treasure. It is almost never correct to spend all extra buys, and to a lesser extent, it is not always correct to spend all of your Treasure just to feel like you maximized.
2c) Silver: Take a minute and look at the cards Chancellor, Woodcutter, and Swindler. They all give 2 coins, just like Silver, AND do something else. How is that fair to Silver? Is Silver a strictly worse card? No, because being an action is a DISADVANTAGE! You can run out of actions! You cannot run out of Treasure plays! The sooner you realize that your deck can only support a certain ratio of actions, the better. I make one caveat: Swindler is busted in the early game, so I would advocate buying that in one of the first two rounds, because it is so good then and so much worse later on. I would possibly even break my own rule above and buy two Swindlers in the first two turns, even though it is terminal.
2d) Gold: Things have changed quite a bit with Prosperity, but from at least the base set, Intrigue, and Seaside (Potions in Alchemy also make things awkward), I would say that Gold is a more powerful card than ANY of those action cards across all three seats. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Most every game I lose IRL in Dominion is because I am deceived by shiny new actions I haven't played with yet, and that's the curse of this game: People want to play with all the new cards, then do terrible, then hate the game because it isn't fun when you can't do anything (and is definitely an advantage of newer games like Ascension, where you can pretty much do whatever you want). I've said before Dominion is a game of discipline, and that's pretty much the key to the game.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)