Infiltration for Two

Due to motorway problems, there were just two of us this week - Dave D and me. After a bit of a wait to see if anyone else turned up, Dave and I played a couple of games of Infiltration which, I must say, is a much more satisfying game as a two-player. This stems from the fact that each player controls two characters rather than one, meaning it's easier to co-ordinate actions so that you can actually benefit as a team. One issue when you've a single character is, for me at least, that often you can't think of any action to take which doesn't benefit someone else more than it does you - you smash a lock, someone else grabs all the loot; you discover a room, someone else interfaces and takes advantage. With the 2-player game, your two agents act almost like a tag team - they can pull for each other if you can co-ordinate them correctly, and this allows for an amount of strategy, albeit small, and increases interest in decision-making as you try to figure out how to do things optimally and to your best advantage. Now, it's not just about: "which card do I play?", but also: in what order do I play these cards to benefit myself whilst limiting my opponent?". Much more interesting. A game that I was cold on has turned itself around for me... but, for me, it shall always remain 2-player only. It's just no fun, otherwise. Oh yeah, and the characters should have variable powers. The flavour is pointless without something to differentiate them.

Rush hour in City Tycoon - a bit too busy?

Just to show we haven't all collectively fallen under the Number 9 bus that trundles past our club venue regularly, just a quick post on a new game (to us) City Tycoon.  So new that we had to punch it as Steve Perkins was kindly explaining it to us.

The ideas are pretty simple, some card selection like 7 Wonders, a bit of square tile laying as per Carcassonne, a bit of resource movement like 20th Century, but put together quite nicely into something which doesn't overall feel too derivative.  Place tiles, which you then own, to generate resources, then ship the resources around to generate resources, cash and VP's.  First playing was quite long (nearly 150 minutes) as it's very difficult to judge the true value of tiles and how they interact as the game (and the city) develop, particularly as we all share the same city and there is some interaction in the usage of resources.  Second playing would speed up a bit, but I see two main problems with the game.  Firstly, the very busy graphics on the tiles, particularly when the city is really big in turn 4, make it difficult to see what's going on, plus there are resource cubes on top of some, which can mean the tile has been exhausted or that it hasn't been exhausted (!), it really burns the brain.  Secondly, I guess we're supposed to be building a city grid, but as some of the interactions with other players can be extremely disruptive to your plans, it's very tempting to stay in your own corner, or indeed to spread out as quickly from the centre as possible away from everyone else.  Perhaps we misunderstood something, but this isn't going to look much like a city at the end if so.

I'd play it again if only to make the learning curve we faced worthwhile, but it will need to be a more inspiring experience next time to make me persevere (which can happen - as with Lords of Waterdeep earlier in the year)

Oh, Lord!

This week at the club, I played Lords of Vegas, which was new to me, Mike and Anna, though I think Andy had played before.

Lords of Vegas is, at its thematic heart, a betting game. The players take on the roles of casino moguls on the Strip, building, remodelling and taking over casinos in an attempt to make the most money and score the most prestige, which is basically a VP system and will win or lose you the game. As VP systems go, this one has a neat twist, but we’ll get to that in a bit. Firstly, let’s look at how the game works.

The board is divided into six areas representing city blocks. These are further divided into a varying number of ‘lots’ and each has an assigned value represented by the printed face of a 6-sided die.

There is a deck of cards with one card for each lot on the board, and each card also has the name of a casino chain on it. It should be stated that the casino and the lot bear no actual relation, and the lot is not tied to a particular chain. The lot is a space allocated to the player who turns the card, whilst the casino simply denotes the chain which will pay out on the current player’s turn. There is one card for each lot on the board, and each has one of the six casino chains marked on its front. There are eight cards per chain (I believe), therefore as cards come out and are placed on their chains, the likelihood that the chain will pay out again decreases. However, the odds are further randomised by the fact that not all cards will come out. The deck is shuffled and then split 75%-25%. An End Game card is placed on top of the 25% deck (can’t remember if this is then shuffled to give a further randomisation of the end point, or if it’s a guaranteed end after 75% of the deck has been played out), and the 75% deck is then placed on top. The cards below the End Game card will not appear, so the number of cards per casino which turn up will vary with each game.

To start, two cards are turned over for each player and the lot on the face is allocated to that player. The card is then placed on the chain row for its casino so that everyone can assess the odds of future payouts.

After this first round, each player will have two lots on which to build if they so choose. Unbuilt lots pay the owner $1m on each player’s turn.

At the start of a player’s turn, they first turn over a card from the deck. They then put a marker on the lot they’ve acquired and everyone collects cash for their lots. The casino chain represented on the card face then pays out. We’ll come back to how this works, but first, let’s assume the player wants to build.

Each lot is marked with a purchase price which the owner can pay. They then build a new casino, or extend one which they control (they can build more if they have the cash). A casino is represented by all linked tiles of the same colour, regardless of the die colour occupying that space. A chain is all tiles of one colour, which may be separated by block or may simply not yet connect by lot. Control is a simple mechanism in that, as stated previously, each lot has a die number on it. When someone builds a new casino, they place a casino tile matching their chosen chain, and place a die of their colour at its centre with the uppermost face showing the value shown on the lot (and repeated on the lot card). The highest die value controls the casino. Other players may place connecting tiles of the same colour and, if their highest die is greater in value than that of the current owner, then they take control.

All players with dice in a casino will get money when the casino pays out, but only the controlling player will be given points. The amount of money you receive is equal, in millions, to the total number of pips on your dice in that chain.

Players who have a stake in a particular casino can choose to wrestle for control by paying millions equal to the total number of die pips for all players in the contested casino (not the chain, just that particular casino). They then re-roll all dice for the casino with the highest number gaining control. It’s easy to see how having fewer dice than other players in a casino is a disadvantage as the odds are always with the percentage.

There is also the opportunity to remodel, which is a strong tactical action which can see casinos rapidly expand, or be aggressively taken over. And if you’re ever short of money to achieve what you want, you can always lay bets off against your opponents. All bets must be accepted, although players can choose to have the bank take half the risk, which means the bank also shares any gains.

I mentioned earlier that the VP system is innovative, though the innovation is simple: there is a ‘brake’ (or ‘break’, I’m not sure if it’s a gambling term, but the idea of a braking system suits) which kicks in when players achieve a certain number of points. As stated, points are scored by the controller of a casino, but this might suggest a strategy of building small, single lot casinos in order to maintain control. The game prevents this by requiring a minimum of two points to be scored once a certain level is reached, or the player scores none - and hence the brake. Later, a casino must score three points minimum in order to score at all; then four and five, and so on up to nine ( though anyone achieving this automatically wins the game).

The problem for me with Lords of Vegas is that it pretty much perfectly fits its theme. I am not a gambler and I have never understood the pleasure it gives people. Like anyone, I understand that, even for someone skilled, the odds are always with the house. I have therefore never been able to comprehend why people put their money at such risk. Yes, there is the opportunity, on occasion, to “win big”, but the plain fact is that, for anyone disposed to this kind of pursuit, the house is going to get you. At some point, you’re going to lose big, too. And therein lies the rub: my grandfather was a horse-racing fanatic, and a great studier of form. When the Grand National rolled around, he would lay bets for the whole family and we’d all sit around to watch and see who won. He would get the return of his stake and whomever backed the winning horse got to keep the rest. I tell you this because the chance to win never seemed likely to me, and I did not find it exciting. If you lay a bet for me and the horse loses, my response is: “Well, of course. What did you expect?” Professional pundits can’t predict with any measure of reliability, so how is some kid supposed to name a horse from a list?

So, as a thematic game, Lords of Vegas is certainly one of the most successful I’ve ever come across. Everything, from the die placement and rolling to the lot acquisition and payout, is a gamble. It works. It’s about assessing odds, taking risks and going all out for a big win…

… But if that’s not your bag, then it also works against it. It is a clever mix of mechanisms, yes, but exploiting those mechanisms, in the end, had nothing to do with my winning. I had some good and bad rolls, as did everyone else, but the spread of good rolls favoured me on this occasion. Yes, I mitigated that with some shrewd building which meant the odds were with me for control for most of my builds, but Andy’s choices were a lot better than mine, and Mike was very aggressive, but unlucky, whilst Anna had the other two seeming to gang up against her.

And so I feel I won the game on Wednesday because I understood that the odds were irrelevant; that the only way to win was to take big risks, so I routinely spent as much as I could afford and would have done so more often if I’d had the cash available. And because I was so reckless, I really felt I had nothing invested in the game at all because I am not a gambler. And if you don’t feel invested, then the risk isn’t really a risk, it’s just randomness. Perhaps, for someone who feels the thrill of putting bets on, this may evoke something of that essence. For me, we might as well have each rolled a die and decided the winner on that.

Lords of Vegas: so very good, yet so very dull.

My Thoughts on Eclipse

I've played Eclipse three times now and I think all Dave's points are valid; though I don't quite agree with all of them.

The things I really like about the game are as follows:

1) clarity - the rulebook is excellent, and the mechanisms are all designed to show the information you need in the situations where they are relevant. The system of wealth versus earnings is very simple, but brilliantly executed. More games could learn from this;
2) for a 4X game, it's really quick;
3) there are tough decisions every turn;
4) the traitor mechanism: the last player to break a treaty loses 2VPs;
5) modifying your ships is cool. I can have tachyon drives on my cruisers;
6) the flow of play during the action rounds is quick.

The things I don't like are:

1) what the hell are you doing for the first five turns? All that happens is you explore and try to build your tech to a level where you can compete with the Ancients or with other players when you meet them. It's fine, but it drags a bit;
2) because of this for a 4X game, combat doesn't tend to happen until later. If you fight early, you've used actions you could have used to research, so you'll be sorry later;
3) the traitor mechanism - the last player to break a treaty can't form another until an opponent breaks a treaty and takes the card. Whilst I can kind of understand the reasoning, this is pure artifice;
4) hey, wait a minute - I've discovered Tachyon Drives. I've can put them in my fighters and my cruisers, but I have to WAIT to take another action before I put them in my big ships...? Unless I have nanotech, of course;
5) the system of discounts for tech has no relevance to the type of tech being researched - for example, computer types do not all fall within the same tech-type, therefore there is no benefit to researching a Positron Computer (+2 attack) then a Gluon Computer (+3 attack). This is counter-thematic, if not plain idiotic;
6) combat is slooooooooowwww;
7) the turn order mechanism is rubbish.

My thoughts on Dave's issues (you did ask, didn't you? No. Oh well - sit back anyway) are as follows:

Exploration: it could be argued that real-world empires don't all start on an even footing; nevertheless, games are a construct. A little imbalance is fine with me, but I can see how one player's situation might be greatly disadvantageous. This is slightly mitigated by the fact that you have a some choice where you place - or whether you place your tile at all. It's an OK solution, but I think I'd prefer an open galaxy with a Settlers-type mechanism of placement to mitigate advantage. I'm not saying specifically a Settlers mechanism - just something that allows a bit more starting balance.

Technology: I agree that, given that actions are limited by cost, there is no reason to artificially limit the tech types by chit draw as no race will ever be able to research them all. This is another artifice because it feels like, rather than a directed research spend, these future 'advanced' civilisations are basically discovering new technologies by lottery. One solution, given that there is already a discount system in place, might be asymmetric technology costs for the different races to encourage diversification. In fact, this is a good idea. I claim this idea for a future 4X game that I'm now going to design (and Dave and others at the club can tell me what I'm doing well and what I"m doing badly).

Combat: I don't so much mind the initiative idea, but the combat just takes so long - and I think that the system of I-fight-you-first-then-you-then-you-then-the-ancients means that someone who has a huge fleet can be beaten by someone relatively weak because they've had their fleet mashed by all the previous combat. It should be simultaneous. As far as the mandatory combat for entering someone else's territory, even that of an ally - this has been a known mechanism since the first Sid Meier Civ. I didn't like it then and I don't like it now, but I think it's perfectly reasonable given it's now a convention, otherwise there might be very little combat in the game.

Reputation: this is a bit artificial too, but it's better than the chit-draw system that scores at the end of Louis XIV. At least you get to draw a number of tiles and keep one. This mitigates the randomness a little, and I quite like the fact that some of the scoring is hidden just to add that little frisson of tension. Of course, it could be argued that this is a way of ramping up tension which should be inherent in the playing of the game.

Games Played - January 2012

I thought I’d try doing monthly reports, rather than the weekly ones I’ve done (or more recently not done) in the past so here goes. This is actually a few days later than I expected due to time spent on Eclipse and messing about with websites (see other post) in the last day or two.

13 games were played this month of 9 different titles, the average attendance was 7.25

Web Sites

The week before last, I noticed that our halesowenboardgamers.org.uk domain was no longer working and a quick check showed that it was available. Gordon confirmed that he let the registration lapse about a month back in the knowledge that nobody else would want it, so we could re-register if we wanted it.

I discussed it with Mike, who agreed that we ought to have the domain back due to a number of links that pointed to the address and coincidentally he had a mail last week from Jeremy Tullet regarding someone who'd tried to use the link from QLA. I was also aware that we'd just had some more T-shirts produced with the address on them.

Anyway as of Friday, the address is active again, although there is only a single page with links elsewhere at the moment, until I get my head round some web page design software. Also note that this blog is now blog.halesowenboardgamers.org.uk (the blogspot address redirects), also the stats are on stats.halesowenboardgamers.org.uk, although they are also still in my Virgin web space as I don't know how to set a redirect from there.

Stats Review 2011

It’s the end of the year and time for a blog post, which is something that’s been uncommon in 2011, maybe I’ll do better next year.

This is the 2011 review of games played at the club; corresponding articles for 2008 - 2010 are linked from the years. As last year I include a comparison with the previous year. I expect to update the stats pages over the next week or so.  For a rundown beyond the top 5, there is a geeklist of all the games played here. Note this won’t appear on the geek front page of the Geek.

Games Played

We played a total of 187 games this year which is an increase from 176 in 2010, spread over 73 different ones compared with 98, when play was a lot more spread. The number of games new to our tables was 30 including the number 3 game.

The total player time for the year was 776 player hours an decrease of 15% on last year’s figure of 910.

The most played games (in terms of player time) were as follows:

1. Power Grid (9 plays, 77.8 player hours)

Power Grid continues to be the most played game, this year being a clear winner with better than twice the player time of its nearest rival. There was no new board this year and most of the play was seen on the Benelux/Central Europe board with various combinations of power plants from both full decks and a few promo plants.

2. Caylus Magna Carta (6 plays, 35.5 player hours)

When it first appeared in 2005 and then the following year, Caylus was played a lot at the club, being 2006’s most played game and still holding a position of 5 in the all time list despite having not been played at all since 2006. Caylus Magna Carta seems to have supplanted it and this year has seen the most play of that game having been played a few times each in most years from 2007 (exception 2008)

3. King of Tokyo (18 plays, 31.1 player hours)

The big new game of the year having only first appeared in June. A nice little dice game that has become the club’s preferred filler game. This was the most played game in terms of number of plays.

4. London (5 plays, 31.0 player hours)

Martin Wallace’s game from Essen last year has seen steady play throughout the year, interesting all 5 games featuring myself, Steve H and Donald.

5. Battlestar Galactica (2 plays, 27.5 player hours)

We played this in January using the newly published Exodus expansion, which didn’t go down that well. On the basis of that I shall think very carefully about buying any future expansion. The other play was in November stripped back down to the base game with 2 new players.

As noted further up, the most played game in terms of games played was King of Tokyo.

What happened to last year’s top 5?

As last year the 2 survivors from the previous year are Power Grid and Battlestar Galactica, the other 3 games having fallen way down. Last year’s number 2 was World Without End (also top in terms of games played), which saw 5 plays this year and appears at number 6 on the list.

Number 4 last year was Louis XIV, which has only been played once this year and stands at 42. Number 5 was Homesteaders, which also had 1 play and is at 35.

Games that have stood the test of time

There are still 2 games, played every year since 2003 with both Vinci and Industrial Waste being played again this year although with only 1 play each.

3 other games had been played every year since 2004, of these both Power Grid and San Juan have been played again, although Kremlin did not make it to the table this year.

I now have records for 9 years (only partially for 2003) and the following have been played in at least 7 of the 9 Years.

Games played in 9 of 9 years

Vinci
Industrial Waste

Games played in 8 of 9 years

Power Grid
Amun-Re
San Juan
Acquire

Games played in 7 of 9 years

Ra
Kremlin
Guillotine
Citadels

Now let’s see what 2012 brings.