[mycroft]

Hmm, I go the other way. If I have no chance of winning, I tend to go after the leader. Frequently that boils down to the same person, though.

Hopefully when "someone destroys all my chances of winning", we're playing the sort of game where that's expected and applauded behaviour (Illuminati, I'm thinking of you; or Diplomacy, for people who swing that way). I'm even willing, in that case, to cheer along with the rest the amazing, crippling, and totally correct move - and then I'll take my crippled position and run the leader. Every once in a while I've managed to recover to get another chance to win, even.

[Fluffy]

I am talking about games where you invest resources in order to damage one certain opponent. I don't like that people dismish their own chances of winning (Reducing your resources) in order to dismish the chances of someone who is not going ahead.

[billw55]

Indeed, targeted attacks can lead to arguments and sometimes hard feelings.

Compare Dominion and Settlers of Catan. In Dominion, any attack card played affects all other players. Now, this may harm one player more or less than others, depending on circumstances, but the attack itself is non-targeted. Whereas in Settlers, there is the robber, who can be placed at the discretion of the player. I have rarely played a game of Settlers in which there was no arguing about the robber. In Dominion, people may groan, but nobody feels singled out, and there is no means to express personal grudges.

In fairness, the robber is necessary to prevent a worse flaw, the victory march. In some games, the player who gains an advantage can leverage that to gain further advantage. Thus one player can gain an insurmountable lead, turning the later parts of the game into a playout of an obvious result. One of the worst offenders is Monopoly. This would also be a problem in Settlers, and this is why the robber exists - to slow down the leader.

Of course, targeted attacks are integral to some (most?) wargames. Personally I don't mind this, and never get bothered by it. But it is not always easy to gather a gaming group where everyone shares this attitude. So games without them have an extra appeal.

[billw55]

Played Puerto Rico this weekend with wife and brother. A fun, well balanced game, with a new-to-me mechanic (player action performed by all). I look forward to more plays of this one.

[kuhchung]

San Juan is the baby version of Puerto Rico which also has that mechanic.

I prefer Race for the Galaxy, which not only has all players taking the action, it has all players simultaneously and secretly selecting an action too. It goes a lot faster.

[billw55]

kuhchung, on 2015-January-27, 12:28, said:

I prefer Race for the Galaxy, which not only has all players taking the action, it has all players simultaneously and secretly selecting an action too. It goes a lot faster.

I have read that in reviews. Apparently multiple players can choose the same action - correct? This would be interesting, as players could not rely on other players taking the actions they themselves also need. I may have to try this game too.

[kuhchung]

billw55, on 2015-January-27, 13:40, said:

I have read that in reviews. Apparently multiple players can choose the same action - correct? This would be interesting, as players could not rely on other players taking the actions they themselves also need. I may have to try this game too.

Yeah, players can take the same action. The action is only performed once, but all players who actually chose it get the bonus.

[Fluffy]

In Twilight Imperium III one player took an action, and everybody else took a "secondary" action related. This maintained everyone active while it was someone else's turn (turns were very long).

[billw55]

A few more plays of Puerto Rico, and we are really liking it. Almost a "play every time" game now.

We also got San Juan and Race for the Galaxy. Of these two, I prefer Race.

We got Kingdom Builder, a more recent game by the designer of Dominion. It is basically worker placement with variable start conditions and variable victory conditions; seems to be designed with an eye on replayability. We liked it, it is pretty fast once you know what you are doing, which doesn't take long.

Temporum turned out to be the worst game we have tried yet. It just seems pointless and dumb. We're going to see if the FLGS will trade it.

Yes, we are buying a lot of games lately!

[kuhchung]

Just curious, how big are your gaming groups and how often do you play?

I wish I had more friends to regularly play with.

[billw55]

kuhchung, on 2015-March-16, 13:57, said:

Just curious, how big are your gaming groups and how often do you play?

I wish I had more friends to regularly play with.

Most often it is just my wife and brother, and possibly one or both of our teenagers. This makes 2-5 players, usually about once a week. Fairly recently we started inviting some friends over on a saturday night maybe once every two months or so. This way we end up with 4-8 (not counting teens who at this point develop more pronounced adultophobia). We have a folding table to set up if needed to get two games going at once.

Yes it can be tough, there are always some who cannot make it that particular night, people are busy with their lives. It affects us too: the FLGS has a game night every wednesday, but weeknights are hopeless for us with work and kids activities and such.

[billw55]

Tried the new game Deus a few days ago. It's a sort of combination worker placement / tableau building game, with both cards and a variable map. There is much flexibility on what actions you can take, and the way certain abilities can chain was interesting. I liked it, although my wife was lukewarm.

Has anyone played a game called Power Grid? It looks interesting and reviews well, I am thinking of trying it.

[billw55]

Our latest entry is Suburbia. Have played it twice and I like it quite well so far. Basically, it is buying and placing hex tiles to build a town. Tiles give various bonuses/penalties based on what is adjacent, or sometimes elsewhere. Play time was about 1.5 hour.

The nice thing is that the rules are pretty easy to understand, allowing even brand new players to learn and take their turns quickly. And yet, the complexity is there, with no single right strategy. First game with just my wife, I tried a plan that seemed to work well, and won going away. Second time though, with 3 players, I did the same thing again and finished last, with wife and brother well ahead of me.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2015-April-08, 08:06, said:

Has anyone played a game called Power Grid? It looks interesting and reviews well, I am thinking of trying it.

Power grid is excellent but can get expensive as there are many many expansion boards most of which add new twists to the game.

Catching up with this thread:

Puerto Rico is fine, but can run pretty much on rails for a couple of turns at the start with certain numbers of players who know what they're doing without the expansions.

Fluffy - what's your ID, I also play hearthstone (@minotaur2857)

Other favourites:

Russian Railroads
Carcassonne (I prefer the hunters and gatherers variant)
Navegador
7 wonders (shorter game, about an hour)
Formula De

Bridge players should enjoy Tichu.

As a short filler game, Saboteur preferably with the expansion is fun.

[billw55]

Had another game night this weekend. The unintentional theme was six player games. Most of our guests did not want to split into two groups. We had a total of seven people, but with one late arrival and one early departure it was mostly six.

We started off with 7 Wonders, which I always enjoy, and also has the advantage of smoothly accommodating six players in a short play time (a bit over an hour this time). The game just really shines for this purpose, nothing better that I know of.

Next up was Coup, a very fast card game for up to seven players. Easy to learn, fun, and plays in about 10-15 minutes once everyone knows that they are doing. We played it twice, with lots of laughing. The short play time also leads to eliminated players forming an audience/cheering section for the final contestants.

Then a change of pace with Taboo, an older party game. We forgot the game end condition and just made one up, which caused no problem at all.

Finished up with Ticket to Ride: Asia, which has a partnership variant, so three teams of two. This played really well, although longer than we expected at about 2.5 hour. Some of this was due to the learning curve for a couple new players.


Also played Small World a couple of times the previous weekend. This is an area control/expanding armies type game, with various race powers and special abilities, and a crowded map (hence the name). A little like Risk, but much better designed. We like it. It is heavy on targeted attacks, so maybe not a good choice if that bothers you or your group.

We did buy Power Grid but have not played it yet. With school starting soon it might be a while.

[kuhchung]

billw55, on 2015-August-17, 09:10, said:

Next up was Coup, a very fast card game for up to seven players. Easy to learn, fun, and plays in about 10-15 minutes once everyone knows that they are doing. We played it twice, with lots of laughing. The short play time also leads to eliminated players forming an audience/cheering section for the final contestants.

I've played Coup a few times. I don't know how good of a strategy this is, but I literally do not look at my cards and play every single power.

[billw55]

kuhchung, on 2015-August-17, 11:32, said:

I've played Coup a few times. I don't know how good of a strategy this is, but I literally do not look at my cards and play every single power.

This has some appeal. Something similar happened just this weekend. My wife had drawn a new card but not looked at it. On my turn, I tried to assassinate her. She claimed contessa. I challenged her, and she flipped both her cards thinking she had lost ... but the new one was in fact the contessa! So I lost one instead, and my three coins too. Hah!

[kuhchung]

billw55, on 2015-August-17, 12:12, said:

This has some appeal. Something similar happened just this weekend. My wife had drawn a new card but not looked at it. On my turn, I tried assassinate her. She claimed contessa. I challenged her, and she flipped both her cards thinking she had lost ... but the new one was in fact the contessa! So I lost one instead, and my three coins too. Hah!

At the very least, I know that Ambassador first action is ridiculous. I've seen one of my friends do it. I told him "what the hell, just play the power you want"

[Fluffy]

I can hardly get any players to play a serious game. And even when I do, I normally win every game no matter what. I know no bridge or chess players of my age. People I know just lack the combination skills to match me.

I used to play regular games of Catan in the 90s, and Twilight Imperium on the 2000s, its hard to explain how I outplayed them on every game. Funniest perhaps comes from the fact that I see my opponent's moves better than them. So when they do something that is not ideal for them, and damages me somehow, I can point it to them in simple terms, so they do what its better for them, but also better for me as well. This ended up on the famous saying:

-If you take Fluffy's advice, no matter how logic it sounds, if you take it, Fluffy wins.



Now I play most of my board game rounds at a yearly weekend convention on the south of my country. I usually try new games each time. This gives me the sweet feeling of winning experienced players on their game in my first try (my first power grid game for example), although to be honest, they usually are more focused on teaching the game to everyone than paying attention to who is doing what.

[billw55]

kuhchung, on 2015-August-17, 15:33, said:

At the very least, I know that Ambassador first action is ridiculous. I've seen one of my friends do it. I told him "what the hell, just play the power you want"

Yes, it is strong, but it also spends a turn not doing anything. In such a short game, that is no small penalty. It also really focuses the psychological factors: sure he can have any two cards, but which ones do I think he would want? Duke-assassin is a strong pairing, but leaves him without a contessa to defend himself. Or is he the kind of guy that would keep an ambassador as a hedge? hmmmm

Then again, a strong action is also a strong incentive to lie. So perhaps you should challenge it.

Fluffy, on 2015-August-17, 16:08, said:

I can hardly get any players to play a serious game. And even when I do, I normally win every game no matter what. I know no bridge or chess players of my age. People I know just lack the combination skills to match me.

I used to play regular games of Catan in the 90s, and Twilight Imperium on the 2000s, its hard to explain how I outplayed them on every game. Funniest perhaps comes from the fact that I see my opponent's moves better than them. So when they do something that is not ideal for them, and damages me somehow, I can point it to them in simple terms, so they do what its better for them, but also better for me as well. This ended up on the famous saying:

-If you take Fluffy's advice, no matter how logic it sounds, if you take it, Fluffy wins.

Now I play most of my board game rounds at a yearly weekend convention on the south of my country. I usually try new games each time. This gives me the sweet feeling of winning experienced players on their game in my first try (my first power grid game for example), although to be honest, they usually are more focused on teaching the game to everyone than paying attention to who is doing what.

Catan has a pretty high luck factor, and is not really difficult to play well, so I am kind of surprised about that one. Then again, some people just don't get games, and repeatedly make errors that seem immediately obvious to an enthusiast.

Yes, when I play a game with people who have not played it before (this happens a lot), I focus on demonstrating the mechanics, and don't worry much about playing well.