Are you the publisher? Claim or contact us about this channel


Embed this content in your HTML

Search

Report adult content:

click to rate:

Account: (login)

More Channels


Showcase


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

BoardGameGeek features information related to the board gaming hobby

older | 1 | .... | 101 | 102 | (Page 103) | 104 | 105 | .... | 184 | newer

    0 0

    by steveg700

    gameon3948 wrote:

    Steel and Coke are the most expensive goods, so OF COURSE the end game is about capitalizing on them. You should be fighting to build or buy the Wharf, the Ironworks and the Colliery EVERY GAME.

    So, let's get back to leather for a minute. Some resources can act as food, some can act as energy, and steel and coke are for actually winning the game. Where does that leave leather?

    0 0

    by mlcarter815

    The most important thing to think about in the early game with regards to loans is that you want to use them to setup the next round with the right amount of cash in hand. Ideally, you want to be 1 short when it comes to feeding so that you can get $3 out of the loan and have cash in hand to be spent on actions during the next round.

    I only play the game with 3 players. 2 isn't bad, but I'll never play with more than 3.

    0 0

    by davypi

    steveg700 wrote:

    So, let's get back to leather for a minute. Some resources can act as food, some can act as energy, and steel and coke are for actually winning the game. Where does that leave leather?


    Its good for four francs/points when shipped. But honestly, leather is just awful. I think its meant to be a consolation prize for the fact that the 3 food on meat cannot be converted into change when used, but its still kind of lame. I think I've yet to see a game where shipping leather made the difference between a win or a loss.

    I have a house rule that removes the 4x limitation from the hides to leather conversion, but even then its still not a profitable move. I think using the business office to convert hides into Steel + whatever is better than converting and shipping.

    0 0

    by gameon3948

    steveg700 wrote:

    gameon3948 wrote:

    Steel and Coke are the most expensive goods, so OF COURSE the end game is about capitalizing on them. You should be fighting to build or buy the Wharf, the Ironworks and the Colliery EVERY GAME.

    So, let's get back to leather for a minute. Some resources can act as food, some can act as energy, and steel and coke are for actually winning the game. Where does that leave leather?


    A few parts to this answer

    - Making leather is usually a waste of an action
    - There are a couple special buildings that can increase its value, but the special buildings available are random each game, so usually they are not in the game
    - Rarely, if you don't have enough goods to fill yours ships for end game shipping (usually you fill the extra spots after steel and coke with cattle or baked bread or coal), and you have some hides left over from cattle you slaughtered during the course of the game, and you have one action to spare, then making 4 4-value leather is nominally better than getting 4 3-value coal, since your only concern is shipping them. Maybe I will do this 1 game in 10 and only ever once.
    - Finally, that's ok. Hides are basically an afterthought after slaughtering cattle. They don't have to be worth anything. Buildings don't have to be balanced. You don't build the Tannery because you want to make a bunch of leather (that would be silly since the Tannery has no entry cost). You build it because you need an extra building of that type for the town hall bonus or because it's 12 points for a cheap 1 wood/1 brick cost.

    0 0

    by Ponton

    I see leather as a bonus. You need intermediate actions in-between shipments anyway, so tanning your hides can be such an action. It's not a basis for a strategy, but a supplement. The goods don't need all to be equally good - if they were, the game would suck, honestly. Each good has its place. Wood and clay, for instance, are good early-mid game, later they become rather worthless. You can turn wood into charcoal, but that's pretty much the only use for wood in the end game. Fish is bad throughout the game, but when the numbers get high, it may be worthwile to grab them. Coal and iron are obviously great (so is steel, although you won't have it in masses). Grain and cattle can become food, so they are good (especially since you get more for free). And then there is hides, a byproduct of slaughtering, so the very definition of a bonus. You can make use of it, if time and opportunity permits, or ignore it. I don't see any problem with that. And if there is a special building or two that deals with hides and leather, even better. :)

    0 0

    by steveg700

    gameon3948 wrote:

    - Finally, that's ok. Hides are basically an afterthought after slaughtering cattle. They don't have to be worth anything. Buildings don't have to be balanced.

    Balance is elusive, but having resources that are considered a "waste of an action" or a "consolation prize" strikes me as disappointing design. If I get to a point where I'm teaching people how to play, I would hope not to have to have a conversation that goes like this:

    "So, what is the point of all this hide? What is it good for?"

    "Well, from what I've gathered and from what the pros on BGG tell me, it's a waste. But that's okay!"

    "So there's an entire path of this game that's pointless? Why have it in the first place?"

    "Well, I guess it's to trick naïve people who assume that every resource in a game should have its use. Buildings and resources don't have to have a point."

    0 0

    by grant5

    steveg700 wrote:

    gameon3948 wrote:

    - Finally, that's ok. Hides are basically an afterthought after slaughtering cattle. They don't have to be worth anything. Buildings don't have to be balanced.

    Balance is elusive, but having resources that are considered a "waste of an action" or a "consolation prize" strikes me as disappointing design. If I get to a point where I'm teaching people how to play, I would hope not to have to have a conversation that goes like this:

    "So, what is the point of all this hide? What is it good for?"

    "Well, from what I've gathered and from what the pros on BGG tell me, it's a waste. But that's okay!"

    "So there's an entire path of this game that's pointless? Why have it in the first place?"

    "Well, I guess it's to trick naïve people who assume that every resource in a game should have its use. Buildings and resources don't have to have a point."

    I don't think you paid enough attention to what Ponton wrote.

    0 0

    by steveg700

    grant5 wrote:

    steveg700 wrote:

    gameon3948 wrote:

    - Finally, that's ok. Hides are basically an afterthought after slaughtering cattle. They don't have to be worth anything. Buildings don't have to be balanced.

    Balance is elusive, but having resources that are considered a "waste of an action" or a "consolation prize" strikes me as disappointing design. If I get to a point where I'm teaching people how to play, I would hope not to have to have a conversation that goes like this:

    "So, what is the point of all this hide? What is it good for?"

    "Well, from what I've gathered and from what the pros on BGG tell me, it's a waste. But that's okay!"

    "So there's an entire path of this game that's pointless? Why have it in the first place?"

    "Well, I guess it's to trick naïve people who assume that every resource in a game should have its use. Buildings and resources don't have to have a point."

    I don't think you paid enough attention to what Ponton wrote.

    Sure I did, but it wasn't the post I was replying to. Gameon came far closer to saying leather was almost always a waste of time.

    0 0

    by gameon3948

    steveg700 wrote:

    I do hope this doesn't ultimately fall prey to "Puerto Rico Syndrome", where winning the game is very procedural.


    It's quite the opposite of procedural since the building and resource order changes every game and you only have 6 special buildings out of countless ones in the box. You will see soon when you play it. Leather really isn't like the other goods, it's just something you get when you convert cattle to food. You can't get it from the harbor offers.

    steveg700 wrote:

    "So, what is the point of all this hide? What is it good for?"

    "Well, from what I've gathered and from what the pros on BGG tell me, it's a waste. But that's okay!"

    "So there's an entire path of this game that's pointless? Why have it in the first place?"

    "Well, I guess it's to trick naïve people who assume that every resource in a game should have its use. Buildings and resources don't have to have a point."


    When I was playing our first few games with my wife she quickly realized it had little point and asked me a similar question.

    "Leather doesn't really have much point, does it?"

    "Not really, except for a few rare special buildings, or to tan it and fill out a shipment."

    "Ok!"

    She was more concerned she wasn't missing anything, and she wasn't. No one said the goods were equally important. When goods are equally important they are boring, there's no reason to have one and not the other. So if your opponent takes one, you take the other and you're both happy. In this game, when you need WOOD, only WOOD will suffice. If your opponent takes the wood, you are in trouble! And the value of goods change throughout the game. 2 or 3 wood on a offer is a grab at the beginning, but at the end 10+ will accumulate. It's about knowing when to take and offer, when to let it accumulate and hope your opponent doesn't take it, when you can overpay because you don't have other options, when you can afford to wait because your backup plan isn't that much worse. It might not be the game for everyone, but I've played it probably 300 times at least and it never gets old. If anything, it makes me like *other* games less.

    0 0

    by steveg700

    gameon3948 wrote:

    steveg700 wrote:

    I do hope this doesn't ultimately fall prey to "Puerto Rico Syndrome", where winning the game is very procedural.


    It's quite the opposite of procedural since the building and resource order changes every game and you only have 6 special buildings out of countless ones in the box. You will see soon when you play it. Leather really isn't like the other goods, it's just something you get when you convert cattle to food. You can't get it from the harbor offers.

    Fair enough. Thanks for elaborating.

    0 0

    by Throknor

    simon_j_barnes wrote:

    If that is what you want to assume everybody else means be my guest. Even those who just refer to cards, cardboard and miniatures.. where do you get the idea that they are discounting ALL the costs of producing those components (which necessarily includes storage, wages, insurance, shipping, etc) i.e. the costs Magicarl referred to?

    It sounds to me like what you are really saying is "Haven't you guys forgotten about overheads?"

    *Edit parenthesis attack

    The question always implies
    Q: "Given very low costs I think I know values for why does X cost so much?"
    A: "Because of the costs you don't realize you don't know."

    If they were including overheads this wouldn't even be close to a reasonable question:
    Q: "Given a bunch of costs I don't know values for why does X cost so much?"
    A: "Because of the costs you admit you don't know!"

    Edit: To be clear, I was mainly responding to "As someone who works in manufacturing I can assure you that these products are not as expensive to produce as some people think." I didn't want to get into a direct conflict there but that definitely implied (to me) the expense of the materials and minimal other factors and I wanted to list a more comprehensive list of everything involved in manufacturing today.

    0 0

    by Raujour

    That is also another reason to control the arrival of Special Buildings - visiting the Market. If you have leather you want those Special Buildings and if you don't - 'hide them'.

    0 0

    by simon_j_barnes

    Fair enough but DaveyJJ is in the right ballpark when he says a game on the shelves at $60 costs $15 to manufacture. In fact I'd say the cost is less.

    Panda are a well known manufacturer and they state that final retail price is usually 3 to 5 times the manufacturers price. Of course the manufacturers price is above the manufacturers cost. Assuming a 50% margin for the manufacturer (which I would say is on the low side) then each $60 game costs between $8 and $13 to produce. A higher gross margin for the manufacturer would of course mean a lower cost.

    https://boardgamegeek.com/blogpost/33412/gen-con-2014-semina...


    0 0

    by wtcannonjr

    Raujour wrote:

    That is also another reason to control the arrival of Special Buildings - visiting the Market. If you have leather you want those Special Buildings and if you don't - 'hide them'.

    Yes, there are some special buildings - Furniture Factory, Clothing Industry, and Leather Industry that create options for leather strategies. Both Clothing and Furniture don't have a production limit when converting to cash except for the resource inputs. Thus, you can accumulate either Wood/Leather or Hides/Leather combos over several turns and take a single action to cash them in for large payouts.

    So it may have a place in some games if the Town develops these industries, but you do not know if this is possible at the start of any given game. It is a potential option for players who fall behind in the shipping game. They may 'search' for this alternative 'business model' by monitoring the special buildings through visits to the Marketplace.

    0 0

    by J. R. Tracy

    We had ten gamers last week as we shipped product in France, visited the future by way of the past, worshipped Ra, and fought for Erebor and a scrap of Mongolia.

    Dr. Rob, Steven, and Maynard sat down to Le Havre, the first game for Maynard but the most recent of many for Steven and Rob. Steven was all about late-game shipping of product, accruing an impressive mound of commodities in front of him that looked more like the bank than a personal supply. Dr. Rob on the other hand built out a massive multi-building enterprise that steadily produced income and resources, sustaining its own expansion. Maynard was running two strategies simultaneously, buying into heavy buildings while working the commodity cycle.


    Steel-drivin' man

    I thought Steven might make it close once the Seine bridge opened for business, but Rob's empire proved unassailable. Maynard's approach fell short, as this particular session rewarded single-mindedness over diversification.


    The Seulowitz industrial complex

    Jim and I were inspired by the weather and pulled the old SPI War in the Ice down off the shelf. Set in the distant future of 1991, the game portrays a superpower struggle for Antarctica. The force mix features hover tanks, laser cats, droids, killer satellites, and more futuristic goodness alongside foot-slogging infantry and extensive air assets.

    The system is fairly complex, with an elaborate supply system supporting a combined-arms-focused sequence of play. After weather is determined and supply is resolved, an alternating air sequence allows players to move resources around the map and attempt detection of enemy forces. Then, ground units move, followed by combat initiated by units occupying the same hex. Combat is not guaranteed, however - if one side remains undetected it is invulnerable to attack. Even detection does not reveal the exact composition of a stack - you may find yourself hammering a column of droids while the real threat slips through to your vital base.


    Showdown by the Davis Sea

    Combat starts with an air phase, with surviving units pushing through to hit enemy ground forces (though AA fire may take its toll). Each side then picks a force posture, with the available options determined by force composition - combined arms allows more choices, while an all-infantry force offers little mystery in the posture matrix. If forces on both sides survive, players may opt to attempt to break off combat, or repeat the process.

    Ground units (companies or battalions, hard to tell really) are rated for anti-armor, anti-infantry, anti-air, and electronic warfare (EW); air units are anti-air, anti-ground, range, and EW. Movement rates for ground units vary by unit type and weather - hovertanks zip along when the sun shines, not so much when the wind kicks up. EW plays a role in detecting the enemy, and is integral to air-to-air combat resolution. Range may be the most important air unit value, as we'll see later.


    The Battle of Wilkes Station

    WitI may be a supply game as much as a combat game. Supply points are bought in batches and delivered to coastal bases, where they are loaded onto transport aircraft and supply convoys for shipment to the interior. Units are rated for per-turn supply consumption, and it is a tricky exercise to budget your needs and get your supplies in place and on time to support your operations. Supply is purchased with Resource Points (RPs), which are victory points for all intents and purposes. You also use RPs to buy reinforcements, lose them when your units are eliminated, and win them when you take an enemy base. Deficit spending is allowed, with reversible VP/RP markers. You get four: 1000x, 100x, 10x, and 1x, giving you some idea of the magnitude of the RP management chore.

    Jim and I played the 12-turn USA vs USSR Gradual Escalation scenario, with me taking the Soviets. We each had a budget of RPs with which to purchase our orders of battle and supply. Set up was simultaneous and secret, as we distributed our forces across our existing Antarctic bases - coastal bases could be piled high (there is no stacking limit) while interior bases were restricted to one air and two land units. We each had our natural spheres of influence, but in one corner of the map my Lenin base a mere three hexes away from Jim's Wilkes Station. Jim noticed this and put a lot of units in Wilkes. I noticed it too, and put even more units in Lenin. I had a 2:1 advantage in the air and on the ground - the battle for Wilkes Station was nasty, brutish, and short.


    US counterattack in the frozen interior

    I had Wilkes in hand and Jim suffered the double whammy of heavy losses on the board and on the RP/VP track. He was now playing from behind, and had to attempt to seize the initiative. Here's where the short-legged air support became an issue - no other opposing bases were within air range of one another. I could station air units on my bases and he would have to march into a well-supported defense. He had the option of building temporary bases using his engineers, but since these had to be constructed in range of my own bases, he would have to weather a counterpunch before getting them established. In the meantime, I could use my RP advantage to get ahead of him on the force curve. Nonetheless, he made a game play for Russia's Inaccessibility base, roughly in the center of the continent. He supported his mech unit with airmobile troops, while I flew in paratroops. It was a much closer fight than we saw at Wilkes, but the Soviets triumphed, and the fate of the Antarctica was sealed.

    War in the Ice was a real pleasure. The rules are reasonably tight, and though the supply rules cry out for simplification, they didn't inhibit our enjoyment. After one playing, it's clear experienced players will load up on the Lenin/Wilkes front to establish a stalemate, while conducting a more dynamic campaign elsewhere on the continent. There are many interesting asymmetries in the game, with slightly different force pools and unit costs. Also, the US retains more capability as the weather worsens, so with the scenario starting in the Antarctic autumn, it might pay to play for time, and go over on the offensive once the snow flakes start to fly. There is a three player option which introduces the South American Union (SAU), a prior build-up scenario with more at-start forces, and a science fiction scenario that posits an ancient (but technically adept) civilization beneath the icecap that awakens to wreak havoc. Altogether, a cool nostalgia trip and a good game, worthy of rediscovery.


    Red stars over the icecap

    Stéphane and Bill introduced Hawkeye to Roll for the Galaxy, which meant that Stéphane and Bill fought for the lead while Hawkeye fought for basic understanding in the early going. Hawkeye eventually got up to speed with a respectable engine but by that time Stéphane had built a lead he maintained to the end for a close win over Bill.


    Hawkeye contemplates the vacuum of space

    Dave also taught a game, walking Campoverdi through the finer points of The Battle of Five Armies. Dave took the Shadow forces and quickly seized the center of the valley. However, he was a little too good of a tutor, and as Bolg led the assault on the Eastern Spur, Campo piled on the hits. Soon Bolg's bodyguards were depleted and the Shadow general was vulnerable. A five-hit attack burned through his escorting combat units, felling the big lug for a Free People win. Campoverdi, Bolg-Slayer!


    Bolg storms the Eastern Spur

    Dave and Campo followed up with a couple rounds of Ra: The Dice Game. They split the pair, with Dave really liking the game. He's mastered the parent game Ra to the point that I've lost my copy and every time I find it someone hides it again. Anyway, it's an interesting implementation of the base game, a decent substitute in a pinch if you're looking for a filler.


    Coaxing a leaner

    Finally, Hawkeye and Stéphane wrapped up the evening with a little Up Front, using the Banzai expansion for a Japanese-Soviet matchup. Hawkeye's Japanese approached carefully at first, but in a sudden burst of impetuosity all three groups rose up in a Banzai charge. Unfortunately for the Emperor's finest, Stéphane had a decent fire card in hand. That card, assisted by a lack of terrain, the movement penalty, and a steady flow of black numbers, reduced Hawkeye's entire Group B to a slick spot on the Mongolian steppe. Short game, but that's two Up Front sessions so far this year, a trend I hope continues.


    The group of wind and ghosts

    0 0
  • 03/07/15--11:15: What drives games forward?
  • by Kalle Malmioja

    First published in my blog.

    I have been thinking about the things that make game play of board games go forward. Drives them on and makes the game feels satisfying. There are few things I want my designs to have and one of them is flow. I want to make the game play flow forward with each player connecting with the game. Down time and not caring are things that are very off-putting in games for me. I want my time to be well spent in games. Because of this I came up with four things that in my mind drive a game forward. They are:

    * Growth
    * Observation
    * Presence
    * Resources

    Growth:

    Growth is a good example when looking at tableau builders or tile placement games. By growth I mean that at the start of the game there are only a very limited option pool for each player and the options grow each turn. For example (Age of) Steam is a very good example of growth. In (Age of) Steam each player is allowed to buy new track hexes on a vacant map each turn. At the start of the game players are trying to find deliveries that are very close. The track organically grows to find new cities on the map and the delivery options increase. I find this aspect of the game very interesting.

    Carcassonne is another good example of growth. Each turn you have one tile that you place in the board. As the game progresses the choices you have increase and the tile you just drew can have multiple viable options to further your cause.

    As a tableau builder Deus is an fine example. In Deus there are six card colors that playes can play to their table. When you play the card you gain the action depicted on the card. The growth example however comes from the fact that when you place another cards of a same color you gain all the actions previously played. This can produce wonderful combos and point scoring options for the player in the end game where as at the start of the game there was a single action.

    I will argue that Castles of Burgundy is a poor example of growth. While CoB is a great Feld game the feel of growth is pretty bad. The goal of the game is to place different types of hexes on your board. You need to match the land type and number on the dice to place a hex. There is growth in the sense that your option increase over time when the board opens up but after a point the options start becoming more limited as there growth is not an option anymore. Why I said it is a bad example is for the fact that there are very few elements that do more that score you points. There are many hexes that have the same effect in the start as in the end and that reason CoB is a bad example of growth in a game you build your board.

    Observation:

    Observations are usually key elements in cooperation and deduction games. By observation I mean that each player increases their knowledge of the game state turn after turn for a final reveal or something similar. For example Resistance is a perfect example of observation. There are two opposing forces in Resistance, the resistance and the spies. At the start of the game each spy know about each other while the resistance is trying to figure it out during the five missions the game takes. The interesting aspects of the games are about deduction from the sparse information gathered from game play. It is a tense experience when played with the right group.

    Mysterium is a game I’m anxious to play. The description I have read and listened to various podcasts makes me thing that the main drive of the game is about observation. There are ghost detectives that try to decipher the clues of the ghost. The clues are cards similar to Dixit. Very visual and can be interpreted in various ways. The ghost cannot speak, only observe, during the game so it becomes a game about subtle hints and table talk among the detectives.

    Another type of observation driven game play can be found in childrens dexterity games like Animal Upon Animal. In AUA in players turn you throw a dice which makes you put a animal on top of a pile. The observation part here is that you need to balance the animal on the most stable (for you) place to go forward.

    I think memory elements in games are poor forward movement devices.For example a simple card game called Relikt where each player has a colored tent in from of them. The point of the game is to collect diamonds from the table by playing colored cards in a line in front of them. When a certain number of cards is played the diamonds are given to the player with highest sum of a particular color. The diamonds are either straight up points or negative points by themselves but points when paired. The diamonds are placed face-down in your play area so if you want to hinder your opponents scoring opportunities you must remember what they have. The other odd thing here is that the colored tents can change owners. So the game play becomes more convoluted when you first try to make out what diamonds each player has and then what color they are. For me the point of the game dilutes away with mechanisms like this and the connection to the game is lost.

    Presence:

    Presence is a close cousin of observation and in a pinch they could be in the same cup. Presence for me is about staying in the game all the time. You don’t only observe what others do but interact with them and actively change things. Simultaneous action selection and trick-taking games are good examples of presence.

    Just thing about Race for the Galaxy. Each turn players choose an action card which let them do a special action. The cards that other player played lets you do the action depicted on them. Once you know how to play the game you don’t just observe other players but try to outsmart them. This card selection process keeps all the players in the game and the game flows forward.

    Similarly, think Tichu. Players are formed in pairs that without talking interact with each other and try to outwit the opponent pair. The game goes forward with each trick and players are participitating all the time.

    Third example of presence I can give is in my favourite dice game, Wurfel Bohnanza. The presence here is that during the active players turn other players can use the dice thrown and not already saved. There are many games with this mechanism and main point here is that the action taken by the active player can be beneficial for other players too.

    The opposite of presence is downtime. Downtime in games is something never makes games go forward. If your playing with your phone and not looking at the board your not making the game go forward. The latest game that had me thinking other things while playing was Black Fleet. The game state changed quite much during each player turn and you had very little control over what you have at the beginning of your next turn. It was not a pleasant game to wait.

    Resources:

    This was the hardest thing to name. The thing I’m trying to achieve with resources is resource conversion actions and other actions that make things better. Maybe the following examples help me explain it. Best examples are in action selection/worker placement games.

    Ora et Labora is a perfect example for two reasons. First resource accumulation, each turn there is more than previous turn. The point is that the amount is not static, while you can take one resource away other resources grow steadily until picked. Depending on the turn you can have quite a lot and can storage some or just a few that you take away because another player needed it. Of course Agricola, Le Havre and Caverna do the same thing (and plethora of other games).

    The second thing Ora does quite well is the resource conversion. It is never less or even, it is always more. There is a great example in a blog post by Luke Laurie in the League of Gamemakers site.

    Let's have two resources basic X and advanced Y. There are two ways games make these resources link. First XX => Y and second X => YY. This is really crude way to put it but should elaborate my point. Which version do you think makes the game go forward (faster)?

    That's definately the second option. The resource conversion design I nowadays do always lets always players gain more than they put it. If you ask yourself a critical question, what does it matter if a player has more resources? The big picture is that the player might gain one action more during the game if you give him that resource. That makes the game go forward in my mind. Sure if your designing a harsh enviroment then less might be more.

    Another game that is good example of making resources readily available thus driving the game forward. I'm of course talking about Imperial Settlers. Once you build a resource building you get the resources. Without that ability the game would be a drag and the five turn game should go on for extra turns to have the same effects.

    Last Will also has a good thing going on with actions. There nobody loses actions but players in best positions get the ability to pick the gain action cards. The best part is that the actions are then immediately available.

    Lose a turn. That single sentence is something I really dislike in games. That sentence never make the game go forward. It is really simple to turn that thing around and make it that gain an action. Why make someone angry that I don’t get. Examples of this can be found in the games of 80s but fortunately not some much anymore.

    -----

    To conclude this post the four things that make games go forward in my mind.

    Growth – the options players have grow each turn
    Observation – players make judgment on what others do by watching them play
    Presence – simultaneous active participitation of each player
    Resources – gain more than you give

    0 0

    by meepleraptor

    Played Le Havre last night, and it took over 2 hours with a 2 person short game.

    We spent a lot of time fiddling with the resource chits (taking them out of the container and putting them back in), I owned the game so I did most of the fiddling and it was hard to play and manage all the chits. I'm pretty sure I missed some refill steps, interest payments, and harvests, we also completely forgot about the town building buildings.

    I really want to play this as a 3 person long form, but right now it'll be way too long and not very fun. Right now I enjoy playing on the iPad much more because it handles all this bookkeeping for me. Do you guys use any tricks to reduce fiddliness?

    Some ideas I had:
    - delegating the refill to others
    - pre stacking all the chips.
    - better containers for the chits? what do you use for that?

    0 0

    by Goshawkdm

    I use small bowl for the chips, and put they in the resources zone of the board.

    0 0

    by meepleraptor

    Looks like I goofed the rules: we played 14 rounds (which is the full versions) but without special buildings. that explains why it takes so long

    0 0

    by kirkbauer

    I printed out some great player mats from here on BGG. They are different based on number of players. They help you organize your goods, see how many actions you have left in the game, how much food you need, etc. I like them a lot.

older | 1 | .... | 101 | 102 | (Page 103) | 104 | 105 | .... | 184 | newer