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


Channel Catalog


Channel Description:

BoardGameGeek features information related to the board gaming hobby

older | 1 | .... | 40 | 41 | (Page 42) | 43 | 44 | .... | 183 | newer

    0 0

    by DavidT

    Let me lay the foundation:

    (a) I've owned Le Havre for ages, but until recently rarely had an opportunity (i.e., available opponent) to play very often;

    (b) I've really loved the game previously, having been especially enamored of the apparent ability to score points/win the game in countless, wildly different ways;

    (c) The average scores in our 2-3 player games had hovered around 100-150 points, which I thought was very competitive;

    (d) I don't read strategy articles, as a rule;

    (e) Recently, a friend and I started playing the iOS version, 2-player, repeatedly and frequently;

    (f) Looking around this forum, I saw that truly competitive 2p scores are 300pts or more;

    (g) I still don't know how scores in the high 300s are possible, but my average score is getting closer to 250-300 (by virtue of experimenting less and doggedly optimizing specific strategies); and

    (h) as a result, I'm starting to lose my fascination with the game.

    So, if you're still with me (thanks!), let me now pose a question: What would you say to a relatively inexperienced Le Havre player who is feeling like the only way to really win the game is to ship large amounts of __fill-in-the-blank__, repeatedly?

    I don't imagine for a second that I've solved this game, or that I even know enough to fully comprehend all the questions, but I do know that every game sees me falling into the same rut by the end--whether I really want to or not. It's okay, I guess, if the game ultimately requires shipping or building ships to be competitive (it is about a port, after all), but I'd really love to discover that it's possible to score over 300pts, reliably, without doing either.

    Thanks in advance for any input!

    0 0

    by JohnRayJr

    Well, separating two potential issues, I think the two-player game is a little less interesting than the three-player game.

    But it seems to me that lots of players hit this point where they have a stronger sense of the value of various things (coke, steel, loans, etc) but their opponents do not. I understand feeling kind of bored if you're coasting to easy victories the same way.

    I still find the game pretty fascinating against people who know what they're doing. Even against relatively inexperienced players, I find lots of subtleties in playing at the highest level I can.

    Anyway, the core of what I'm saying is that the interest should be in playing against the position of the other players.

    0 0

    by Lobotnik

    Jasonbartfast wrote:

    The way you phrased the question made me think you were re-randomizing them after each round, so I wanted to make sure you were doing it correctly :)


    Well, this is exactly what we have been doing since we got the game (recently though, I should add!). I just saw TV's new review and he mentioned the way it was done, and this saves me having to ask the question so thank you!

    About to go home and read the rules through!

    0 0

    by Thunkd

    Shipping is a big path to victory and it's the way I usually go. But I have won other ways with a ship-building or building-building strategy. Or more often a hybrid shipping/something else strategy.

    Even if shipping is the way to go, I think that makes the action selection aspect of the game even more interesting. If you know your opponents probably want to do the same things you do, then figuring out how to achieve that goal becomes trickier. Timing when to occupy/leave certain buildings, what goods to take, how to feed, etc. becomes a lot more strategic.

    0 0

    by davypi

    DavidT wrote:

    but I'd really love to discover that it's possible to score over 300pts, reliably, without doing either.


    Well, there is an extremely simple test you can perform to find out. Add up the value of all the buildings and boats in the game. Assuming you can actually build all of them, that is approximately your best score - and even this assumes an unusually dismal performance by your opponent. The joinery and some special buildings will also convert resources to money, but essentially if you don't ship, you don't have any way of adding more points into the game.

    A more experience oriented answer to your question is that if you don't win on a shipping strategy, you have to win on a building strategy. Again, there is no other way of getting points. In a four or five player game, winning by buildings only is feasible. In a three player game, its more difficult and can only be done of the other two players are cutting each other out of buildings, effectively doing your defensive work for you. In a two player game, you have to ship.

    The only significant exception to any of this is by doing what I call the "shipping without boats" strategy and essentially relies on certain special buildings to come into play. For example, the sandwich shop allows you to convert bread and meat pairs into francs. It really performs the same function as the shipping line, but it lets you do it without the boat or the energy and also gives you an extra franc. I have won games by exploiting such building in lieu of shipping goods, but they have to show up early enough in the game that you can plan on using them about a half dozen times.

    0 0

    by Thunkd

    davypi wrote:

    Again, there is no other way of getting points.

    I would rebut this....


    only you've done it for me:

    davypi wrote:

    The only significant exception to any of this is by doing what I call the "shipping without boats" strategy and essentially relies on certain special buildings to come into play. For example, the sandwich shop allows you to convert bread and meat pairs into francs. It really performs the same function as the shipping line, but it lets you do it without the boat or the energy and also gives you an extra franc.

    0 0

    by Padish

    DavidT wrote:

    It's okay, I guess, if the game ultimately requires shipping or building ships to be competitive (it is about a port, after all), but I'd really love to discover that it's possible to score over 300pts, reliably, without doing either.


    Whatever you do, you cannot omit ships. You don't have to necessarily use the shipping line more than maybe once with three or more players, but ships are a necessity because they are the best way to feed your people.

    It is viable to win by building high-scoring buildings (compared to the resources they use up) and some special buildings to generate francs instead of shipping, but ships are required nevertheless.

    0 0
  • 04/12/13--09:37: New Image for Le Havre
  • by niczone

    All 8 of the advanced goods

    0 0
  • 04/12/13--09:37: New Image for Le Havre
  • by niczone

    The 8 basic goods

    0 0
  • 04/12/13--09:41: New Image for Le Havre
  • by niczone

    Two of the commonly used buildings

    0 0
  • 04/12/13--10:27: New Image for Le Havre
  • by niczone

    The Shipping Line, essential to the game

    0 0
  • 04/12/13--10:28: New Image for Le Havre
  • by niczone

    Buy a Wharf, get a ship

    0 0

    by niczone

    The Full Review with Images can be viewed on www.TheGamerNerd.com
    http://www.thegamernerd.com/reviews/le-havre/

    Le Havre is a worker placement game by Uwe Rosenburg where players try to amass the largest fortune by the shipping of goods. Le Havre is designed by the same man who created Agricola , and you can certainly feel that while playing Le Havre. The same idea of making an engine in order to score high is present here. In Agricola the player is building a farm, here in Le Havre a fortune can be gained by a variety of methods, but it is hard to win without building some ships.

    Le Havre can be played by 1–5 players, but is played best with 3 or 4 players. The game is quite lengthy, ranging from 2–3.5 hrs long, based upon the number of players. It does have a shortened version that takes 45 minutes to 2 hours, but I can’t comment on it as I have not played the shortened version. Each round consists of 7 turns, which rotates between the players. The number of rounds in the game depends on the number of players, but ranges from 14 for 2 players to 20 for 5 players.

    Goods acquired can be turned into other types of goods. These conversions make sense and add to the theme of the game. For example, a player can gather grain. Once you have grain, there is a building, called the “Bakehouse” where a player takes the grain, along with some energy, and converts it into bread. There are 8 different goods, and each one can be upgraded to an advanced version. Wood can be fired into charcoal, clay can be burned into bricks, iron can be made into steel, fish can be cooked into smoked fish, grain baked into bread, cattle slaughtered into meat, hides made into leather, coal made into coke. In addition to goods, there is money, which since the game takes place in France the money is Francs.

    On a turn, a player chooses to do one of two things: The first choice is to take goods from an “offer space”. Every turn, goods are added to some of the offer spaces. The player can take all the goods on any offer space and that is their turn. There are offer spaces for 6 of the basic goods plus francs. For example, of the 7 turns in each round, in four of the turns 1 wood is added to the wood offer space. On a player’s turn he/she can take all the wood on that space. He or she could choose any of the other 7 spaces.

    The second choice is where the worker placement aspect comes in. The player can, in lieu of taking an offer, use a building. Buildings do a variety of different things, but most buildings allow a player to change one good into another, such as the Bakehouse example earlier. Another example is the “Tannery” allows a player to turn hides into leather, every hide turned into leather also gets the player one franc. Buildings are either owned by the player or the town. A player pays nothing to use his own buildings but will likely have to pay something to use another players’. Once a player is in a building, no other player can use that building until he leaves. Buildings also allow players to buy new buildings, construct ships and ship goods on the ships constructed for francs.

    So, is Le Havre a good game? Yes, it is a great game. If you like Agricola, you most likely will like Le Havre. Rosenburg game lovers like to talk about which game is better, Agricola or Le Havre. I personally think Agricola is better but Le Havre is still one of my favorite games. What I like about Le Havre is that it requires a much greater feel of the entire game than Agricola. The classic game strategy of “do what the other guys aren’t doing” often works well in Le Havre. It is impossible to calculate what is the optimal move most the time. It is often a choice of making a good move or making a slightly better move.

    At the end of each round, workers must be fed, with the amount of food needed going up as the game goes on. Building ships lowers the cost of feeding workers every round after they are built. This is why it is hard to win without building ships. If a player does not, he will spend all his time gathering food and will have none left to make an engine that will get points. There are options for loans in the game, and like Agricola, there are harvests after rounds where grain grows more grain and cattle can breed more cattle. After all the rounds have been played, all the value of the buildings owned plus the francs on hand and whoever has the most is the winner.

    Some people say that Agricola is harder to play because the tension in that game is making sure you get your player on a spot of the board before someone else does in a given round. In Le Havre, this rarely happens. If a player goes onto a building that you wanted to use, you can find another that is almost as good. There is much more flexibility in this regard. In Le Havre, though it is much more likely to cause analysis paralysis (as if you play with someone always trying to find the optimal move), it can be a nightmare. The decision tree is enormous and I have seen may people just freeze up because they don’t know what to do, and it stresses them out much more than Agricola ever did.

    Le Havre is a great game. It isn’t a game for everyone, but it is a game that can be enjoyed by many. I rate it just a tad below Agricola, but it is my second favorite worker placement game and for sure in my top 10 games to play. I hope you play it and enjoy life on the inner harbor of Le Havre.

    0 0

    by mmmbraaains

    Which game is harder to teach/learn to play —Agricola or Le Havre?

    My first impression of Agricola didn't go so well, I think the person teaching the game wasn't on my wavelength. lol

    Nice review!

    0 0

    by niczone

    If you learn Agricola with the Family version, Agricola is easier. If you are thrown into the deep end with the full version, Le Havre is easier. Both are complex and expect there to be behind the first couple of times if playing with experienced player.

    What makes Agricola different every game is the Occupation and Minor Improvement Cards. What makes Le Havre different each game are the Special Buildings which are only 4 used each game of a huge stack (did not mention these in review for simplicity sake). The other thing in Le Harve that makes each game different is the way the building proposals are done.

    If you are better at looking at a hand of 14 at the beginning on the game and determining an optimal path, Agricola will probably be easier for you to get good at. If you are better at feeling the pulse of the entire game, Le Havre.

    So I think most would say Agricola is easier to play, but has more choke points that can really hurt you.

    0 0

    by Entropy2k

    In my opinion Le Havre is easier to teach. There are really only a few rules; most of the complexity comes from the cards and their interactions with each other. For example, it can take a few plays to understand how to get coal and coke. Getting the flow of play and how to make money is the hard part of Le Havre. Agricola wasn't that much harder to learn in my experience but everyone learns things differently.

    0 0

    by niczone

    I have played Agricola at least 50 times now and I am good at teaching it. I have played Le Havre probably 7 or 8 and only taught it 2 or 3 times so I am not as good at teaching it yet, but I agree that where Le Havre is difficult, and in my opinion fun, is that it is a total feel game. You have to feel how the game is flowing and react to it.

    0 0

    by wavedog98

    With both of these games, it's important to realize that you will suck for at least several plays before it clicks, regardless of how hard/easy it was to learn/teach.

    0 0

    by mfaulk80

    I think that Agricola is much easier to teach, mostly because so much is visible (in terms of building a farm) and the actions are more intuitive. The family game of Agricola may be more straight forward, but the lack of Occupations/Minors also makes the game more difficult. Next time I have to teach the game, I'm opting for a variant:
    http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/924853/family-game-with-occu...

    0 0

    by LSMB

    davypi wrote:

    DavidT wrote:

    but I'd really love to discover that it's possible to score over 300pts, reliably, without doing either.


    Well, there is an extremely simple test you can perform to find out. Add up the value of all the buildings and boats in the game. Assuming you can actually build all of them, that is approximately your best score - and even this assumes an unusually dismal performance by your opponent. The joinery and some special buildings will also convert resources to money, but essentially if you don't ship, you don't have any way of adding more points into the game.

    A more experience oriented answer to your question is that if you don't win on a shipping strategy, you have to win on a building strategy. Again, there is no other way of getting points. In a four or five player game, winning by buildings only is feasible. In a three player game, its more difficult and can only be done of the other two players are cutting each other out of buildings, effectively doing your defensive work for you. In a two player game, you have to ship.

    The only significant exception to any of this is by doing what I call the "shipping without boats" strategy and essentially relies on certain special buildings to come into play. For example, the sandwich shop allows you to convert bread and meat pairs into francs. It really performs the same function as the shipping line, but it lets you do it without the boat or the energy and also gives you an extra franc. I have won games by exploiting such building in lieu of shipping goods, but they have to show up early enough in the game that you can plan on using them about a half dozen times.


    http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/861960/le-havre-solo-play-sp...

    OP: until you crack 50,000,000 points, you should not be bored.

    ;)

older | 1 | .... | 40 | 41 | (Page 42) | 43 | 44 | .... | 183 | newer