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

Embed this content in your HTML


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 | .... | 71 | 72 | (Page 73) | 74 | 75 | .... | 183 | newer

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    ayedub wrote:

    zaphodunderworld wrote:

    I really don't get this. Selling a building is throwing away many points. I cannot think of any example where that is a wise thing to do. Who can give me some good examples?

    When someone asks me this sort of question I ask them if they're doing loans right…you're not allowed to take a loan to enter a building, just for paying your workers or paying interest.

    Imagine this scenario:
    You have no money, but this is ok because on your turn will be the "Interest" circle and you will have to take a loan to pay it. So you'll pay your interest and pocket the 3 gold which will give you the money to enter the building you want…
    Except the person that goes before your turn visits a building you and gives you a gold for entry, now when it's your turn you CAN pay the loan so you do…only now you can't pay to enter that building you need.
    In this scenario your only option is to sell a building which you'll do depending on how badly you want to visit that other building.

    The other scenario I've seen (which was mentioned earlier) is to sell a building to kick someone off of it so that person can use it, but that's very situational.

    wow. had to read this one a couple of times. I think I get it. You guys are smart!

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    jreast wrote:

    Suppose you need the money to contribute towards a better building that is going to benefit you more because others are more likely to use it (and pay you) or it's a points multiplier like the bank, that's going to benefit you greatly. The other reason might be that you haven't got enough food and need to sell a build rather than take a loan.

    Hey Jason, so what you are saying (multiplier) is that you build a building using resources and then sell that straight away. In that way you've sort of earned money through the resources? Hmmm... this does make sort of sense, though still feels like a waste of VP's..

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    fnord23 wrote:

    Sometimes cash *now* is far more valuable than points at the end of the game.

    Figuring out when those situations occur and exploiting them will noticably improve your gameplay and score.

    (For example, there are some early buildings whose primary purpose is to build, then sell for cash, which is then re-invested in even better places.)

    Hi Chris. Would you have some examples of these types of buildings that seem to only exist to build & sell? When playing Le Havre on the iPad (oh dear, now this thread may get banished to the VideoGameGeek), every so often the iPad AI player builds and sells straight away. I'll have a look to see what building (s)he does that with.

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    golden_cow2 wrote:

    And remember, selling a building removes any worker who happens to be in it. You can sell a building in order to use it after someone else, or to use it twice in a row.

    to get rid of other player: ok, also sorta makes sense. But the building must be very strong to need to use right then to offer up ½ of its value...

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    dkeisen wrote:

    zaphodunderworld wrote:

    I really don't get this. Selling a building is throwing away many points. I cannot think of any example where that is a wise thing to do. Who can give me some good examples?

    I frequently build the sawmill early on and immediately sell it for $7 cash. It is very inexpensive from a resource perspective, but not particularly valuable to own as it does not provide any rent. I realize that I am giving up VP to do this, but early in the game I will take $7 cash over 14 VP most of the time.

    Dave, this was not a strategy I would have thought up myself. I also see it mentioned now in a Le Havre compendium I found here on the Geek. Thanks for this tip!

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    sfox wrote:

    I've also seen someone sell a building to buy a ship early in the game, this is usually done with the sawmill as it is easy to build it and is worth a lot of money as one of the other replies has already mentioned.

    this example is indeed mentioned in the Le Havre compendium I found here on BGG. Thanks!

    0 0

    by zaphodunderworld

    Zark wrote:

    If you think how much food an early ship will give you over the course of a game, and that each food equates to a franc, it is a lot cheaper to sell the sawmill and lose 7 francs than to provide 30 odd food during the rest of the game

    David, this sounds like quite a sound business case with a good NPV :cool:

    0 0

    by jreast

    zaphodunderworld wrote:

    jreast wrote:

    Suppose you need the money to contribute towards a better building that is going to benefit you more because others are more likely to use it (and pay you) or it's a points multiplier like the bank, that's going to benefit you greatly. The other reason might be that you haven't got enough food and need to sell a build rather than take a loan.

    Hey Jason, so what you are saying (multiplier) is that you build a building using resources and then sell that straight away. In that way you've sort of earned money through the resources? Hmmm... this does make sort of sense, though still feels like a waste of VP's..

    I meant multiplier as in The Bank which is a building that gives you points for owning certain other buildings. As the building FAQ link points out, you probably wouldn't want to buy the bank so it was a bad example! Your example is valid too though, perhaps turning resources into money by building then selling isn't too bad a strategy, but it doesn't pay off for a lot of buildings as their end game value is significantly higher than their selling price.

    Edit: spelling

    0 0

    by Jon Henderson

    I always try to check my personal email on Fridays to see if anyone from my local meetup group is looking to play some game over the weekend. Last night I saw an email from my friend Tom and was excited to see that he was available for some games today. We agreed to meet at a local library which is a great venue for 2-player games. Good sized tables, decent chairs, and lots of natural light from the huge windows nearby. I won't bore you with the details, but let's just say I had a good day at Tom's expense. You can read about it here: Note To Self: You Suck. Thanks for the great game day, Tom!

    I have been playing some heavier games lately, so during the Tuesday meetup it was nice to play some lighter fare. We started with Augustus, played two games of No Thanks!, a game of Coloretto, and then finally Alhambra. I am embarrassed to say that I had never played No Thanks! before, but I enjoyed it immensely. I am also embarrassed to say that out of all of those games, I only won Alhambra. I am usually crappy at tile-laying games (looking at you Carcassonne), but I have a pretty good record with Alhambra.

    I picked up Le Havre recently and I have played a few times solo to get the rules down. Wow! This is an excellent game. I can see why it is rated so high and I am kicking myself for not playing it a long time ago. I have screwed up a few rules, particularly around the cost of purchasing ships (I look at the wrong number) and what to pay to use a building, but I think I have ironed everything out. I should be ready for my first game with real players on Tuesday if anyone is willing.

    I have also been working on developing solo versions of some games in my collection. I already wrote last time about my solo version of Finca and I just co-published a solo version of Trajan here on BGG this week. I am working on a solo version of Concordia now, but I am struggling with the sheer number of decisions that the live player needs to make. I want to reduce that number by creating some sort of decision tree that makes the dummy player act similar to a live player. If anyone has any suggestions I will gladly take them.

    Thanks for reading!

    0 0

    by Nicholee

    I enjoy Agricola but my wife really does not like it because the race to feed your people stresses her out way too much. I'm hoping this will pack a similar flavor but with far less stress....

    0 0
  • 03/24/14--15:54: Plunging into the deep end.
  • by Ron Olivier, Sr.

    Welcome to my first blog, which is about (wait for it)…board games. This month’s topic…planning my next board game purchase. (How exciting….what’s next month’s topic…Watching grass grow?) Please, read on.
    I’m not one of those people who fill out game orders that are eligible for free shipping (with your purchase of $125). Amazon is the exception, where it only takes $35. I usually buy one game at a time, and that's usually after having a chance to play it or at least do some research. I don’t begrudge those people who buy 4 games a month and maybe play 2 of them. That’s just not my modus operandi (or my budget). I usually will do about 3-5 new games a year. One thing that this practice has taught me is to enjoy doing the research.
    With my two latest game acquisitions – “Castles of Burgundy” and “1775: The Rebellion” – it’s becoming apparent that I’m looking for something meatier than “7 Wonders” and “Dominion” in my games lately. The truth is, when I look over my collection, I see a LOT of lighter games, and very few that lean more to the heavy side. Not that 1775 can be truly classified as heavy, but it will never be confused with Bohnanza or Ticket to Ride.
    Apparently, I’ve become quite comfortable in my little niche. When I host game nights, most of the crowd really enjoys the light-to-medium games that are usually offered. And I do, too. They’re great games! Who can argue with choices like Power Grid, Dominion, Bootleggers, and I’m the Boss? The problem is not playing those games. The problem is when those games are the ONLY ones being played. I want to go deeper!
    Castles has some pretty heady strategy, but it’s balanced out by dice rolls and having only one out of four possible actions for each die. 1775 is sort of a thinking-man’s version of Risk…light enough to have wide appeal, but with more emphasis on planning and decision making (though still factoring in some luck-of-the-dice rolls to resolve battles. These two games are good segues to get from where I've been to where I'm going.
    The real question is “Where AM I going with this?” I doubt you’ll see me begin stocking up on hex-and-counter wargames, as those were a passing phase while in my teens. And while my son Ron Jr. has seemed to settle in nicely to his own niche – Star Wars: X-Wing miniatures – that path (or collecting any miniatures) is not for me. What I think I need is another heavier game. So, no matter how tempting it’d be to obtain “Quarriors” (along with its’ many Quexpansions), I think it’s time to put away the kids’ stuff for awhile.
    Complicating the matter, I have to work within certain boundaries. First of all, the game should be able to be played with 2P, as my wife Diane and I try to squeeze in a game here or there. But it also should be able to handle up to 4 or 5 players for the occasional game night. And nothing from the horror category (even if we do watch 'Bates Motel'). Also, nothing too far out into the fantasy or space realm…Diane will see to it that dust settles on those between game nights. Playing time should be no more than 2 hours for a 2P game, and definitely south of 3 hours with more players.
    I decided to start by going for what I know! There were three fairly heavy games that I’d played in years past that I never considered adding to my collection. Unfortunately, I don’t really remember a lot of my reasons for rejecting each one, so my first step was to simply revisit those three games and identify those things that I didn’t like. Perhaps looking at them anew might give me a different perspective on the game.
    First up was Martin Wallace’s “Automobile”. I really had forgotten a lot about this game except my distaste for it. Seeking out a video review of the game really reminded me why I felt that way. The game really lacked the thematic pop that I thought a game about the auto industry should have. The game had decent mechanics and flow, but it just seemed very dry. But before I subjected myself to too much rehashing, I noticed that this game was for 3-5 players. This would not be in the running for my next game.
    Next was “Le Havre” by Uwe Rosenberg. The images that came back to me about this game were centered around a whole bunch of buildings and ships, and slaughtering cattle to get beef to feed your people. Then I remembered I had posted a ‘first impressions’ review of the game on the geek, so I looked that up. Seems like I had some pretty good things to say about it, and a bit of bad, too. But one thing has certainly changed: I think the current group of gamers that I play with could handle the game.
    Watching a video review of Le Havre by Tom Vasal was also very enlightening. It filled in a lot of the things that had slipped from my memory about the game. It also showed how the gameplay really makes a lot of sense…which is something I sort of missed when playing it years ago. It’s not always easy to spot the obvious when you’re playing a game for the first time against others who are more familiar with the game than you are. I think I’ll put this one on my list of possibilities.
    I’ve also played a little Agricola in the past (less than a full game, so I can’t really judge it). I’ll probably do some homework on that and Caverna: The Cave Farmers to weigh them against Le Havre and choose one of the three to go onto my want list...most likely Le Havre.
    The second entry on my list is out-of-print, and has been for some time. El Grande is just about right when it comes to the level of strategy I’m looking for, but more importantly, I’ve played the game twice and absolutely love it. I’m doubtful that they will be reprinting the game anytime soon, but I’m reserving a spot on my list in case they do.
    The third game that I’m leaning towards is one that I haven’t played, but looks unique enough and strategic enough to push all the right buttons. A few years ago I got interested in “Imperial”, a game that I thought looked phenomenal, but I knew that it wouldn’t find favor in my gaming group at the time. Now, “Imperial 2030” is a slightly modified version of that game. It combines economic, political, and even some military elements into a highly strategic game of investments based on an economic cycle. The mere thought of being an investor trying to influence six powerful nations is enough to pique my interest.
    So it is here that l begin my noble (or no bull?) quest. I’ll probably add a few more titles before I actually get around to actually buying one of them. With three new games in the past 3 months (Mice and Mystics, Castles of Burgundy, 1775: The Rebellion), and dwindling opportunities to play them, It’s a good time to really explore the market and find the right game. I’ll share the progress as I go along.

    0 0
  • 03/26/14--18:07: New Video for Le Havre
  • 0 0
  • 03/26/14--18:34: New Video for Le Havre
  • 0 0
  • 03/26/14--18:34: New Video for Le Havre
  • 0 0
  • 03/26/14--18:34: New Video for Le Havre
  • 0 0
  • 03/27/14--22:47: New Image for Le Havre
  • by cesarpepe

    Chits' storage and some add-ons from BGG users.

    0 0
    0 0

    by David Neumann, iOS News

    App News

    FTL: Faster Than Light Coming Next Week
    Owen at Pocket Tactics has posted that the eagerly anticipated iPad version of FTL: Faster Than Light will hit the App Store next Thursday, April 3.

    This version will include the "Advanced Edition" additions, which will also be released as a patch for the PC version. The Advanced Edition includes new alien races, new weapons, new systems, and more.

    The iPad version will be $10 when it's released and, if it's like other "Thursday" releases, it will hit the App Store late on Wednesday night (around 11pm EDT).

    Vimeo Video

    Turn the Tide Released
    Stefan Dorra's 1997 card game, Turn the Tide, has been released for the little screen. Actually, the very little screen as it's only been released for iPhone (play at 2x on an iPad). The developers are already working on a Universal update, however, so don't let it's iPhone roots scare you off.

    This is the part where I explain a little about the game but, truth is, I have never played this one at all. Luckily, iTunes is here to help. Blurb, please:

    [q="Five Lakes Studio"]Each players is dealt 12 cards from a deck of 60 weather cards with values ranging from 1 to 60. A player is given a number of lifesavers representing the strength of their hand. Players with many lifesavers have worse hands than those with fewer.

    Another deck of 24 cards with values ranging from 1 to 12 are placed in the center of the table (tide cards). Two tide cards are turned up and all players choose one card from their hand in secret to play. When all players have chosen, the cards are simultaneously revealed. The player with the highest weather cards wins the lowest value tide card; the player with the second highest weather card wins the highest value tide card.

    Each player can have at most one tide card at a time; old tide cards are “buried” when a player acquires a new one. The player who holds the highest tide card after each set of secret cards is revealed loses a lifesaver.

    One point is added to a player’s score at the end of a round (playing through all 12 cards) for each remaining lifesaver and a bonus point is awarded to the player holding the lowest tide card.

    Feeling angry about the horrible hand you were dealt? Not to worry, each player gets a chance to play every hand in the original deal. When a round finishes, a player’s hand is passed to the player on his left and a new round begins. Rounds continue to be played until every player has played every hand.

    The winner of the game is the player with the highest score at the end of the last round of play.

    That should clear things up a bit.

    You can pick up Turn the Tide for $2 on the App Store.

    Codito Puts Everything on Sale (Except Puerto Rico)]
    The folks at Codito Development got in touch with us today to let us know that all their games for iOS are on sale. All but Puerto Rico HD, however, as that one is controlled by the fine folks at Ravensburger Digital GmbH.

    The sale is in honor of TableTop Day which is April 6th. All the games will be on sale for $1 through then. Here you go (links to App Store):

    Reiner Knizia's Tigris and Euphrates
    Le Havre (The Harbor)
    Reiner Knizia's Ra
    A Brief History of the World

    Chris from Codito mentioned that they've been laying low for a little bit due to having to take on some other work to pay the bills. Board games alone aren't doing it. That said, he thinks things are picking up now and they are still expecting to get El Grande out before the end of the year.

    Ravensburger Puzzle Released
    We mentioned this one last week, and now it's here.

    Go do puzzles on your iPad and stuff.

    It actually looks pretty amazing, and can be yours for the low, low price of $3. To protect everyone's sanity, this one is iPad only. You can nab it right now on the App Store.

    Dungeon Marauders Hits the App Store
    Dungeon Marauders is a new game that, from its blurb, sounds like a CCG version of Dungeon Keeper. You use cards to build and populate your dungeon and then go out and storm other people's dungeons looking for loot.

    Everything thus far sounds pretty good. Well, like a lot of CCGs, this one has IAP. Unlike other CCGs, this one doesn't just let you buy more cards, you have to buy gems. I'm not saying it's a deal-breaker, but buyer beware.

    That said, downloading the game is FREE, so there's nothing to lose in trying it out. This looks like another iPhone-only game, so get ready to 2x it on your iPad. You can download Dungeon Marauders right here on the App Store.

    0 0

    by ksnoopy

    I tend to play board games with my 7 year old, she doesn't like to PvP. She likes this game a lot, but she says "its not about winning - its about having fun" so one variant worth considering is simply going for a combined high score (similar to solo play's goal of high score) but with 2+ players.

    That way we're not being cut throat to each other with intentional blocks during the game. Instead we're thinking about what moves would make our town operate the best.

    0 0

    by klbush

    This is a great idea, for kids and even for first timers who aren't hard core gamers.

older | 1 | .... | 71 | 72 | (Page 73) | 74 | 75 | .... | 183 | newer