Quantcast
Channel: Le Havre | BoardGameGeek
Viewing all 5563 articles
Browse latest View live

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: Tokens


Reply: Le Havre:: Strategy:: Re: house rules to disincentivize loans/shipping?

0
0

by sneakyninja7nz

I'll try it at 2 max.

If you do play it with 3+ for interest, please let us know how it goes.

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: Tokens

0
0

by dklx3

If you check the appendix, the Eye Test is included. Le Havre really IS that good. :)

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: Tokens

0
0

by Halfinger

The F looks like an E and it would be useful to include the explanation in the main body of the rules as I suspect many are confused by this.

Reply: Le Havre:: Strategy:: Re: house rules to disincentivize loans/shipping?

0
0

by kittenhoarder

sneakyninja7nz wrote:

I'll try it at 2 max.

If you do play it with 3+ for interest, please let us know how it goes.
(My guess is that it will be too crippling, but maybe that is a suitable punishment for such bad food planning.)


I will let you know. It may still be a while before I try it, though, since I got the physical game for Christmas and still haven't gotten to play even the normal rules. My guess is that it would change the focus of the game IMMENSELY, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. I may implement it to spice up solo play but leave it out of multiplayer.

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: Tokens

0
0

by russellkey

dklx3 wrote:

If you check the appendix, the Eye Test is included. Le Havre really IS that good. :)


Looking forward to playing it with my game's group - played it on the ipad and loved it.

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: Tokens

0
0

by russellkey

Halfinger wrote:

The F looks like an E and it would be useful to include the explanation in the main body of the rules as I suspect many are confused by this.

There's a definite art to producing good rules.

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: Discrepancy between board and rule book for 2-player shortened game

0
0

by dfstanle

Thanks all for the replies. It appears to be a misprint between the two; I believe that my copy is very recent, since it included the mini-expansion for Le Grand Hameau. My wife and I only played one shortened two-player game, and then ventured into the regular game. Probably won't be using the shortened game rules unless I need to teach someone the game.

Harder Better Faster Stronger

0
0

by Byron Campbell

Youtube Video

Well, maybe not faster. But for this Frameshift Friday, I focused on overhauling the first scenario to make it feel a bit meatier. This meant doubling nearly everything in the scenario.

Frameshift is a story-driven solitaire board game about change played over a series of sequential scenarios, or "Evolutions." Each Evolution adds or removes rules from the game as the characters and situations evolve. The outcome of one Evolution can have a minor or major effect on subsequent Evolutions (though not necessarily the next one in line). It's strongly suggested that you play each Evolution only once, and in order, without looking ahead, though you are welcome to replay the entire cycle again once you've finished. When design is finished, I plan to release Frameshift as a series of free print-and-play files with a possible physical version after that.

Last week, the inaugural Frameshift Friday (where I devote myself to prototyping, design and playtesting for at least a few hours a week), I made a prototype version of Evolution 0 and played it about 6-7 times, maybe more. I even had an impromptu outside playtest when a couple of friends came over on Sunday. After the first play, in which I changed a couple of major rules and scribbled over half the cards, Evolution 0 seemed...pretty solid.

This disturbed me. I have nothing to change, nothing to tweak? I must be doing something wrong!

My one complaint about the scenario was that it felt a little (okay, a lot) quicker than I had imagined. It takes place over 15 turns. Each turn, the player is allowed a maximum of 4 actions--up to 2 movement and up to 2 "interface," or using the special ability of the current location. In practice, the game takes about 15 minutes to play, and feels very light.

Since this is a tutorial scenario, "very light" was fine by me, but as I was thinking about the future scenarios, I realized that 15 turns just wasn't going to cut it. So with this next prototype, I modified that number to 30 turns. But because the Molecular Sequencing, one of the central mechanics of the scenario, is tied to the turn timer, this also meant doubling the size of the Molecules deck (which probably needed to happen anyway). And so forth.


Is It Big Enough?
This brings me to an interesting question: what is the appropriate size for a solo game? As a gamer, I know I am drawn (irrationally) to those games that are absolutely overflowing with bits: Arkham Horror with all the expansions has a physical presence I can't resist. I like the sheer voluminousness of the game more than I like the game itself! Android is another favorite that's got a small forest's worth of cards in it. Ditto for Mage Knight Board Game and Robinson Crusoe: Adventure on the Cursed Island.

On the other hand, one of my design goals with this game was to keep it as small and elegant as possible. Part of this is just in recognition of my skills as a game designer--I don't know if I have what it takes to juggle 10 50-card decks and make it all balanced. Part of it is in recognition of the fact that publishers are going to prefer a game with fewer bits, and if it's delivered as a print-and-play, fewer cards are better there, as well. And part of it is in recognition of the fact that bigger is not always better.

As a gamer, I'm drawn to big games that seem to offer a ton of variety. But is variety really what makes a game replayable? Betrayal at House on the Hill has 50 potential endgame scenarios, each of which plays out very differently. But that means interrupting the game to learn new rules the first 50 times you play. It also means, for me, completely whiffing the strategy the first time you play each haunt, and then not being able to replay the same haunt until you've forgotten what you did wrong the first time.

I think this last point is true of other games as well. Space Alert does not have that many threat cards, especially when you separate them out by color and internal/external and serious/normal. There are probably something like 4 in each pile by that point. It has just enough to keep the game feeling fresh and unpredictable, but few enough that you can actually improve at the game by getting to know the threats and how to counter them.

As I play more games, I'm getting more and more into eurogames, which tend to go for a more elegant approach that is lower on components but still endlessly replayable. In Le Havre, only minor elements change between each game, with the same basic buildings being seen every time (it's still a big game, components-wise). In The Castles of Burgundy, you will see all of the knowledge tiles after 2-3 games, and every other tile is a duplicate, but the order they come out and the board you're playing on makes each game feel different. In both of these games, I feel as though I have gotten into a groove where I am comfortable playing the game and can get fully immersed in play.

So, what is your opinion? What is the "right size" for a solo game? As a gamer, do you ever find your eyes bigger than your stomach?

P.S: Happy International Tabletop Day!

Plunging into the deep end, Part 2.

0
0

by Ron Olivier, Sr.

Last month, my freshman blog detailed some of my thoughts on selecting a new game. In particular, a somewhat heavier game - one that has some deeper elements of strategy, but also be accessible and appealing to a variety of different levels. My goal was to narrow it down to four entries (not including a blind hope that El Grande will undergo a surprise reprinting), and choose one game out of those to buy. The first of the four qualifying slots was to be Imperial 2030. Without rehashing the reasoning behind this choice, I'll just say that it's a rather unique game that pushes all of the right buttons for me. 1 down, 3 to go.

Agricola vs. Le Havre
I mentioned that my second slot was going to be a battle between these two Uwe Rosenberg games. Let me tell you, that is a VERY tough choice. The games bear enough resemblance to show a common designer, but are radically different in so many other ways. My research indicated that more than mechanics, theme, and components, the big difference between the two games was the level of urgency that each game presents.
Agricola looks like a masterful exercise in strategic planning that keeps you walking the tightrope between 'just getting by' and possible ruin. I love it when a game can do that successfully. The fact that everyone pretty much has the same overall goal, but may have to take completely different paths to get there is pretty awesome in and of itself. I must admit, the thought of micro-managing a farm was less than inspirational to me at first, but as I've researched the game I've really warmed to it quite nicely.
Le Havre, which I actually have played, is pretty much the antithesis of what Agricola is. Rather than being a farmer, you're managing a harbor. The turn seems simple enough: You add to the supply of resources each turn, then you either take one kind of resource or move your worker. You can choose to buy buildings or boats, or build them by using resources. Don't forget to feed your workers and pay back any loans, lest you get a slap on the wrist! The array of choices gets larger as the game progresses.
Deciding which or these two were 'better' was like asking which of my two kitties are cuter...they're are so many differences it's hard to tell. Alas, I was just about to flip a coin to decide which of the two (games, not kitties) would go on my 'final four' list. Then I looked at the other three games and...

Cuba
Long before the aforementioned coin flip, I had Cuba down on my list as one of the final four. I played it once, loved it, and boldly declared that this would be in my collection instead of Puerto Rico! (At that time, I had never even played Puerto Rico!) But special internet deals have a way of changing people's minds (especially mine), and PR somehow found its way into my collection, but Cuba didn't.
Revisiting the game again, there are obvious similarities between it and Puerto Rico such as role selection, utilizing buildings, and shipping goods. Of course, these are all handled quite differently by each game. And Cuba adds a unique twist of placing your worker to activate only a portion of your buildings at any one time, as well as a chance to bid (bribe?) on legislation currently in Parliament. All in all, I think it's a bit more complex than Puerto Rico.

Age of Industry
I could try to describe Martin Wallace's Brass using mere words, but I don't think I could adequately describe it in a paragraph or two. I can honestly say that from my research that this is one of the most elegantly strategic games I've seen...period. Though hearing the theme of this game could be sleep inducing (...industrial revolution...economic engine...canal phase...zzzzzzzz), the game itself looks absolutely amazing. Unfortunately, my amazement with this game would, I fear, be short lived. This game goes beyond my definition of 'Heavy'.
Not to worry...Age of Industry is a re-theming of Brass that's a bit lighter and more accessible. Still deep and strategic, AoI pares Brass down to a 2-hour game by scrapping the canal era and going with rails alone. Rather than being set in England, a two-sided map is included of German and New England (with other maps available). Some of the other parameters have changed, too, but it's still recognizably a Martin Wallace game. And it looks like a great one.

Now, where was that coin...
As I prepared to flip, I realized something about my list that made me rethink things just a bit. If I flip heads, then Agricola gets the nod into the final four - plain and simple. If it's tails, then the spot goes to Le Havre. That's fine by me, but then I have two games that are somewhat centered around shipping. To me, that's kind of pointless, because if I went that route, there's no way that Cuba would beat out Le Havre, no matter how good it seemed...
Are you seeing what I'm seeing?
If Le Havre would be a shoo-in to beat Cuba, why would Cuba be on this list? Didn't I originally rate Cuba a 9 and Le Havre a 7?
Yes, but that was before Puerto Rico came into my collection. In my 'first impressions' review of Le Havre, I even wrote: "I don’t think this game has much to recommend it instead of (or in addition to) those games." (Speaking of Cuba and St. Petersburg at the time). The crux of the matter is this: Cuba has a certain similarity to Puerto Rico. Le Havre does not. I think Le Havre would add more to my collection than Cuba would.

To recap, the four finalists are:
- Le Havre
- Age of Industry
- Agricola
- Imperial 2030

One will be my next game purchase, one or two of the others might end up on my Christmas List. At this point of the game, it doesn't even matter which one of the four I pick. Finding an unexpected bargain or discount on one or another might be the final straw, or getting the chance to play one between now and then...who knows? One thing is for sure...they're all fine games that would fit perfectly into my collection.

Thread: Le Havre:: General:: Solo Play

0
0

by Chou4555

I think you can play the game solo, right? Is it more rewarding than solo play in Agricola (where after a while it becomes repetitive and you have a formula, despite the cards)?

Thanks!

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Solo Play

0
0

by bigloo33

Yes + Yes = 2 cents :D

I do think it is a more rewarding solo experience, for sure. The random configuration of buildings makes it a different puzzle every time, and the special buildings can change things up quite a bit.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Solo Play

0
0

by Chou4555

Thanks for that Ken.. so it's between Le Havre and Terra Mystica for my burfday next month!!

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Solo Play

0
0

by Pugnax555

Agreed with Ken. Also, since there's no hidden info, you can easily play multiple hands solo to get a feel for some of the standard buildings that only come out with certain player counts.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Solo Play

0
0

by bigloo33

Ouch, tough call. Both are fantastic. Mystica doesn't play solo, though, if that is a deal breaker. Either way you can't go wrong.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Solo Play

0
0

by lostphd

I've played over 100 solo games. After a while you can get the game time to about 30 minutes, and like the others have said, no game is at all the same. The end game tends to take on a particular curve, but the beginning and mid-game never cease to be an interesting challenge.

Gates of Loyang, also by the same desginer, is a fun solo experience too.

Reply: Le Havre:: General:: Re: Solo Play

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Re: What is the definitive list of Starting Buildings for each number of players?

0
0

by JeffyJeff

I came across this thread by accident and a couple days ago it turns out I played a "short" game for the 1st time and one of the other guys setup the buildings and we didn't have any additional "start" buildings so I was wondering if we played wrong...

nite999 wrote:

Therefore for a one player (short) game there would be three additional starting buildings: Marketplace, Black Market and Sawmill.


... for a two player short game: Marketplace, Black Market

... for a three player short game: none (Marketplace though is in 3 to 5 player short games as a regular standard building, not as a starting, the other two aren't in the game at all in this case)

... for a four player short game: Sawmill

... for a five player short game: Sawmill

hope I've got the right :)

Reply: Le Havre:: Rules:: Luxury liners go down in value Re: Question regarding the order of Ships

0
0

by JeffyJeff

I couldn't find (please point if it exists) a thread for my question but this thread is close enough....

luxury liner's values go down, not up like other ship types, ... for example in a 3 player short game for example the round 11 card turns into a 38 value luxury liner... but the final round 12 card turns into a 30 value one.

I'm guessing this is because since luxury liners don't help feed, and can't be used to ship goods, is why they go down?

Also I'm guessing it's designed to force players to plan better to build luxury liners, at least the 1st one that comes out, in the subsequent round? And maybe other reason(s)?

Only reason I was double checking ordering, and double checking you can only buy top most one... is in our recent 3 player short game, because I didn't notice and/or remember they decrease, I ended up with the 30 value LL because I was unable to build in in the previous round... this ended up having me tied with one other player for 1st (114 each)... instead of not sharing victory :)

Thread: Le Havre:: Rules:: Entry fee to other players buildings.

0
0

by sneakyninja7nz

I am pretty sure that we have been playing this correctly...

To enter another players building which costs food, when you don't have any food to give but you do have gold. We play that you first change your gold for a food item, and then give the player that food item.

And if it costs 2 or 3 food to use the building, I always change the money for smoked fish or meat, rather than multiple fish (so that they may potentially lose food by being short changed at a later time).


The rules aren't so specific about this, so I bet some people are just paying gold instead. Which I think is wrong.
Anyone want to back me up on this?
Viewing all 5563 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images