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 | .... | 78 | 79 | (Page 80) | 81 | 82 | .... | 184 | newer

    0 0

    by squashfactory

    I initially agreed with the 5.5 (steel) vs. 6 (coke) point comparison, but I think it's more fair to say it's 5.5 (steel) vs. 5 (coke). Adding the 1 franc coke conversion to the coke comparison total is misleading, as it is also a benefit with a steel strategy (since you would still convert coal to coke and get that 1 franc per coke).

    But yes, it does waste more turns with steel.

    Also, I hope I didn't break a sacred rule by replying to a post from 2009.

    0 0

    by klbush

    squashfactory wrote:



    Also, I hope I didn't break a sacred rule by replying to a post from 2009.

    I love it, brings my attention to some really good posts
    Ken

    0 0

    by Chou4555

    I did a search but got taken down some dark alleyways...

    I have just bought the (English version) game. Haven't even unpacked it yet... but are there any errata I should start sorting, or any FAQ that may help my learning of the rules?

    Thanks!

    0 0

    by ath3ist

    The rules are quite good IMHO. In fact, the game fully supports solo play, so no reason not to do a full setup and play through solo while you refer to rules. I have Australian version, but I cant imagine Brit English version being different :D

    0 0

    by Kelanen

    ath3ist wrote:

    The rules are quite good IMHO. In fact, the game fully supports solo play, so no reason not to do a full setup and play through solo while you refer to rules. I have Australian version, but I cant imagine Brit English version being different :D


    There is only an Australian edition I believe. It was a tongue-in-cheek joke about previous quibbles over UK/US English being used in manuals

    0 0

    by Herbz

    Heya,
    The closest thing to an FAQ or errata I found was the Extensive Le Havre Buildings Reference and FAQ.

    To quickly learn the rules I found the Condensed rules for Le Havre to be great.

    Have fun!

    0 0

    by Jasonbartfast

    Kelanen wrote:

    ath3ist wrote:

    The rules are quite good IMHO. In fact, the game fully supports solo play, so no reason not to do a full setup and play through solo while you refer to rules. I have Australian version, but I cant imagine Brit English version being different :D


    There is only an Australian edition I believe. It was a tongue-in-cheek joke about previous quibbles over UK/US English being used in manuals


    I thought Hanno said something about the translator for the Eng edition being from Australia...

    0 0

    by ath3ist

    Kelanen wrote:

    ath3ist wrote:

    The rules are quite good IMHO. In fact, the game fully supports solo play, so no reason not to do a full setup and play through solo while you refer to rules. I have Australian version, but I cant imagine Brit English version being different :D


    There is only an Australian edition I believe. It was a tongue-in-cheek joke about previous quibbles over UK/US English being used in manuals


    Hah!!

    0 0

    by Chou4555

    Cheers maties! Just finished punching out and sorting counters... will attempt first game this evening. :)

    0 0

    by Karlsen

    Jasonbartfast wrote:

    Kelanen wrote:

    ath3ist wrote:

    The rules are quite good IMHO. In fact, the game fully supports solo play, so no reason not to do a full setup and play through solo while you refer to rules. I have Australian version, but I cant imagine Brit English version being different :D


    There is only an Australian edition I believe. It was a tongue-in-cheek joke about previous quibbles over UK/US English being used in manuals


    I thought Hanno said something about the translator for the Eng edition being from Australia...


    Precisely.

    The translator is my wife, so I can verify this is 100% correct!

    She also did the English translation of Agricola which was then Americanised so we lost our ploughs :soblue:

    0 0

    by Chou4555

    Half-way through a solo first game. Confused by:

    1. symbols on the counters. Those that have "f" on them for francs- can they be converted to francs at any time or do they require buildings to do this?

    2. There is a reference in the rules to "food" being able to be converted to francs (or maybe vice versa). What counters are food? Those with a cooking pot on them?

    Thanks

    0 0

    by Jasonbartfast

    Chou4555 wrote:

    Half-way through a solo first game. Confused by:

    1. symbols on the counters. Those that have "f" on them for francs- can they be converted to francs at any time or do they require buildings to do this?

    2. There is a reference in the rules to "food" being able to be converted to francs (or maybe vice versa). What counters are food? Those with a cooking pot on them?

    Thanks


    You can only sell goods when you use the Shipping Line. Numbers on the goods are how much they are worth there.

    Correct, food goods have the food symbol on them.

    You can always pay francs instead of food, but you can never pay food instead of francs.

    0 0

    by louper

    Chou4555 wrote:

    1. symbols on the counters. Those that have "f" on them for francs- can they be converted to francs at any time or do they require buildings to do this?


    Those are for when the goods are sold via the Shipping Line building.

    Chou4555 wrote:

    2. There is a reference in the rules to "food" being able to be converted to francs (or maybe vice versa). What counters are food? Those with a cooking pot on them?


    You're not really converting francs to food - you're just USING francs as food. If you need to feed your workers 12 food, you can turn in, for example, 5 fish worth 1 food each and 7 francs. You do NOT turn in the francs and take an appropriate number of food. You just spend the francs.

    And you cannot spend food as if it were money; the conversion only goes FROM francs TO food.

    0 0

    by carrion

    1. This is the value of that commodity if shipped with the shipping line building. It confused me at first too!

    2. The counters with a pot on them are food (fish, smoked fish, bread (not grain), meat (not cattle). What you are probably referring to is the rule that when food is required as the price of something (or for feeding your people) you may substitute a franc. You may NOT substitute food for a franc.

    Wow, 3 others posted the answer in the time it took me to type mine!

    0 0

    by Chou4555

    Thanks everyone. I am finding the rules a little more challenging at first blush than my last two acquisitions, Terra Mystica, and Agricola, which surprised me. But it's all beginning to fall into place.

    What if Shipping Line never comes out in a game...? That makes the prices on the counters a bit superfluous?

    By the way I have been in touch with the meeple people and they have tentative plans to make wooden representations for those Le Havre items that you can't use the Agricola wooden set for. Depends on interest. I am a sucker for replacing counters with wooden bits!

    Now to re-start my first Le Havre solo game again, hopefully playing it correctly this time! :)

    0 0

    by cwb1014

    Chou4555 wrote:

    What if Shipping Line never comes out in a game...? That makes the prices on the counters a bit superfluous?


    The shipping line always comes out. I've never played a game where it wasn't built by a player or build by the town. And 95% of the time, for at least one player, the shipping line will be a major part of their strategy.

    0 0

    by Alex Harkey

    [This blog post has been adapted to the blogging feature of BGG. To view this post in it's optimal format with full pictures and illustrations please visit GamesPrecipice.com]

    Author: Matt Pavlovich

    Of the three pieces of information that grace the sides of every board game box (the length of the game, the age range, and the number of players), the first two are approximations that can be determined by the publisher and/or the designer during playtesting or post-production, but the number of players is explicit in the design. The dimension of gaming we’ll talk about this week is player count, the use of different player numbers as a mechanic or design decision. We’ll also talk about scalability, the ability of games to scale to accommodate different numbers or configurations of players.

    Classification by player number

    As I talked about in an introductory post back in December, one of the many ways to classify games is by the number of players. Player number is a deliberate design choice with implications for strategic depth, length, pacing, and complexity.

    Single-player games, sometimes called solitaire or solo games, are a bit different from other player configurations in that they mostly pit a player against an objective or goal rather than against other players. In the MMO world, a game mode like this might be called “player vs. environment” or PvE, in contrast with “player vs. player” or PvP. “Collaborative” games like Pandemic might also share more in common with single-player and PvE games than with multiplayer strategy games.

    It’s become a bit of a trend in recent games to include single-player variants or solitaire modes; Agricola, Le Havre, and Ascension (with an expansion) all support a version of the game for one player. But other media (especially video games) handle single-player gaming much better than strategy games do. Solitaire variants are nice additions that might generate some extra plays or additional buzz but probably aren’t going to represent the most popular way to play the game.

    2-player games are often the purest contests of strategy between players due to the importance of symmetry occurring in player interaction. An interesting corollary to that point is that 2-player games, when played by players of approximately equal skill, are often good test cases for comparing strategies. In Dominion, if two players commit to vastly different lines of play, the lack of influence of a third player means the strategies can be directly compared against each other.

    As a designer, including a 2-player game mode can be advantageous to expand your game’s audience in the form of couples who want to play a game together. But simply throwing in a “dummy” 2-player variant that’s worse than–or simply different from–the few-player game is not the same as actually designing for a robust two-player experience.

    Design considerations for a 2-player game:

    :coal: Symmetry: how symmetric or asymmetric is your game, and is that symmetry/asymmetry intentional?

    :coal: Robustness: is your 2-player mode supported in its own right, or does it more closely resemble the 3-player game with a dummy player?

    :coal: “Zero-sum” interactions: denying you two points is effectively the same as scoring two points for myself.

    :coal: External balance issues: does going first (or going second) confer a significant advantage?

    :coal: Repetition: does the game have enough variety of mechanics that the 2-player game isn’t simply a repetitive back-and-forth sequence?

    3-player games are much more significantly different from 2-player games than from 4+ player games. The addition of a third player makes games less deterministic and changes the math behind how to acquire points. If player A prevents player B from getting five points in a 2-player game, then player A is five points closer to winning. In a 3+ player game, then player A might simply have opened the door to player C winning.

    3-player games also introduce a type of variance in gameplay called player driven chaos. This variance is a byproduct of player interaction that introduces randomness into a game which remains under the control of the players. Most commonly this is visible when a player observes a very different game state between turns. This differs from traditional 2-player games in which a player is able to immediately respond following each turn or action of an opponent.

    In Hey! That’s My Fish! players move penguin pieces around the board to enclose ice flows and score fish which count as points. The 2-player game is a perfect information game where players block and have complete control over their final position in the game. By adding an additional player, each player loses individual influence over the control of the game as the board situation can change considerably between the turns of a given player.

    Therefore, in “strategy game” design, 3 players, up to about 7-8, represents a “sweet spot” of games that aren’t simply back-and-forth deterministic but can still be mechanically balanced. Over that range, 3-4 player games are by far the most common.

    3-player games in particular exhibit a fascinating example of positional balance that can be described as a “tripod effect.” If one of the legs of a tripod is longer than the other two, then the other two will naturally bear more weight to compensate and keep the tripod balanced on the ground. Similarly, in a well-balanced 3-player game, the two players not in the lead will often team up to keep the leader in check, which in games like Risk can result in a near-infinite loop of shifting alliances.

    In Coup, the player deemed the greatest current threat frequently becomes the default target of the player who makes the next assassination or coup action. A situation can occur in which three players each have one influence card remaining while repeatedly accumulating coins. As players reach the seven coins needed to use the coup action, they will find themselves in a Mexican standoff situation. As each player can eliminate exactly one other player during a turn, the first to take this action is assured of being eliminated by the final remaining player.

    When designing 3-player games, consider an externally imposed end-game condition (like “the game ends after seven turns”) instead of ones based on the game state (like “the game ends when one player controls seven out of ten provinces”). This can help a game bypass the tripod effect and help to keep the objective of the game as the primary focus.

    Design considerations for 3-4 player games:

    :trash: Crowded market: aside from the ancient abstracts, a vast majority of games support 3-4, which can be a double-edged sword for designers. On one hand, it can be easy to develop an audience for your game; on the other hand, it can be tough for your game to stand out.

    :trash: Strategy saturation: are there at least three or four legitimate paths to victory? If two different players in a 4-player game are forced into pursuing the same strategy, it can be difficult for either to win.

    :trash: Player interaction: designs beyond 2-player games open up a greater potential for several game mechanics. Most auction systems generally need 3-players or more to function effectively. Stock holding games usually play best with at least 4-players so that interesting relationships may develop between players who share a common investment. Trading games thrive with at least 4-players as the diversity of potential trading partners can help players locate a deal that is worthwhile for both sides.

    :trash: Pacing conditions: direct confrontation in 2-player games frequently boils down to players trading blows in a knockout style game. When an additional player is added to this situation it can become a game of endurance where a player is more interested in survival than inflicting damage.

    :trash: Partnerships: with 4-players a game has the ability to use partnerships and in many cases providing teams can align objectives and help reduce player driven chaos.

    As games grow to 5-players and beyond, practical issues with downtime can emerge especially in strongly turn-based games. Waiting ten, fifteen, or more minutes to take a next turn can easily sour players on a game. A number of creative solutions to the downtime problem exist:

    Design considerations for 5+ player games:

    :nuclear: Interactive turns:Bohnanza supports up to 7 players, but players can participate in trades even on other players’ turns.

    :nuclear: Simultaneous turns:7 Wonders also supports up to 7 but has virtually no downtime because the process of each turn is taken at the same time.

    :nuclear: Rules modifications: in Settlers of Catan, each player can build settlements at the end of any player’s turn, but only when playing with 4+ players.

    The Settlers solution works mechanically, but it does represent a significant departure from the “standard” 2-4 player rules. The “special build phase” in Settlers brings up an important point in game design: when designing for different numbers of players, making a game playable is not the same as preserving a consistent feel.


    For the second half of this article including Scalability and how games shift over multiple player counts please visit us at http://www.gamesprecipice.com/player-count-scalability/

    0 0

    by Chou4555

    will the game be available for the PC do you think? Maybe on Steam?

    0 0
    0 0

    by BBergquist

    Please forgive me if I seem to be overstating the obvious, but I don't see how what you did could be possible. Let me see. . . . With 3 players, you only get two turns on each of two rounds, and then 3 turns on the third round.

    Fish is the only food that can be used directly without upgrading. Otherwise, to use cattle or grain, you have to take one turn to get the raw goods, another turn to convert them to food. That's your two turns for one round.

    Granted, one trip to the abbatoir might net you enough food to last two or three turns. And once you build a ship, you have less need to manufacture food, of course. But especially in the early rounds, it seems to me that the steps you have to go through to make sure of enough food will consume a good number of the turns you have available, and I don't see how you could build all those buildings that quickly, to have 24 player-built buildings after each player has had only 28 turns?

    So I guess my obvious question to you is, was it so easy for you to provide the needed food that you had that much time for other actions?

older | 1 | .... | 78 | 79 | (Page 80) | 81 | 82 | .... | 184 | newer