by doctoryes0
marcuslind1 wrote:
Shipping the most valuable goods gives the most money. Is this then a broken strategy? I´d say no. Because this strategy is fairly obvious - you can make multiple shippings in one turn and the goods values are clearly listed. So dominant yes, broken no.
Again, what you are describing is not a "dominant strategy."It is the game.
It's really surprising how persistent this concept is: that if a game in any way encroaches on players' freedom of choice, it is somehow broken.
To me, this points to how thoroughly Euro game design has been taken over by the Stefan Feld model, now expanded by Lacerda, and dozens (hundreds?) of others.
In this model, there are multiple mini-games all over the board. The sole thing that unifies them (don't think for a second I'm about to say 'theme') is the action economy.
You can play any of the mini-games you like because they are all balanced. An action, for example, anywhere on the board, will net you on average 4 VP's for example. This means that all 'strategies' are valid.
These games also feature upgrades which build combos or increase payoffs. In general, if you take these actions early, you will edge out the players who don't in the final turns.
This model, the first fifty times I saw it, was exciting.
The next fifty, it was kind of fun to consistently win games I had never played before because I recognized that only the art and the rules were different. The 'moves', once you saw how to apply them, were always the same.
The next couple hundred experiences with this model have been pretty boring. But people keep making these games, and my buddies keep buying them, so what can you do?
Circling back to the point: Le Havre is not one of those games.
It has an Opening, in which wood and clay are your lifeblood, and fish keep you from falling into debt.
It has a Mid-game in which multiple strats emerge by which you can gather the capital for...
the Endgame, which is ABOUT STEEL. FULL STOP.
(Side Note: The No-Shipping Variant clips the endgame and keeps you in the mid-game. That's all it does. That can be fun for a change of pace.)
The Design Justification for the above three-phase model, if you've played the game, is perfectly clear. It's fantastic. It's a nail-biting ride. And it explains the game's high rating and why we're talking about it twelve years after its release.
But let's briefly see if there's a Thematic Justification for why the game forces (shudder) players to participate in all three phases: opening, mid-game, and endgame.
We'll do this with a brief (I promise) story.
Two guys, Bill and Ed, were fishing on the pier. Bill said, "I'm tired of fishing. I'm going to open a furniture business, and if that works out I'll get some iron and coke and make steel. Then I'll use that steel to build great ships, and I'll make more steel and I'll ship that steel all over the globe. And I'll make more money than you, Ed."
And Ed said, "I'll tell you what, Bill. I'll stay right here on the pier with this old fishing pole, and when all's said and done I'll have more money than you."
They shook hands and wished each other luck, and a few years later it was clear to both of them that Ed was a fucking idiot.
The End