There are a lot of games that have been putting out dice versions of their existing board game brands. Settlers of Catan, Through the Ages, Ticket to Ride, Set, Yahtzee...oh...wait.
This game isn't an extension of a brand, but it has the Dominion feel. There have been several rival games riding Dominion's wave...and now there's a dice version. Wizkids produced a fairly good game made by a couple of veteran game designers Mike Elliott and Eric Lang. (Disclaimer: Known to me, not best friends. I think I have their cards somewhere. I would still say their games suck if they sucked.)
Saying "and now" previously is somewhat tricky. It actually came out in August, but it didn't show up on my radar until a recent game night. The game has an expansion that came out recently - following a rough game development schedule for CCGs, I bet they gave Wizkids the initial game in January 2011, and started working on expansions between other projects almost immediately. If I were a betting man, I'd say there were at least 3 expansions they've submitted to Wizkids at this point.
The game is all about dice. Instead of a deck of your own cards, you have a dice bag. Instead of a discard pile, you have an area where you set aside used dice until you run out of dice in your bag. The turn starts, and we'll skip the first phase...scoring.
1. Scoring: the idea is that you want Glory, aka victory points. If you manage to keep a creature die around for the entire run around the table, you score it for 1-4 points.
2. Roll dice: 6 dice. Do what they say, based on the cards on the table. At the beginning of the game, you set out 3 stock cards (a mana card, a basic creature card, and a reroll+add dice card). You deal out 3 random spells, and 7 random creatures. (Mostly random - each card has a color associated with it as well as 5 dice, and you can't put the same 5 dice on two different cards...)
3. Pay for creatures, set aside spells that were rolled. (Choosing to keep a creature die around will cost 1-3 mana, from mana rolled that turn.)
4. Kill off rival creatures. Let's say you summoned a creature with a 2 attack, and one with a 4 attack...you do 6 damage to each players' creatures. Your opponent chooses the defender order...it's possible they bring a stout defender up to protect their other dice.
5. Buy a die. Just like Dominion, you only get one Buy action. Add a new die, if you have the mana to buy it (cost is on the card).
6. Cleanup. Move dice away from your creatures and spells that you kept into a "Used" pile (discard).
Scoring is actually a bigger perk that just VP...you get to get rid of one of your dice from the used pool, accelerating the 'win' of scoring.
Overall, it's pretty interesting. There's dice, there's random dice being drawn from your bag...it has a skill element equivalent to Yahtzee, where you maximize what you can from your dice and you know it'll never be perfect. The rules can be messy. But it's a good 2-4 player game, that wraps up in 30-40 minutes.
*50+ plays later - the support for this is poor. There's one FAQ that was put out in August, which answers a couple of questions, but leaves unanswered key others. (For example, can you attach a spell during scoring?) It makes for a tough-to-love 4 player game...I think most of our 4-player games, one person ends up with 0-1 points. 2 & 3 are pretty good though.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Catching up - augmented reality?
I've been gaming a bit, but mostly Through the Ages. Some of the FFG Civilization game, but nothing crazy new. Hmmm...I take it back, but I don't remember the game, so that'll wait for next time. I've been busy for the past couple of months, writing content and editing for a Facebook application - freelancing helps in paying bills and doing some interesting new things.
One of my fellow freelancers showed off his business card, which broadened my game design thoughts a lot. His business card has an AR code on it...a simpler looking code than the QR code I put on my new cards...but super-fantastic.
AR stands for Augmented Reality. Turn on your webcam, go to his website, and show the webcam his card...it's possible you could print off the code in the upper right part of his page and play with it from there. (Michael Kerr's site) What you see is a bunch of 3-D cubes popping off of his card, and you can move them around in all three dimensions. (Mike's an Interactive Media Developer - he says anyone who is a developer isn't wowed by it.)
If you go to youtube, there are plenty of demos for AR. What's cool is that you can have the AR cards interact with each other - someone had a Porygon facing off against a Pikachu, waving around a third card to mimic an attack.
What does this mean? In the future, these could be your trading cards. They could show hidden information, that didn't previously exist on the card's text. Your Shivan Dragon could literally pop out. A business card could actually have a 3D model of that person. Flash cards could interact with other flash cards - putting together a sentence with correct grammar, or a math problem spelled out. Maybe you want a 3-D model that you can examine what it looks like when you take something apart.
Augmented Reality has a lot more than just these cards, really...but it's a start.
One of my fellow freelancers showed off his business card, which broadened my game design thoughts a lot. His business card has an AR code on it...a simpler looking code than the QR code I put on my new cards...but super-fantastic.
AR stands for Augmented Reality. Turn on your webcam, go to his website, and show the webcam his card...it's possible you could print off the code in the upper right part of his page and play with it from there. (Michael Kerr's site) What you see is a bunch of 3-D cubes popping off of his card, and you can move them around in all three dimensions. (Mike's an Interactive Media Developer - he says anyone who is a developer isn't wowed by it.)
If you go to youtube, there are plenty of demos for AR. What's cool is that you can have the AR cards interact with each other - someone had a Porygon facing off against a Pikachu, waving around a third card to mimic an attack.
What does this mean? In the future, these could be your trading cards. They could show hidden information, that didn't previously exist on the card's text. Your Shivan Dragon could literally pop out. A business card could actually have a 3D model of that person. Flash cards could interact with other flash cards - putting together a sentence with correct grammar, or a math problem spelled out. Maybe you want a 3-D model that you can examine what it looks like when you take something apart.
Augmented Reality has a lot more than just these cards, really...but it's a start.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Politics, aka Collusion Revisited
I recently started listening to the podcasts at Games with Garfield (link on the side), and the most recent podcast as of right now, is their game discussion of King of Tokyo.
It covers a new game he's releasing through a French publisher, Iello. It's not out in the US yet, but the game discussion he has with Jessica Price and Skaff Elias is really interesting.
They have a fun talk, ranging from game design, to politics in games, into games in different cultures. Their discussion of politics is particularly sharp, and makes me ponder further on the nature of collusion in games.
Skaff and Richard have a quick breakdown for politics in a game - if you can help or hurt another player, there's politics. "Attack him, he's in first place." Their clarification that politics doesn't exist in a game like Werewolf, because there are only two sides. They play a version where the villagers, dead or alive, win if they kill of the werewolves...therefore you wouldn't care if you died, as long as your side wins.
Politics aren't necessarily bad. They had a point, where you're playing the players, not the game, inside a political game. In a game like Ra, you're studying their pressure points. One of my brothers will act differently than another - one tactic won't work the same on both.
Collusion can take place in non-political games, but it's much harder. If you can't help or hurt another player directly, politics is hard. For example, in Through the Ages, if the aggression and war cards are taken out, most of the politics have been removed. You could still collude - on drafting, how many units players build, how much you bid for colonies...
In my Collusion Part 2 article, I talk about fighting collusion...and perhaps I can add to that, after pondering the role of politics in a game. We can talk about collusion as *part* of the politics of a game. In this way, collusion becomes acceptable...as long as you're willing to talk about it in terms of the politics of a game.
It's still a difficult task. People see themselves as normal. I am Jimmer. When I am playing a game, it is Jimmer playing a game. There isn't usually a split personality, where all of a sudden - Mr. Hyde shows up. If you point out in a game, where Alice and Bob are always teaming up...Alice and Bob are generally going to get hard feelings. "We're not ganging up on you, honest! We just both play the game the same way, we would never cheat!"
The problem is, Alice and Bob could be teaming up, even subconsciously. They've known each other for 15 years, and me for 2...who has the deeper bond? In a 3-player political game, you'd guess that I would generally lose. If you bring up that topic, they might feel forced to attack each other...which might not even be correct game strategy - they just want to fake being Dr. Jekyll, to avoid the unpleasant topic of collusion.
So it appears that collusion is perhaps more common in political games - it's very hard to pull off otherwise. When looking at designing a game (or playing one), there are choices you can make that would limit the types of collusion available, should you dislike collusion.
I don't think I'm entirely against political-style games, but it's certainly something to consider when choosing a game for the evening.
And don't forget to check out Games with Garfield - he's an awesome fellow!
It covers a new game he's releasing through a French publisher, Iello. It's not out in the US yet, but the game discussion he has with Jessica Price and Skaff Elias is really interesting.
They have a fun talk, ranging from game design, to politics in games, into games in different cultures. Their discussion of politics is particularly sharp, and makes me ponder further on the nature of collusion in games.
Skaff and Richard have a quick breakdown for politics in a game - if you can help or hurt another player, there's politics. "Attack him, he's in first place." Their clarification that politics doesn't exist in a game like Werewolf, because there are only two sides. They play a version where the villagers, dead or alive, win if they kill of the werewolves...therefore you wouldn't care if you died, as long as your side wins.
Politics aren't necessarily bad. They had a point, where you're playing the players, not the game, inside a political game. In a game like Ra, you're studying their pressure points. One of my brothers will act differently than another - one tactic won't work the same on both.
Collusion can take place in non-political games, but it's much harder. If you can't help or hurt another player directly, politics is hard. For example, in Through the Ages, if the aggression and war cards are taken out, most of the politics have been removed. You could still collude - on drafting, how many units players build, how much you bid for colonies...
In my Collusion Part 2 article, I talk about fighting collusion...and perhaps I can add to that, after pondering the role of politics in a game. We can talk about collusion as *part* of the politics of a game. In this way, collusion becomes acceptable...as long as you're willing to talk about it in terms of the politics of a game.
It's still a difficult task. People see themselves as normal. I am Jimmer. When I am playing a game, it is Jimmer playing a game. There isn't usually a split personality, where all of a sudden - Mr. Hyde shows up. If you point out in a game, where Alice and Bob are always teaming up...Alice and Bob are generally going to get hard feelings. "We're not ganging up on you, honest! We just both play the game the same way, we would never cheat!"
The problem is, Alice and Bob could be teaming up, even subconsciously. They've known each other for 15 years, and me for 2...who has the deeper bond? In a 3-player political game, you'd guess that I would generally lose. If you bring up that topic, they might feel forced to attack each other...which might not even be correct game strategy - they just want to fake being Dr. Jekyll, to avoid the unpleasant topic of collusion.
So it appears that collusion is perhaps more common in political games - it's very hard to pull off otherwise. When looking at designing a game (or playing one), there are choices you can make that would limit the types of collusion available, should you dislike collusion.
I don't think I'm entirely against political-style games, but it's certainly something to consider when choosing a game for the evening.
And don't forget to check out Games with Garfield - he's an awesome fellow!
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
2-player games
I've been dating a lovely young lady for about 3 months now, which means a bit more of the two player games than normal.
We started off with Carcassonne and Thurn & Taxis, branching into backgammon and cribbage. (We even dove into my old copy of Khet, aka chess+lasers!)
She decided to start a board game library again, beginning with one of the Carcassonne Big Box versions...5 expansions, enough for 6 players, etc. (Ah, we have it at both places now!)
She also picked up Lost Cities, Lords of Vegas, Hive, and Mr. Jack.
Lost Cities is a tight, 2-player only game that is one of the few games that was pulled by its publisher on Xbox Live. In 2008, it was nominated for best of XBLA 2008...and withdrawn before it could win. The turns are quick and full of choices - do you go for big points? Can you discard a certain card, without powering up the opponent? Do you skip steps to get done with that part of the game faster?
Depending on the speed of players, a game can wrap up in 20-30 minutes. Fun.
Lords of Vegas is 2-4 players, with a fair amount of gambling and real-estate management. We've modified the rules slightly to remove the bottom quarter of the deck, instead of pretending we can't count cards. Fast, light...no dense ideas to process. Easy game to teach to rules-averse players.
Hive is a tile-laying game, where you try to trap the opponent's queen bee. I think it is limited in play, but maybe fair when the players come to the game on an equal scale. It's like a shorter game of chess...but I don't recommend chess highly - therefore I don't recommend Hive quickly.
Mr. Jack, I thought would suffer from a similar fate. 8 characters running around London, controlled by the detective player and Mr. Jack. One of the eight is Mr. Jack's imposter, and the detective has to piece together which one it is based on in-game hints and the overall play of Jack. It's broken down into consumable chunks, with strong pacing and a lot of choices. It's my latest "favorite two player". I'm just hoping my turns don't take too long.
We started off with Carcassonne and Thurn & Taxis, branching into backgammon and cribbage. (We even dove into my old copy of Khet, aka chess+lasers!)
She decided to start a board game library again, beginning with one of the Carcassonne Big Box versions...5 expansions, enough for 6 players, etc. (Ah, we have it at both places now!)
She also picked up Lost Cities, Lords of Vegas, Hive, and Mr. Jack.
Lost Cities is a tight, 2-player only game that is one of the few games that was pulled by its publisher on Xbox Live. In 2008, it was nominated for best of XBLA 2008...and withdrawn before it could win. The turns are quick and full of choices - do you go for big points? Can you discard a certain card, without powering up the opponent? Do you skip steps to get done with that part of the game faster?
Depending on the speed of players, a game can wrap up in 20-30 minutes. Fun.
Lords of Vegas is 2-4 players, with a fair amount of gambling and real-estate management. We've modified the rules slightly to remove the bottom quarter of the deck, instead of pretending we can't count cards. Fast, light...no dense ideas to process. Easy game to teach to rules-averse players.
Hive is a tile-laying game, where you try to trap the opponent's queen bee. I think it is limited in play, but maybe fair when the players come to the game on an equal scale. It's like a shorter game of chess...but I don't recommend chess highly - therefore I don't recommend Hive quickly.
Mr. Jack, I thought would suffer from a similar fate. 8 characters running around London, controlled by the detective player and Mr. Jack. One of the eight is Mr. Jack's imposter, and the detective has to piece together which one it is based on in-game hints and the overall play of Jack. It's broken down into consumable chunks, with strong pacing and a lot of choices. It's my latest "favorite two player". I'm just hoping my turns don't take too long.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
C-More C-iv
I played Civilization several more times through, finally getting a 4-player game in. Game 1 of last Friday, we started off as a 3-player game. I figured I would try out the coin win. I made a couple of mistakes, but successfully hid my coin plan until it was too late for the other players to unite against me. My final turn I gained 3 coins from having researching Banks...really awesome, but making the level 1 version of it is now completely a giveaway.
The 4-player game, I fell into another coin strategy as the Chinese...I picked up monument pieces early from huts and villages, but then drew into famous figures who had coins as well. I used shortcuts I learned in the previous game, executed them earlier, and won so fast that we finished in 2-2.5 hours. Coins seem to be much easier to win with - it takes some tactics, but it's more reliable than military and takes less time than culture/science victories.
I hosted a game night last Saturday for friends, where we played Le Havre, 7 Wonders, and Cash'n'Guns. 7 Wonders is hard for me to teach well...either the game is awkward for learning, or I am. (And I've demoed hundreds of games, some more than others.)
7 Wonders is nice and relatively fast, but I have some doubts for long-term play. First, there are only so many choices you make. Second, the stacks of cards within an Age are completely random. Finally, you might not be able to get some cards at a big enough table...if you need a cloth, they might not exist for you or your nearby friends. Maybe pay 3 to the bank to get it.
It's a beautiful game, but I'm sad that it doesn't do more. Maybe it is waiting to do expansions to make the game interesting...they released an 8th Wonder through BGG.
Sunday day will be featuring Advanced Civilization, an old-school game. The corrupted trade bit is probably the most interesting thing about it, but the players are all good people and a great way to spend 6-7 hours.
The 4-player game, I fell into another coin strategy as the Chinese...I picked up monument pieces early from huts and villages, but then drew into famous figures who had coins as well. I used shortcuts I learned in the previous game, executed them earlier, and won so fast that we finished in 2-2.5 hours. Coins seem to be much easier to win with - it takes some tactics, but it's more reliable than military and takes less time than culture/science victories.
I hosted a game night last Saturday for friends, where we played Le Havre, 7 Wonders, and Cash'n'Guns. 7 Wonders is hard for me to teach well...either the game is awkward for learning, or I am. (And I've demoed hundreds of games, some more than others.)
7 Wonders is nice and relatively fast, but I have some doubts for long-term play. First, there are only so many choices you make. Second, the stacks of cards within an Age are completely random. Finally, you might not be able to get some cards at a big enough table...if you need a cloth, they might not exist for you or your nearby friends. Maybe pay 3 to the bank to get it.
It's a beautiful game, but I'm sad that it doesn't do more. Maybe it is waiting to do expansions to make the game interesting...they released an 8th Wonder through BGG.
Sunday day will be featuring Advanced Civilization, an old-school game. The corrupted trade bit is probably the most interesting thing about it, but the players are all good people and a great way to spend 6-7 hours.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Sid Meier's Civilization, Part Two (and Three)
I've played a couple more games since then...
My second game, my Romans faced off against the Egyptians and Germans, as the fourth player couldn't make it. It was a tough thing, as both players are generally demonstrate excellent war-maker skills. I decided to go for an okay military, combined with culture gain...the Germans jumped to a strong early start, with their extra military cards. I traded a little with the Egyptians, giving me some flexibility with culture cards - which managed to bounce/kill Germany's unit flags that were coming to kill my capital, while I eeked out a Culture win. 4.5 hours.
The third game, we planned for an early start at noon, with things set up...4 players. Again, we only managed 3 with a 12:45pm start, but we cleared it in 3 hours. I played the Egyptians better than I did the first game, against the Russians and Chinese. The Russian player had one game under his belt, and the Chinese player had nearly crushed me militarily (before winning with gold?) in that initial game.
It seemed like a tough start - the Chinese player was wiping huts and villages as a fast & early culture beginning. The Russians were slow to start - he clearly wanted to steal technologies by crashing his guys into our cities, but it is a slow beginning. My start turned out to be a powerful engine - Egypt gets a free building (that they have the technology for) - no production points needed, while it takes up the city action for that city. It also starts with a free Wonder, which this time was the Hanging Gardens. A free unit flag (no production, no action needed) every turn. This is like 4-6 free production each turn, without spending a precious city action.
The China player dried up on his raids against the enemy huts...he didn't really refresh his military cards, as he was racing towards culture. Russia was having a slow start still, as I started flooding the world with unit flags. The other players started working together to dull my edge - my capital was producing culture and trade points, while my first non-capital-city had 12 production points a turn...the second non-capital city picked up some trade and had a little production. (The heavy production city also made the Himeji Castle, which is a free +1 for all of your units!)
I drew enough culture cards to dull the worst of the Chinese player's anti-military culture cards, while my military units marched on his capital for my military win.
Some things learned: If you split your military unit flags up, they can't move together into the same space the next turn. Stacking flags, quite good (you get to take more military cards into combat - even 4 to 3 is generally a win). Even if your opposing side has no units left at the end of combat, they can still win if they have enough Barrack buildings, or famous people with bonuses. Game rule: you can spend culture points during City Management, even if you don't choose culture generation for the city's action.
A pure culture win is probably next to impossible - maybe if there are 4-players, and the culture players band together enough to stop the military player.
Anyhow, it's a fair-to-good game. My friend Regan is heading off to Spokane for a spell, and he spotted me a copy of Civ as a leaving-gift...I'm sure I will see some more plays!
My second game, my Romans faced off against the Egyptians and Germans, as the fourth player couldn't make it. It was a tough thing, as both players are generally demonstrate excellent war-maker skills. I decided to go for an okay military, combined with culture gain...the Germans jumped to a strong early start, with their extra military cards. I traded a little with the Egyptians, giving me some flexibility with culture cards - which managed to bounce/kill Germany's unit flags that were coming to kill my capital, while I eeked out a Culture win. 4.5 hours.
The third game, we planned for an early start at noon, with things set up...4 players. Again, we only managed 3 with a 12:45pm start, but we cleared it in 3 hours. I played the Egyptians better than I did the first game, against the Russians and Chinese. The Russian player had one game under his belt, and the Chinese player had nearly crushed me militarily (before winning with gold?) in that initial game.
It seemed like a tough start - the Chinese player was wiping huts and villages as a fast & early culture beginning. The Russians were slow to start - he clearly wanted to steal technologies by crashing his guys into our cities, but it is a slow beginning. My start turned out to be a powerful engine - Egypt gets a free building (that they have the technology for) - no production points needed, while it takes up the city action for that city. It also starts with a free Wonder, which this time was the Hanging Gardens. A free unit flag (no production, no action needed) every turn. This is like 4-6 free production each turn, without spending a precious city action.
The China player dried up on his raids against the enemy huts...he didn't really refresh his military cards, as he was racing towards culture. Russia was having a slow start still, as I started flooding the world with unit flags. The other players started working together to dull my edge - my capital was producing culture and trade points, while my first non-capital-city had 12 production points a turn...the second non-capital city picked up some trade and had a little production. (The heavy production city also made the Himeji Castle, which is a free +1 for all of your units!)
I drew enough culture cards to dull the worst of the Chinese player's anti-military culture cards, while my military units marched on his capital for my military win.
Some things learned: If you split your military unit flags up, they can't move together into the same space the next turn. Stacking flags, quite good (you get to take more military cards into combat - even 4 to 3 is generally a win). Even if your opposing side has no units left at the end of combat, they can still win if they have enough Barrack buildings, or famous people with bonuses. Game rule: you can spend culture points during City Management, even if you don't choose culture generation for the city's action.
A pure culture win is probably next to impossible - maybe if there are 4-players, and the culture players band together enough to stop the military player.
Anyhow, it's a fair-to-good game. My friend Regan is heading off to Spokane for a spell, and he spotted me a copy of Civ as a leaving-gift...I'm sure I will see some more plays!
Monday, January 10, 2011
Civilizations, galore!
I've been doing a fair amount of civilization building lately.
Through the Ages is getting regular play at the biweekly (once every two weeks version of the word) Thursday game night.
I've played a couple of games of Sid Meier's Civilization, which I'll be talking about in a bit. 7 Wonders is a nice, quick drafting game which I got as a gift this season - played someone else's copy already, which speeds up my tutorials once my copy gets opened. Finally, playing a bit of Civ 5 on the computer - outside my normal scope of game discussions...essentially as addictive as ever.
Sid Meier's Civilization is a game put out in 2010 by Fantasy Flight. They do a lot of licensed games. If it hasn't been clear in the past, there are some design differences that I wouldn't choose to do for fun. (I would do it as a job, sure.) They put a lot of bits and counters in their games, utilize a verbose rulebook, and generally have cards in the game that provide a lot of swing in the game.
The appealing part is the alleged 2 hours for a Civ game. So far there was a 6-hour game, and a 4-hour game...each time, the players thought that 'with time' they could get it down more. I really doubt that there will ever be a 2-hour game, unless someone just gets wrecked by an early rush.
I read the rulebook for the first game, and the 6-hours includes the tutorial. Some parts just weren't expressed in the rulebook, but we were lucky enough to have a person at the game store's game night who had played a bit already. (Thanks Justin!)
The cool part is the multiple paths to winning - science, military, wealth, and culture. If you're not working on military, a military player will crush you down. Everyone needs science to get the better units/buildings/gold. Wealth is a handy thing for anyone to have, but not crushing if you're behind on it. The culture track nets you crazy chance cards, as well as Great People - essentially cheap buildings.
There is a rock-paper-scissors approach to combat - basically first strike against some other type of unit...sadly, there isn't a reliable way to guarantee what units you bring into the combat. On a more difficult note, if there wasn't first strike or random units, the combat system would be just numbers against numbers. Overall, the combat is pretty crazy and random. Technology boosts are about the only reliable ally against random cards, but it will cost you.
Wealth is achieved by getting gold coins in a variety of ways - some on Great People, or parts of the map...usually by certain technology cards that give you access to gaining up to 4.
Culture is pretty straightforward - get culture chits and points of trade. Try to skimp on everything else once the engine is started. Every time you advance on the culture track, you gain either a 'chance' card or random great person - hopefully the great person nets you culture, and the chance cards misdirect attackers. If there's only one warmonger at the table, you might draw enough cards to stop them cold while you limp in from the marathon.
Science is probably the easiest one to do 'for sure'. 15 technology cards, which is 15 turns if you're getting enough tech for one each round. Each science nets you something good, with the higher-level ones being powerful in proper circumstances.
The game also includes wonders, exploring, huts and barbarian villages - it's a pretty fair representation of the computer game...I just wish it had the elegance of Through the Ages. Worth picking up if you like the Fantasy Flight game design ala Starcraft or BSG...otherwise a long investment of time to recapture the magic of playing Civ on the computer.
Through the Ages is getting regular play at the biweekly (once every two weeks version of the word) Thursday game night.
I've played a couple of games of Sid Meier's Civilization, which I'll be talking about in a bit. 7 Wonders is a nice, quick drafting game which I got as a gift this season - played someone else's copy already, which speeds up my tutorials once my copy gets opened. Finally, playing a bit of Civ 5 on the computer - outside my normal scope of game discussions...essentially as addictive as ever.
Sid Meier's Civilization is a game put out in 2010 by Fantasy Flight. They do a lot of licensed games. If it hasn't been clear in the past, there are some design differences that I wouldn't choose to do for fun. (I would do it as a job, sure.) They put a lot of bits and counters in their games, utilize a verbose rulebook, and generally have cards in the game that provide a lot of swing in the game.
The appealing part is the alleged 2 hours for a Civ game. So far there was a 6-hour game, and a 4-hour game...each time, the players thought that 'with time' they could get it down more. I really doubt that there will ever be a 2-hour game, unless someone just gets wrecked by an early rush.
I read the rulebook for the first game, and the 6-hours includes the tutorial. Some parts just weren't expressed in the rulebook, but we were lucky enough to have a person at the game store's game night who had played a bit already. (Thanks Justin!)
The cool part is the multiple paths to winning - science, military, wealth, and culture. If you're not working on military, a military player will crush you down. Everyone needs science to get the better units/buildings/gold. Wealth is a handy thing for anyone to have, but not crushing if you're behind on it. The culture track nets you crazy chance cards, as well as Great People - essentially cheap buildings.
There is a rock-paper-scissors approach to combat - basically first strike against some other type of unit...sadly, there isn't a reliable way to guarantee what units you bring into the combat. On a more difficult note, if there wasn't first strike or random units, the combat system would be just numbers against numbers. Overall, the combat is pretty crazy and random. Technology boosts are about the only reliable ally against random cards, but it will cost you.
Wealth is achieved by getting gold coins in a variety of ways - some on Great People, or parts of the map...usually by certain technology cards that give you access to gaining up to 4.
Culture is pretty straightforward - get culture chits and points of trade. Try to skimp on everything else once the engine is started. Every time you advance on the culture track, you gain either a 'chance' card or random great person - hopefully the great person nets you culture, and the chance cards misdirect attackers. If there's only one warmonger at the table, you might draw enough cards to stop them cold while you limp in from the marathon.
Science is probably the easiest one to do 'for sure'. 15 technology cards, which is 15 turns if you're getting enough tech for one each round. Each science nets you something good, with the higher-level ones being powerful in proper circumstances.
The game also includes wonders, exploring, huts and barbarian villages - it's a pretty fair representation of the computer game...I just wish it had the elegance of Through the Ages. Worth picking up if you like the Fantasy Flight game design ala Starcraft or BSG...otherwise a long investment of time to recapture the magic of playing Civ on the computer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
