Due to my job I rarely have a weekday evening off, and when I do have one off it's usually for some non-gaming reason, so I don't normally have an opportunity to game with the nice folks down New Haven who "Fell Like A Kid Again" in their Meetup Group.
But yesterday I did have such an opportunity and I had a grand old time.
I had the chance to play two games I've had my eye on for some time, but it's been my policy lately to avoid buying games until I've had a chance to play them, with a few exceptions.
We started off the evening playing Winning Circle, which is sort of a Reiner Knizia version of Win, Place & Show, which is to say that it captures most of the best parts of the older game while being a far more elegant and efficient design. I managed to avoid coming in dead last in the 6-player game, but I did have a lot of fun and I resolved to pick up a copy when I get the chance. My kids like Win, Place & Show but it's a little complicated for them and it takes a pretty long time to play. While Winning Circle certainly has sufficient strategy for them to grow into, the basic structure is simple enough that they can still enjoy playing even if they haven't yet developed a sense of strategy. It also plays considerably faster.
Our second game was another one I've been thinking about for a while: Jamaica. In this case the name of the game is a big selling point, given my deep connections with that island. On the other hand, while a Caribbean pirate-themed game, it doesn't really have much to do with pirates and even less to do with the actual island of Jamaica. It's really another race game, although like Winning Circle it s extremely nicely done and involves rather more strategy than one might suppose. I did come in dead last in this one in a three-player game. While I enjoyed it, I'm less certain about buying a copy of this one, mostly because it's really a game for grownups without as much appeal for the kids. If my schedule starts to allow some regular gaming with bigger folks I'd consider having a copy, but in the meantime I'll probably hold off.
Still, the entire evening was exceptionally enjoyable. Everyone was very friendly and the venue, a small retail store, a perfect site.
Showing posts with label eurogames. Show all posts
Showing posts with label eurogames. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Friday, August 22, 2008
Friedrich -- Review and comment
Friedrich is a historical wargame.
Friedrich is a historically themed euro game.
Can both statements be true?
Histogames' Friedrich, designed by Richard Sivel is clearly a wargame. Markers representing generals, armies and supply trains march back and forth across a map of eighteenth century central Europe fighting battles, conquering territory and enduring historical events.
Friedrich is clearly a themed euro game. The heart of the game system is a clever combat system using decks of standard playing cards (minus Aces) keyed to locations on the map. This system provides a unique and interesting way to resolve conflicts between the players with a lot of strategy -- but it bears no discernible relationship to actual battle tactics or conditions.
A note on the cards: While bearing Friedrich-specific artwork, the cards are basically a standard deck, less the aces.
Freidrich is a really different game design and one that's hard to pigeonhole. While it includes a handful of elements that have been seen before such as point-to-point movement and random event cards, it bears little resemblance to wargames designed over the last 50 years in the Charles Roberts tradition. There are no zones of control, hexes, squares, CRTs, blocks or even dice.
Like many euros it seems to be designed around an interesting game mechanic, in this case an elegant card-based combat system keyed to map areas that provides tremendous scope for bluff, strategy and resource management with a minimum of fuss. I couldn't come up with any explanation for how that mechanic might related to actual battlefield events except in the most tenuous and abstract way.
Another euro-like touch is the provision for players to take over minor powers as their major powers drop out of the war against Frederick. While there's country elimination in Friedrich, there's no player elimination. I'm not sure how often players parlay a minor power into a winning position, but there's at least the prospect.
It's a very charming game design, overall, whether considered as a wargame or a euro game.
Friedrich is a historically themed euro game.
Can both statements be true?
Histogames' Friedrich, designed by Richard Sivel is clearly a wargame. Markers representing generals, armies and supply trains march back and forth across a map of eighteenth century central Europe fighting battles, conquering territory and enduring historical events.
Friedrich is clearly a themed euro game. The heart of the game system is a clever combat system using decks of standard playing cards (minus Aces) keyed to locations on the map. This system provides a unique and interesting way to resolve conflicts between the players with a lot of strategy -- but it bears no discernible relationship to actual battle tactics or conditions.
A note on the cards: While bearing Friedrich-specific artwork, the cards are basically a standard deck, less the aces.
Freidrich is a really different game design and one that's hard to pigeonhole. While it includes a handful of elements that have been seen before such as point-to-point movement and random event cards, it bears little resemblance to wargames designed over the last 50 years in the Charles Roberts tradition. There are no zones of control, hexes, squares, CRTs, blocks or even dice.
Like many euros it seems to be designed around an interesting game mechanic, in this case an elegant card-based combat system keyed to map areas that provides tremendous scope for bluff, strategy and resource management with a minimum of fuss. I couldn't come up with any explanation for how that mechanic might related to actual battlefield events except in the most tenuous and abstract way.
Another euro-like touch is the provision for players to take over minor powers as their major powers drop out of the war against Frederick. While there's country elimination in Friedrich, there's no player elimination. I'm not sure how often players parlay a minor power into a winning position, but there's at least the prospect.
It's a very charming game design, overall, whether considered as a wargame or a euro game.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
In all my collection I only have one game with "meeples" ...
... and I haven't even played it yet.
I've got Carcassonne the City. It looks interesting and I love the presentation, being a sucker for wooden stuff, but it's unplayed as yet.
I haven't succeeded in hooking up with any regular euro players locally. There is a meetup in New Haven pretty often, but that's far enough away that my attendance has been spotty. Many of their meetings are on weekday nights, too, which is bad for me.
So I have just one meeple-equipped boardgame, despite the fact they're pretty much the signature component for euros (much like 1/2-inch square counters are for wargames).
But until I get to play more euros, I can't see buying many more. I have a few of the "classic" titles such as Lost Cities and Tigris & Euphrates, but there are plenty I've passed on. Most of my friends are wargamers and the euros are a little too abstract for family play so far.
Maybe I'll get to break the game in at WBC.
I've got Carcassonne the City. It looks interesting and I love the presentation, being a sucker for wooden stuff, but it's unplayed as yet.
I haven't succeeded in hooking up with any regular euro players locally. There is a meetup in New Haven pretty often, but that's far enough away that my attendance has been spotty. Many of their meetings are on weekday nights, too, which is bad for me.
So I have just one meeple-equipped boardgame, despite the fact they're pretty much the signature component for euros (much like 1/2-inch square counters are for wargames).
But until I get to play more euros, I can't see buying many more. I have a few of the "classic" titles such as Lost Cities and Tigris & Euphrates, but there are plenty I've passed on. Most of my friends are wargamers and the euros are a little too abstract for family play so far.
Maybe I'll get to break the game in at WBC.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Tigris & Euphrates, a wargamey euro?
Of late I've renewed my interest in non-wargames.
While I'm primarily a waragmer, I've never been exclusively so. Back in my teen years my friends and I played a lot of non-wargames as well. The Stock Market, Stock & Bonds, Feudal, Football Strategy, Baseball Strategy, Regatta, Win,Place & Show, Ploy, Evade, Oh Wah Ree and a number of other titles hit the game table back then.
Unfortunately non-war games for grownups never really took off back then, but I've never lost my interest in them.
So the recent rise of the euros is an altogether positive thing for me.
Still, there's enough of the wargamer embedded in me that some of my euros involve some conflict and of all the popular euros I think Tigris & Euphrates might appeal to wargamers as a sort of cross-over game. It sure looks like there's some warfare going on.
Of course, Reiner Knizia is primarily a very talented game designer, not an expert in some historical period attempting to model some actual event. All three of his games that I happen to own are dressed up in very nice historical clothing -- T&E, Battle Line and Lost Cities -- but none are simulations in any sense of the word. No, they are really clever games, first and foremost.
But T&E does look like it involves wars and rebellions with its "external" and "internal" conflicts.
So is it a wargame?
No, not really. Not all conflict is war.
The classic principles of war, for example, such as surprise, security, mass, maneuver, objective, unity of command and offensive apply very spottily. The way one wins the game is very unwargame-like, because it emphasizes the need to be well-balanced. Winning by having the best "low" score is an intriguing, brilliant game mechanic, but not one that's easy to translate into military terms.
Indeed, the usual objective of military fighting is to achieve an overwhelming advantage in some key facet of power and leverage that into overall victory. Athens was clearly the better balanced civilization, but it still suffered defeat in its war with Sparta.
But Athens did, in the end, prevail. It's influence did not cease with defeat and it retained its role as the center of Greek culture, while Sparta declined into insignificance. So Tigris & Euphrates is better viewed as a rough model of the clash of cultures, not unlike the old Avalon Hill game Civilization, which was another pseudo-wargame. Like Civilization, fighting is as often as not a distraction in T&E and too aggressive a posture is unwise.
Viewed from the perspective of culture, rather than military might, judging victory on the basis of the weakest link may make sense. No, T&E is not a simulation and I assume Knizia used the unusual victory condition purely for its game interest. But it does fit the theme well-enough to satisfy my wargamer's urge for things to make some sense.
While I'm primarily a waragmer, I've never been exclusively so. Back in my teen years my friends and I played a lot of non-wargames as well. The Stock Market, Stock & Bonds, Feudal, Football Strategy, Baseball Strategy, Regatta, Win,Place & Show, Ploy, Evade, Oh Wah Ree and a number of other titles hit the game table back then.
Unfortunately non-war games for grownups never really took off back then, but I've never lost my interest in them.
So the recent rise of the euros is an altogether positive thing for me.
Still, there's enough of the wargamer embedded in me that some of my euros involve some conflict and of all the popular euros I think Tigris & Euphrates might appeal to wargamers as a sort of cross-over game. It sure looks like there's some warfare going on.
Of course, Reiner Knizia is primarily a very talented game designer, not an expert in some historical period attempting to model some actual event. All three of his games that I happen to own are dressed up in very nice historical clothing -- T&E, Battle Line and Lost Cities -- but none are simulations in any sense of the word. No, they are really clever games, first and foremost.
But T&E does look like it involves wars and rebellions with its "external" and "internal" conflicts.
So is it a wargame?
No, not really. Not all conflict is war.
The classic principles of war, for example, such as surprise, security, mass, maneuver, objective, unity of command and offensive apply very spottily. The way one wins the game is very unwargame-like, because it emphasizes the need to be well-balanced. Winning by having the best "low" score is an intriguing, brilliant game mechanic, but not one that's easy to translate into military terms.
Indeed, the usual objective of military fighting is to achieve an overwhelming advantage in some key facet of power and leverage that into overall victory. Athens was clearly the better balanced civilization, but it still suffered defeat in its war with Sparta.
But Athens did, in the end, prevail. It's influence did not cease with defeat and it retained its role as the center of Greek culture, while Sparta declined into insignificance. So Tigris & Euphrates is better viewed as a rough model of the clash of cultures, not unlike the old Avalon Hill game Civilization, which was another pseudo-wargame. Like Civilization, fighting is as often as not a distraction in T&E and too aggressive a posture is unwise.
Viewed from the perspective of culture, rather than military might, judging victory on the basis of the weakest link may make sense. No, T&E is not a simulation and I assume Knizia used the unusual victory condition purely for its game interest. But it does fit the theme well-enough to satisfy my wargamer's urge for things to make some sense.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)