Boxes are historically the weakest component for game durability -- even considering that they get the most abuse.
Until fairly recently, game manufacturers almost invariably designed boxes primarily for their marketing suitability. And you still see the effects of this focus with the kind of family games you'll see in a discount store. Large flat boxes with garish print and flimsy construction may be OK for a game of Monopoly, Sorry or Barbie Fashion Show that's fated to end up in pieces before the week is out, but it's very frustrating for serious adult gamers who expect to get years of play out of their games. I used to hate the old Avalon Hill flat boxes. They just didn't hold up to much Geek carry at all. Invariably you ended up with split ends and if you tried stacking them more than a couple high you ended up with crushed boxes. If anything the old SPI plastic flat boxes were worse. The plastic would crack, the cardboard back would come off the tray part. Just awful.
On the other hand the Avalon Hill bookcase game format and the similar Bookshelf games from 3M were great -- especially when sleeved. I have some of those games that are more than 40 years old and still intact. While AH was in business I would sometimes order replacement boxes, although I rarely ahd to do so with bookcase boxes. On the other hand my Midway box is the third one (and it's fallen apart now).
One of the salutary effects of the German game influx has been to improve the overall quality of game boxes. Even back in the 1980s when I was stationed in Germany I was struck by how much better quality the German game components were. The boxes were much sturdier as a rule.
These days, while a few wargame makers still publish boxes that won't hold up to well, the majority seem to have realized that wargames have a long life-span and the box needs to be designed accordingly. Outstanding among the publishers is GMT with its heavy duty game boxes -- I like to call them the "armored box." These seem like they'll last many a trip to cons and game buddy houses. The squarish box design used by a lot of companies now such as Hasbro, Flying Frog, Fantasy Flight, Days of Wonder and others also seems pretty durable and stackable.
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label games. Show all posts
Sunday, June 12, 2011
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Counters, miniatures and blocks -- more durability discussion
IJN cruiser Kumano from the Avalon Hill game Midway. 1969 counter on the right, a somewhat newer one (ca. 1980) on the leftComments on mounted vs. unmounted maps below prompted me to consider the durability of other common game components. Maps, as a matter of fact, even the paper kind, are rarely the component that fails first in my experience.
Usually the first component that starts to disintegrate is the rule book, especially if it's a complex game or one with poorly drafted rules and you're in the darn thing all the time. Good quality paper and printing is really useful in rule books, but this is an area where many companies scrimp an use cheap paper. Still, there's not an awful lot that can be done about this, past using good quality paper and writing clear rules. A rule book is necessarily going to get a lot of handling by sweaty fingers.
Another component that should use high quality material (but often doesn't) is cards, if the game uses them. It's my practice to buy extra cards if the game uses them a lot and it looks like I'll get to play it a lot. I bought an extra set of cards for Up Front, for example, although I still haven't busted the seal. While my original card are still usable, they are showing some wear and given the likelihood that Up Front will never be reprinted I'm glad I have it. Some other games where I bought back up card sets included Commands & Colors Ancients, Gunslinger and Memoir '44.
Finally there are the unit pieces. The winner in the durability contest are figures hands down. While occasionally they can get damaged or destroyed if stepped on, for the most part they remain in near pristine condition if minimally cared for. I have copies of Broadside and Dogfight from the 60s that I bought on eBay that are in pretty tough shape in many ways, but the planes and ships are in good shape. I have metal painted miniatures that are decades old and I'm quite certain will be around long after I'm gone. Even the pre-painted miniatures from collectible games I expect are virtually immortal so long as they are not abused.
Nearly as good are wooden blocks. I have had some cases where stickers have come off a block or two, but with the exception of an old copy of Rommel in the Desert, in no cases has it been common and many of my block games are getting long in the tooth. And those block games that have embossed or screen printed blocks seem as permanent as the plastic figures. They could be used as grave goods.
Card board counters, on the other hand, are another story. The oils from hands and the friction from the playing surface and stacking means that counters can get some serious wear, even if the game isn't played often. Back when Avalon Hill was in business I ordered replacement counters for a number of games over the years, such as Afrika Korps and Midway. Most companies don't offer this service though, and I can see problems down the line for some games in my collection. The main reason why this isn't a bigger problem is that I have so many games that few get the kind of intense play that AH games got back in the day. And many popular games go though multiple printings, sometimes with multiple companies, so that you can get a newer (Perhaps improved) copy later. Some games I have in my collection that are NOT the original copy I owned include OGRE, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space, A House Divided, For The People, Bitter Woods, Monopoly, War of 1812, Wizard Kings and Quebec 1759.
Another factor with cardboard counters is different degrees of wear. It's often the case that some counters and markers see more use than others. It's not unusual for the turn marker to wear down to a nub first. In games where you have to draw activation chits these often wear out fast as well. Sometimes a unit spends a lot more time on the board than others. The German panzer regiments in Afrika Korps often show a lot more wear than any other pieces -- while the British substitute units are sometimes in mint condition! Usually this doesn't have an impact in play, but I could see times when it might matter, such as if the game uses inverted units.
Counters do have many advantages, of course. They can hold much more game information than blocks or figures. They cost less to make and weigh less when shipping. You can stack them. So lots of times they're a good choice. But there is a trade off in durability.
One thing that game makers could do more often is offer replacement parts. I think cards should always be available for separate purchase. You shouldn't have to buy a whole new game just because the cards wore out. Rule books should be online. That way they can be updated easily and players can download a new and updated version oft he rules when their original comes apart. And I think counter sheets should be available. One thing I also hate seeing is blank counters on a counter sheet. Put something on it. Extra "Game Turn" makers never hurt. There's no excuse for blanks in any game that uses any kind of status markers, either.
For me, because I tend to dabble in a large range of games rather than play any one game intensively,. durability usually revolves around storage issues. But a lot of people like to play the heck out of their favorite games -- and for that sort of player how well the game components stand up to repeated usage is important. It's a real shame to have your game fall apart before you're tired of it.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Mounted or not?
I'll admit to a game prejudice. I prefer mounted boards.
This may be because my formative years were spent with Avalon Hill games. I came across SPI and some of the other paper map companies a little later on.
One welcome trend I've been seeing is the proliferation of mounted map boards -- often as upgrades for games that originally came out with paper or cardboard maps. Some recent examples include Commands & Colors Ancients, Paths of Glory, Twilight Struggle, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space and Shiloh (Columbia Games).
The debate between mounted map fans and the unmounted aficionados is one that can't really be settled, one way or the other. Partisans of each can point to various reasons why their favorite display is better.
Obviously the biggest advantage of paper or cardboard maps is expense, followed closely by weight and space. A paper map game costs less to make, costs less to ship and, all things being equal, will take up less space in storage. For some purposes paper maps are indispensable -- magazines with games in them, for example, would be impractical with mounted boards for reasons of postage alone. Many players like to overlay Plexiglas on their maps to preserve the surface, smooth out wrinkles and hold the map in place. All valid points, although the reason why you need to smooth out wrinkles and hold the map down is because it's NOT mounted. In some games it's convenient to be able to write on the playing surface, which is easy to to with Plexiglas. Some players also like to use magnetized counter holders which is easy to do with a papper map placed on a metal sheet. They can be mounted on a wall or stored in drawers (specially made or map drawers) between plays. Paper maps and cardboard maps also avoid problems where map cuts meet. There can be a seamless transition between two map sections separated by a cut, whereas a mounted mapborad often is forced to leave a small gap.
Despite all these factors, when given a choice I'll opt for a mounted board. The main advantages I see in mounted boards is durability and providing a steady playing surface. Durability comes in both short-term and long-term ways. For the short-term, mounted map boards are usually more resistant to accidents such as spills and tears. For the long-term, if properly stored, mounted map boards can last decades. I have a 1961 edition of Avalon Hill's Civil War wargame which appears practically new -- despite being 50 years old! In contrast, long-term storage of a paper map is brutal and I have several games that have seen little table time that have maps splitting at the folds. A mounted map is less likely to be disturbed during a game than an unsecured paper or cardboard map. Securing the paper map usually means either taping it down or that trusty bit of Plexglas. Plexiglas isn't as portable as a folded mounted mapboard, however, a factor if you're not playing at home. A mounted mapboard can allow a game to be played on a less than ideal surface such as a picnic table, rough wooden table or even a blanket or the bed. Finally, and very subjectively, there's an aura of quality about a mounted board that makes the playing experience just a little better.
I won't thumb my nose at an game just because it has an unmounted mapboard. I have no shortage of unmounted map games in my collection. Some of my favorite manufacturers almost never use mounted boards, such as Columbia Games and MMP. But finding out a game has a mounted mapboard is definitely a selling point for me and I'm willing to lay out a little extra dough for one -- or buy one separately. I'll probably get the mounted For the People map, for example, just like I picked up the mounted maps for Commands & Colors Ancients when they became available.
This may be because my formative years were spent with Avalon Hill games. I came across SPI and some of the other paper map companies a little later on.
One welcome trend I've been seeing is the proliferation of mounted map boards -- often as upgrades for games that originally came out with paper or cardboard maps. Some recent examples include Commands & Colors Ancients, Paths of Glory, Twilight Struggle, The Awful Green Things From Outer Space and Shiloh (Columbia Games).
The debate between mounted map fans and the unmounted aficionados is one that can't really be settled, one way or the other. Partisans of each can point to various reasons why their favorite display is better.
Obviously the biggest advantage of paper or cardboard maps is expense, followed closely by weight and space. A paper map game costs less to make, costs less to ship and, all things being equal, will take up less space in storage. For some purposes paper maps are indispensable -- magazines with games in them, for example, would be impractical with mounted boards for reasons of postage alone. Many players like to overlay Plexiglas on their maps to preserve the surface, smooth out wrinkles and hold the map in place. All valid points, although the reason why you need to smooth out wrinkles and hold the map down is because it's NOT mounted. In some games it's convenient to be able to write on the playing surface, which is easy to to with Plexiglas. Some players also like to use magnetized counter holders which is easy to do with a papper map placed on a metal sheet. They can be mounted on a wall or stored in drawers (specially made or map drawers) between plays. Paper maps and cardboard maps also avoid problems where map cuts meet. There can be a seamless transition between two map sections separated by a cut, whereas a mounted mapborad often is forced to leave a small gap.
Despite all these factors, when given a choice I'll opt for a mounted board. The main advantages I see in mounted boards is durability and providing a steady playing surface. Durability comes in both short-term and long-term ways. For the short-term, mounted map boards are usually more resistant to accidents such as spills and tears. For the long-term, if properly stored, mounted map boards can last decades. I have a 1961 edition of Avalon Hill's Civil War wargame which appears practically new -- despite being 50 years old! In contrast, long-term storage of a paper map is brutal and I have several games that have seen little table time that have maps splitting at the folds. A mounted map is less likely to be disturbed during a game than an unsecured paper or cardboard map. Securing the paper map usually means either taping it down or that trusty bit of Plexglas. Plexiglas isn't as portable as a folded mounted mapboard, however, a factor if you're not playing at home. A mounted mapboard can allow a game to be played on a less than ideal surface such as a picnic table, rough wooden table or even a blanket or the bed. Finally, and very subjectively, there's an aura of quality about a mounted board that makes the playing experience just a little better.
I won't thumb my nose at an game just because it has an unmounted mapboard. I have no shortage of unmounted map games in my collection. Some of my favorite manufacturers almost never use mounted boards, such as Columbia Games and MMP. But finding out a game has a mounted mapboard is definitely a selling point for me and I'm willing to lay out a little extra dough for one -- or buy one separately. I'll probably get the mounted For the People map, for example, just like I picked up the mounted maps for Commands & Colors Ancients when they became available.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
China-US trade war and its impact on gaming
Of course any China-U.S. trade war would have immense impacts outside the small world of gaming, but this is a gaming blog so that's our focus here.
Over at the Desert News Jeff Thredgold makes this point: "However, there is an important and positive by-product of that undervalued yuan. Goods produced in China are more affordable to Americans, whether shopping at Walmart or Target or Forever 21 or other retailers.
The Chinese currency manipulation allows greater U.S. household purchasing power for Chinese-made goods … good news for U.S. households that are already under tremendous pressure from a very damaging recession and a weak U.S. economic recovery."
Bloomberg News reports:
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said China is headed for a “trade conflict” with the U.S. and other western countries as tensions rise about how to rebalance the global economy.
“What China is doing is functionally equivalent to having large export subsidies and large import tariffs,” Krugman, 57, said in a speech in the Free University in Berlin. “If it were doing that in the normal way, it would automatically be subject to large countervailing duties. And I think that’s going to happen at the rate we’re going.”
For quite some time I've thought that gamers were going to have to adjust their expectations on how much bling was in their games. The decade of the aughts brought us all sorts of terrific games packed to the gills with stuff such as Battlelore, War of the Ring, Tide of Iron and many more. It was also a decade that brought us highly detailed and already painted collectible miniatures in vast numbers used in everything from Dungeons & Dragons and Heroclix to Axis & Allies Miniatures and Heroscape.
As much as a 40% increase in the value of the Chinese currency to the US dollar might help the US in macro terms, let there be no mistaking its effect on game bits - there won't be many, any more. Indeed, some product line may simply become unaffordable to produce and others will ave to scale back considerably. I think collectible painted miniatures, in particular, may become obsolete.
We're already seeing some hints of the coming reality. Fantasy Flight Games is still struggling with finding a way to bring the Battlelore Core Set back to market at an economically doable price. It's latest stopgap is to "repurpose" excess inventory of French-language copies for the English-language market. A welcome development but obviously a stopgap.
We're also seeing plastic being replaced by cardboard in more games. In the latest versions of Axis & Allies, for example, the industrial sites and anti-aircraft guns have been changed to counters.
The bottom line is that players who like a box chock full of plastic are going to find the future very disappointing as China "rebalances" the value of its currency with the rest of the world.
Over at the Desert News Jeff Thredgold makes this point: "However, there is an important and positive by-product of that undervalued yuan. Goods produced in China are more affordable to Americans, whether shopping at Walmart or Target or Forever 21 or other retailers.
The Chinese currency manipulation allows greater U.S. household purchasing power for Chinese-made goods … good news for U.S. households that are already under tremendous pressure from a very damaging recession and a weak U.S. economic recovery."
Bloomberg News reports:
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman said China is headed for a “trade conflict” with the U.S. and other western countries as tensions rise about how to rebalance the global economy.
“What China is doing is functionally equivalent to having large export subsidies and large import tariffs,” Krugman, 57, said in a speech in the Free University in Berlin. “If it were doing that in the normal way, it would automatically be subject to large countervailing duties. And I think that’s going to happen at the rate we’re going.”
For quite some time I've thought that gamers were going to have to adjust their expectations on how much bling was in their games. The decade of the aughts brought us all sorts of terrific games packed to the gills with stuff such as Battlelore, War of the Ring, Tide of Iron and many more. It was also a decade that brought us highly detailed and already painted collectible miniatures in vast numbers used in everything from Dungeons & Dragons and Heroclix to Axis & Allies Miniatures and Heroscape.
As much as a 40% increase in the value of the Chinese currency to the US dollar might help the US in macro terms, let there be no mistaking its effect on game bits - there won't be many, any more. Indeed, some product line may simply become unaffordable to produce and others will ave to scale back considerably. I think collectible painted miniatures, in particular, may become obsolete.
We're already seeing some hints of the coming reality. Fantasy Flight Games is still struggling with finding a way to bring the Battlelore Core Set back to market at an economically doable price. It's latest stopgap is to "repurpose" excess inventory of French-language copies for the English-language market. A welcome development but obviously a stopgap.
We're also seeing plastic being replaced by cardboard in more games. In the latest versions of Axis & Allies, for example, the industrial sites and anti-aircraft guns have been changed to counters.
The bottom line is that players who like a box chock full of plastic are going to find the future very disappointing as China "rebalances" the value of its currency with the rest of the world.
Sunday, December 6, 2009
Bananagrams Game of the Year? Or Tuf-Abet Re-imagined?
Certainly Bananagrams is the closest thing to a popular fad "board" game to come out in a few years.
There's an interesting Boston Globe profile of the game and it's Rhode Island designer here.
I got to try it recently and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Like many truly classic ideas, it's so simple you have to wonder why nobody came up with the idea before. The basic idea behind the game is to form crossword-style anagrams based on speed, rather than maximized points as per the game Scrabble.
It's really pretty clever and a lot of fun. It comes in a banana-shaped pouch and has144 plastic letter tiles. Player's start with a specified number of tiles and try to use them all to form words, crossword style. The first player who does says "peel" which forces everybody to draw a new tile. Players continue, and every time a player succeeds in using all the tiles they call out "peel" again until there are fewer tiles left than players in the game. Whichever player succeeds in using all his tiles at that point calls out "bananas" and wins.
This reminds a lot of the old Avalon Hill game Tuf-Abet. In that game players rolled dice with letters on their faces. Each player had his own set of 20 cubes of different colors. They used the letters to form crossword-style letter groups. The first player who used all (or most) of his cubes said "Tuf" which started a 3-minute timer where the other players tried to outdo the first player in how many cuibes they used. If someone did then they said "Tuffer" and started a 2-minute timer where everybody tried again to outdo the others. A third round and any subsequent "Tuffest" rounds are 1-minute long. Play continues until somebody uses all their cubes. The winner is determined by a point scoring system that rewards being the first declarer, the final declarer and the number of cubes used, with a bonus for words over 5 letters long.
Interestingly, game documentation included in my copy of Tuf-Abet from 1969 indicates that a patent was applied for. If a patent was ever granted, it is long since expired, as patents are only good for 20 years or less. The Banagram site makes no patent claims, only copyright. The Boston Globe article and the Banagram Web site both mention Scrabble as an inspiration and have no mention of tuf-abet but the designer is certainly old enough to have come across Tuf-Abet in his lifetime, so I wonder if the resemblance between the two games is entirely coincidental.
There don't seem to be any intellectual property problems. As I noted, any patent is long-since expired and there seem to be no copyright or trademark issues either. What is fascinating is how two rather similar games have had such a different reception. Tuf-Abet was never a big breakway hit for Avalon Hill, although it seems to have been a steady seller. Bananagrams is Game of the Year. Bananagrams has a very clever marketing hook, while effective marketing always seemed to be a weakness for the old AH. Tuf-Abet's scoring system and multi-round format is a little more intricate than Bananagrams, but it's still not very complicated by either 1969 or contemporary standards. Perhaps, if Hasbro still has the rights from its AH acquisition, we might see a reprint of the game, given the success of Bananagrams.
I've always liked Tuf-Abet, although I haven't had much success in getting people to play it over the years. While there are similarities, I do think Bananagrams is the better implementation of the idea. By dispensing with any kind of scoring system and going with a simple win-lose game condition the newer game is probably more accessible for a mass market that considers games like Monopoly, Scrabble and Risk as pretty complicated.
There's an interesting Boston Globe profile of the game and it's Rhode Island designer here.
I got to try it recently and I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Like many truly classic ideas, it's so simple you have to wonder why nobody came up with the idea before. The basic idea behind the game is to form crossword-style anagrams based on speed, rather than maximized points as per the game Scrabble.
It's really pretty clever and a lot of fun. It comes in a banana-shaped pouch and has144 plastic letter tiles. Player's start with a specified number of tiles and try to use them all to form words, crossword style. The first player who does says "peel" which forces everybody to draw a new tile. Players continue, and every time a player succeeds in using all the tiles they call out "peel" again until there are fewer tiles left than players in the game. Whichever player succeeds in using all his tiles at that point calls out "bananas" and wins.
This reminds a lot of the old Avalon Hill game Tuf-Abet. In that game players rolled dice with letters on their faces. Each player had his own set of 20 cubes of different colors. They used the letters to form crossword-style letter groups. The first player who used all (or most) of his cubes said "Tuf" which started a 3-minute timer where the other players tried to outdo the first player in how many cuibes they used. If someone did then they said "Tuffer" and started a 2-minute timer where everybody tried again to outdo the others. A third round and any subsequent "Tuffest" rounds are 1-minute long. Play continues until somebody uses all their cubes. The winner is determined by a point scoring system that rewards being the first declarer, the final declarer and the number of cubes used, with a bonus for words over 5 letters long.
Interestingly, game documentation included in my copy of Tuf-Abet from 1969 indicates that a patent was applied for. If a patent was ever granted, it is long since expired, as patents are only good for 20 years or less. The Banagram site makes no patent claims, only copyright. The Boston Globe article and the Banagram Web site both mention Scrabble as an inspiration and have no mention of tuf-abet but the designer is certainly old enough to have come across Tuf-Abet in his lifetime, so I wonder if the resemblance between the two games is entirely coincidental.
There don't seem to be any intellectual property problems. As I noted, any patent is long-since expired and there seem to be no copyright or trademark issues either. What is fascinating is how two rather similar games have had such a different reception. Tuf-Abet was never a big breakway hit for Avalon Hill, although it seems to have been a steady seller. Bananagrams is Game of the Year. Bananagrams has a very clever marketing hook, while effective marketing always seemed to be a weakness for the old AH. Tuf-Abet's scoring system and multi-round format is a little more intricate than Bananagrams, but it's still not very complicated by either 1969 or contemporary standards. Perhaps, if Hasbro still has the rights from its AH acquisition, we might see a reprint of the game, given the success of Bananagrams.
I've always liked Tuf-Abet, although I haven't had much success in getting people to play it over the years. While there are similarities, I do think Bananagrams is the better implementation of the idea. By dispensing with any kind of scoring system and going with a simple win-lose game condition the newer game is probably more accessible for a mass market that considers games like Monopoly, Scrabble and Risk as pretty complicated.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Lessons Learned from the Games Workshop/BoardGame Geek controversy
I think there are three different, but related, aspects of this whole brouhaha on Boardgame Geek that everybody can take away as lessons learned if they choose -- although some may not.
The first is Games Workshop's aggressive defense of its intellectual property. I was unaware of the Warhammer/World of Warcraft connection and I can understand how GW may feel quite burned by that experience. I think they were within their legal rights on 90% of what they claim, although on some specific points their IP policies make claims unsupported by the actual state of the law. The reality is that those assertions will probably stand until they tangle with someone with the economic resource sand interests to contest it. On the other hand, there's serious grounds for doubting the wisdom of their approach. Making a significant portion of your most dedicated fans angry with you seems like a very bad business idea. While most of GW's customers are not on BGG or members of GW fan sites, those who are tend to be the opinion leaders in their groups and probably have an influence outside of mere numbers,
The second lesson is BGG's response to GW's demands. Here I think there are some legitimate ground for criticizing some details of how BGG responded, but BGG's overall response was a prudent one given the magnitude of the legal threat and the relative peripheral nature of the possible benefit. Games Workshop is just one company whose products are on the site and it doesn't make sense to risk all the other valuable content here related to more consumer-friendly companies for the sake of the products of a company that doesn't appreciate the free advertising. BGG is a growing site and becoming the premiere game-related site in the world devoted to all games. GW benefits more from BGG than BGG needs GW. It's unfortunate that the controversy broke out while Aldie was unavailable to address it quickly, but it appears to me that BGG is taking lessons learned from the experience and implementing policies and procedures that will reduce future problems.
The third lesson is for us, the users of BGG. One thing many of us could do a better job of is respecting the legitimate intellectual property rights of game publishers. I see an awful lot of stuff posted on BGG that really is egregious copyright and trademark infringement. We have open advocacy by some of making your own copies of games so you don't have to buy it We have users scanning high-resolution images of the complete components of some games. In many cases users are posting clearly derivative works without bothering to ask permission (which many companies would probably grant -- see the nice alternative map available as a download for Bonaparte at Marengo. For example, I often like to post examples of components when I am writing a game review. I am always careful never to scan in complete copies of the component in question -- a part of a map, a few examples of the counters, an extract of a play aid, one or two cards. This is fair use. Scanning in all 108 cards at full-size for a card game is not. Lastly, fans of a game should realize that the content they generate (let's say a really nice, upgraded player aid with snazzy logos and photos of miniatures) may not be theirs, even if they did a lot of work on it. Spend your effort on companies that appreciate and encourage that kind of work. Don't waste your time supporting a company that doesn't.
The first is Games Workshop's aggressive defense of its intellectual property. I was unaware of the Warhammer/World of Warcraft connection and I can understand how GW may feel quite burned by that experience. I think they were within their legal rights on 90% of what they claim, although on some specific points their IP policies make claims unsupported by the actual state of the law. The reality is that those assertions will probably stand until they tangle with someone with the economic resource sand interests to contest it. On the other hand, there's serious grounds for doubting the wisdom of their approach. Making a significant portion of your most dedicated fans angry with you seems like a very bad business idea. While most of GW's customers are not on BGG or members of GW fan sites, those who are tend to be the opinion leaders in their groups and probably have an influence outside of mere numbers,
The second lesson is BGG's response to GW's demands. Here I think there are some legitimate ground for criticizing some details of how BGG responded, but BGG's overall response was a prudent one given the magnitude of the legal threat and the relative peripheral nature of the possible benefit. Games Workshop is just one company whose products are on the site and it doesn't make sense to risk all the other valuable content here related to more consumer-friendly companies for the sake of the products of a company that doesn't appreciate the free advertising. BGG is a growing site and becoming the premiere game-related site in the world devoted to all games. GW benefits more from BGG than BGG needs GW. It's unfortunate that the controversy broke out while Aldie was unavailable to address it quickly, but it appears to me that BGG is taking lessons learned from the experience and implementing policies and procedures that will reduce future problems.
The third lesson is for us, the users of BGG. One thing many of us could do a better job of is respecting the legitimate intellectual property rights of game publishers. I see an awful lot of stuff posted on BGG that really is egregious copyright and trademark infringement. We have open advocacy by some of making your own copies of games so you don't have to buy it We have users scanning high-resolution images of the complete components of some games. In many cases users are posting clearly derivative works without bothering to ask permission (which many companies would probably grant -- see the nice alternative map available as a download for Bonaparte at Marengo. For example, I often like to post examples of components when I am writing a game review. I am always careful never to scan in complete copies of the component in question -- a part of a map, a few examples of the counters, an extract of a play aid, one or two cards. This is fair use. Scanning in all 108 cards at full-size for a card game is not. Lastly, fans of a game should realize that the content they generate (let's say a really nice, upgraded player aid with snazzy logos and photos of miniatures) may not be theirs, even if they did a lot of work on it. Spend your effort on companies that appreciate and encourage that kind of work. Don't waste your time supporting a company that doesn't.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Greeneville Game Night II
The group wasn't large for our second family game night at Greeneville Congregational Church, but it was enthusiastic, and in a little more than three hours we got a lot of gaming in.
Cardboard Players Meetup Group member Margaret introduced me to a couple of games I'd never played before, although they're hardly rare -- Pictionary and Bananagrams.
Pictionary is actually how we ended the evening, but I'll discuss it first. It was reasonably amusing, but like Trivial Pursuit or Charades, I don't really consider it a game. There are no real game strategies or anything like that. It's a party activity sort of thing. The game involves one player trying to communicate the meaning of a randomly drawn word by drawing pictures, so it's kind of like charades on paper. But like Trivial Pursuit, there is a game board that serves to regulate the game action somewhat, but all movement on the board is completely random. I can see where it would be good for some groups, but I don't think I'd buy my own copy. I did enjoy winning the game along with my partner, though.
On the other hand I enjoyed Bananagrams a lot. It's kind of like a freeform Scrabble. The game rewards quick anagram-making ability and I actually did quite well, winning both games I played. This definitely goes on the wishlist.
I introduced Oh-Wah-Ree and Senet to some friends at the event. We split the Oh-Wah-Ree games and I lost Senet, but everyone had a great time.
Other games that saw the table included Lost Cities, Sorry and Clue.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Games everywhere
Took a ride down to New Jersey today to visit friends. I happened to stop at a urban Dunkin Donuts in Plainfield, N.J. for an ice coffee and came across a bunch of guys playing chess in the coffee shop.
Aside from one older gentlemen, everyone else looked to be 20-something and 30-something African-American men. There were two games going on, each using a set that looks like the tournament sets you can get from the US Chess Federation, similar to this:
I'm not sure if the observers were there just to kibitz or to play. One game wrapped up just before I left and the same two players were setting up for another go. It appeared to me that this was some sort of regular gathering, from the way everyone interacted. It was a nice reminder of how you don't have to be a game hobbyist to get a lot out of gaming. Earlier that day while we were visiting I notice that there was a Monopoly game set up in our friend's living room (and they are definitely not gamers).
I know that Monopoly, and even chess, are looked down on in some hobby gamer circles, but I think it's nice to see any kind of gaming going on out there. There's a lot more to the board game scene than just Settlers of Catan or Tide of Iron
Aside from one older gentlemen, everyone else looked to be 20-something and 30-something African-American men. There were two games going on, each using a set that looks like the tournament sets you can get from the US Chess Federation, similar to this:
I'm not sure if the observers were there just to kibitz or to play. One game wrapped up just before I left and the same two players were setting up for another go. It appeared to me that this was some sort of regular gathering, from the way everyone interacted. It was a nice reminder of how you don't have to be a game hobbyist to get a lot out of gaming. Earlier that day while we were visiting I notice that there was a Monopoly game set up in our friend's living room (and they are definitely not gamers).
I know that Monopoly, and even chess, are looked down on in some hobby gamer circles, but I think it's nice to see any kind of gaming going on out there. There's a lot more to the board game scene than just Settlers of Catan or Tide of Iron
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Mainstreaming games in the media
Interesting gaming reference in a mainstream magazine this month. An article in Armed Forces Journal uses the example of Leeroy Jenkins, a legendary character from a YouTube about an incident in World of Warcraft" video game that ended up going viral. It appears that a character called Leeroy Jenkins charged in recklessly, disrupting the carefully laid plans of a party and resulting in that party getting wiped out.
The character became so famous he got his own card in the collectible card edition of World of Warcraft, shown above.
The whole incident in the hook for a story about reforming the way the U.S. military approaches the adviser mission in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Capt. Robert M. Chamberlain's point is that the U.S. approach to advisor missions has been too U.S.-centric and not focused on local needs and realities. The go-it-alone and can-do attitudes of US troops mean they're not being as effective advising local units as they need to be. Chamberlain proposes reforms to address this.
Still, it's interesting that Chamberlain selected a popular game venue to capture his readers' attention. It suggest that for his peers and immediate supervisors, this kind of example would resonate. Juts as in an earlier era a writer might have used a poker or chess analogy to make a point, it now seems that popular games like World of Warcraft are embedded enough in the culture to be for a similar role.
Friday, May 15, 2009
The Con scene, 2009
Summertime means convention time for game hobbyists and the industry the supports their addiction. While there are conventions all year round all over the country, the big four game conventions are concentrated in the summer months and have all settled down more or less permanently towards the middling parts of the country -- or at least the East Coast.
While each con has its area of emphasis, just about any kind of game can be found at all four of them and they all include open gaming areas.
The Big Four cons are:
Origins Game Fair
June 24-28
Columbus, Ohio
Emphasis: Board games
Notes: Descendent of the Origins Game convention started by Avalon Hill
Historicon
July 16-19
Lancaster, Pa.,
Emphasis: Historical miniatures
Notes: Originally a regional convention, this has grown into the de facto national convention for historical miniatures gamers.
World Boardgaming Championships
Aug. 3-9
Lancaster, Pa.
Emphasis: Competitive play of board games
Notes: Originally AvalonCon, this became an independent production after Avalon Hill was bought out by Hasbro. Takes place at the same site as Historicon. There are also "pre-cons" starting the weekend before the main convention begins.
Gen Con
Aug. 13-19
Indianapolis, Ind.
Emphasis: Role-playing and collectible card games
Notes: The oldest national gaming convention.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Upgrades, new editions and money sinks
One of the curious attitudes on display on various forums is some resentment when a new or revised edition of a game comes along, especially if the changes are more than cosmetic.
I say it's curious because no one expects other products to stay the same from year to year. Everything from cereal to cars to cell phones are constantly being "new and improved." What not games?
Some folks seem annoyed that there's a new edition of Axis & Allies coming out shortly, so soon after the Anniversary edition. Yet the new 1942 edition is clearly aimed at a different market than AA50. The new edition is much less expensive and will probably take much less time to play as well. AA50 was definitely aimed at the true Axis & Allies fanatic. I doubt many copies were sold to customers who didn't already have a copy of some prior Axis & Allies.
Generally speaking I like to upgrade my favorite games when new and improved version appear. For example, I recently paid for new blocks and stickers for Quebec 1759 when the new edition came out. A nice service of Columbia Games is that they offer parts, so you don't necessarily have to buy a whole new game when they make a change. And they are pretty conservative with the changes, too. I'm still using the mounted Quebec 1759 I got with my 1970s-era edition, for example.
But even when the changes are enough to require a whole new game, it can be worth it. For example I bought the Jutland edition of the Great War at Sea series when it came out, even though I already had its Baltic and North Sea predecessor. I did the same things with Bitter Woods. I sold off the old copies, but sometimes I keep the old version. Probably the best example of that is the game Napoleon, where i kept my old Avalon Hill versions even after I got the Columbia edition. I thought the changes were significant enough in that case that it was really two different games.
But often I also elect not to try to keep up with game system. I've bailed on the Down In Flames series, for example, even though i have quite a few parts. One has to draw the line somewhere. But I'm satisfied with what I have of it and I'll probably keep it because there's no reason why I can't keep playing with it. It's not a game I'd play in a tournament and it doesn't hit the table too often at game clubs, so the only time I'll probably play it is with some friend. And for that purpose it won't be obsolete.
And that seems to me to be the bottom line. I think everybody probably has maybe a dozen or at most two dozen games/system they can keep up with. Those favorite/popular/tournament games are worth keeping up with, but should be focused enough to stay within whatever budget you have. For everything else, so what if there's a new edition? Unlike a VHS tape or a Nintento cartridge a good board game is just as playable with your friends no matter how many new versions are out there. Indeed. I know that many Cosmic Encounter players didn't even bother with the Hasbro/AH edition because they thought the earlier Mayfair edition was better.
Few modern games are as stable as something like Chess, but then the era of innovation for that game was a few centuries ago. Maybe some of today's favorites will settle down in the future.
I say it's curious because no one expects other products to stay the same from year to year. Everything from cereal to cars to cell phones are constantly being "new and improved." What not games?
Some folks seem annoyed that there's a new edition of Axis & Allies coming out shortly, so soon after the Anniversary edition. Yet the new 1942 edition is clearly aimed at a different market than AA50. The new edition is much less expensive and will probably take much less time to play as well. AA50 was definitely aimed at the true Axis & Allies fanatic. I doubt many copies were sold to customers who didn't already have a copy of some prior Axis & Allies.
Generally speaking I like to upgrade my favorite games when new and improved version appear. For example, I recently paid for new blocks and stickers for Quebec 1759 when the new edition came out. A nice service of Columbia Games is that they offer parts, so you don't necessarily have to buy a whole new game when they make a change. And they are pretty conservative with the changes, too. I'm still using the mounted Quebec 1759 I got with my 1970s-era edition, for example.
But even when the changes are enough to require a whole new game, it can be worth it. For example I bought the Jutland edition of the Great War at Sea series when it came out, even though I already had its Baltic and North Sea predecessor. I did the same things with Bitter Woods. I sold off the old copies, but sometimes I keep the old version. Probably the best example of that is the game Napoleon, where i kept my old Avalon Hill versions even after I got the Columbia edition. I thought the changes were significant enough in that case that it was really two different games.
But often I also elect not to try to keep up with game system. I've bailed on the Down In Flames series, for example, even though i have quite a few parts. One has to draw the line somewhere. But I'm satisfied with what I have of it and I'll probably keep it because there's no reason why I can't keep playing with it. It's not a game I'd play in a tournament and it doesn't hit the table too often at game clubs, so the only time I'll probably play it is with some friend. And for that purpose it won't be obsolete.
And that seems to me to be the bottom line. I think everybody probably has maybe a dozen or at most two dozen games/system they can keep up with. Those favorite/popular/tournament games are worth keeping up with, but should be focused enough to stay within whatever budget you have. For everything else, so what if there's a new edition? Unlike a VHS tape or a Nintento cartridge a good board game is just as playable with your friends no matter how many new versions are out there. Indeed. I know that many Cosmic Encounter players didn't even bother with the Hasbro/AH edition because they thought the earlier Mayfair edition was better.
Few modern games are as stable as something like Chess, but then the era of innovation for that game was a few centuries ago. Maybe some of today's favorites will settle down in the future.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Game nght at church
We had a game night at my church, and I'll post photos soon, but it was rather successful.
We had a number of old favorites and classics of course, such as Scrabble, Sorry, Yahtzee and cribbage. But I was also able to introduce some newer stuff to several comments like "I've never seen that before" such as Lost Cities, Hive and Heroscape.
We also had games of dominoes, Oh-Wah-Ree and Abalone hit the table.
Fluxx was also a big hit, I think it's a perfect game for an outing like this, being fun, easy to learna nd very quick to play.
We had a number of old favorites and classics of course, such as Scrabble, Sorry, Yahtzee and cribbage. But I was also able to introduce some newer stuff to several comments like "I've never seen that before" such as Lost Cities, Hive and Heroscape.
We also had games of dominoes, Oh-Wah-Ree and Abalone hit the table.
Fluxx was also a big hit, I think it's a perfect game for an outing like this, being fun, easy to learna nd very quick to play.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Does the Kindle have any implications on gaming?
I got mine this weekend and I'm still learning the ins and outs of the thing, but my first impression is highly favorable. It really does make reading pretty easy. For one thing, it's actually easier to handle than a book. You can easily read it one-handed, which makes someone like me who likes to read while eating (a habit that annoyed my father when I was a kid) very pleased indeed.
It's not a good game-playing platform, of course, although it appears some folks are trying. I see some things that look like they might be games on Amazon.
But it could be a useful supplement to boardgames. Rules, for example, are often posted on the Web now. The Kindle can read Web pages, but perhaps a specific Kindle application of the rules would be useful. One of the selling points of the Kindle editions of books is their ability to be updated, which would be very helpful indeed for wargame rules.
It's not a good game-playing platform, of course, although it appears some folks are trying. I see some things that look like they might be games on Amazon.
But it could be a useful supplement to boardgames. Rules, for example, are often posted on the Web now. The Kindle can read Web pages, but perhaps a specific Kindle application of the rules would be useful. One of the selling points of the Kindle editions of books is their ability to be updated, which would be very helpful indeed for wargame rules.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
That explains a lot, old age begins at 27!
Or at least some research suggests that: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1162052/Old-age-begins-27--scientists-claim-new-research.html
To summarize, researchers suggest that mental ability peaks at 22 and starts to decline at 27. Presumably experience counts for a lot, and allows for improved performance for many decades afterwards, but the actual peak of our cognitive abilities comes much earlier.
I don't find this surprising, actually. Einstein made his biggest breakthroughs while still in his 20s and chess masters arrive at their exalted status as teens or young adults, not as people nearing retirement.
I've noticed that the intricate, detailed wargames that fascinated me as a young man no longer hold as much attraction now that I'm much older. I thought that I'd simply lost patience with them, or "matured" in my tastes or something like that. But it may be something as simple as the fact that I'm not quite as sharp as I was back then for that sort of thing. It's too much work now. Back then it didn't seem like work.
To summarize, researchers suggest that mental ability peaks at 22 and starts to decline at 27. Presumably experience counts for a lot, and allows for improved performance for many decades afterwards, but the actual peak of our cognitive abilities comes much earlier.
I don't find this surprising, actually. Einstein made his biggest breakthroughs while still in his 20s and chess masters arrive at their exalted status as teens or young adults, not as people nearing retirement.
I've noticed that the intricate, detailed wargames that fascinated me as a young man no longer hold as much attraction now that I'm much older. I thought that I'd simply lost patience with them, or "matured" in my tastes or something like that. But it may be something as simple as the fact that I'm not quite as sharp as I was back then for that sort of thing. It's too much work now. Back then it didn't seem like work.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Retrenching?
Macro-economic reports seem to indicate that consumers are in an extreme retrenching mood.
This report, for example, indicates a decline in December, making it the sixth consecutive monthly drop:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/02/news/economy/personal_income_spending/?postversion=2009020210
I find it hard to believe that this won't have an impact on the game industry, especially considering that most of the companies are small businesses that are not operating with a big cushion even in good times.
I plan to go to the World Boardgaming Championships this August. It will interesting to see what the vendor area looks like.
Overall I am sensing a slowdown in new offerings. It appears that a lot of product plans may be on hold. Many companies are relying on a P500 system to guide their publishing plans, but if they don't have a hard P500 with credit-card backed purchase orders they may find their P500 less of an insurance policy than they think.
Games are definitely a discretionary purchase. While I don't think game playing will suffer during the recession, purchases of new games very well may. Many of us already have more games than we will ever likely play, so it will be easy to talk ourselves into deferring purchases for a bit.
This report, for example, indicates a decline in December, making it the sixth consecutive monthly drop:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/02/02/news/economy/personal_income_spending/?postversion=2009020210
I find it hard to believe that this won't have an impact on the game industry, especially considering that most of the companies are small businesses that are not operating with a big cushion even in good times.
I plan to go to the World Boardgaming Championships this August. It will interesting to see what the vendor area looks like.
Overall I am sensing a slowdown in new offerings. It appears that a lot of product plans may be on hold. Many companies are relying on a P500 system to guide their publishing plans, but if they don't have a hard P500 with credit-card backed purchase orders they may find their P500 less of an insurance policy than they think.
Games are definitely a discretionary purchase. While I don't think game playing will suffer during the recession, purchases of new games very well may. Many of us already have more games than we will ever likely play, so it will be easy to talk ourselves into deferring purchases for a bit.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
WizKids and the future of bit-based games
What the exact story is behind the surprise announcement by Topps that WizKids will fold is buried in corporate confidentiality. While the game industry is pretty small and the wargame industry even smaller, it's relatively transparent as such things go. There's a lot of gossip that passes around and many of the company's talk a lot about their plans and many of them are pretty good at interacting with their customers.
This is less true for the bigger guys, although I think even Hasbro is better than most wholesale/retail outfits in communicating with its customers. Topps and WizKids seem more in the traditional corporate mold that way.
Still, the WizKids announcement follows an industry-wide pattern of delays and product changes that may very well be affected by larger economic conditions. The global credit crisis and retail retrenchment will, of course, not leave the game industry unscathed, but I think the real impact of that still lies in the future (not the far future, though, just Christmas). I suspect that this year's production issues are related to changes in China, where the vast majority of the nice bits that graced games over the last decade or so were made.
For most of the last 10 years there was a "sweet spot" where low labor and production costs and favorable exchange rates made it very inexpensive for games to include nice bits, especially plastic pieces. It was possible to include large amounts of pieces (War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir' 44, etc.) and it was possible to have hand-painted pieces: (HeroClix, Axis & Allies miniatures, D&D miniatures, Star Wars etc.). It was even possible to have large numbers of hand-painted pieces (Heroscape).
I think that era is coming to a rapid end and will not reoccur for the foreseeable future. There will still be nice bits, but I think there will be more reliance on blocks and counters (Worthington Games, GMT) because it's considerably cheaper to use print instead. There will probably be a more judicious use of plastic as far as quamity goes and less use of expensive hand-painted models.
This is less true for the bigger guys, although I think even Hasbro is better than most wholesale/retail outfits in communicating with its customers. Topps and WizKids seem more in the traditional corporate mold that way.
Still, the WizKids announcement follows an industry-wide pattern of delays and product changes that may very well be affected by larger economic conditions. The global credit crisis and retail retrenchment will, of course, not leave the game industry unscathed, but I think the real impact of that still lies in the future (not the far future, though, just Christmas). I suspect that this year's production issues are related to changes in China, where the vast majority of the nice bits that graced games over the last decade or so were made.
For most of the last 10 years there was a "sweet spot" where low labor and production costs and favorable exchange rates made it very inexpensive for games to include nice bits, especially plastic pieces. It was possible to include large amounts of pieces (War of the Ring, Tide of Iron, Axis & Allies, Memoir' 44, etc.) and it was possible to have hand-painted pieces: (HeroClix, Axis & Allies miniatures, D&D miniatures, Star Wars etc.). It was even possible to have large numbers of hand-painted pieces (Heroscape).
I think that era is coming to a rapid end and will not reoccur for the foreseeable future. There will still be nice bits, but I think there will be more reliance on blocks and counters (Worthington Games, GMT) because it's considerably cheaper to use print instead. There will probably be a more judicious use of plastic as far as quamity goes and less use of expensive hand-painted models.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Are modern economies too complicated to game?
Many moons ago, when I was able to wear belts several inches shorter than today, there were some reasonably popular stock trading games out there. One was the prosaically maned The Stock market Game published by Avalon Hill, another was Stocks & Bonds, which was part of the 3M line. The Avalon Hill game, unsurprisingly, featured a bit more authenticity in the details and allowed for more player input into the process of price-setting, but both games seemed fairly successful at capturing the essence of how the markets worked. The Avalon Hill game even had a solitaire version that allowed the player to play against the historical Market Crash of 1929 and see if he could make money in that Bear market.
So the games seemed realistic enough, according to how the stock market worked in the 1960s.
Are there comparable games now? I wonder if modern financial instruments have gotten too complicated to capture in a game format, even in an abstract way. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that traditional stocks and bonds are just a small part of the whole picture today. Could such a game be designed?
In the abstract one would think so. War, for example, is also a complicated human endeavor and yet there's no shortage of wargames. Or is modern finance even more complicated than warfare?
So the games seemed realistic enough, according to how the stock market worked in the 1960s.
Are there comparable games now? I wonder if modern financial instruments have gotten too complicated to capture in a game format, even in an abstract way. I'm no expert, but it's my understanding that traditional stocks and bonds are just a small part of the whole picture today. Could such a game be designed?
In the abstract one would think so. War, for example, is also a complicated human endeavor and yet there's no shortage of wargames. Or is modern finance even more complicated than warfare?
Monday, September 22, 2008
Will the economic turmoil translate into game industry stress?
As I write this the government is engaged in negotiations over unprecedented measures t stave off a feared economic collapse.
Should they succeed, it seems likely that we're in for a significant downturn. This implies less disposable income, although it's possible that people will be redirecting their entertainment dollars from more expensive fun to boardgaming, which provides a very good value for the buck.
There's a good chance that the structural problems are too severe foe the government to fix at this late stage, however, and we could be in for a full-blown Depression with wide-spread business failures, personal suffering and even homelessness and joblessness on a large scale.
Under those kinds of conditions it's hard to imagine that the game industry will come through unscathed. People may stay home and play more, but they may not buy much. Retail forecasters are predicting a "weak" shopping season and that can't be good news for game makers.
Should they succeed, it seems likely that we're in for a significant downturn. This implies less disposable income, although it's possible that people will be redirecting their entertainment dollars from more expensive fun to boardgaming, which provides a very good value for the buck.
There's a good chance that the structural problems are too severe foe the government to fix at this late stage, however, and we could be in for a full-blown Depression with wide-spread business failures, personal suffering and even homelessness and joblessness on a large scale.
Under those kinds of conditions it's hard to imagine that the game industry will come through unscathed. People may stay home and play more, but they may not buy much. Retail forecasters are predicting a "weak" shopping season and that can't be good news for game makers.
Monday, August 11, 2008
WBC report: First impressions
Well, first off, I didn't win any trophies -- not that I expected I would.
I really hoped to get a chance to play some stuff that I've been wanting to play and haven't gotten to for various reasons. In that quest the WBC was an enormous success. I got to play Acquire, Napoleon's Triumph, Memoir '44, Battle Line, Nuclear War, For Honor & Glory and Axis & Allies: War at Sea. I only managed to eke out a victory in one game of Battle Line and the game of For Honor & Glory.
I was close to a second victory in Battle Line but my winning claim was thwarted by two consecutive Tactics Cards (they were using the rule that you could only claim at the beginning of your turn, giving the opponent a chance to affect the outcome with a Tactics card.)
Napoleon's Triumph as a learning game and I see today on re-reading the rules that we played at least one key rule wrong, so that loss can be chalked up to experience. A lack of experience also pretty much doomed my chances in both Memoir '44 and Acquire, but in both cases I learned a lot from the defeats and feel my play will improve.
The Axis & Allies battle was pretty close but I can definitely attribute my defeat to poor unit selection. Note to self: Never buy PT Boats!
The Nuclear War tournament was surprisingly frustrating. The game is, by nature, a real crap shoot anyway, but I definitely got more than my share of crappy card draws and other bad fortune. I played four rounds and in the first three I was either the first or second player eliminated. In the first round my initial population draw (seven cards in a 5 player game) netted me less than 20 million people! Needless to say it didn't take long for that to go away. The third game was the worst one, as I didn't even get to play a turn. I got hit with one of those 25 million people Top Secret cards and I had exactly 25 million and was out before I got to even play a card! The tournament was saved from being a totally sour experience by the fourth game where I managed to be battling for the win and fell victim to a propaganda card during a brief interlude of peace.
The con, as always, was well organized. By this time Greenwood's got a workable system in place and many of the attendees have been there enough times that everyone pretty much knows what to do. The same veteran faces were there. Damn! We're all getting old.
There's definitely a changing of the guard under way, though. The euro-style games are becoming ever more prominent and wargames less so, although there are still quite a few wargames in evidence.
The wargaming crowd has pretty much moved en masse to the card-driven style games first made popular by We The People, although some of the most popular games of that genre are not even wargames -- Twilight Struggle and Making of the President 1960!
The other real growth area among players was Borg's Commands & Colors system, which saw well-attended competition of all four of his games (C&C: Ancients, Battle Cry, Memoir '44 and BattleLore).
It still made me feel good to see some old standbys still going pretty strong and when I got there Friday the final rounds of such stalwarts as Waterloo, Afrika Korps, PanzerBlitz and Battle of the Bulge '81 were wrapping up.
There really wasn't a lot of buzz about new games as far as I could see, although there were a few new ones out. I think it's fair to say that the Hot New Game of the convention was the one that was barely there. There was a demo copy of Agricola in the Open Gaming tent that got constant play and I spotted a couple of other copies that folks had managed to get, although at least one of those was the Germ edition. Z-Man games was there and I overheard them being asked about the status of the game -- completely sold out -- with a new shipment expected later this summer. All their copies were sent out in preorders and they had none left to sell at the WBC.
It does look like an interesting game, in the euro way. As to whether it will live up to the hype and be the new Tigris and Euphrates, Puerto Rico or Ra I can't say. On the other hand, all those games' events were well populated, along with the Ticket to Ride and the other titles.
The rise of the Euro has also affected the demographics of the attendees substantially. While there are plenty of us classic old wargamer types still wandering about -- bellies and beards included -- the WBC now also features notable numbers of younger and female players as well. While it's nice, of course, to see more women gamers, the most hopeful sign of the WBC for me was the large number of younger players. Many are, no doubt, attending because of gamer Dad, but overheard snippets of conversation in the cafe, bar, corridors and game rooms showed that at least some of the attendees are members of gaming groups that are sprouting up around the country. At least some are probably getting organized using the Meetup Internet services.
Overall, it was a good time. My goal next year is to win a little more, though.
I really hoped to get a chance to play some stuff that I've been wanting to play and haven't gotten to for various reasons. In that quest the WBC was an enormous success. I got to play Acquire, Napoleon's Triumph, Memoir '44, Battle Line, Nuclear War, For Honor & Glory and Axis & Allies: War at Sea. I only managed to eke out a victory in one game of Battle Line and the game of For Honor & Glory.
I was close to a second victory in Battle Line but my winning claim was thwarted by two consecutive Tactics Cards (they were using the rule that you could only claim at the beginning of your turn, giving the opponent a chance to affect the outcome with a Tactics card.)
Napoleon's Triumph as a learning game and I see today on re-reading the rules that we played at least one key rule wrong, so that loss can be chalked up to experience. A lack of experience also pretty much doomed my chances in both Memoir '44 and Acquire, but in both cases I learned a lot from the defeats and feel my play will improve.
The Axis & Allies battle was pretty close but I can definitely attribute my defeat to poor unit selection. Note to self: Never buy PT Boats!
The Nuclear War tournament was surprisingly frustrating. The game is, by nature, a real crap shoot anyway, but I definitely got more than my share of crappy card draws and other bad fortune. I played four rounds and in the first three I was either the first or second player eliminated. In the first round my initial population draw (seven cards in a 5 player game) netted me less than 20 million people! Needless to say it didn't take long for that to go away. The third game was the worst one, as I didn't even get to play a turn. I got hit with one of those 25 million people Top Secret cards and I had exactly 25 million and was out before I got to even play a card! The tournament was saved from being a totally sour experience by the fourth game where I managed to be battling for the win and fell victim to a propaganda card during a brief interlude of peace.
The con, as always, was well organized. By this time Greenwood's got a workable system in place and many of the attendees have been there enough times that everyone pretty much knows what to do. The same veteran faces were there. Damn! We're all getting old.
There's definitely a changing of the guard under way, though. The euro-style games are becoming ever more prominent and wargames less so, although there are still quite a few wargames in evidence.
The wargaming crowd has pretty much moved en masse to the card-driven style games first made popular by We The People, although some of the most popular games of that genre are not even wargames -- Twilight Struggle and Making of the President 1960!
The other real growth area among players was Borg's Commands & Colors system, which saw well-attended competition of all four of his games (C&C: Ancients, Battle Cry, Memoir '44 and BattleLore).
It still made me feel good to see some old standbys still going pretty strong and when I got there Friday the final rounds of such stalwarts as Waterloo, Afrika Korps, PanzerBlitz and Battle of the Bulge '81 were wrapping up.
There really wasn't a lot of buzz about new games as far as I could see, although there were a few new ones out. I think it's fair to say that the Hot New Game of the convention was the one that was barely there. There was a demo copy of Agricola in the Open Gaming tent that got constant play and I spotted a couple of other copies that folks had managed to get, although at least one of those was the Germ edition. Z-Man games was there and I overheard them being asked about the status of the game -- completely sold out -- with a new shipment expected later this summer. All their copies were sent out in preorders and they had none left to sell at the WBC.
It does look like an interesting game, in the euro way. As to whether it will live up to the hype and be the new Tigris and Euphrates, Puerto Rico or Ra I can't say. On the other hand, all those games' events were well populated, along with the Ticket to Ride and the other titles.
The rise of the Euro has also affected the demographics of the attendees substantially. While there are plenty of us classic old wargamer types still wandering about -- bellies and beards included -- the WBC now also features notable numbers of younger and female players as well. While it's nice, of course, to see more women gamers, the most hopeful sign of the WBC for me was the large number of younger players. Many are, no doubt, attending because of gamer Dad, but overheard snippets of conversation in the cafe, bar, corridors and game rooms showed that at least some of the attendees are members of gaming groups that are sprouting up around the country. At least some are probably getting organized using the Meetup Internet services.
Overall, it was a good time. My goal next year is to win a little more, though.
Saturday, July 5, 2008
Bitter Woods and the upgrading dilemma
One aspect of this new "golden age" for wargaming is the plethora of reprints and reissues that have been appearing.
In some cases when a newer edition comes out it's possible to just upgrade some components so it's not too hard of a decision to make. For example the new edition of Columbia's War of 1812 only needs new stickers as a minimum (the rules can be downloaded).
More often, though, the changes are extensive enough to require purchase of a whole new game. Some recent examples include War at Sea, The Russian Campaign, Napoleon, Third Reich, For the People and others.
So the dilemma is, if one already owns an earlier edition, should one lay out the money for the new edition?
On the one hand, if perfectly satisfied with the old version, and most likely to just play the game with friends, and have a limited budget (who doesn't?) there's some reason for not upgrading.
On the other hand, it's likely that, in the larger gaming world, the new edition will become the standard at game conventions, will be the only one that gets supported for rules questions, errata and new variants, and will be the one that new opponents will want to play. So there's ample reason to upgrade.
There's still that budget issue, though. Games are a luxury expense and trying to justify to the significant other that you might want to buy a brand-new copy of a game you already have makes a tough sell even tougher. And even if there's no significant other to consult, there's your little wallet angel to placate. It's easier to justify buying something new than a new copy of an old game, even to yourself. And the new editions usually aren't cheap.
So in some cases, I've decided to pass on the opportunity to upgrade. I don't plan to get the new War at Sea and I dropped out of the Third Reich cycle a while back. While tempted, I didn't get the new EastFront II and its buddy games, even though I really do like the system. But I don't have a likely opponent for that system and if I'm going to play a big block game it'll probably be Europe Engulfed.
Yet I went ahead and bought the new Deluxe edition of Bitter Woods, despite the fact I wasn't actually all that thrilled with the first, Avalon Hill edition.
That 1998 AH version was a bit of a disappointment. It seemed very undeveloped and incomplete, and shortly it became clear why when Avalon Hill was sold. But it was also clear here was a good game there, if it just got the right treatment, so I was willing to give the L2 folks a shot. I wanted to have at least one good solid hex-and-counter grognard-style wargame that was new enough to get new opponents even though my tastes were changing overall in the direction of more block- and figure-based designs.
And the new edition doesn't disappoint. While pricey, in every way it's a big improvement over the AH version. The large counters and larger hexes are a boon for older players like myself. The rules are chock full of great chrome stuff and there are a large number of player aids, too.
Still, there's more coming out than the budget can bear and it's getting more and more important to pick my fights and a lot of otherwise worthy updates and upgrades aren't going to make the cut as time goes on.
My advice to others considering upgrades is to seriously consider what a new eidtion will do for you. If you think it will breathe new life into an old game you play within your established ganing circle or enhance your chances of adding to that cirlce then an upgrade ought to be considered. If you plan to play at game conventions, tournaments or online an upgrade is close to mandatory.
But if the game's been gathering dust on the shelf anyway, then there's porbably no need to buy a new copy.
In some cases when a newer edition comes out it's possible to just upgrade some components so it's not too hard of a decision to make. For example the new edition of Columbia's War of 1812 only needs new stickers as a minimum (the rules can be downloaded).
More often, though, the changes are extensive enough to require purchase of a whole new game. Some recent examples include War at Sea, The Russian Campaign, Napoleon, Third Reich, For the People and others.
So the dilemma is, if one already owns an earlier edition, should one lay out the money for the new edition?
On the one hand, if perfectly satisfied with the old version, and most likely to just play the game with friends, and have a limited budget (who doesn't?) there's some reason for not upgrading.
On the other hand, it's likely that, in the larger gaming world, the new edition will become the standard at game conventions, will be the only one that gets supported for rules questions, errata and new variants, and will be the one that new opponents will want to play. So there's ample reason to upgrade.
There's still that budget issue, though. Games are a luxury expense and trying to justify to the significant other that you might want to buy a brand-new copy of a game you already have makes a tough sell even tougher. And even if there's no significant other to consult, there's your little wallet angel to placate. It's easier to justify buying something new than a new copy of an old game, even to yourself. And the new editions usually aren't cheap.
So in some cases, I've decided to pass on the opportunity to upgrade. I don't plan to get the new War at Sea and I dropped out of the Third Reich cycle a while back. While tempted, I didn't get the new EastFront II and its buddy games, even though I really do like the system. But I don't have a likely opponent for that system and if I'm going to play a big block game it'll probably be Europe Engulfed.
Yet I went ahead and bought the new Deluxe edition of Bitter Woods, despite the fact I wasn't actually all that thrilled with the first, Avalon Hill edition.
That 1998 AH version was a bit of a disappointment. It seemed very undeveloped and incomplete, and shortly it became clear why when Avalon Hill was sold. But it was also clear here was a good game there, if it just got the right treatment, so I was willing to give the L2 folks a shot. I wanted to have at least one good solid hex-and-counter grognard-style wargame that was new enough to get new opponents even though my tastes were changing overall in the direction of more block- and figure-based designs.
And the new edition doesn't disappoint. While pricey, in every way it's a big improvement over the AH version. The large counters and larger hexes are a boon for older players like myself. The rules are chock full of great chrome stuff and there are a large number of player aids, too.
Still, there's more coming out than the budget can bear and it's getting more and more important to pick my fights and a lot of otherwise worthy updates and upgrades aren't going to make the cut as time goes on.
My advice to others considering upgrades is to seriously consider what a new eidtion will do for you. If you think it will breathe new life into an old game you play within your established ganing circle or enhance your chances of adding to that cirlce then an upgrade ought to be considered. If you plan to play at game conventions, tournaments or online an upgrade is close to mandatory.
But if the game's been gathering dust on the shelf anyway, then there's porbably no need to buy a new copy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)