Topic: 2-Player Strategy Game Ideas (Read 24832 times)

shark_bait · « **on:** November 05, 2013, 01:29:31 pm »

Hey Guys, I need some help from the F.DS braintrust. My fiance and I love playing games together but one issue that we have is that I have played all of my games much more than her. Consequently, she says that I have an unfair advantage over her. This is most polarized in Dominion where I have played upwards of 4000 games but is still present in all other games. I'd like to get a new game that we can both play/learn at the same time thus removing the asymmetry of me having more experience.

So I'm open to suggestions from you guys. The qualifications for these games are as follows:

1.) I can not have played it ever!
2.) Good for 2 players
3.) Strategically deep
4.) Replayable

For reference, I have played the following games (list is not exhaustive, it's possible I missed something)

Powergrid
Ticket to Ride
Settler's of Catan
Dominion
Colosseum
Pandemic
Stone Age
Carcasonne

That's all I can think of right now. If any of you have any suggestions I'd love to hear them!

Polk5440 · « **Reply #1 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:33:15 pm »

The first thing that pops into my head is Hive.

Tables · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:34:42 pm »

Twilight Struggle, perhaps? It's long, but it's got a lot of depth.

Netrunner might be an interesting option. You have sufficient deckbuilding options with just the base game, but it might well be worth slowly adding expansions as you play more. And there's a lot of strategy involved, both in game and building decks.

theory · « **Reply #3 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:41:55 pm »

Jaipur
Mr Jack
Ingenious

Drab Emordnilap · « **Reply #4 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:45:03 pm »

Yomi. Cue the Sirlin dislike, but man, I love that game.

Tables · « **Reply #5 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:45:25 pm »

I'm glad theory +voted my suggestion of Netrunner. I really thought he might.

Teproc · « **Reply #6 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:49:01 pm »

First thing I'd ask is : do you/your gf enjoy abstract games (as in Chess, Go etc) ? If so, I would recommend the GIPF project, specifically YINSH and DVONN, which are "modern" abstract two-player strategy games.

Other than that, I have three 2-player games that I really like right now, but there's a bunch of them :

- Mr. Jack. This is not an abstract, but it can sometimes feel like it. There's a board wich represents the streets of London, with 8 characters on them. One player plays Jack the Ripper, and is randomly assigned one of the characters on the board. The other plays an investigator and has to cath Jack in a certain number of turns. It's a deduction game in which the primary mechanism is that there are sources of light on the board (street lamps), and as Jack you indicate each turn if you're near the light or not. Each player moves half the characters each turn, and they each have powers which make the game really sound strategically but not too easy to predict, which avoid trying to think 15 turns ahead, i.e AP. It plays in half an hour.

- Seasons. This is not exclusively 2-player, theoretically playable up to 4 players (although I wouldn't recommend it, 3 players is fine though). It's a card game with wacky/cute theme and illustrations that a lot of people seem to like (I don't so much). First you each draft 9 cards, and then you divise those cards in 3 groups of 3. The game is played in 3 "years", so the cards are assigned to each year. Each year is divided into four seasons which each have a custom set of dice. Each turn you roll 3 dice, and each player selects one. Those dices will essentialy get you energy of a specific type (cards cost energy, kind of like mana costs in Magic). Basically the idea is to find powerful combinations, which should apeal to Dominion players. Also, the game has very good recommendations for the first few games (no drafting, some cards excluded) which allow it to be fairly complex but have a good learning curve.

- Targui. I have only played this twice so I don't know how much replayability it has (the previous two have a bunch of that, not sure with this one), but it is a good strategy game where there's a grid of actions, and a whole system of getting extra actions based on where your actions line up (can't really explain this well, you'd have to look on BGG I think). It's a pretty good, classic euro-style 2-player game.

shark_bait · « **Reply #7 on:** November 05, 2013, 01:52:17 pm »

Quote from: Polk5440 on November 05, 2013, 01:33:15 pm

The first thing that pops into my head is Hive.

I've never heard of that before, it looks interesting and simple to play but rewarding to good play.

Quote from: Tables on November 05, 2013, 01:34:42 pm

Twilight Struggle, perhaps? It's long, but it's got a lot of depth.

Netrunner might be an interesting option. You have sufficient deckbuilding options with just the base game, but it might well be worth slowly adding expansions as you play more. And there's a lot of strategy involved, both in game and building decks.

I've thought about TS, but the time might be a bit much. Both being graduate students who enjoy running means that we don't always have time for games.

I've never heard of Netrunner before. It doesn't look too expensive either which is a plus.

shark_bait · « **Reply #8 on:** November 05, 2013, 02:01:06 pm »

Quote from: Teproc on November 05, 2013, 01:49:01 pm

First thing I'd ask is : do you/your gf enjoy abstract games (as in Chess, Go etc) ? If so, I would recommend the GIPF project, specifically YINSH and DVONN, which are "modern" abstract two-player strategy games.

I've dabbled in a bit of chess myself, never seriously enough to memorize openings, but enough to easily beat my friends who haven't studied it.

I'm not sure on her view on modern abstract games. I think I would like them, but I don't know if they would be her favorite.

I like the idea of Mr. Jack. Incomplete information seems like a fun concept for a game with 2 people. I've played Scotland Yard before which has that feature and enjoyed it.

Awaclus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 05, 2013, 02:10:51 pm »

A thing worth considering is Print n' Play games; they're cheap, they're at least trying to be unique and at best they can definitely have some interesting mechanics in them, it isn't a huge waste even if a game turns out to be not to your liking, and if it's one still in development, you can be of great help to the designer (you have to be wary with those, though, because designers always think their game is closer to the final version than it actually is, and thus may release a public PnP beta before the game is ready for that).

XerxesPraelor · « **Reply #10 on:** November 05, 2013, 02:14:43 pm »

Netrunner is really great, but it makes you want expansions, which can be a minus for a game. It also only works for two players.

Kuildeous · « **Reply #11 on:** November 05, 2013, 02:44:14 pm »

Well, if time might be an issue, then you might give Through the Ages a pass, but it works with two players. Personally, I prefer it with 3 or 4 players, but it works well for 2. My wife and I have played it a few times.

With enough experience, you can finish the game in 2-3 hours. Your first game would take a while, though. That's just how it goes.

You could start with the basic game that concludes at the end of Age 1. I personally think that's when the game gets more interesting, and I think that the game should really be played through all three ages. The rules change a little bit depending on the mode you're playing. You have your basic game that ends after Age 1, you have a more advanced game that ends after Age 2, and you have the full game that ends at the beginning of Age 4.

If you play, warn her to ignore military strength at her peril.

AHoppy · « **Reply #12 on:** November 05, 2013, 03:03:44 pm »

Hey! My girlfriend and I have the same issue! We were just talking about this the other night and I thought it would be a good idea to learn a game together and only play it together. So we decided on Netrunner. I won't be able to get it/play it until I get back to the US in December, but that's our plan. I should look into those other options you guys have suggested as well.

AHoppy · « **Reply #13 on:** November 05, 2013, 03:07:52 pm »

Quote from: Kuildeous on November 05, 2013, 02:44:14 pm

Well, if time might be an issue, then you might give Through the Ages a pass, but it works with two players. Personally, I prefer it with 3 or 4 players, but it works well for 2. My wife and I have played it a few times.

With enough experience, you can finish the game in 2-3 hours. Your first game would take a while, though. That's just how it goes.

You could start with the basic game that concludes at the end of Age 1. I personally think that's when the game gets more interesting, and I think that the game should really be played through all three ages. The rules change a little bit depending on the mode you're playing. You have your basic game that ends after Age 1, you have a more advanced game that ends after Age 2, and you have the full game that ends at the beginning of Age 4.

If you play, warn her to ignore military strength at her peril.

Actually this topic came up for us over through the ages. While we learned to play the game together, I went on to play online with you guys and get some more experience. So I would recommend this as a great 2 player game, but it does take a long time... 2-3 hours being a "fast" game is nothing to sneeze at. That's why we discounted twilight struggle

EDIT: And as I have learned playing you folks, yes, ignore military and you die...

Dsell · « **Reply #14 on:** November 05, 2013, 03:12:26 pm »

Just chiming in to support Netrunner. It's fantastic and you can take it as slow (Starting with just Core, mixing in expansions as you please) or as fast (keeping up with the monthly expansions) as you want. It is a little confusing at first because there is a lot of terminology, but there are also a lot of good tutorials and player aids. Once you know what you're doing, games take between 15 and 45 minutes. Multiple factions + deckbuilding + asymmetrical gameplay provide tons of replayability.

Morgrim7 · « **Reply #15 on:** November 05, 2013, 04:16:46 pm »

Catan isn't good for two players. Puerto Rico or Carcassonne.

shark_bait · « **Reply #16 on:** November 05, 2013, 04:52:49 pm »

I'm currently thinking against Netrunner/Seasons, the deckbuilding is a bit much I think.

After a brief chat she said that she wants to be able to play a game and to be able to improve on the next game. So I think I'm currently looking away from variability in terms of combinations and more towards strategic depth. Thus Hive, the GIPF Project and Mr. Jack look like good options at the moment.

Also, you guys are awesome. I post a question and get a huge variety of responses in a short time.

Teproc · « **Reply #17 on:** November 05, 2013, 04:57:59 pm »

Just to clarify, Seasons is not deckbuilding. There are cards, but you just draft 9 at that start, and try to make that work. You can draw additional cards in several ways, but you're gonna play with ~20 cards max overall.

shark_bait · « **Reply #18 on:** November 05, 2013, 04:59:30 pm »

Quote from: Teproc on November 05, 2013, 04:57:59 pm

Just to clarify, Seasons is not deckbuilding. There are cards, but you just draft 9 at that start, and try to make that work. You can draw additional cards in several ways, but you're gonna play with ~20 cards max overall.

Hmmm, I might have to look at it a bit more carefully then. Thanks for the clarification!

Kirian · « **Reply #19 on:** November 05, 2013, 05:08:04 pm »

Eminent Domain is still our go-to game.

DG · « **Reply #20 on:** November 05, 2013, 08:57:02 pm »

Jambo is a card game with both luck and skill. Lost Cities is very simple and has a surprising amount of replayability. The Twilight Struggle mechanics are also seen in the slightly more accessible 1860: Making of the President, which was cut down further to Campaign Manager:2008. The mini agricola 2 player did its job but I'm guessing it needed expansions for variation. I assume you have the 2 player settlers of catan game already and know that's ok.

I'll agree with recommendations for Mr Jack especially and Jaipur as well.

heron · « **Reply #21 on:** November 05, 2013, 10:30:50 pm »

Hive is good fun, but here's warning: At higher skill levels, it becomes rather difficult for player two to win, and the game usually ends in a draw.

rrenaud · « **Reply #22 on:** November 05, 2013, 11:28:22 pm »

I <3 Race for the Galaxy. It's a bit hard to get into, but it's definitely deep, repayable, and good for 2.

Davio · « **Reply #23 on:** November 06, 2013, 02:53:24 am »

You can dabble in LCG's, you can pick all and any you might like.

LOTR is Coop, which you might like.
Game of Thrones, Star Wars and Netrunner are 1 vs 1, but suffer from the fact that you'd be willing to put more time in than your significant other.

I recommend LOTR, because if one person gets better, it helps both.

Watno · « **Reply #24 on:** November 06, 2013, 07:03:22 am »

If you want strategy without too much variability of combinations, I think Agricola: All Creatures big and small would be good. It also is quite quick.
If you want something longer, you could try the real Agricola (family game without cards), Caylus or Trajan.

Kuildeous · « **Reply #25 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:34:41 am »

Quote from: Morgrim7 on November 05, 2013, 04:16:46 pm

Catan isn't good for two players.

Settlers of Catan is not good for two players. There is a two-player Catan game. I forget the exact name; I got it in a math trade.

It's a tile game. You have two rows of resource tiles with enough space to put tiles between them. Since it's Catan, the resources are based on a die roll. You build roads and settlements as usual, with specific placement so that a settlement is adjacent (diagonally) to the resources. You build improvements above and below settlements/cities, which can make a difference based on the adjacent resources.

The board may look something like this.

Code: [Select]

Grain	Granary	Ore		Sheep
	Sett	Road	Sett	Road
Clay		Wood		Gold

Starship Catan is also a two-player game. It's also dice-based. I find it a little more fun just because of the theme.

In both games, there are piles of cards so whoever memorizes card placement better will have an edge.

theory · « **Reply #26 on:** November 06, 2013, 09:42:25 am »

I recommend Mr Jack mainly because it's asymmetric, which theoretically offers double the replay value. It also suffers less from the "well-I-played-it-4000-times so I will crush you every time" syndrome, which TS / RFTG are very guilty of (even though I love that aspect of those games).

Ozle · « **Reply #27 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:30:19 pm »

There is an obvious solution to this....

Just make her play 4000 games of Dominion.

Problem solved.

AHoppy · « **Reply #28 on:** November 06, 2013, 04:41:10 pm »

Have you considered Neuroshima Hex? I have only played it on my phone, but it is a very good 2 player game. The game is short (or, at least I assume so, it's not terribly long on my phone) and once you get the symbols and flow of the game down, fairly straight forward. It's pretty replayable because you have to master different armies and learn the weaknesses of the other armies. Plus you can buy more armies... I think it's pretty fun, but having never played the physical game, I can't tell you how that plays...

DG · « **Reply #29 on:** November 06, 2013, 06:04:33 pm »

I looked through a friends game collection and can probably add Tayu, Rainer Knizia Kingdoms, KopferKessel, Babel, and the Hanging Gardens as decent 2 player games. Any of those could be out of print. A Few Acres of Snow is also excellent if you don't know the well publicized winning strategy.

popsofctown · « **Reply #30 on:** December 05, 2013, 03:57:22 pm »

Quote from: shark_bait on November 05, 2013, 04:59:30 pm

Quote from: Teproc on November 05, 2013, 04:57:59 pm
Just to clarify, Seasons is not deckbuilding. There are cards, but you just draft 9 at that start, and try to make that work. You can draw additional cards in several ways, but you're gonna play with ~20 cards max overall.

Hmmm, I might have to look at it a bit more carefully then. Thanks for the clarification!

It depends how deckbuilding is defined, kind of. I would emphasize that besides the 9 you draft at the start you draw randomly. So if you choose to draft a card with an effect similar to Smithy (crude analogy) you will draw 3 cards from a "Black Market" deck.

I'm surprised no one has suggested Smallworld? It's up to four players, but it's playable with 2, and I prefer it with 2. (I prefer anything with very much political potential at all with 2 though). You play Risk, except the battles are manageable numbers like 3 armies against 2, and you don't use dice to decide who wins, and you choose different quirky powers throughout the game to try to get an edge.

Worst aspect is that the scorekeeping process is a tad tedious, similar to the way tracking things in Puerto Rico is tedious, but it's only a fourth as bad as that.

popsofctown · « **Reply #31 on:** December 05, 2013, 03:59:36 pm »

Wow I am a terrible necromancer, sorry.

Tables · « **Reply #32 on:** December 05, 2013, 04:55:07 pm »

Less than a month old is hardly necrobumping, and you were contributing to the discussion.

popsofctown · « **Reply #33 on:** December 08, 2013, 01:29:43 pm »

Is netrunner too hard for my parents? Carcassone was not, Dominion was not, Innovation was.

Dsell · « **Reply #34 on:** December 08, 2013, 01:58:32 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 08, 2013, 01:29:43 pm

Is netrunner too hard for my parents? Carcassone was not, Dominion was not, Innovation was.

Probably so.

Ozle · « **Reply #35 on:** December 08, 2013, 01:59:01 pm »

Has anyone suggested Agricoa: all creatures great and small
Its a nifty 2 player

Tables · « **Reply #36 on:** December 08, 2013, 03:56:27 pm »

Quote from: Ozle on December 08, 2013, 01:59:01 pm

Has anyone suggested Agricoa: all creatures great and small
Its a nifty 2 player

I've only played it 3 player.

...

It actually worked pretty well. Although the guy making it still needs to make further tweaks I think.

Ozle · « **Reply #37 on:** December 08, 2013, 04:26:33 pm »

Quote from: Tables on December 08, 2013, 03:56:27 pm

Quote from: Ozle on December 08, 2013, 01:59:01 pm
Has anyone suggested Agricoa: all creatures great and small
Its a nifty 2 player

I've only played it 3 player.

...

It actually worked pretty well. Although the guy making it still needs to make further tweaks I think.

Eh?

Isn't it only a two player game?

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/119890/agricola-all-creatures-big-and-small

Tables · « **Reply #38 on:** December 08, 2013, 04:52:14 pm »

The hinting was that it was a variant someone made

.

popsofctown · « **Reply #39 on:** December 08, 2013, 05:42:13 pm »

I think I am going to subject my family to netrunner anyway. They will like the scifi setting since they are in the Harry Potter is Satan's firstborn club.

Dsell · « **Reply #40 on:** December 08, 2013, 05:44:52 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 08, 2013, 05:42:13 pm

I think I am going to subject my family to netrunner anyway. They will like the scifi setting since they are in the Harry Potter is Satan's firstborn club.

It's always worth a try! I haven't played Innovation IRL, and it's a very different type of game, but Netrunner is a great game. If they can get into the theme you might have a chance. There is a really excellent tutorial video from Fantasy Flight here.

popsofctown · « **Reply #41 on:** December 08, 2013, 05:46:42 pm »

Quote from: Dsell on December 08, 2013, 05:44:52 pm

Quote from: popsofctown on December 08, 2013, 05:42:13 pm
I think I am going to subject my family to netrunner anyway. They will like the scifi setting since they are in the Harry Potter is Satan's firstborn club.

It's always worth a try! I haven't played Innovation IRL, and it's a very different type of game, but Netrunner is a great game. If they can get into the theme you might have a chance. There is a really excellent tutorial video from Fantasy Flight here.

TBH innovation is a mediocre quality game overall, so that is somewhat of a factor. I say that while I'm in isotropic queue though

Thanks for the link

I'm glad it's not by Steve Jackson games because I would have to voilate my boycott

popsofctown · « **Reply #42 on:** December 08, 2013, 09:03:18 pm »

Mom watched part of the video tutorial and said it looked too hard

Tables · « **Reply #43 on:** December 08, 2013, 09:20:04 pm »

Innovation and Netrunner are kind of hard for the same reason: (Pretty much) every card does something different. There's a lot of keywords and a lot of effects which pretty much have to be read out every time they're used. In Dominion (and similar) it takes only a few plays of a card before you can just name and everyone knows what it does.

popsofctown · « **Reply #44 on:** December 08, 2013, 10:04:05 pm »

I wanted a new game because my mom balks whenever I change the kingdom to different cards. It's just time to give up.

popsofctown · « **Reply #45 on:** December 09, 2013, 04:09:07 pm »

Well, my mom bought me Netrunner for playing with my roommates anyways. I read through the rules, they left me with two major questions:

1. After a successful run, which cards does the runner get to access? All vertically oriented cards for a remote server, and all upgrades plus top of RD, 1 random from HQ, and all of archives for root server? I kept rereading that section and it talked about the appropriate way to pillage R&D, but not when I do and when I don't get to pillage R&D. Maybe it never happens without help from card text, maybe it happens only on root, maybe it always happens (it didn't seem to happen with the remote server in the example though.)

2. Can the corporation install upgrade cards into a remote server that has no agenda or <decoyagenda>, can't remember the word for the decoy agendas. If you can, is it still considered empty?
Namely, I'm confused as to whether you can install an upgrade on a remote server, and try to fool the runner into thinking that the facedown, vertically oriented upgrade is an agenda.

Dsell · « **Reply #46 on:** December 09, 2013, 04:41:03 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 04:09:07 pm

1. After a successful run, which cards does the runner get to access? All vertically oriented cards for a remote server, and all upgrades plus top of RD, 1 random from HQ, and all of archives for root server? I kept rereading that section and it talked about the appropriate way to pillage R&D, but not when I do and when I don't get to pillage R&D. Maybe it never happens without help from card text, maybe it happens only on root, maybe it always happens (it didn't seem to happen with the remote server in the example though.)

All cards in Archives plus any upgrades installed in the root. Technically, the runner flips all cards in archives face-up and then chooses which cards to access, one at a time. But this only matters in edge cases.

The top card in R&D plus any upgrades in the root. There are a lot of cards that let you access more cards from R&D, and in that case you take from the top and keep them in order.

A random card (or cards, in case you're accessing more than one) from HQ plus any upgrades in the root.

All installed cards in a remote server.

For all of the above except R&D, you can access cards in any order you like. (In R&D I think you must access cards from top to bottom, but you could for example access the top card, then access any upgrades, then access the second card in R&D if you really wanted to.)

However, before you can access cards you must 1) pass all ice protecting the server and 2) give the corp a final chance to rez cards. There are some cards (upgrades, assets) that the corp may rez and resolve after you've passed all the ice that will make your life more difficult.

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 04:09:07 pm

2. Can the corporation install upgrade cards into a remote server that has no agenda or <decoyagenda>, can't remember the word for the decoy agendas. If you can, is it still considered empty?
Namely, I'm confused as to whether you can install an upgrade on a remote server, and try to fool the runner into thinking that the facedown, vertically oriented upgrade is an agenda.

You can install upgrades, assets, and agendas in remote servers. A server may only have 1 asset or agenda at any given time, but there are no limits on the number of upgrades (exception: you may only have 1 region upgrade in a server at a time). If there is one face-down card in a remote server, it could be any of the above. If a second card is installed in a remote, at least one of them must be an upgrade. You can install an upgrade even if there is no asset or agenda in the server.

A server is not considered empty if there is anything installed in it. I cannot remember whether a server is considered empty when there is nothing installed in the server but there is ice protecting it. Not sure if there are any cards that has bearing on.

But yes, upgrades can masquerade as agendas. However, most upgrades (I believe all currently printed ones) cannot be advanced.

Tables · « **Reply #47 on:** December 09, 2013, 05:32:43 pm »

Quote from: Dsell on December 09, 2013, 04:41:03 pm

A server is not considered empty if there is anything installed in it. I cannot remember whether a server is considered empty when there is nothing installed in the server but there is ice protecting it. Not sure if there are any cards that has bearing on.

But yes, upgrades can masquerade as agendas. However, most upgrades (I believe all currently printed ones) cannot be advanced.

Thomas Haas is an upgrade who can be advanced.

I'm not sure if a server being 'empty' is actually a thing, but as long as there is ANYTHING installed in a server - ice, upgrade, asset, agenda, anything else - then that server exists and the runner is allowed to perform a run against it. If it only contains ice, then naturally they can't access cards, but they may still want to run against that server - for example to trigger Bank Job or Desperado.

Finally just as an extra note which is easy to forget: Archives ALWAYS exist, even if there are no cards in it and no cards defending it. So you can always Sneakdoor Beta into HQ via Archives, if it's unprotected even if it's also empty.

Dsell · « **Reply #48 on:** December 09, 2013, 05:57:25 pm »

Thomas Haas is an asset.

But otherwise, great examples to illustrate the points you made.

Tables · « **Reply #49 on:** December 09, 2013, 06:13:06 pm »

...Asset, Upgrade, same thing

. But yeah okay, advanceable upgrades... yeah don't think there are any, off the top of my head.

popsofctown · « **Reply #50 on:** December 09, 2013, 06:27:20 pm »

OOOOOOH
There are more than two types of runs.
My question 1 was because I thought there were only remote server runs and root server runs. As a result the answer didn't really help until I read that archives backdoor thing you gave.
So you can make a run on either
Root/identity
HQ
Archives
R&D
Remote
Those five?
So does the corp have to set up HQ Ice, archives Ice, root Ice, and R&D Ice separately? Seems like they go bankrupt trying to protect things before they even set up a remote server.
If the same ice blob is defending HQ, archives, root, and R&D it seems like that backdoor card you linked has little purpose.

Awaclus · « **Reply #51 on:** December 09, 2013, 06:33:19 pm »

Quote from: Tables on December 09, 2013, 06:13:06 pm

...Asset, Upgrade, same thing .

Asset
$5 Action
+1 Card
+1 Action
Trash a card from your hand. Gain a card costing exactly $1 more than it.

Dsell · « **Reply #52 on:** December 09, 2013, 06:45:18 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 06:27:20 pm

OOOOOOH
There are more than two types of runs.
My question 1 was because I thought there were only remote server runs and root server runs. As a result the answer didn't really help until I read that archives backdoor thing you gave.
So you can make a run on either
Root/identity
HQ
Archives
R&D
Remote
Those five?
So does the corp have to set up HQ Ice, archives Ice, root Ice, and R&D Ice separately? Seems like they go bankrupt trying to protect things before they even set up a remote server.
If the same ice blob is defending HQ, archives, root, and R&D it seems like that backdoor card you linked has little purpose.

Not quite. Each central server has a "root" which is just physically the area beneath the server (either the identity card, which represents HQ, or R&D, or the Archives pile) where upgrades can be installed. A run on a central server is also a run on its root. Just as you access all cards in a remote server when you run on it, you access all cards installed in the root of a central server in addition to whatever you'd normally access.

The "root" terminology is just to distinguish it from remote servers, where you can install upgrades directly in the server. In central servers, you cannot install assets or agendas, but you can install upgrades in the root.

So when you announce a run, it can be on:

Archives (you access all cards + root, if applicable)
R&D (you access the top card + root, if applicable)
HQ (you access a random card + root, if applicable)
Any remote server (you access all cards in the server)

The corp does have to set up ice on HQ, R&D, and Archives separately. It can be expensive and the runner can exploit this by making less important runs in order to bankrupt the corp before running where they really want to go. Still, the corp is not obligated to rez ice during runs and it is an important skill to know when it is and isn't necessary to rez ice. Plus, some corp players may choose not to protect Archives with ice. This, however, can be exploited with runner cards such as Sneakdoor Beta, which Tables mentioned above.

popsofctown · « **Reply #53 on:** December 09, 2013, 10:58:38 pm »

So I guess a lot of strategies put a lot of effort into not discarding Agendas because that would become one more thing you have to protect.

I read all the cards in core, took me a while. There's both zero credit cards for draw 3 and zero credit cards for +3 credits. Kind of reminds me of the Black Lotus+Ancestral Recall profitable pairing from base MTG. Of course that was worse because you at least pay clicks with a +3 cards +3 credits loop. But improving the efficiency of your click usage seems like a pretty important thing, like increasing your action usage in innovation, so I'm wondering whether one or both of those cards are commonplace in tournament decks, since they had a low influence cost.

Tables · « **Reply #54 on:** December 09, 2013, 11:16:06 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 10:58:38 pm

So I guess a lot of strategies put a lot of effort into not discarding Agendas because that would become one more thing you have to protect.

Often you'll end up protecting Archives somewhat anyway - some Criminals are still going to run Sneakdoors on you, some runner strategies will mill straight into your archives and frankly, you sometimes need to discard from HQ anyway - might as well tax the runner a little to check what you discarded, even if it wasn't agendas. But other times you can get away with no Archive protection.

Quote

I read all the cards in core, took me a while. There's both zero credit cards for draw 3 and zero credit cards for +3 credits. Kind of reminds me of the Black Lotus+Ancestral Recall profitable pairing from base MTG. Of course that was worse because you at least pay clicks with a +3 cards +3 credits loop.

It's very different to Magic. In magic, you can draw 1 card and play 1 land per turn, meaning you slowly build up - and those two become the real bottleneck for doing things fast (which was what made those cards so amazing - you can suddenly do things many turns earlier than you 'should' otherwise). In Netrunner, you can grab credits and draw cards freely, so they're a far less valuable resource. The usual bottleneck in Netrunner is clicks - you can only do so many things on each turn.

Something else to consider with those cards is that there's actually some hidden costs. You need to actually draw the card (typically 1 click) before you play it - so in a way it's 2 clicks for 3 cards or 2 clicks for 3 creds. In reality it's usually cheaper than that but the point is that it's more than a flat 3 for 1 deal.

Quote

But improving the efficiency of your click usage seems like a pretty important thing, like increasing your action usage in innovation, so I'm wondering whether one or both of those cards are commonplace in tournament decks, since they had a low influence cost.

Hmm... I don't think they're all that common. Beanstalk Royalties probably sees some play with Weyland's Core identity (+1 cred when playing a transaction), since it's effectively +4 credits which is pretty good. Easy Mark, Diesel and... is there a corp +3 cards? Either way I don't think you see those much. Bear in mind there's a LOT of extra cards in the data packs, and a lot of those enable very different styles of decks. 'tutor' type cards which simply dig for what you need are very common in runner decks, while Corps are less inclined to draw rapidly because they want to draw Agendas when they can actually score them, and not get overwhelmed by them in hand. As for credits, some events see decent play, but often assets or similar will be used for a more efficient source. For the runner, Magum Opus or Professional Contacts are good examples of efficient and commonly used income, while for the runner, good old Melange Mining Corp. is used somewhat often.

Dsell · « **Reply #55 on:** December 09, 2013, 11:25:41 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 10:58:38 pm

So I guess a lot of strategies put a lot of effort into not discarding Agendas because that would become one more thing you have to protect.

In the core set, I only recall 2 cards (Sneakdoor and the Anarch identity, Noise) that let you put direct pressure on Archives, but by now each faction has quite a few reasons to make the corp want to ice up Archives. It's not usually a strict necessity, but it's often important.

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 10:58:38 pm

I read all the cards in core, took me a while. There's both zero credit cards for draw 3 and zero credit cards for +3 credits. Kind of reminds me of the Black Lotus+Ancestral Recall profitable pairing from base MTG. Of course that was worse because you at least pay clicks with a +3 cards +3 credits loop. But improving the efficiency of your click usage seems like a pretty important thing, like increasing your action usage in innovation, so I'm wondering whether one or both of those cards are commonplace in tournament decks, since they had a low influence cost.

There's a lot of theorizing and comparing A:NR with Magic in regards to card control. I've never played Magic so I can't weigh in but to make a long story short: Diesel, Beanstalk Royalties, and Easy Mark are strong cards and they're splashed into other factions reasonably often (Easy Mark not so often), but they're far from superstars. The corp equivalent of Diesel, Anonymous Tip, is used even less often and is very rarely seen out of faction, despite its lower influence cost.

PPE: Tables hit most of the highlights.

popsofctown · « **Reply #56 on:** December 09, 2013, 11:34:48 pm »

Yeah actually i could pretty easily get the impression that corps wouldn't want to draw 3 cards nearly as much as the runner. It sounds like tutors are preferred over draw effects for runners, which makes sense, draw effects and tutor effects are in the same family in a lot of ways, and the tutor effects looked like they were also aggressively costed.
I was definitely missing it conceptually, it's a cantrip that profits you 1 card, not a cantrip that profits you 2 cards. For that reason it would make sense for them not to get splashed even if don't cost much influence because cantrippy cards tend to be low impact, little harm little good, no one gets a reverse mortgage so they can buy a Vagrant, etc..

popsofctown · « **Reply #57 on:** December 09, 2013, 11:37:06 pm »

If diesel is the only one to have a higher influence cost than 1 that makes sense, I don't remember its influence cost.

Dsell · « **Reply #58 on:** December 09, 2013, 11:39:35 pm »

Quote from: popsofctown on December 09, 2013, 11:37:06 pm

If diesel is the only one to have a higher influence cost than 1 that makes sense, I don't remember its influence cost.

Yeah Diesel is 2, Anonymous Tip is 1. Diesel is still used and splashed more.

yed · « **Reply #59 on:** December 10, 2013, 10:18:47 am »

Tash-Kalar: Arena of Legends - I really like this!

It is also possible to play it here as forum game.
Kingdom Builder - also from Donald X who created Dominion
Terra Mystica - no luck during game, just skill

AHoppy · « **Reply #60 on:** December 10, 2013, 10:59:04 am »

How about Coin Age? Haven't had a chance to play it, but it looks pretty fun, super light (figuratively and literally), cheap and yet still with enough strategy to be entertaining.

Watno · « **Reply #61 on:** December 10, 2013, 12:10:03 pm »

So did you get anything yet, shark_bait? Did it work?

shark_bait · « **Reply #62 on:** December 17, 2013, 10:55:55 am »

Quote from: Watno on December 10, 2013, 12:10:03 pm

So did you get anything yet, shark_bait? Did it work?

Just saw this. I love you guys. <3

I put the following games on my list:

GIDPF Project
Mr. Jack
Carcasonne
7 Wonders
Kingdom Builder

I have not found anything out yet. However I have gotten a couple of different games. My local board game sale put on a black friday sale with some great sales. They had stickers on some games that said Buy this game at XX% off and get another game at equal or lesser price for XX% off. These ranged from 15% to 50%. I managed to find a $49.99 game for 40% off allowing me to get Stone Age for cheap. The game with the sticker really isn't the best. It's Wolsung. It's an interesting concept but the mechanics seem stale and repetitive. However Stone Age is pretty sweet in my opinion, especially two-player. There are a lot of tactics involved. I'll let you guys know if any of the other games on the list make it into my collection.

Kirian · « **Reply #63 on:** December 17, 2013, 11:02:51 am »

SB, I have got to get you to go to the Ann Arbor gaming group nights. You're in AA now, right?

liopoil · « **Reply #64 on:** December 17, 2013, 11:10:08 am »

Quote from: Kirian on December 17, 2013, 11:02:51 am

SB, I have got to get you to go to the Ann Arbor gaming group nights. You're in AA now, right?

I've been to one of those!! I don't know if it's the same one.....

shark_bait · « **Reply #65 on:** December 17, 2013, 11:44:34 am »

Quote from: Kirian on December 17, 2013, 11:02:51 am

SB, I have got to get you to go to the Ann Arbor gaming group nights. You're in AA now, right?

Yeah, I'm in AA. Go Blue!

PM me the info? Can't guarantee that I can make it. Being a grad student who enjoys running and spending time with my fiance makes for things being quite busy.

PM me the info?

Kirian · « **Reply #66 on:** December 17, 2013, 12:42:45 pm »

The info is otherwise public, so I'll post it here: go join the group at aagg@yahoogroups.com

I'm down in Toledo now, so I no longer go to that group, but I'm still in contact with a large number of their members. They meet twice a month in the evening--usually at Amer's or Pizza House, which I really hope you've been to by now) and one of the members hosts a separate Saturday game day once a month.

The main contact there works for Mayfair, so you'll be able to get in on some beta testing, which is always cool.

Grujah · « **Reply #67 on:** December 17, 2013, 02:55:56 pm »

BattleCON?

It a "fighting game simulation", It has great replayability (many characters, all play out differently) and needs a solid strategic mind.

yed · « **Reply #68 on:** December 18, 2013, 01:47:20 pm »

Quote from: shark_bait on November 05, 2013, 01:29:31 pm

The qualifications for these games are as follows:
1.) I can not have played it ever!
...
For reference, I have played the following games (list is not exhaustive, it's possible I missed something)
....
Carcasonne
...

Quote from: shark_bait on December 17, 2013, 10:55:55 am

I put the following games on my list:
...
Carcasonne

?

shark_bait · « **Reply #69 on:** December 18, 2013, 02:22:04 pm »

Ha ha, I'm totally eating my own words right now. I think I gave out two different lists (one of new games and one of games I wanted), can't really remember now.

shark_bait · « **Reply #70 on:** January 03, 2014, 06:02:07 pm »

So the results are in! After a wonderful Christmas break with both my family and my fiances family a few new board games have been added to the Collection. We have both Kingdom Builder and Go. Go fits the bill as a pure strategy game and I like it. It seems like there is a lot of strategy that I can't grasp quite yet but it certainly is fun. Kingdom Builder has been great the couple of times I've played it already. Not quite as strategically deep as Dominion, but certainly another great game by Donald.

Trogdor the Burninator · « **Reply #71 on:** March 26, 2014, 11:35:49 am »

If no one has recommended them yet, Agricola and Puerto Rico are great strategy games.
Puerto Rico happens to be only good with at least 3 players though but it's still a really good game

Awaclus · « **Reply #72 on:** March 26, 2014, 01:56:11 pm »

Quote from: Trogdor the Burninator on March 26, 2014, 11:35:49 am

Puerto Rico happens to be only good with at least 3 players though but it's still a really good game

It's still a good game with two players, not as good as it would be with 3+ players though.

Kirian · « **Reply #73 on:** March 26, 2014, 03:33:51 pm »

Quote from: Awaclus on March 26, 2014, 01:56:11 pm

Quote from: Trogdor the Burninator on March 26, 2014, 11:35:49 am
Puerto Rico happens to be only good with at least 3 players though but it's still a really good game
It's still a good game with two players, not as good as it would be with 3+ players though.

However, San Juan, with the same theme, but which was a precursor to RFTG, is better with two.

Teproc · « **Reply #74 on:** March 26, 2014, 05:28:41 pm »

Quote from: Awaclus on March 26, 2014, 01:56:11 pm

Quote from: Trogdor the Burninator on March 26, 2014, 11:35:49 am
Puerto Rico happens to be only good with at least 3 players though but it's still a really good game
It's still a good game with two players, not as good as it would be with 3+ players though.

I'm not a big fan of PR with 2 or 3 for that matter. It's fine, but there's much better. It's great with 4 or 5 though.

Davio · « **Reply #75 on:** April 04, 2014, 04:32:18 am »

Just sit to the left of the idiot!

He produces, you ship/sell, WIN!

liopoil · « **Reply #76 on:** April 04, 2014, 10:07:40 am »

I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to play puerto rico with 2 players... it's a 3-5 player game. If you do play with 2 players, I suggest each plays two "players" and you set it up like a 4p game. You can either use combined score of the two, or the lower one. Or higher one I suppose, but that would be weird...

Teproc · « **Reply #77 on:** April 04, 2014, 10:10:09 am »

Quote from: liopoil on April 04, 2014, 10:07:40 am

I'm pretty sure you aren't supposed to play puerto rico with 2 players... it's a 3-5 player game. If you do play with 2 players, I suggest each plays two "players" and you set it up like a 4p game. You can either use combined score of the two, or the lower one. Or higher one I suppose, but that would be weird...

There is a variant for two player. It works pretty well, you pick two roles instead of one basically (not at the same time, of course).

Ozle · « **Reply #78 on:** April 04, 2014, 02:24:42 pm »

I'm working on a two player Cricket game if anyone was interested...

eHalcyon · « **Reply #79 on:** April 04, 2014, 02:33:26 pm »

Quote from: Ozle on April 04, 2014, 02:24:42 pm

I'm working on a two player Cricket game if anyone was interested...

Did you scrap the golf one?

Ozle · « **Reply #80 on:** April 04, 2014, 07:46:36 pm »

Quote from: eHalcyon on April 04, 2014, 02:33:26 pm

Quote from: Ozle on April 04, 2014, 02:24:42 pm
I'm working on a two player Cricket game if anyone was interested...

Did you scrap the golf one?

Nope, still trying to get it to work smoother

Jack Rudd · « **Reply #81 on:** April 11, 2014, 08:44:12 am »

Quote from: Ozle on April 04, 2014, 02:24:42 pm

I'm working on a two player Cricket game if anyone was interested...

Oooh, yes, I love cricket.

Dominion Strategy Forum

News:

Author Topic: 2-Player Strategy Game Ideas (Read 24832 times)