Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[penndog]

I absolutely love Dominion (stating the obvious, I know) but one of the biggest reasons is because it is the most fair game I have ever played.  What I mean is, in any other game I can think of, where more than 2 people play, the element of "ganging up" is always present.  I am usually the strongest player and therefore suffer from this. 

So does anyone know of any other games where "ganging up" is not possible?  I was looking at Pandemic, which looks interesting.

p.s. you might be wondering why I would want to find any other game, given that Dominion is so awesome.   Well, the friends I play with do not want to play with me anymore because I always (like 90%+) win. 

[theory]

Pandemic is probably not a good choice for you guys, since even though it's co-op it suffers from "one guy makes a plan and tells everyone else how to play" syndrome.

There really aren't that many games that I can think of where you can't target the leader.  Paradoxically, your best bet might be a game that involves politics a lot more, since then it's an explicit part of the game and you can work with it.  (E.g., Battlestar Galactica instead of Pandemic.)

[DG]

If you want a family friendly game you can do worse than something like Carcassone. It's not my favourite game but it's my game that gets played the most, since nobody objects to it. If you want a heavy decision game then you're spoilt for choice really. There are many financial and resource management games where you need to maximise your opportunities and deny (all your) opponents any opportunities but you can't gang up on a leader. Agricola is one of example, but so could be an older game like Acquire. Bidding games (like Medici or Ra) also are fairer since players can overbid to shut out a leader from an auction, but that will just lose them the game if they can't make value from their purchase.

[PetterTB]

I enjoy powergrid. It has a built-in feature that gives the player with the most cities trouble, but that's pretty much that, it isn't easy to gang up, and it is quite hard to know who's winning anyways.

[penndog]

Is Carcassone like Settlers of Catan?  Because that game does not work out because I get the robber placed on me the most

Maybe I just need new friends LOL

[Wingnut]

I would second the recommendation of Agricola from a couple of posts up. I also enjoy Ticket to Ride (either Europe or Marklin) depending on the group I am playing with.

[skrotkanon]

Roborally has little of this. Like Dominion it has a little
bit of luck from the shuffle but it's still mostly skill
and mindgames that determines the winner.
Dominion probably has the upper hand when it comes
to that but Roborally is still an amazing game, my
favourite when playing more than two.

[DsnowMan]

Space Alert. *drool*

Cooperative space awesomeness. It's better than pandemic in my books.

[lefaiison]

If you're winning 90% of the time, then your opponents need to get better!  Also, when asking for recommendations, I would suggest being a little more specific.  Are time constraints an issue?  How many players?  Complexity?  It's funny that you win so many dominion games, because I find it's one of the toughest games to win consistently (luck factor + winning player goes last the next game).

Are time constraints an issue?  I love Agricola, but it's a longer game (generally 30 minutes per player, so 4 player game = 2 hours).  It's also a more complex game so skill plays a large role in the game.  (Agricola is one game where I win fairly consistently). 

For a simpler game, I enjoy 7 Wonders.  It's a quick game (30 mins), and can play 3-7.  (I think there are rules for 2p as well, but it's a variant and plays differently from the norm)

[guided]

Agricola: unless the other players all form a deliberate pact to play equally sub-optimally to defeat you, there's little to no possibility for ganging up. If one person were to defect from the pact they would whomp on the other members of the pact. Even if they successfully held pact discipline, you'd probably win if you're just better at games than them.

Brass: A deliberate pact to attack you can eat into your lead a little bit, but likely won't defeat you if you play significantly better than anyone else. Good Brass play involves a couple of key "attacking" moves that are routinely deployed against whomever is in the lead, and this is an important element of the game's richness.

Power Grid, Troyes: There is no way for anyone to target a specific player without completely sabotaging their own best interests.

[drg]

Simple games are probably best when dealing with large variance in skill levels. As such, you could try the card game craits (or creights) which is based off of crazy eights with some extra action in the cards.

I play this game when in a group with large differences in skill level, as it's fairly random and quick paced, and it is not really a targeting game, although you can somewhat.

Mexican train dominoes also works, there's some thought in it for people who grasp games, but the basics are really simple and there is no choice targeting at all. 

Wikipedia will show the rules for either.

[Not a Cylon]

Power Grid, Troyes: There is no way for anyone to target a specific player without completely sabotaging their own best interests.

Well, in Power Grid, you can gang up on someone by buying extras of the resources they need, and this will hurt them more than you because of how resources get expensive when scarce (real-life economics FTW!). But this only works on whoever's “ahead” at the moment (since they buy last), so it only tends to happen to the one who deserves it OTOH, a good player can make sure they're not nominally “ahead” until the very end, which makes for some fun and deep strategy.

(Though since time constraints are being discussed here, I should note that this is a long game. Three hours for 4-5 players, easily. Four if a certain person I know is playing …)

[guided]

Well, in Power Grid, you can gang up on someone by buying extras of the resources they need

And if you do this, it's either a bad move for you or it's a good move for you. If we restrict ourselves to games where nobody can ever do anything that harms anyone else's position, we're not going to have many things left over to play.

I would add that situations where it's truly a good move to buy up resources you don't plan to ever use are quite rare, even if you are somehow tracking at all times exactly how much money everyone has. It's never a good move unless it actually prevents someone from powering a plant this turn--which means either depleting the resource they need so there aren't enough left or by costing them $1-$2 extra (or whatever) when they simply did not have $1-$2 extra to spend on resources.

If on the other hand you're buying resources with the intent of using them on a later turn, this is simply playing the market, an element of good strategy you should consider each and every turn regardless of who's winning. There may be (also rare) situations where you only choose to buy extra resources for next turn because it prevents someone from winning the game this turn... but again, that's harming someone else to increase your own chances of winning, which is how games are played!

[ycz6]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Race for the Galaxy yet, that's the game I see compared to Dominion most often. You know, on the Internet and stuff. It's got a similar style of indirect interaction and "powering up" as Dominion, and it's even got some of the same people on its staff.

[Axe Knight]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Race for the Galaxy yet, that's the game I see compared to Dominion most often. You know, on the Internet and stuff. It's got a similar style of indirect interaction and "powering up" as Dominion, and it's even got some of the same people on its staff.

It was mentioned in the other thread.

http://forum.dominionstrategy.com/index.php?topic=13.msg86#msg86

rrenaud is apparently quite a virtuoso at that too

[drg]

I'm surprised nobody's mentioned Race for the Galaxy yet, that's the game I see compared to Dominion most often. You know, on the Internet and stuff. It's got a similar style of indirect interaction and "powering up" as Dominion, and it's even got some of the same people on its staff.

If his friends are getting dominated at dominion, I don't think race for the galaxy is a good idea...

[ShuffleNCut]

POT LIMIT OMAHA!  (seriously it's the best)

[timchen]

Power grid is actually an easy game to gang up in some sense. I remember a while a go I have played some 3-player games on BSW with my girl friend and some random player. You can imagine how we block the third guy in the initial stage of the game!

Also although not really a ganging up situation, I found it fairly often that a player who fails to win can decide who will win the game.

[guided]

Also although not really a ganging up situation, I found it fairly often that a player who fails to win can decide who will win the game.

This is definitely true sometimes. I've been on both the winning and losing end of this phenomenon in Power Grid games, and even when I lose I take it as a moral victory that I could easily have won. If you're in this position it means you played well! Some others may have a more difficult time taking this attitude....

[Davio]

I like Puerto Rico a lot.



In this game, every player chooses his own course and while there can be some "evil" moments, it is mostly fair.

It is about building your own city and farms and producing, selling and shipping goods.
This is like Agricola, you have your own domain and decide how to build your own domain.

What I like best about this game is that every turn, every player does something, this keeps the action going and you're not just waiting for your turn.
I will not go into specifics much, but basically a complete turn goes like this: One player is the starting player (this rotates clockwise after each complete turn) and chooses a character. He gets a bonus from choosing that character and performs the action defined by that character. Every other player then performs the same action without the benefit. Then the next player chooses a character and everything is repeated. Once every player has chosen a character and gained the bonus and performed the actions, the starting player token rotates and you start again with the new starting player going first.
There is one character that doesn't have a bonus or action for the other players though.

You can get "lucky" because other players may choose sub-optimal or "unlucky" when another player chooses something that will only hurt you and not help him. If you are careful, you can prevent this from happening by investing in some buildings which protect you against these choices.

This game is very similar to Agricola in the fact that you are building on your own plate, but the mechanic of choosing actions is somewhat different and refreshing.

[Arya Stark]

ooh I love Puerto Rico!! Ive only been playing it a couple of months now, I think I would like it more than dominion if the games didnt take so long 

[DG]

There's also of course San Juan, a card game derivative of Puerto Rico that is a decent game in it's own right. In fact, if you've heard good things about Race for the Galaxy but don't fancy teaching your friends all the complicated symbols and cards, then just buy San Juan instead since it has the same underlying rules but can be taught and played quickly.

[guided]

Puerto Rico is the game that got me into hardcore Euros. It's still great, but the problem is you simply can't play it with newbies, because even one person who isn't savvy to at least intermediate PR strategy completely ruins the game: the person to the left of the worst player will win, period. Every person at the table needs to have a solid understanding of the game before individual skill becomes the determining factor for victory. Even if someone is a solid Euro gamer with a keen sense of strategy, it's going to take them maybe a half dozen plays to get up to speed.

I used to play games with a cohesive, dedicated group, and we learned PR together and had an awesome time with it. It's a great game if everybody at the table knows what they're doing. These days I play with a rotating cast of gamers with an insatiable appetite for new games, so rarely am I playing any one game more than once every few months, and most people aren't PR strategy buffs.

Tigris & Euphrates has a similar problem: if there is even one bad player, it is utterly random which of the good players will win. The winner is whoever is summarily gifted the most points by bad players.

[Davio]

There's also of course San Juan, a card game derivative of Puerto Rico that is a decent game in it's own right. In fact, if you've heard good things about Race for the Galaxy but don't fancy teaching your friends all the complicated symbols and cards, then just buy San Juan instead since it has the same underlying rules but can be taught and played quickly.

San Juan serves well as an introduction game,  I played this with my brother and brother-in-law, neither of which are natural board gamers.
After a brief rule overview, we quickly played 3 games and every player won once.

[blackb]

I like Stone Age very much. It includes a nice balance between luck and strategy. Looking forward to the expansion.

[Davio]

I like Stone Age very much. It includes a nice balance between luck and strategy. Looking forward to the expansion.

Stone Age has a very pretty board.

Also, it's very simple (every round you can choose from the same actions), but challenging enough. You also have to pay attention to your opponents. You can't let one opponent grab all of the cards for example.

[guided]

I like Stone Age very much. It includes a nice balance between luck and strategy. Looking forward to the expansion.

I won't begrudge you liking Stone Age. But I will recommend Troyes for you a something I think is a much better dice-rolling worker placement game! Here's how I'd rank that genre:

1. Troyes (A)
2. Kingsburg, with at least the soldier token expansion (B-)
3. Stone Age (C+)
4. Alien Frontiers (C-)
5. Kingsburg without the soldier token expansion (D)

[Arya Stark]

Hey rrenaud I think you would like 7 wonders, its a fun fast paced multi player game with little setup

[guided]

Hey rrenaud I think you would like 7 wonders, its a fun fast paced multi player game with little setup

...with the replay value of tic-tac-toe

(To be fair I found it super fun for about 8-10 plays.)

[Arya Stark]

Hey rrenaud I think you would like 7 wonders, its a fun fast paced multi player game with little setup

...with the replay value of tic-tac-toe

(To be fair I found it super fun for about 8-10 plays.)

hey i said it was a fun game, not a great game, ive only played with 5 people

[guided]

Yeah my point is after those 8-10 plays it stopped being fun at all Once you figure it out it's about 95% determined by the initial shuffle plus the competence of your neighbors.

[Lekkit]

I was introduced to Nefarious during Spiel in Essen. And So far I have not grown tired of it, and it doesn't seem to get very boring any time soon. I've mostly played two-player games, but I prefer playing three or more players.

[Geronimoo]

I saw the Nefarious boot at Essen, but €35 for some cards seemed a lot although I bet it's a great game.

[Lekkit]

I bet neither I nor my girlfriend (the one who ended up buying it) would have bought it if we hadn't played it first.

[Arya Stark]

i demo'd a dice/deck building game today called quarriors, pretty fun, don't like that its only a 4pl game 

[DG]

Sentinels of the Multiverse is a co-operative game that's worth a few plays. Each player is a superhero with their own deck of cards that represent a specialist set of powers and gadgets and whatever else superheroes do . Each turn you play cards, use powers, draw cards. There are also villain turns where the villain plays the top card from his/her deck and environment turns where random events turn up. There is a fair bit of flavour in all the decks, there's something to think about with the card play and interactions, it's still quite simple (but needs house rules as a result), and it's a bit of fun.

[Jorbles]

I really like a lot of the games mentioned in this post. Puerto Rico especially is exceptionally well balanced and really fun. I played it with a group of friends fairly obsessively before discovering Dominion.

I have to mention Galaxy Trucker, which is really fun, and a lot of the game play is based in real time. You build a space ship and then go on trucking missions. The game is fairly luck dependent, but it has some deep strategy and lots of puzzle solving so strong players usually end up ahead of their competitors. It takes under an hour to play and it's a really fresh board game idea. I can't recommend it enough.

[guided]

Having played it at BGG.CON, I must say Eminent Domain is the first deckbuilding game that I think deserves mention in the same breath as Dominion*. I certainly won't say it's as good, but it's a very worthy game in its own right. It takes elements from Dominion, Race for the Galaxy, and Glory to Rome, and it synthesizes them in a rather clever way that makes for an excellent strategy game. As an added bonus, it has a really simple ruleset, with the only real learning complexity coming from having to read through the level 2 and 3 Tech cards. (The level 1 Techs are just improvements on the basic Role cards' action abilities.)

1) Each turn, you may play a card from your hand (Technology or Role card) as an action.
2) Then you must choose a Role card you will lead, taking from the supply and putting it in front of you. You may boost it with similar cards to increase its effect. When you're done, you (usually) discard all the cards, including the new Role card that it added to your deck.  Other players in turn may follow on the role you've led, playing similar cards to execute a weaker version of the role.
3) Then you may discard any remaining hand cards you like, keeping others in hand, and draw up to your hand limit (5 by default).

Roles do things like discovering new planets and adding them to your tableau ("Empire"), amassing ships or colonies to conquer or settle the planets you've discovered, researching new technologies (cards added to your deck or your Empire), and producing & trading goods on your planets. VPs derive from settled/conquered planets, advanced techs acquired, and chips received for traded goods. Many planets give various bonuses like increasing your hand size or automatically boosting the effect of one of the Roles.

In short: You build a tableau which is worth points and can be used to churn more points by goods production and trading (like Race for the Galaxy) via a Role selection and Lead/Follow mechanic (like Glory to Rome) using a hand drawn from a deck you build during the game (like Dominion). The novel mechanic is that choosing a Role adds a copy of that Role card to your deck (whereas researching techs is more akin to Dominion's Buy mechanic). Technologies encourage clever card combinations like you might see in other card-based games. The really unique strategic element I've noticed so far is that Eminent Domain can reward you for building one engine, then tearing it down mid-game and building a new one. As a simple example, in one game I churned a full-bore Colonization engine until I had something like 7 Planets settled, then trashed all my Colonization role cards while rebuilding my deck into a Produce/Trade engine that I churned for VP chips until the end of the game. Alternately, I've seen very successful single-engine strategies, like one where somebody got a crazy combination of techs that allowed them to eventually conquer some 15+ Planets by the end of the game, ignoring Production entirely.


The only thing that worries me after about 6 plays is that it won't seem quite as fresh after 60. Every game uses the same Technology and Role cards, with the only thing really cajoling you to pursue different strategies from game to game being your random draws of Planet cards. OTOH, I suspect once a group of players becomes really experienced with it, there may not be any extra turns to dally around forcing a Tech strategy you like in spite of Planet draws that are pushing you toward doing something else. And of course, in 3p and 4p games (which is where it really shines to begin with), the Lead/Follow mechanic means it's critical to adapt to what your opponents are doing.


*Noting that there are some other superb card-based strategy games like Race that are not deckbuilding games.

[DsnowMan]

Imperial.

It isn't a card game, but it's a really good investment game cloaked as a war game with immense re-playability.

[popsofctown]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Sirlin's copycat game, Puzzle Strike.  It's a "fixed" version of Dominion. (" ")

Guess it goes to show what a failure it is

[theory]

I played Ascension a couple weeks ago and was dazzled by how it somehow managed to combine every aspect I hate about Dominion into a standalone game.

[guided]

Imperial.

It isn't a card game, but it's a really good investment game cloaked as a war game with immense re-playability.

If you like Imperial... come to the dark side of 18xx

Or on an opposite note, Hamburgum is another excellent Rondel game.

[popsofctown]

I played Ascension a couple weeks ago and was dazzled by how it somehow managed to combine every aspect I hate about Dominion into a standalone game.

If that's a comparison, it goes too far..

[rod-]

I'm surprised no one's mentioned Sirlin's copycat game, Puzzle Strike.  It's a "fixed" version of Dominion. (" ")

Guess it goes to show what a failure it is

There's nothing "fixed" about puzzle strike.  Really annoying is such an annoying card that we destroyed the chips out of hatred after our first game.  This was using a recommended set!  That said, the game's marginally fun, although you're really limited to playing big money because you start with 3 actions in your deck and the action chips are super weak in general.

[popsofctown]

Actually the dominating strategy is Combine in the base set.  Really Annoying is removed from the recommended set in the updated rules, but you have to download those, so >_>

[Turambar]

The game i like most (together with Dominion) is Agricola. Anyone here playing at play-agricola.com?

I also like Puerto Rico, Battlestar Galactica and lots of other games, but none as much as my 2 favourites.

[Jack Rudd]

The game i like most (together with Dominion) is Agricola. Anyone here playing at play-agricola.com?

No, but I am playing at Boite a Jeux.

[mith]

The game i like most (together with Dominion) is Agricola. Anyone here playing at play-agricola.com?

I have it bookmarked, and I'll get there eventually; definitely a top 5 game for me. Lately my non-Dominion obsession has been Brass (on brass.orderofthehammer.com).

[guided]

The game i like most (together with Dominion) is Agricola. Anyone here playing at play-agricola.com?

I have it bookmarked, and I'll get there eventually; definitely a top 5 game for me. Lately my non-Dominion obsession has been Brass (on brass.orderofthehammer.com).

In this post we find mentioned my all-time top 3 board games

There was about a month some time ago that I was continuously in 10 concurrent games on orderofthehammer. I had to limit it to 10 at a time since otherwise I would spend like 3+ hours a day at work contemplating Brass moves.

[mith]

Yeah, I've only just started playing regularly on there, and I'm limiting myself to two or three concurrent right now... haven't even cracked 10 total yet.

[Ozle]

This seems a bit of a circular argument.

You're getting picked on because your good, thus making it harder for you to win.
So essentially you want a multiplayer game where more luck is involved, as if you dont want people to pick on you then you want less interaction, and if everybody is playing thier own game then it becomes more like a solataire game and if you are better than everyone else will just lead to a parade of you winning, whereas I assume you want some sort of challenge, meaning the only variety to throw in is luck...



However, saying this, there are options I would suggest Alhambra: The Card Game.You buy cards from a pool, but you cant specifically target players, although you can adapt to what other players buy. (And this without the problem I find inherent in games like Peurto Rico where one bad player spoils it because he sets up the next one)

[O]

Mentioned on the first page, Acquire is really an excellent game if you have 3+ players who all tend to be at least decent at strategy games. I've played for years and still really have yet to master it.

[Davio]

Somehow I always lose Acquire to players who invest all their money in the beginning in the most expensive stock, only seeing it grow to the biggest monster on board because everyone always merges "up".

[AquaBirdie]

I've only been playing Dominion since X-mas, now it is all I want to play. That being said ...

7 Wonders is our go-to game to start a sit down game night. It is quick and if you want to, you can try and block people, but it does not get my goat when someone does it to me. We usually mix in some tension breaker games such as Sneaks & Snitches and maybe even go crazy for a bit with a little Cash and Guns.  Others in this thread have recommended Train and Power Grid games, we play those, or something like those next.   I love Puerto Rico, Carcassonne, BlueMoon City  , Loyang , Agricola, the list is too long.

The prefect game night, to me anyway, is like planning a meal. Know everyone's taste - their likes and hates. Start with something to amuse the pallet (Bohnanza maybe).  A serious protein like DieMacher for the main course and something silly for the end - Apples to Apples - every one will laugh.

Some people have food allergies and can't have nuts - me I've stopped playing Catan with some of my game group because it can start to get nasty and at one point or another someone feels picked on.  They still play it and I sit out.  I am not saying I have a nut-like allergy to some of my game group just to their strategy.  Our revolving group has a range of abilities - from seriously smart people and some who think all games start and end with Monopoly (no disrespect intended). SO i don't think you need a new game group (as suggested)  just more games  - and  - a variety of game types.  Just like friends. 

[Cataphract]

I really like Omen - Reign of War.

Fantastic card game with great artwork. Arcana - revised edition is very good too.

[Scott Pilgrim]

Kingdom builder

[randomdragoon]

I really like Space Alert -- It's a fully cooperative game, so no ganging up, but it's also played in real-time (everyone plans out their actions at the same time, and there is a time limit. Afterwards you go around and resolve the actions to see how you did) so it doesn't have the "Leader decides what everyone does" syndrome, because no one person can usually track everything that's going on at once. I find it really fun for a cooperative game where, instead of being able to tell someone exactly what moves to make, you only have enough time to say something like "Can you take care of that space octopus over there?" and have to trust that your teammate will do the right thing.

[DG]

Friday is a small Robinson Crusoe themed solo game. You start with a pool of life tokens and a deck of Robinson cards that are pretty weak. Each turn you face a challenge drawn from an island deck and can draw (blind) an appropriate number of Robinson cards for the challenge and pay life to draw extra cards if needed. If you win you add the challenge card (usually good) to your Robinson deck and use it in future turns, but if you lose you pay in life tokens and can destroy some of your played cards. When you exhaust the Robinson deck you reshuffle and add an aging card (bad). When you exhaust the island deck you reshuffle that and all the challenges get harder. After three times through the island deck you fight pirates to survive and win, provided you have some life left.

There's some canny deck management in here, choice in how you attempt the challenges, and the Robinson cards from the island deck have an interesting mix of abilities. If you like the idea of a solo game then this will do nicely.

[Geronimoo]

Galaxy Trucker is awesome! If you like Swindler games where engines get torn apart and people suddenly have to play awful cards like Workshop and Scout instead of Fishing Village and Envoy, you'll love Galaxy Trucker. If you're not into chaos, puzzling or fun, then go play some chess.

Kingdom Builder was a pleasant surprise. When looking at the board for the first time I thought I was going to hate this game: complex, long and boring. Then, at Zuiderspel (a small gaming convention) I played it for the first time and it was exactly the opposite: simple, short and ... not boring. The guy explaining the game had us playing in 3 minutes and it was over in 50 and I lost but still had fun. Donald X, hats off!

[Davio]

I wonder why I keep going to the same venues, but never run into you, Geronimoo.
Of course, I have no idea what you look like, so if you would stand in front of me in line for the hamburgers I wouldn't even know it was you!

I was @ Zuiderspel with the mrs., but not for long. She isn't that into boardgaming and she had a bad pregnancy day, so we were there for just over an hour.

[Asklepios]

In reply to the OP, I think this is a very tough question. I honestly feel that Dominion is the best game I've ever played, when it comes to that perfectly rounded balance of luck, skill and elegance.

There are games out there that are better than Dominion in some ways, but which are worse in others, and it remains my favourite game overall. I'll list the ones that beat Dominion in some ways.

First up, Chess. No, this isn't a throwaway silly answer, but a serious one. There's a reason why chess remains recognised as the purest and most brilliant strategy game in the western world. It has strategic depths that Dominion could never hope to reach, with complexity evolving from simplicity at fractal levels. Also, the more you study chess the more it challenges you. This is a rare thing to find, as most modern (by which I mean 20th century onwards) games don't give that: with something like Dominion, for example, I find myself less challenged by it the better I get at it.

Second, Vampire: The Eternal Struggle. While I love Magic: The Gathering, I've always considered V:TES to be the pinnacle of CCG design, especially when played in the five-player format within a tournament setting. Given your opening post, you may find some elements of V:TES distasteful. Because its a game where you bring your preconstructed deck, its not always fair. Even though it has an attack-left mechanism, its still a game where you can be ganged up on and where a weaker player can commonly play kingmaker. The beauty of V:TES, however, is that the thematics and the design all make the vicious free for all into a design feature rather than a bug. You're not at the mercy at the random whims of your opponents: rather, its by manipulating the balance of power and by trading favours and promises that you truly master the game. The game rewards those who know how to tabletalk from a position of strength or weakness, and who understand the dynamic of the shifting pressures of force and threat.

Third, the Descent board game. Is it balanced or strategically deep? Hell, no. Well, not compared to something like Dominion. But short of an actual roleplaying game, no game I've played gives me the sensation of fun and of walking in my character's shoes. I have more fun playing Descent than Dominion, even if I recognise that from the point of view of elegance and depth of game design, its not really that clever.

[theory]

Not that this hasn't been mentioned already in this topic, but Race for the Galaxy seems to have a lot of crossover appeal with Dominion.  I think if Donald X. had designed Race for the Galaxy, we'd all be playing that instead.  As it stands, RftG suffers a little more from balance issues than Dominion, but it's still a superb game if you want a similar feel of combo-building and deck/tableau building, with a strong dash of subtle interaction not present in Dominion.

[Kirian]

Having played it at BGG.CON, I must say Eminent Domain is the first deckbuilding game that I think deserves mention in the same breath as Dominion*. I certainly won't say it's as good, but it's a very worthy game in its own right.

What guided said, other than to say that EmDo is certainly as good (though not currently as deep) as Dominion.

Galaxy Trucker is awesome! If you like Swindler games where engines get torn apart and people suddenly have to play awful cards like Workshop and Scout instead of Fishing Village and Envoy, you'll love Galaxy Trucker. If you're not into chaos, puzzling or fun, then go play some chess.

Ugh.  I had more fun during my wisdom tooth extraction, and I was under local anesthetic only, no gas.  Listening to them crack teeth apart to remove them?  Ten times as much fun and interest as Galaxy Trucker.  I rarely will extricate myself from a game partway through, but I had to bow out after the first round rather than start tearing pieces apart.

[Davio]

Re: Chess

I've found new love for chess due to these YouTube videos by Jerry from the Chesswebsite.

[paddyodoors]

Not that this hasn't been mentioned already in this topic, but Race for the Galaxy seems to have a lot of crossover appeal with Dominion.  I think if Donald X. had designed Race for the Galaxy, we'd all be playing that instead.  As it stands, RftG suffers a little more from balance issues than Dominion, but it's still a superb game if you want a similar feel of combo-building and deck/tableau building, with a strong dash of subtle interaction not present in Dominion.

My family (er, I mean "regular gaming partners") got into Puerto Rico and so segued into San Juan.  I've heard this game  compared most often to RftG.  I've never heard it compared to Dominion.  Care to elaborate on these three, theory?

As for me, I'm much more into wargames than Euros, especially the card-driven, point-to-point system popularized by Mark Herman's We the People.  When my family (er, I mean "regular gaming partners") sits down to play, we often play Euros and I participate to be a sport, but don't really LOVE it.  It wasn't until I tried Dominion on the passive recommendation of a fellow Twilight Struggle player (who-may-or-may-not-be-an-administrator-of-these-forums [thanks, man  ]) that I discovered that there was such a thing as a "deep" Euro.

Having read through this thread, I am curious to know what games each of you:
-considers to be a deep Euro (or even non-Euro non-wargame)? and
-stand the test of time (i.e. dozens and dozens of replays without exhausting the depths of the game)?

Multi-player non-wargames that we've played:
                (are any of these "deep"?  if so, I either haven't played them enough or with the right perspective.  consider me dense.)
Carcassonne
Citadels
Dominion (Duh!)(minion)
El Grande
Incan Gold / Diamant
Mystery of the Abbey
Pirates Cove
Power Grid
Puerto Rico
San Juan
Settlers
Ticket to Ride
TransAmerica

In contrast to the OP, I am not explicitly looking for games, like Dominion, that eschew direct conflict or "ganging up on the leader."  Being a wargamer at heart, those types of games don't bother me -- and a temperate amount of it doesn't bother my family (er, I mean "regular gaming partners"), either.

Thoughts?  Which games on the list are deep?  Which deep, unlisted games do you think would be useful to add?

[theory]

Not that this hasn't been mentioned already in this topic, but Race for the Galaxy seems to have a lot of crossover appeal with Dominion.  I think if Donald X. had designed Race for the Galaxy, we'd all be playing that instead.  As it stands, RftG suffers a little more from balance issues than Dominion, but it's still a superb game if you want a similar feel of combo-building and deck/tableau building, with a strong dash of subtle interaction not present in Dominion.

My family (er, I mean "regular gaming partners") got into Puerto Rico and so segued into San Juan.  I've heard this game  compared most often to RftG.  I've never heard it compared to Dominion.  Care to elaborate on these three, theory?

San Juan is like RftG Lite.  If you enjoy San Juan but want a little more, RftG is perfect.

The point of RftG being similar to Dominion is that deck-building shares some basic similarities with tableau-building, except that in RftG you have permanent access to your entire "deck" at all times.  There's still a sense of looking for, identifying, and exploiting combos on the fly.  Except RftG adds an element of interaction/prediction: the person who wins is going to be the person who plays the best second-order strategy, i.e., taking advantage of your opponent's role selections in order to leapfrog forward.  Maybe both of you want to Settle, but you'd gain an even bigger advantage by leeching off of his Settle and choosing Trade instead, so that you get both the Settle and Trade benefits and he only gets the Settle benefit.

Carcassonne
Citadels
Dominion (Duh!)(minion)
El Grande
Incan Gold / Diamant
Mystery of the Abbey
Pirates Cove
Power Grid
Puerto Rico
San Juan
Settlers
Ticket to Ride
TransAmerica

I would consider Power Grid, Puerto Rico to be the deepest.  I think TransAmerica is deep too, but no one agrees with me on that point.  Probably ranks along with Settlers and Ticket.  I have not played most of the others.

[Kuildeous]

I would consider Power Grid, Puerto Rico to be the deepest.  I think TransAmerica is deep too, but no one agrees with me on that point.  Probably ranks along with Settlers and Ticket.  I have not played most of the others.

I agree that Power Grid and Puerto Rico are the deepest. Power Grid is very crunchy on the surface and inside. Puerto Rico does not look as crunchy as it really is. You have to really evaluate how your decision will affect the other players. If you can take Trader to sell your Coffee for 6 doubloons while others are unable to sell their goods, then you have gained an advantage. Should you Captain and get those VPs? Will someone score more VPs than you? And is that a risk worth taking.

I love Mystery of the Abbey, because I like sorting things out. I consider it deep on that level, but the game play itself is not that incredibly deep. There are some great interactions you can do, and the last two times I played, I cost someone points because I worked as hard as I can to keep at least one suspect card in my hand. Both times, the suspect I kept were falsely accused. There are other strategies to consider, like when it's a good time to search a player's cell and even which player you should search (big hint: probably not the person that you've been handing cards to unless it's early in the game). Mystery does have a lot of opportunities to shake things up, though, so the best strategy may become moot as you end up giving your entire hand to another player. But I do love the deduction and the questioning. Asking the right question is difficult, because you want to ask a question that is meaningful to you but gibberish to everyone who can hear you.

[greatexpectations]

puerto rico is definitely a really deep game, and it is a very very close second to dominion for being my favorite game.  it does suffer a bit because games can be heavily influenced due to poor decisions by less skilled players. i have found that the ability to influence other player's decisions (either verbally or through my play) is almost as useful as strong strategic play.

[questioneer]

What other games are as good as Dominion???

Honestly, not to be a homer, but none IMHO.

Reasons:

Fast, Easy to learn yet hard to Master, even non-gamers play it and get addicted. 

I have not seen a game that tops this.  Sure Catan, Puerto Rico, Railway games, Deep strategy or Euro Games are great but the impact Dominion has is unmatched.  It will go down as a classic like Risk, Monopoly and Catan.

[theory]

It wasn't until I tried Dominion on the passive recommendation of a fellow Twilight Struggle player (who-may-or-may-not-be-an-administrator-of-these-forums [thanks, man  ]) that I discovered that there was such a thing as a "deep" Euro.

By the way, Twilight Struggle is the only game I would put on par with Dominion.  But Hanabi is rapidly rising up the ranks.  And Tichu is close behind, although the more I learn Bridge the less interested in Tichu I am.

[Tables]

It has a huge catalogue of issues, and it only appeals to a certain group of gamers, and it really needs a good group to get into the mood for it... but Battlestar Galactica is one of my favourite games, and has been for the past year. It's worlds apart from Dominion, and can really drag on sometimes, but it tends to be tense and exciting, and if you know the series somewhat it can be a great game to play with just a little in character dialogue.

Because let's be honest, what's more fun than spending an hour building up trust, only to get XO'd (extra actions) and use it to bring humanity to the brink of destruction in just thirty seconds?

[popsofctown]

Is Twilight Struggle a nickname for Vampire: the Eternal Struggle or its own thing?

When I think about games from a design perspective, Dominion might be the best one I've played.  I like MtG, but I don't know if that's because it has more expansions, and decent flavor (Dominion has the worst art and flavor of any game I can think of, sorry if I offend).

Dominion inspires me to want to try to make my own game that takes elements of what makes it good.  I'm going to get a digital or physical prototype of something before the summer is over (I need to find more Conspirators collaborators).

Dominion takes a good part of ccgs, selecting counterstrategies and synergies, but then puts the choices midgame.  CCGs force a rock paper scissors meta, designing cards in a way that removes a degenerate best strategy.  In Dominion there might be a degenerate best strategy, but it's very frequently hard to discover.  Boards often offer rock, paper, and scissors, but you aren't locked into any of those choices before a tournament even begins, and it's often hard to design when you can make the first throw and be safe. 

In lots of ways it reminds me of Starcraft.  Which is a really good, deep, balanced game but a bit of a toughie for me as my IQ tester said I'm "smart, but slow".

I really hope someone makes a derivative game like Dominion that trades some of the low barrier to entry for additional quality (if such an exchange is possible).

[Kirian]

Is Twilight Struggle a nickname for Vampire: the Eternal Struggle or its own thing?

Twilight Struggle is about the Cold War.  Vampires of a different sort.

That said, a setting with both vampires and Cold War troubles would certainly be interesting, but probably not for a game.

[Morgrim7]

I just played Settelers of Catan with some friends, pretty good, some good strategic value, but mostly dice luck.
Nowhere near close to Dominion, though.

[timchen]

I don't think Power Grid is that deep. Complicated, yes, but not that deep.

Very often your decision comes to what you expect to appear next in the power plant market. I guess you can always play safe and take an acceptable/low risk route, but that also means very often you will lose to ok players who just luck out. And for a game lasting hours, it's not that easy to wait the luck to average out.

[jotheonah]

I just discovered Small World, which is basically Risk minus all the shitty things about Risk. It's fast-paced, because the goal is having a lot of territory quickly rather than building up to a world-conquering endgame. It's harder to get locked out because you can always go into decline and start over. The luck factor is mostly mitigated, but with just enough left in to preserve the fun element to rolling in Risk. Finally, the game is different every time because of how the races change. I love it.

Also, my group has started playing Sentinels of the Multiverse, which is a little bit like Munchkin if it took itself more seriously. It's cool because all the players work together against the game like in Pandemic. Games like that are great if your group tends to get competitive to the point of not having fun, or to cool down after a game got too competitive. The only thing about Sentinels is apparently once you've beaten all the bad guys a certain number of times the game is not that fun anymore. But there are expansions, extant and forthcoming.

[popsofctown]

My brother loves Settlers of Catan.  At first I didn't like it because of the diplomacy, but then our extended family realized the diplomacy is degenerate - if you adopt a tit-for-tat strategy with the thief, the strategy dominates.  (Computer programs playing multiple games of Prisoner's Dilemma also are optimized by the tit-for-tat strategy, and a decision between two players whether to thief eachother is modelled by Prisoner's Dilemma).
I've moved on to disliking it because of the luck.  A game we played the other night went about 40 turns without a roll of 6, ticking off my little brother who likes the game more than anyone else since he built on that.
I feel like there's other games with better diplomacy and other games with better gameplay.  But Catan is great as a gateway drug to euro games because it's so easy to pick up.  And that also makes it great for families.

I enjoyed Smallworld a lot.  The luck factor is virtually nonexistent there, it's virtually chess consistency.  I enjoyed 1v1 games a lot, my playing partner doesn't play with me anymore so I traded Smallworld for Dominion Base Set.

I need to trade Axis and Allies for something.  Is there a site for board game swapping somewhere?

[qmech]

Computer programs playing multiple games of Prisoner's Dilemma also are optimized by the tit-for-tat strategy

That's a slight overreach: iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is a hard problem that doesn't obviously have a best strategy.  Tit-for-tat is pretty handy in practice though.

I believe BGG has a trading system, but I don't know how effective it is.

[Davio]

I agree a lot with Settlers being a good gateway game. Also, because of its popularity there's a decent chance any group you're looking to invade with your vast amount of board games has heard of it and maybe played it. This can save a lot of time and animosity against new games.

I also found out that you shouldn't be afraid to try out new games. A lot of excellent games out there that lie beyond the horizon of Settlers aren't actually that difficult to teach/learn. A telltale sign of a good game is when you can kind of figure out what to do in one turn.

Stone Age is one of my go to games for this: Every turn the same options are available, although the cards and buildings differ. But all you need is a quick lookup of "what does this do?" and you can continue with the game. A game like Caylus is on the other end of the spectrum, because the landscape is constantly changing and players need to adapt to the new buildings that are available.

And to answer the title question: 7 Wonders.
Boo to the naysayers, 7 Wonders has that rare quality that I never mind it and always enjoy a game of it.
I remember when this game just came out and was hyped over the moon and of course I jumped in as well.
Now, a year later, we can look back calmly. And still I'm not disappointed by 7W.
If a game can keep me interested for so long (a year is pretty long in the boardgaming world with the sheer amount of games they're putting out) it deserves a spot in my top X. 7W is certainly up there, along with Dominion. Dominion has kept my attention since I first played it over a year ago.

[Kuildeous]

I just discovered Small World, which is basically Risk minus all the shitty things about Risk. It's fast-paced, because the goal is having a lot of territory quickly rather than building up to a world-conquering endgame. It's harder to get locked out because you can always go into decline and start over.

Another way to avoid getting locked out is to pull up all your troops and conquer a different part of the board. This is a good way to get around someone who reinforces his "front line." You can swoop in along his entry point. If you are in need of single-token spaces (as Orcs or Sorcerers), this move can work. Usually, though, it's not worth the points you lose for abandoning those territories, but if you stuck between two powerhouses that have made it difficult for you to spread out, this is certainly a viable option. It's also an effective way to beat down the lead player with a surprise attack.

[theory]

I just played Settelers of Catan with some friends, pretty good, some good strategic value, but mostly dice luck.
Nowhere near close to Dominion, though.

Catan's skill comes in opening placement (which is rather more than just getting all the resources, or the most pips), mid-game priorities (you often have to give up something you want for something you need), and social skills (trading effectively).

I think Power Grid is fairly deep.  Recognizing which power plants to "settle" for and which are not is part of the game.  Sometimes the right decision loses because some godly plant arrives, but, hey, Treasure Map...

[popsofctown]

Computer programs playing multiple games of Prisoner's Dilemma also are optimized by the tit-for-tat strategy

That's a slight overreach: iterated Prisoner's Dilemma is a hard problem that doesn't obviously have a best strategy.  Tit-for-tat is pretty handy in practice though.

I believe BGG has a trading system, but I don't know how effective it is.

I read about some experiment somewhere where tit-for-tat was a frontrunner.  I'm okay with a slight overreach, my point is that the diplomacy gets watered down.

Settlers does have lots of strategy, it's just a very Treasure Mappy game.

[AHoppy]

So i just got a $25amazon gift card (but willing to spend a little more) and was looking into Pandemic or Power Grid.  Which one has more replay value?  Because I think that is the biggest thing about Dominion, is that it never gets old.

[eHalcyon]

Catan's skill comes in opening placement (which is rather more than just getting all the resources, or the most pips), mid-game priorities (you often have to give up something you want for something you need), and social skills (trading effectively).

Agreed about the placement.  You really have to evaluate the board.  Sometimes it's worth grabbing a 4 or 10 tile for a scarce resource (e.g. a brick tile where the others are 2/3/11/12), or taking a place of less value that gives you the best chance of expanding to another good area (or cutting off another player's expansion).  I usually try for balanced placements, trying to hit most or all of the resources if I can get them with decent pips.  My favourite opening is a desperation ploy though -- grabbing a 2:1 port and building almost solely for that resource.

Cities and Knights adds even more to the opening strategy.  You really, really want to hit Ore, Sheep and Wheat so you can get and activate a knight ASAP.  At the same time, you usually want to get your city on at least one of the Commodity-producing tiles.

I suddenly want to play Catan again.

[theory]

I suddenly want to play Catan again.

Catan is the game that I most want to play that I end up enjoying the least.

Power Grid is the game I least want to play that I end up enjoying the most.

[Kuildeous]

So i just got a $25amazon gift card (but willing to spend a little more) and was looking into Pandemic or Power Grid.  Which one has more replay value?  Because I think that is the biggest thing about Dominion, is that it never gets old.

I'd go with Pandemic.

I love Power Grid, but I generally do not play it more than once in a session. Even if I'm in the mood for a second game, I have to convince the other players.

I've noticed that Pandemic lends itself to more replays. You failed! Okay, try it again. Actually, many co-op games are that way. You failed, so now you HAVE to play again. It seems that when you win, you're less inclined to immediately play another game. But that may just be me.

Although, Power Grid is fun, so you should definitely consider getting that at some point.

[AHoppy]

So i just got a $25amazon gift card (but willing to spend a little more) and was looking into Pandemic or Power Grid.  Which one has more replay value?  Because I think that is the biggest thing about Dominion, is that it never gets old.

I've noticed that Pandemic lends itself to more replays. You failed! Okay, try it again. Actually, many co-op games are that way. You failed, so now you HAVE to play again. It seems that when you win, you're less inclined to immediately play another game. But that may just be me.

I was thinking that pandemic would have less replay value because a) either we get frustrated at it and stop playing or b) we become too good at it and it becomes less of a challenge.  I've only played it about 3 times, and it was 2 player and we won all 3 times... so that's the only reason I hesitate.  Another question is How long is a game of Power Grid/Pandemic?  Because the people I play with are less inclined to play games like Agricola (my personal favorite) and Puerto Rico now that they're used to short Dominion games...

[Geronimoo]

I haven't played Pandemic yet, but I have played Space Alert which is an awesome co-op game. If you like a little chaos in your gaming, definitely get that one (it's by Vlaada Chvatil who also designed Galaxy Trucker)

[Kuildeous]

I was thinking that pandemic would have less replay value because a) either we get frustrated at it and stop playing or b) we become too good at it and it becomes less of a challenge.  I've only played it about 3 times, and it was 2 player and we won all 3 times... so that's the only reason I hesitate.  Another question is How long is a game of Power Grid/Pandemic?  Because the people I play with are less inclined to play games like Agricola (my personal favorite) and Puerto Rico now that they're used to short Dominion games...

I guess it depends on how one approaches failure.

In most co-op games, when our group loses, we say, "Well, that sucked. Let's see if we can learn from our mistakes."

Granted, if you don't make mistakes and get trounced anyway, then that doesn't really encourage you to try again. When you first start a game, there are plenty of learning experiences. So, it's easy at first to say, "That didn't work; what if we try it this way?"

I think the length of the game matters too. I'm more inclined to play another game of Red November than I am with Shadows over Camelot or Lord of the Rings.

But I do agree that some defeats are more crushing than others. I love Ghost Stories, but every game is so draining, especially when you lose before you can even get to the final fight. I haven't played Pandemic enough times to get to that point, but I can see how it could drain some players. Although, if you consistently beat the game, then that can also be discouraging. You have to make the game tougher then (not sure if Pandemic's expansion is a good buy or not; never played it).

With Power Grid, your failure is usually based on someone else's good strategy (and maybe some power plant randomness). At least you can improve your game by watching the others. It seems to me that PG has longer games, so I don't view it as having a high replayabilty factor in the same night. Lifetime replayability? Sure. I guess I should have specified that I was focusing on replaying in the same game session. And even then, while Pandemic qualifies for that due to time, it depends on how masochistic you are after you get your butt kicked. I guess I'm a sucker. I'm the type of player who gets trashed in Galaxy Trucker and then says, "Again, again!"

I haven't played Agricola yet, but I've played Le Havre, which I understand is similar. If Le Havre is any indication, Agricola is a longer game than Power Grid. Although, like Le Havre, you can choose to play a shorter game of Power Grid. I personally am not a fan of cutting the game short like that, but the option is there. A shortened game of Power Grid probably runs shorter than a Pandemic game, I would estimate.

Something else that contributes to Power Grid's replayability is buying extra boards. I only have the base game, but my friend has several different boards. It's not just the placement either. The resources differ. I don't remember the specifics, but I recall that playing in China was quite a bit different from the base game.

[Kirian]

I highly recommend Pandemic, because of its length (~40 min) as Kuildeous suggests.  Power Grid is ~90 minutes and doesn't play well with fewer than 4 players.

As far as "Will we get too good at Pandemic?" the answer is:  when you do, an another Epidemic card.  And when you get good enough at playing with 5, try adding 6. In addition, the expansion gives Pandemic a much larger replay value.

[ftl]

Pandemic gets noticeably harder as you go up in number of players. My girlfriend and I have a pretty high win rate with 6 epidemics in 2-player, probably something like 70%, but in 4 player even 5 epidemics is really tough.

Expansion is worth it once you get acclimated to the base game and like it, IMO. All the added roles and the Mutant strain add a lot of variety, and the virulent strain and the extra epidemic card can up the challenge level a lot.

[questioneer]

If anyone is interested in buying a mint, brand new 10th Anniversary Puerto Rico ($70) or a mint, brand new Risk Legacy ($50) PM me.  Thanks

[qmech]

questioneer
Swindler

[popsofctown]

Are cooperative games good?  I saw one at the store and was curious.  Cooperating in video games is really fun, I don't know about how a board game would be.

Only co-op game I remember being mentioned in this thread was on a timer and I don't think that's for me, I'm a sit down and drink coffee kinda player.

[ftl]

Pandemic is cooperative, it's been discussed a little earlier in this thread. It's pretty fun.

[O]

Are cooperative games good?  I saw one at the store and was curious.  Cooperating in video games is really fun, I don't know about how a board game would be.

Only co-op game I remember being mentioned in this thread was on a timer and I don't think that's for me, I'm a sit down and drink coffee kinda player.

It really depends on what type of player you are. I can't stand Pandemic, others love it.

[Young Nick]

I am not a huge fan of cooperative games. I've played a bit of Forbidden Island and Pandemic (aka Pandemic Jr. and Pandemic). I do not enjoy the game mainly because I like playing AGAINST my friends as opponents. Also, though, I feel that the game ends up devolving into one person (usually the most experienced or assertive player) controlling the rest, and thus you don't make as many decisions on your own. I know that there are special rules that prevent this from happening, but still, it can be frustrating.

The timer that you mentioned was probably a house rule/variant to make the game more challenging for players. I know for either Pandemic and Forbidden Island, no timer is necessary.

[ftl]

It is likely that he was referring to Space Alert, which is a cooperative game that runs on a timer and was also mentioned earlier in this thread.

[jsh357]

Can't Stop


... Is he joking??

[Kuildeous]

Are cooperative games good?  I saw one at the store and was curious.  Cooperating in video games is really fun, I don't know about how a board game would be.

Cooperative games can be very fun, but it depends on your play style and the group. A bad group can make a cooperative game very unpleasant. As one person mentioned, there's the tendency for one person to see the big picture and dictate what other players should do on their turns. I'm guilty of that, but I work really hard to back off and let players make their own mistakes (which sometimes aren't the mistakes I thought they would be). Basically, such a player should consider playing the game solo for the same effect.

There's also the problem with a player making a bad mistake. Then everyone has to contend with that. That player might feel bad about screwing over the rest of the team. Or he might not. I think that would be worse.

Then there's luck. In the all-against-the-board format, the board needs to be set up so that it can fight back. I'm sure this can be done with luckless elements, but that basically turns it into a puzzle. And sometimes you have bad luck. Maybe in Shadows over Camelot, you lose Excalibur before anyone has a chance to react; maybe in Red November, the Kraken shows up when only one person has a chance of getting out there to defeat it; and maybe in Ghost Stories, all of the powerful ghosts are clumped together so they hit you all at once instead of being spread out. Bad luck can make a game feel so depressing. I think Lord of the Rings might minimize luck the most since you can usually see what you are stepping into, but most of the hazards are offset by the cards in your hand, which are of course governed by luck.

In general, cooperative games are exclusively players versus the board, but there are some games where you can have player vs. player. In Shadows over Camelot, you can introduce the traitor. One player is actually working against you, but that player needs to play his cards carefully. If he tips everyone off, then he can be accused. He's not out of the game if he's revealed, but he can't screw over the players as much if that happens. In Red November, it's possible for one of the players to jump ship in the last 10 minutes. If the submarine is destroyed, then he wins. If it survives, then he's tried and executed for cowardice (well, I assume that's what happens). I've never played Battlestar Galactica, but I understand there's a traitor element in there too.

If you have questions about one, see if someone in your gaming group has a copy. Give it a try. If not, well, you'll have to bite the bullet. People have varying opinions about which game is best. For example, I love Red November far more than the BGG ratings would indicate. By contrast, I enjoy Shadows over Camelot, but I don't really jump for joy when it's pulled out. I do agree that Ghost Stories is a great game.

I suppose that you could start off with one of the simpler games and see how that goes. No sense frustrating your group if they're too busy grokking the rules. In that case, I would suggest Pandemic, I think. Red November is also simple, but the rulebook is pretty horrid to read (in the earlier printing; not sure about the big box). I'd save Ghost Stories and Lord of the Rings for a much later time.

[Cataphract]

I think the revised version of Arcana is pretty good, also Rune Age is a good one.

[jotheonah]

I played a game from RG about beans - something like Bohnanza? Anyway, it was surprisingly fun and interesting.

[eHalcyon]

I played a game from RG about beans - something like Bohnanza? Anyway, it was surprisingly fun and interesting.

I've played it before and it's pretty neat.  Link:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/11/bohnanza



If you're looking for 2-player games, I highly recommend Hive:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2655/hive

[jotheonah]

Yeah, I'm don't put a huge emphasis on flavor, but I was like "Seriously? BEANS?"

But mechanics-wise, not too shabby. It sort of bugged me that the gold coins are just facedown bean cards, because it removes cards from the deck seemingly at random for the second two times through. I wonder how the game plays if you score with markers instead.

[Young Nick]

I thought Bohnanza was better known! It's a fun game, albeit there is lots of politics. It's been a staple in my gaming group.

If you didn't make face-down coins, the game would lose a lot of strategy. There's something to be said for remembering how different the deck will look on its second and third passes. What I don't like is how you use those coins for purchasing a 3rd bean field. If I remember correctly, you can pick and choose which coins (aka which beans) you purchase the bean field with. It's always felt like a weird, unfair way to manipulate the game to me.

Don't play with the expansions; they are not worth it. Do not play it competitively; the politics makes it far too frustrating.

[eHalcyon]

One other game I really liked when I was younger was Bang.  It's partially a hidden information game, like Mafia.  Anyone familiar with it?  More recently I've been playing a Chinese rip-off of it called San Guo Sha.  While it is largely a re-themed carbon-copy, it actually makes the game so much more fun via the myriad of different characters.

[ftl]

Bang! is a lot of fun, I have it and get to play it on occasion. Best with 5 or 7 players IMO.

[theory]

What I don't like is how you use those coins for purchasing a 3rd bean field. If I remember correctly, you can pick and choose which coins (aka which beans) you purchase the bean field with. It's always felt like a weird, unfair way to manipulate the game to me.

This is incorrect: you must use your "most recent" coins.

[Young Nick]

What I don't like is how you use those coins for purchasing a 3rd bean field. If I remember correctly, you can pick and choose which coins (aka which beans) you purchase the bean field with. It's always felt like a weird, unfair way to manipulate the game to me.

This is incorrect: you must use your "most recent" coins.

Gah! I forgot about that. Still, it feels wrong to put coins back. I would rather you subtract the 3rd bean field price after the game's end. I played with the wrong rules for at least two years (something about how we thought you could plant a bean, instantly harvest it, and then plant another bean in the same field) so it does not surprise me that we were doing this wrong, too.

[questioneer]

Just played 7Wonders over the weekend.  This game is definitely as good as Dominion.  Fast, easy to play and complex at the same time. 

Shadows over Camelot is great also for cooperative game- anybody will seem to play it and it gives a great experience.

I think the trend in boardgames is for more fast games like Dominion that still add some complexity with expansions and such.  Games that take over 90min are tedious to most, though I like a long wargame like Axis and Allies or War of the Ring 3-4 times a year.  Catan is a tweener- still can play it in around 60-90min.  Games like Puerto Rico, Agricola and Le Harve are just too long though simplier types of these games are being made now.

[WanderingWinder]

7 Wonders is sorta neat, but there's so many different paths that seem a little random, but moreover it lacks depth. I would say it's good, but not as good as Dominion.
Also, when you say Catan.... I assume you mean Settlers? Or more precisely, this is the name of the Xbox version of settlers, but there are several other "Catan" games: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Settlers_of_Catan_games

[Ozle]

7 Wonders is alright, but suffers really really badly from Kingmaking unless all the other players are of equal skill.
Enough that I would never consider it anything more as a way to pass the time rather than a must have for a proper gaming night.

This affects a lot of games of course, but in a passing game its increased and in 7W its just too much for me.

Settlers of Catan is good, as is Carcassonne, but then both of those are classics.
I just recently purchased Stone Age which is enjoyable, but im not sure on its longetivity.

Dominion is still the only real one with such great replayability for me

[jotheonah]

How do people feel about Carcassone expansions? Do they significantly improve the game? Are some better than others? What about that one with the dragon? Dragons are cool.

[jotheonah]

Would it be (A) cool or (B) kinda lame if Dark Ages had a Dragon card?

[Ozle]

Dragons are extremely cool, but I dont think it adds much to Carcassone unless your bored with the general game.

Inns and Cathedrals is a must buy expansion for me, as it makes Roads actually useful to have again (and Cities more useful)

And Builders and Traders works from there as well (making cities more valuable) and also allows farms to be scored early

Both make the game less dependant on stealing ownership of one big farm to win at the end.

[Ozle]

I dont have many of the smaller expansions, because I know they wouldnt get used every time.

In the same way my friends ask that we sometimes dont include Alchemy from Dominion sets we own.

[Donald X.]

How do people feel about Carcassone expansions? Do they significantly improve the game? Are some better than others? What about that one with the dragon? Dragons are cool.

Hunters & Gatherers is a standalone that's basically a fixed version of the main game. I recommend always playing it over regular Carcassonne. And then it only has one expansion, and that one a mini, and I've never played it.

[Cataphract]

Omen-Reign of War is a killer game!

[Teproc]

How do people feel about Carcassone expansions? Do they significantly improve the game? Are some better than others? What about that one with the dragon? Dragons are cool.

The original expansion, with Cathedrals and Inns, is almost essential. Cathedrals add an interesting dynamic to big cities, making them both risky and extremely profitable in certain situations, which makes the meadow-war less important.

Then, Builders & Traders is really good. The architect is cool, and it again goes in the way of re-balancing the game by making cities and roads more attractive, so that every game isn't decided on meadows.


7 Wonders doesn't really suffer from kingmaking. Bad players are rarely presented with the choice to make somebody win, since the somewhat complicated point system makes it so people only have a vague idea of who is leading.

But yes, if your neighbors are bad, you'll probably win. Which is why you should play at 3-4 players if you want a really strategic game. There's still the luck of the draw, but... we're Dominion players, aren't we ? Luck of the draw is what gives the game replayability, along with the 14 wonders and the expansion(s). At 5+, it's much less strategic, but it's still a fun game with solid strategic elements that plays in less than an hour, which there aren't a ton of others when you're that many.

[Cataphract]

Another card game that I like, is Palastgefluster... a great 3 - 5 player "take that! / screw your neighbor game". Very affordable too, try to get it if possible, its a German release only... but not language dependent.

[DStu]

Palastgefluster [...] but not language dependent.

Except for the name. Here, I'll donate an 'ü' for you...

[Captain_Frisk]

How do people feel about Carcassone expansions? Do they significantly improve the game? Are some better than others? What about that one with the dragon? Dragons are cool.

Hunters & Gatherers is a standalone that's basically a fixed version of the main game. I recommend always playing it over regular Carcassonne. And then it only has one expansion, and that one a mini, and I've never played it.

Also - Carc: The Castle is an Excellent 2p version of Carc.

[Razzishi]

I first played Seven Wonders a few weeks ago and was really impressed with the mechanics, but found with 6 newish players it was pretty random.  Still, I loved the mechanics as someone who loves drafting Magic, so I looked a bit more into it.  I've played it online at jeuxsurunplateau.com a bunch in the last week and have found it rather intriguing (even if it is in French).   After playing 20 games or so and reading up a bit I think with 3 players it's very nearly as deep as Dominion; in such a game, everything you do effects the whole board and you theoretically know where every single card of that age is after the first card is drafted (you just don't yet know which guilds you haven't seen).  There are a ton of things to pay attention to, and each decision you make will probably have implications on the way the game will develop.  In large games you really can't expect anything to come back, but in 3-player you can pretty well guess what you're going to get back around.  The ability to foresee what things might happen as the game progresses is a very important skill and adds significantly to the depth of the game.

There are a few things I'm not a huge fan of though.  First, you have to memorize costs that are sometimes a bit random if you want to get better; I'd much prefer if things were standardized in some way so that it wasn't just straight-up memorizing.  Second, and this ties in with the first, you don't know what guilds you're going to see until you actually see them and their costs are all over the map.  Worker's requires at least one of each raw material, Trader's one of each manufactured good.  Two of them have 3 Wood, two of them have 3 Clay.  They just don't lend themselves to memorization, and the incentive to memorize them is lower than for the other cards, so it's pretty random when it comes to being able to build the guilds that are in each game.  Third, I think the game is slightly too short.  I think I'd prefer one more play per age or perhaps 3 more plays Age 3.  That said, having a very restricted number of plays is part of what makes the game hard to master, and currently 2 plays per pack each Age balances the 3 player game quite nicely (part of why I think 3 more Age 3 might work).

So yeah, after playing a bunch of 3-player, I'm not too keen on playing 6- or 7- player much; it almost feels like the difference between Monopoly you play as a kid vs. the real rules.

edit: Ok, I'm probably overstating the depth of the game after thinking more about it, as Dominion is seemingly bottomless while Seven Wonders most certainly isn't.

[jotheonah]

New games I played at Connecticon (main focus was being on panels, but did have a little time for gaming):

Revolution! Weirdly simple but fun - can see this being great for a person who wants to host game nights with impatient/new to gaming people. The strategy is remarkably complex, in a rock-paper-scissors kind of way. I imagine playing it with friends would be totally different than playing it with strangers.  Maybe a few too many bells and whistles that drive the price up - would love to see a travel edition or other bare bones version.

Innovation I think I need to play this like 3 more times to have a verdict. To quote a meme "Can't tell if swingy and luck-based or I just suck."  But I can see it being really, really fun once you get to know the cards. Would love to hear more from veteran players.

Puerto Rico Yes, I finally crawled out from the rock I've been living under, etc., etc. But I definitely do see the appeal this has for so many people. The setup felt SO LONG, but I'm sure it qoes quick once you get into it.  Definitely seems to have a large strategy space and not all that much luck involved. Only got to play a 3-player game and didn't finish it, but enough to get the knack. Probably won't buy, but I hope someone I know does.

Tsuro Been wanting to play it since I saw it on Tabletop. It didn't disappoint. Very pretty board and pieces, too. I appreciate the simplicity and the aesthetic.

[Kuildeous]

I do like Revolution! There's an annoying little method where someone can get a lock on some of the good stuff, but I don't remember all of it. I mostly remember that you get a buttload of coins and use those to get Force and Blackmail in the lower corners, which you can then use to get more coins. Although, "lock" is a strong word. The other players can break it, but they have to recognize the threat and be willing to divert their own resources to do something about it. In such a competitive game, that can be kind of difficult. Still, I don't know if that lock is enough to really win, since that leaves plenty of other spaces open for other players to exploit. I do like how brutal it can get, especially at the end when Spy and Apothecary can make or break the game for you.

I am in the same boat as you regarding Innovation. I played it once. I feel like I woke up after an ether bender. I'm not wholly sure what I did in that game. I'm willing to give it another try, but it just didn't do it for me.

I agree that Puerto Rico's setup is kind of annoying. With experienced players, I could see starting the game without putting the buildings out there. Set up the buildings while others are playing. Of course, that cannot be done with the expansion. Fun game, but setup is a pain.

I've played a few games of Tsuro. Simple but elegant.

[questioneer]

Revolution and Catan are great but as far as short-time games with depth, replayability and value 7Wonders is probably the closest to Dominion status.

I really think that Dominion and 7Wonders are the new standard for successful games- easy to play, hard to master, replayable and fairly short ~30-40min tops with deeper strategies with the expansions.

Revolution and Catan take an hour so they aren't too bad.  Any game that takes over and hour will be hard to get people to play unless they are real gamers.

[ehunt]

i like galaxy trucker almost as much

[jotheonah]

THey had a copy of 7Wonders there, but it was always in use when I was there. Go figure.

[brokoli]

- 7 Wonders is almost as great as dominion. Without extension, it's already cool. But with Leaders and Cities, the game has a great replayability like Dominion with Intrigue or Seaside.
- Seasons is an excellent card game with strategies and combos.
- Race for the galaxy is very close to Dominion, but I don't really like it.

There are a lot of other very good boardgames, but more distant in term of mechanic.

[PenPen]

Been playing Dominion mostly lately (obviously). I also dabbled in some other board games too, I played Ticket to Ride a few times - it's quite easy to teach, yet it makes a fun competitive game. I also got the PC version off the Steam summer sale earlier for no reason. I'd say Ticket to Ride would be a very close competition to Dominion - easy to learn, hard to master, great fun.

I played Pandemic as well (for like half a dozen times) and it seemed like I'm the only one who was really interested in playing it (it was mostly played before I got to Dominion). As someone said above, for these co-op games it's very easy to have a dominant person take over the game and tell others to do blablabla, possibly ruining the experience. Pandemic also has the expansion (I forgot the name) that's pretty much a must-get if you want more roles to play with (I think it supports more people? I forgot) along with some alternate game modes.

I haven't played it with anyone yet, but I have a copy of Flash Point: Fire Rescue sitting along with my other games. I did a test run myself (since in my group I'm the guy explaining everything) and as a co-op game, I think it is as good as Pandemic, but the gameplay may be a little more complex with the fire spreading and wall destroying in comparison to Pandemic.

Power Grid is great but it also requires some calculations. It's not easy to get your head around the game initially (since the game runs in 3 phases instead of just one), but once you got the idea (that it's not just buying resources for yourself and make money off it), it's great. It works with pretty much as many players as it can allow. I wish I could play more.

I actually got around to play a more obscure game called Vinhos where you run a vineyard in Portugal and make wines. The board looks crazy, but it's actually not that intimidating, it just needs to be explained. I played this once with my friends and they think it's fun (even though we got like 2-3 minor things wrong). It's also a strategy game that requires some pre-planning. It's good, but getting non-board gamers to play after seeing the board is part of the challenge (or an initiation).

Me and my friends got to try 7 Wonders and it didn't click. They were like "Oh, you just pass cards around?" "Wait, what does this do again?" and lost interest in it quickly (the game was actually abandoned). Different strokes for different folks I suppose. They were much more receptive to Dominion, where they get more satisfaction immediately ("oooo I can use money to get more money!").

[theory]

I played Sunrise City this weekend and loved it.  Growing up, SimCity was one of my favorite computer games, and this brought back a lot of those memories.

It's not really that much like SimCity, but it scratches the itch close enough.

[DG]

Have a look at City Tycoon if you like city builders. It's not top drawer but it's good.

[Synthesizer]

I played Ascension a couple weeks ago and was dazzled by how it somehow managed to combine every aspect I hate about Dominion into a standalone game.

Opinions vary... which "aspects you hate" are you talking about? Ascension was my first deck builder and I still really like it...
It is not such a luck-fest as people claim - otherwise my wife wouldn't beat me this often! (i.e. better players win more than their fair share, but much less than 100% of all games)

Apart from the deckbuilding mechanic, it is quite different from Dominion though, I agree with that. There is no such concept as "actions" or "buys" - you can play any card you have from your hand any time during the main phase of your turn, and can buy or gain as many cards as you can afford. This makes for very quick ramp up of decks, and it eliminates dead-draws. You can switch between buying and drawing etc. and back again for as much as you like...

In Dominion you purchase "cards that do stuff (which might also give you money)" and "cards that just give you money", both of which will help you get "cards that don't do stuff, but provide points". In Ascension, almost all cards provide effects, points as well as currency. There are two types of currency: runes  and power. You spend runes to acquire new cards for your deck, and power to kill monsters. Each cards is worth points but it's not dead, it "does stuff" (i.e. give you runes and/or power, as well as draw, gain, trash or throne-room-like effects, or anything I haven't thought of now). Killing a monster will get you bonuses as well and will give you point tokens; this is a limited supply and the game ends when this supply is empty.

The supply works different from Dominion as well - there are always 6 randomly dealt cards in a "marketplace"; if you buy, kill or gain one, then that card is immediately replaced, so that you can also get its replacement during the same turn. All cards in the game are shuffled in one giant deck, which you don't typically run through during a game, so there is no guarantee that all your combo pieces will come up; the winner is mostly determined on reacting accordingly (and yes, you can win if the opponent gets turn 1 Arbiter of the Precipice and you don't). If there is nothing worthwile to buy or kill, there is a giant stack of vanilla money or power givers, as well as a limitless supply of a vanilla type of monster as consolation prizes.

The game lends itself to really big combo's which are very fun to play. Which is also its biggest weakness because these same combo's are a lot less fun to observe (ref: village-smithy-village-smithy-etc....-"Then I'm done with my action phase, so I'll play 7 coppers, and buy..., an..., (pause to think)..., I know, another village!" )

In addition, there is a world of difference between 2 players and more-than-2 players. There are a few monster-killing-effects that provide player interaction, but the bulk of the interaction is through the marketplace from which you can buy cards. In that respect, it's not so much a deck-building game as it is a "prevent your opponent from building a cohesive deck" game. i.e., you win not so much by what you get yourself, but by what you deny your opponent. And of course, this creates an unbalance with >2 players: either the one sitting to the left of the weakest player wins, or one player denies anything useful to his left neighbour while also eliminating himself -  such that player 3 wins.

I hear this is completely undone by using the 2v2 team rules provided you have 4 players; but I haven't tried those. After a few hundred games of Ascension, Dominion was gifted to us and it was the "new thing". In addition, the medieval-kingdom theme fares a lot better than the fantasy-world-elves-and-other-creatures-killing-monsters theme with our group of friends, so it takes loads of effort to get this game onto the table...

Oh well, just wanted to share my point of view.

[RichardNixon]

Imperial.

It isn't a card game, but it's a really good investment game cloaked as a war game with immense re-playability.

It's a stock investment game with tanks. What more could anyone possible need?

[blueblimp]

The game lends itself to really big combo's which are very fun to play.

Weird, I found the opposite about Ascension. (To be fair, I've only played it on the iPad vs an AI.)

There are very few cards that draw 2 or more cards, so you can't draw even a small deck. So your big combos are limited to tiny decks with lots of cantrips. But trashers mostly just trash one card at a time, so it takes ages to get to this deck size even if you are lucky enough to get an early trasher. And your opponent wants cantrips too, so it's not easy to load up on them.

The only reliable exception I've seen is the Storm of Souls expansion when the Enlightened event is up, when you can smack Fanatics to go through a ton of cards in one turn.

[Tombolo]

I've only played a few Ascension games, and those against an AI, but most of the time I managed to get to the point where I'd trashed everything I wanted to trash and had to stop using the forced trash cards.  I wound up being able to play my deck in most of those games.

[chwhite]

Imperial.

It isn't a card game, but it's a really good investment game cloaked as a war game with immense re-playability.

It's a stock investment game with tanks. What more could anyone possible need?

I've always described Imperial as thus (warning, quasi-RSP content ahead):

"It is Spring, 1901.  And you are Halliburton."

It is one of the most cynical and subversive games I've ever played, and it's fantastic.  It's been years since I've had a chance to play it, though.  Need to fix that.

[Archetype]

I really enjoy Acquire.

It's an extremely fun, but old game, like Diplomacy, that's been remade by Avalon Hill.

It's a very smart, tile-placing game based on the Stock Market.

The game flows really smoothly and strategies can change at the placing at a tile, and you never know who's winner until it's over.

The problem is, it can cause a bit of AP over which tile to lay (even though usually it won't matter) or which share to buy (even though they aren't majority or minority).

Has anyone else played it?

[Axxle]

I've played Ascension a few times, it always seems impossible to slim down your deck with the few trash cards that come up.  There's like maybe 4 that show up per game that only trash one card from hand or discard.  That takes too long especially with how fast the game goes with 4 players.

[Synthesizer]

The game lends itself to really big combo's which are very fun to play.

Weird, I found the opposite about Ascension. (To be fair, I've only played it on the iPad vs an AI.)

There are very few cards that draw 2 or more cards, so you can't draw even a small deck. So your big combos are limited to tiny decks with lots of cantrips. But trashers mostly just trash one card at a time, so it takes ages to get to this deck size even if you are lucky enough to get an early trasher. And your opponent wants cantrips too, so it's not easy to load up on them.

The only reliable exception I've seen is the Storm of Souls expansion when the Enlightened event is up, when you can smack Fanatics to go through a ton of cards in one turn.

It is true that there are not many cards that draw loads of cards, and that trashers don't trash many cards. But this is completely offset by the fact that dead draw doesn't exist, there is no need to buy any cards that are completely dead (Estates, Duchies and Provinces in Dominion) and there are loads of cards that draw one card (no really, if you missed them, you had a messed up game). The constructs (these are like durations, except they stay out) help you to keep a slim-enough deck. It is true that often you don't draw your whole deck; but is that really necessary? In Dominion it is a good thing usually, because it guarantees consistency, but in Ascension the Center Row (the marketplace) keeps changing so much that consistency doesn't really pay off anyway. Perhaps you made the mistake I make too often: can't afford/want to buy anything from the center row, buy a bunch of Heavy Infantry and/or Mystics, such that I get bogged down and return to step 1: can't afford/want to buy anything from the center row.
In Dominion that might happen as well: you are trying to build an engine, have 3$ and a buy, do you buy a silver, a herbalist, a chancellor, or do you take the secret option: nothing? Heavy Infantry and Mystics have pretty much a similar effect on your Ascension deck as a silver has on your Dominion deck!

I only own base (Chronicle of the Godslayer) and Return of the Fallen (and my telephone can only be used for old-fashioned stuff, such as talking to people who are not near you , and by the end of the game I am usually chaining stuff up, barring the rare circumstance where I completely messed up, or where I loaded up on constructs too much and someone else manages to keep killing sea tyrants and corrosive widows, or similar situations.  Please do note: everything I talk about is 2 player. Haven't played more than a handful of games with >2 players, and none with experienced opponents.


EDIT: what I don't think came across good enough: it's still chaining even if it doesn't draw your whole deck.

[Jorbles]

There's been a lot of talk about Ascension, but I'm curious what people have to say about Quarriors (the dice-deck building game)? I played it and thought it had neat mechanics, but I thought the game ramped up really quickly, and it was over before we really got to get our dice to do much of the neat things I wanted them to. I was playing 2 player and there's a greater likelihood of your creatures living to the scoring phase in 2p because less people are attacking you. Does the game balance itself out to a slower more strategic game with more players? 2p seemed kinda borked.

[Axxle]

I found quarriors ends much too quickly, even in a larger group. It never really feels like I built a deck before it's over.

[Insomniac]

There's been a lot of talk about Ascension, but I'm curious what people have to say about Quarriors (the dice-deck building game)? I played it and thought it had neat mechanics, but I thought the game ramped up really quickly, and it was over before we really got to get our dice to do much of the neat things I wanted them to. I was playing 2 player and there's a greater likelihood of your creatures living to the scoring phase in 2p because less people are attacking you. Does the game balance itself out to a slower more strategic game with more players? 2p seemed kinda borked.

This is true of most Quarriors games, with the expansion it slows down a bit sometimes but its normally over as it begins.

[shMerker]

I really enjoy Acquire.

It's an extremely fun, but old game, like Diplomacy, that's been remade by Avalon Hill.

It's a very smart, tile-placing game based on the Stock Market.

The game flows really smoothly and strategies can change at the placing at a tile, and you never know who's winner until it's over.

The problem is, it can cause a bit of AP over which tile to lay (even though usually it won't matter) or which share to buy (even though they aren't majority or minority).

Has anyone else played it?

I love Acquire. You get to wave around fat stacks of cash like in Monopoly but unlike in Monopoly you get to make a lot of meaningful decisions and the game moves pretty steadily toward a definite conclusion.

I think it's honestly pretty ok to be sort of cavalier about tile-placement a lot of the time. What's important about the tiles is they give you some information about where the market is headed in the short term and also let you exert some influence over when a particular deal takes place. I've had games where I got an important merger tile early on and just held it until the end of the game. Meanwhile two other players bought up all the stock in both chains, assuming a merger would be right around the corner, and ended up having to just sit on it.

[Polk5440]

I really enjoy Acquire.

It's an extremely fun, but old game, like Diplomacy, that's been remade by Avalon Hill.

It's a very smart, tile-placing game based on the Stock Market.

The game flows really smoothly and strategies can change at the placing at a tile, and you never know who's winner until it's over.

The problem is, it can cause a bit of AP over which tile to lay (even though usually it won't matter) or which share to buy (even though they aren't majority or minority).

Has anyone else played it?

I love Acquire. You get to wave around fat stacks of cash like in Monopoly but unlike in Monopoly you get to make a lot of meaningful decisions and the game moves pretty steadily toward a definite conclusion.

I think it's honestly pretty ok to be sort of cavalier about tile-placement a lot of the time. What's important about the tiles is they give you some information about where the market is headed in the short term and also let you exert some influence over when a particular deal takes place. I've had games where I got an important merger tile early on and just held it until the end of the game. Meanwhile two other players bought up all the stock in both chains, assuming a merger would be right around the corner, and ended up having to just sit on it.

I also love Acquire. It's fun and plays in a reasonable amount of time (usually about 45 minutes to an hour for me). Some people don't like the accounting aspect of it, though (calculating stock value all the time). That's much more of a concern than AP when deciding whether to pick it up and play. I would not categorize Acquire as one that has so many decisions it induces AP.

[ConMan]

One other game I really liked when I was younger was Bang.  It's partially a hidden information game, like Mafia.  Anyone familiar with it?  More recently I've been playing a Chinese rip-off of it called San Guo Sha.  While it is largely a re-themed carbon-copy, it actually makes the game so much more fun via the myriad of different characters.

I played San Guo Sha once. It was a bit difficult, since I know approximately 15 words of Mandarin, none of which were particularly helpful in reading the cards, but I was teamed up with my girlfriend (who is Singaporean) against some other Singaporeans of varying skill levels in the game. I can imagine that if I had the full translation of all the cards in front of me it's a pretty cool variation on Bang.

I am a huge fan of Innovation, but it is definitely a game that will not be to everyone's tastes - almost every turn the board can change drastically, so it's much more of a tactical game than a strategic one. I haven't been brave enough to get the "Echoes of the Past" expansion as I haven't heard fantastic things about it - mostly that it tries to introduce about 3 new mechanics at once - but the second expansion, "Figures in the Sand", sounds like it might be a bit better.

[Axxle]

I know approximately 15 words of Mandarin

I know all 22 words of mandarin:

Put
a
card
from
your
hand
on
top
of
deck
When
you
gain
this
all
Treasures
have
in
play
any
order


Oh, and "Action"

[Morgrim7]

Hey, guys, has this been mentioned before? I'm to lazy to go read 6 pages, I have mafia for that, but does anyone here like Chess?

[PenPen]

One other game I really liked when I was younger was Bang.  It's partially a hidden information game, like Mafia.  Anyone familiar with it?  More recently I've been playing a Chinese rip-off of it called San Guo Sha.  While it is largely a re-themed carbon-copy, it actually makes the game so much more fun via the myriad of different characters.

I played San Guo Sha once. It was a bit difficult, since I know approximately 15 words of Mandarin, none of which were particularly helpful in reading the cards, but I was teamed up with my girlfriend (who is Singaporean) against some other Singaporeans of varying skill levels in the game. I can imagine that if I had the full translation of all the cards in front of me it's a pretty cool variation on Bang.

I am a huge fan of Innovation, but it is definitely a game that will not be to everyone's tastes - almost every turn the board can change drastically, so it's much more of a tactical game than a strategic one. I haven't been brave enough to get the "Echoes of the Past" expansion as I haven't heard fantastic things about it - mostly that it tries to introduce about 3 new mechanics at once - but the second expansion, "Figures in the Sand", sounds like it might be a bit better.

I can read Chinese without problems (even though it's in simplified Chinese, which takes me a bit of time to decipher because I learnt traditional Chinese) and while I can tell that San Guo Sha started off as a rip-off/copycat of Bang, they expanded upon the game with additional characters and mechanisms. There's like 6 character expansion packs out there at a speed of around 1-2 expansions each year (at around 5-8 new characters per expansion). The pace of expansions slowed down now (because it's like uber popular in China and they host annual tourneys and stuff based on a 3v3 variation of the game which feels like what they're focused on now), but the popularity never waned. In fact they actually had fan card contests from last year and earlier this year, and the winners get their cards (re-balanced) as an expansion pack. Pretty nifty idea (I wish Dominion has an expansion set like that in the future).

The problem with San Guo Sha is that you really need at least 5 people to play the game with its functions and balance out the roles. I suppose you can play with 4, but the balance felt a bit gimped. It also has an issue where if you selected a character that's perceived as strong (eg someone who has awesome firepower), you're likely to get killed off really early as a result, because most of the focus would be on you. Players who got killed off will have a pretty long time of watching the game unfold, which can drag on for pretty long, especially if one of the characters have a pretty good defense or survival mechanism.

The game isn't bad at any rate - the role guessing, the chemistry happening between characters and the interactions make it good. But I wouldn't say it's the best game in the world, by far...it needs a mid to large group of people to start with and there's quite a lot of dead time for players who got eliminated. It's my preference to play something that can keep other players engaged at all times instead.

[jotheonah]

Axxle, that joke was bad and you should feel bad.

Although I did +1 it, because I have a love/hate relationship with puns.

[shMerker]

I also love Acquire. It's fun and plays in a reasonable amount of time (usually about 45 minutes to an hour for me). Some people don't like the accounting aspect of it, though (calculating stock value all the time). That's much more of a concern than AP when deciding whether to pick it up and play. I would not categorize Acquire as one that has so many decisions it induces AP.

I've thought that maybe the game could be improved by replacing the stock value cards with tracks for each chain to keep track of stock value so that you can just look at the track, but I've been to lazy to actually try putting something together.

Also I am envious of people who have the 1999 edition with its tiles that lock in place and cool-looking skyscraper pawns that help make the board look like a big city while I'm stuck with the current edition which replaces all the plastic parts (even the tile racks!) with cardboard chits.

[Polk5440]

Also I am envious of people who have the 1999 edition with its tiles that lock in place and cool-looking skyscraper pawns that help make the board look like a big city while I'm stuck with the current edition which replaces all the plastic parts (even the tile racks!) with cardboard chits.

I second that!

[Archetype]

Also I am envious of people who have the 1999 edition with its tiles that lock in place and cool-looking skyscraper pawns that help make the board look like a big city while I'm stuck with the current edition which replaces all the plastic parts (even the tile racks!) with cardboard chits.

I second that!

third!

We threw away our cardboard stands  and use the nice wooden ones from Scrabble.
They work great!

[brokoli]

Another great strategic card game is Innovation.

(The iello version is much more beautiful than the original)

Glory to rome (same author) seems intersting too, but I haven't tried it.

[theory]

Glory to Rome is a ton of fun because everyone builds crazy overpowered combos, and the only thing that balances it is that everyone else is going for crazy combos too.

I didn't much like Innovation though.  It has the same feel of overpoweredness, but I felt dicked over a lot more than in GtR.

Incidentally, I hate the new GtR design.  It looks like any other boring JASE with zero inspiration or creativity.  The old wacky art was a great fit for the wacky gameplay.

[brokoli]

I didn't much like Innovation though.  It has the same feel of overpoweredness, but I felt dicked over a lot more than in GtR.

Innovation is a game you can't really like the first time. It's deconcerting and you'll be destroyed by an experienced opponent (just like dominion with KC goons and masq on the board ^^).
But after some games, you'll see the subtleties and the game will be more controllable.

[ConMan]

Innovation really isn't very strategic, except in some 2-player games. While I enjoy 4-player, it's certainly a lot more chaotic and possibly less interesting to "serious" gamers; I think 3 players is the "soft spot" where you really need your wits about you to maintain the right amount of control on the board. I would also recommend avoiding the expansion (Echoes of the Past) if you find the base game too chaotic, because it only makes it more so (and adds support for 5 players, which I haven't tried but which I can only assume works as well as it does in Dominion).

[Axxle]

The last game of Innovation I played I ramped from age 3 to age 8 in one turn using some kind of really high variance card.  It made me sad.

[DG]

I'm getting some good play from Innovation too at the moment. It's a game with some luck and wild changes so if that's not your thing then don't play it.

[popsofctown]

Hey, guys, has this been mentioned before? I'm to lazy to go read 6 pages, I have mafia for that, but does anyone here like Chess?

Go is better. 

[jotheonah]

Why does it seem like among Catan players, Traders and Barbarians gets no love? We broke out the old T&B today during our hurricane staycation and had a good playthrough of the Barbarian Attack! Scenario.  I think the scenarios are at least as fun as playing Seafarers and Cities and Kinghts all the time, but it seems like people ever get that one out at gaming meetups.

[Insomniac]

C&K is the only catan expansion I care for I've tried them all and played them all a fair bit but C&K is just soo good and the other ones I find super meh.

[Young Nick]

Then again, sometimes your play group's first game sees 7's galore, limited Ore and less than 50% success against the barbarians' attack. Try getting them to break out C&K after that nightmare.

I keep pleading, "No, it's fun, I swear." And they tell me that if we are no better off than how we started 90 minutes into a game, they won't play.

[shark_bait]

Then again, sometimes your play group's first game sees 7's galore, limited Ore and less than 50% success against the barbarians' attack. Try getting them to break out C&K after that nightmare.

I keep pleading, "No, it's fun, I swear." And they tell me that if we are no better off than how we started 90 minutes into a game, they won't play.

And then one of your friends gets his first double metrop, longest road steal, merchant steal turn for a 7-point turn and come from behind win. 

IMO, the strategic decisions in C&K are just so diverse that there are just so many options during the game.  Combined with the fact that I play most often with my cousins whom I have some of the deepest board game vendettas against (these are so huge that a 3rd party playing a game with us will usually win due to our intense hatred for each other in terms of gaming).  C&K provides the greatest outlet for me to target my aggression towards them and is why it is the most fun version of settlers.

[jotheonah]

Longest Road is so interesting - I've seldom won without it, but if you get into a serious fight for it, it's never worth it.

[Ozle]

quick quiz time?

Most points possible to win a game of Catan, base game only

[Ozle]

Longest Road is so interesting - I've seldom won without it, but if you get into a serious fight for it, it's never worth it.

I never get Longest road, i find Biggest Army is better. And I have a 9-1-0 win record in my group. (The 1 because a pretty girl played once and she basically got to trade for anything she liked off my friends!)

[jotheonah]

Whenever I go for Largest Army I end up drawing every freaking non-Knight dev card in the deck. Or at least it feels that way. And I guess 4 Cities + 5 Settlements + LR + LA = 17 possible Victory Points?

[Ozle]

Whenever I go for Largest Army I end up drawing every freaking non-Knight dev card in the deck. Or at least it feels that way. And I guess 4 Cities + 5 Settlements + LR + LA = 17 possible Victory Points?

Nope

[eHalcyon]

Whenever I go for Largest Army I end up drawing every freaking non-Knight dev card in the deck. Or at least it feels that way. And I guess 4 Cities + 5 Settlements + LR + LA = 17 possible Victory Points?

Don't forget vp Dev cards!

[Ozle]

Whenever I go for Largest Army I end up drawing every freaking non-Knight dev card in the deck. Or at least it feels that way. And I guess 4 Cities + 5 Settlements + LR + LA = 17 possible Victory Points?

Don't forget vp Dev cards!

There are 5 of those I believe.

[Insomniac]

But if you had any of them before you started your turn you already won no?

[Ozle]

But if you had any of them before you started your turn you already won no?

Correct.

You win when you get to 10 points, once you reach that its game over. (But the answer isnt 10)

[jotheonah]

So 22?

[Ozle]

So 22?

Nope, waaay off.

You would have won waaay before you get to 22, as you win once you go over 10

[Insomniac]

Well its possible you bought all 5 dev cards, obtained largest army and largest road in one turn I guess :S

[Ozle]

Well its possible you bought all 5 dev cards, obtained largest army and largest road in one turn I guess :S

Pretty sure you can only buy one Dev card per turn.

Plus, separate actions, once you bought the 1VP that took you over the limit that would end the game

[Insomniac]

You can buy as many dev cards as you have resources for, you can only play one in a turn.

But if thats true the max is simply 12, as soon as you get LA or LR

[jonts26]

Are we playing with the 5-6 player expansion? Cause special builds will change the problem. You can't win unless it's your turn.

If we are playing 3-4 player, then lets say I've got 9 on the board, the guy before me builds a settlement to break the third guys longest road, giving 2 more points to me, and a play a soldier before my roll to take army giving me 13.

[jonts26]

You can buy as many dev cards as you have resources for, you can only play one in a turn.

But if thats true the max is simply 12, as soon as you get LA or LR

VP dev cards don't count towards the one a turn limit.

[jotheonah]

So you start the game with 2 VP. Somehow you manage to buy all the VP Dev Cards and 3 knights without upgrading or building any additional settlements, or running out of space on the board.  You've played two of the knights. But you have been hoarding your resources like a boss and the roles have been uncannily good.

So you start your last turn with 7 VP. On the last turn, you build two settlements, upgrade all your settlements to cities, build the longest road, build 5 more settlements, and play your third knight.

It's totally possible. It might involve everyone else in the game passing all their turns, but it's totally possible.

[Ozle]

You can buy as many dev cards as you have resources for, you can only play one in a turn.

But if thats true the max is simply 12, as soon as you get LA or LR

VP dev cards don't count towards the one a turn limit.

They do for buying them.

[Ozle]

Are we playing with the 5-6 player expansion? Cause special builds will change the problem. You can't win unless it's your turn.

If we are playing 3-4 player, then lets say I've got 9 on the board, the guy before me builds a settlement to break the third guys longest road, giving 2 more points to me, and a play a soldier before my roll to take army giving me 13.

Base game.

In that scenario it would be 11, because you would win before you got a chance to build

[Insomniac]

You can buy as many dev cards as you have resources for, you can only play one in a turn.

But if thats true the max is simply 12, as soon as you get LA or LR

VP dev cards don't count towards the one a turn limit.

You can buy as many dev cards a turn as you want...

So you start the game with 2 VP. Somehow you manage to buy all the VP Dev Cards and 3 knights without upgrading or building any additional settlements, or running out of space on the board.  You've played two of the knights. But you have been hoarding your resources like a boss and the roles have been uncannily good.

So you start your last turn with 7 VP. On the last turn, you build two settlements, upgrade all your settlements to cities, build the longest road, build 5 more settlements, and play your third knight.

It's totally possible. It might involve everyone else in the game passing all their turns, but it's totally possible.

I don't throw 7's

[Ozle]

So you start the game with 2 VP. Somehow you manage to buy all the VP Dev Cards and 3 knights without upgrading or building any additional settlements, or running out of space on the board.  You've played two of the knights. But you have been hoarding your resources like a boss and the roles have been uncannily good.

So you start your last turn with 7 VP. On the last turn, you build two settlements, upgrade all your settlements to cities, build the longest road, build 5 more settlements, and play your third knight.

It's totally possible. It might involve everyone else in the game passing all their turns, but it's totally possible.

Nope, you have 7 VPs, and as you build your settlements you get to 9, then you upgrade your first settlement to a city and you have now won the game with 10 VPs

[shark_bait]

Keep in mind that you can have the VP cards in hand and not play them.  So you can have 5 Settlements down in addition to Largest/Longest netting you 9 points (and you are so confident that you are not revealing your 5 VP points in hand).  Then on you next turn you play monopoly on Ore, stealing all the ore in the game b/c everyone has ore and hasn't been able to use it b/c you have been hoarding the wheat.  You then upgrade 4 settlements to cities, and then build 4 more settlements due to your clutch Ore port utilizing all of that ore that you just stole.  Remember, you didn't need roads because you were preparing for this massive turn and had already built all of them.

Q.E.D.

[Ozle]

A lot of you are forgetting the rule that you win when you get 10 points or above, you finish any actions that you are compelled to do, and then the game ends.

[Ozle]

Keep in mind that you can have the VP cards in hand and not play them.  So you can have 5 Settlements down in addition to Largest/Longest netting you 9 points (and you are so confident that you are not revealing your 5 VP points in hand).  Then on you next turn you play monopoly on Ore, stealing all the ore in the game b/c everyone has ore and hasn't been able to use it b/c you have been hoarding the wheat.  You then upgrade 4 settlements to cities, and then build 4 more settlements due to your clutch Ore port utilizing all of that ore that you just stole.  Remember, you didn't need roads because you were preparing for this massive turn and had already built all of them.

Q.E.D.

No, if you have hidden Victory Points in your hand they still score even if you dont show them
once you get to 10 VPs (including the hidden ones in your hand) you lay them down and announce a win if its your turn

[shark_bait]

No, if you have hidden Victory Points in your hand they still score even if you dont show them
once you get to 10 VPs (including the hidden ones in your hand) you lay them down and announce a win if its your turn

Really???  Whenever I've played on games.asobrain.com they did not score until you played them.  In that way, you could lose the game if you forget to play them and someone else got to 10 before you.

[jonts26]

You can buy as many dev cards as you have resources for, you can only play one in a turn.

But if thats true the max is simply 12, as soon as you get LA or LR

VP dev cards don't count towards the one a turn limit.

They do for buying them.

I've never heard about the one dev per turn buying limit and I see nothing about this in the official rules.

[jotheonah]

Ok. If you build a settlement that cuts the current LR holder's longest road in half, and you have the second longest road, that's a 3 point swing.  So if you had nine when you did that, you could end the game with 12 points.

[Ozle]

You can buy as many dev cards as you have resources for, you can only play one in a turn.

But if thats true the max is simply 12, as soon as you get LA or LR

VP dev cards don't count towards the one a turn limit.

They do for buying them.

I've never heard about the one dev per turn buying limit and I see nothing about this in the official rules.

Sorry, getting confused.

Yes you can buy as many as you like, but when you get to 10 VP you win still, so if you are on 9 VP, you buy one VP card, then you win.

This assumes you are not a moron and count to 10 of course.

Victory Point Cards (Yellow Frame)✹
You must keep Victory Point Cards hidden. You may only
reveal them during your turn and when you are sure that you
have 10 victory points—that is, to win the game. Of course,
you can reveal them after the end of the game when someone
else wins. You may play any number of Victory Point Cards
during your turn, even during the turn you purchase them.

[Ozle]

Ok. If you build a settlement that cuts the current LR holder's longest road in half, and you have the second longest road, that's a 3 point swing.  So if you had nine when you did that, you could end the game with 12 points.

This is how I do it!
Yay

Right, normal thread topic resumed!

[popsofctown]

Why is Catan being discussed in a "What other games are as good as Dominon" thread?

[Captain_Frisk]

That does seem like a bannable  offense

[Ozle]

Why is Catan being discussed in a "What other games are as good as Dominon" thread?

My brother loves Settlers of Catan.  At first I didn't like it because of the diplomacy, but then our extended family realized the diplomacy is degenerate - if you adopt a tit-for-tat strategy with the thief, the strategy dominates.  (Computer programs playing multiple games of Prisoner's Dilemma also are optimized by the tit-for-tat strategy, and a decision between two players whether to thief eachother is modelled by Prisoner's Dilemma).
I've moved on to disliking it because of the luck.  A game we played the other night went about 40 turns without a roll of 6, ticking off my little brother who likes the game more than anyone else since he built on that.
I feel like there's other games with better diplomacy and other games with better gameplay.  But Catan is great as a gateway drug to euro games because it's so easy to pick up.  And that also makes it great for families.

I found where the serious catan discussion started.....

[() | (_) ^/]

.

[blueblimp]

Glory to Rome is a ton of fun because everyone builds crazy overpowered combos, and the only thing that balances it is that everyone else is going for crazy combos too.

I didn't much like Innovation though.  It has the same feel of overpoweredness, but I felt dicked over a lot more than in GtR.

Incidentally, I hate the new GtR design.  It looks like any other boring JASE with zero inspiration or creativity.  The old wacky art was a great fit for the wacky gameplay.

What is a JASE?  Google is not helping me.

Yeah it needs a little help to turn up the desired results: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=JASE+game.

[() | (_) ^/]

Glory to Rome is a ton of fun because everyone builds crazy overpowered combos, and the only thing that balances it is that everyone else is going for crazy combos too.

I didn't much like Innovation though.  It has the same feel of overpoweredness, but I felt dicked over a lot more than in GtR.

Incidentally, I hate the new GtR design.  It looks like any other boring JASE with zero inspiration or creativity.  The old wacky art was a great fit for the wacky gameplay.

What is a JASE?  Google is not helping me.

Yeah it needs a little help to turn up the desired results: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=JASE+game.

"Soulless Euro"
Such a term exists?

GLORIOUS
Where has this term been all of my life?!?!?
At last, my seemingly unending search through the wastelands of vocabulary is ended!
JASE... yes

Also didn't know that lmgtfy existed... pretty funny.

[papaHav]

The only thing you can't do on a single turn for VP is play multiple knights

[Drab Emordnilap]

Innovation really isn't very strategic, except in some 2-player games. While I enjoy 4-player, it's certainly a lot more chaotic and possibly less interesting to "serious" gamers; I think 3 players is the "soft spot" where you really need your wits about you to maintain the right amount of control on the board. I would also recommend avoiding the expansion (Echoes of the Past) if you find the base game too chaotic, because it only makes it more so (and adds support for 5 players, which I haven't tried but which I can only assume works as well as it does in Dominion).

It sounds to me like you need to play Innovation in 4 player partnership. I never play any other way now.

Also, make sure you're using the updated setup rules for Echoes of the Past; that was a major improvement also.

[ConMan]

I haven't played the partner version, but I agree it sounds like it works well at bringing the four-player game down to a similar sanity level as 2- and 3-players. And I've tried Echoes with three set-ups, starting with just the Echoes cards (for maximum crazy but also to see what all the shiny new cards do), then the v1.0 rules set-up, then the revised rules since that. I think the set-up described in the rules is actually more logical if Echoes is the only expansion, although I wish they'd account for having more cards in Age 1 than other ages, and I understand that with more expansions on the horizon they need something a bit more methodical so they don't have to start saying "If you're playing with Expansion X and Y, shuffle n cards of expansion X and m of expansion Y with q cards from the base game; but if you're playing with Expansions X, Z and J, throw them all in the air and play with whichever ones you can catch".

In any case, I personally don't mind the craziness of 4-players and/or using lots of Echoes cards, but I know a lot of people would rather have more control over the game, especially if they're trying to find out what's so good about it.

[brokoli]

Innovation IS very strategic. Chance is not more decisive in Innovation than in Dominion !

[jonts26]

This board game is awesome and totally not scrabble

Side note: The amazon reviews are gold.

[brokoli]

Now that innovation is on isotropic, I think many people agree that innovation is strategic (or at least, tactic ^^) 

[theory]

Innovation is considerably more luck reliant, I'd say by design. You are rarely actually out of the game, unlike Dominion.

[Jfrisch]

Innovation is considerably more luck reliant, I'd say by design. You are rarely actually out of the game, unlike Dominion.

I don't follow how not having unrecoverable positions is quite the same as being low on luck. Dominion has a substantial bit of luck with respect to hitting 7s, getting the wrong opening split, getting 2P on a familiar board etc. Having unrecoverable positions is definitely a feature of (very) low luck games. Most games  with that feature, however, are not low luck. Smithy BM only wins are 75% of the time against BM. That seems to suggest that, at least when playing big money, luck ends up deciding in favor of weaker strategies a very large proportion of the time.

[jotheonah]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

[jotheonah]

More on topic: I keep ragequitting innovation when the key card in my strategy gets stolen off my board or something like that. It's just frustrating. Things in Dominion frustate me too, but for some reason not as much. It always feels like there's something I can do in Dominion, and I never lose a key card forever with no hope of getting it back in sight. (Well, yes, Sab and Black Market I guess)

[Watno]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

I think that is really a good thing. Carcassonne with exper players makes for a very citthroat and destructive game. But most families who get it for Christmas because it say "Spiel des Jahres" never realize this and play it as kind of a competitive puzzle, which is perfectly fine. I think its well possible that the game wouldn't be as popular if the rulebook included an example saying: "Hey look, if Alice places this tile there, she will totally screw up Bob."

[Jimmmmm]

More on topic: I keep ragequitting innovation when the key card in my strategy gets stolen off my board or something like that. It's just frustrating. Things in Dominion frustate me too, but for some reason not as much. It always feels like there's something I can do in Dominion, and I never lose a key card forever with no hope of getting it back in sight. (Well, yes, Sab and Black Market I guess)

I've found Innovation to be a very frustrating game when things seem to be going against you. The jury's out on how much I'll end up liking it, but I don't think it's particularly newbie-friendly. Not that that means it's not a good game.

[Kirian]

This board game is awesome and totally not scrabble

Side note: The amazon reviews are gold.

OMG I just saw this and started reading the reviews... priceless...

[jotheonah]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

I think that is really a good thing. Carcassonne with exper players makes for a very citthroat and destructive game. But most families who get it for Christmas because it say "Spiel des Jahres" never realize this and play it as kind of a competitive puzzle, which is perfectly fine. I think its well possible that the game wouldn't be as popular if the rulebook included an example saying: "Hey look, if Alice places this tile there, she will totally screw up Bob."

Here's another thing: The Carcassone app is so stuck in the physical realities mode. I would love to have a free play solitaire mode with infinite tiles, and you just have to fill up X-size of board. It would be cool to be able to do things like that in the app, that you can't do with tiles.

[blueblimp]

So I've been thinking a lot about Carcassone lately (just downloaded the iOS app).

The difference between how computers play and how people play, IMO, is that people are thinking of it on some level as a jigsaw puzzle. They have an innate aversion to making unsolvable gaps. There's an aesthetic pleasure to creating a functional city.

But the game (all I know is the base game, correct me if expansions change this) doesn't reward that functionality! At the end of a Carcassone game where people actually play to win, the city looks like swiss cheese, full of trapped Meeples.

Is this a design flaw in the game? This tension between the priorities people naturally want to have and the priorities that make them win the game?

The cut-throat-ness only ought to apply to 2 player. If you're playing 4 player, you're just wasting a turn if you spend it damaging another player. In fact, in 4 player, a little bit of co-operation is better game theory: if one other player tries to join with your city, let them! Your pseudo-ally will now share an interest in completing the city, which will help both of your points when compared to the other two players.

I find playing 4-player can be a bit frustrating though, because people generally have a strong aversion to sharing points. They'll often make it a priority to get a 2nd meeple on their city to deny you, even if it's not really worth it for them.

[jotheonah]

But sharing is an unsustainable status quo, especially the larger a city gets. The temptation gets greater and greater to backstab.  And I really do think that with 4 people, if you can play a mean tile and strand a city that each of them is competing for, that's totally worth it.

[Ozle]

Without the expansions its all about the farms anyway...

[jotheonah]

Without the expansions its all about the farms anyway...

Really depends on the kingdom board.

Actually those cutthroat games with the holes really diminish the effectiveness of farms too.

[Ozle]

Without the expansions its all about the farms anyway...

Really depends on the kingdom board.

Actually those cutthroat games with the holes really diminish the effectiveness of farms too.

Its rare to see a competitive game of carcassone thats not dominated by farms in my view. Although 4 player may be slightly different

[Robz888]

Carcassone is the game of self-denial. "Okay, now if I just draw two semi-castle pieces, the road that loops away from the end of a castle, and the last monastery adjoined to a dead-end road, I get to be on this farm, too. And I draw... ye old straight road, grr! Next time, next time..."

[eHalcyon]

Since we're all talking about Carcassonne, which expansions/spin-offs are best?

I've played the original without expansions, and I've also played Hunters and Gatherers.  I hear that some of the better spin-offs are The Castle, the City, and The Ark of the Covenant (which is still Carcassonne even if it doesn't have it in the title).

[Watno]

I think normal carcassonne with the first two expansions (inns and cathedrals, traders and builders) is best.

[Archetype]

I only own the base game. Used to hate it, but now I love it.

I hated it because for one game night with my family we misread the rules and thought that all followers couldn't come off the board, not just Farmers. I didn't play it for like a year, and then I brought it to a different group of people. I reread the rules and noticed that you could take workers off once you've completed it's section. Makes a bigger difference than you would think.

I've only played with that one group of people once, so I usually just have the family board game nights. I can never get it to the table, though, because everyone thinks the game sucks because of that one experience! I've even told them that all we did was just read the rules wrong. They still refuse to play.

Oh well, the one time I played game was pretty fun!

[Ozle]

I think normal carcassonne with the first two expansions (inns and cathedrals, traders and builders) is best.

Exactly this set up

Anything else and it gets silly.
These two balance it out great, makes cities better to compete with farms, makes roads marginally better but having them be quick point scorers.

[Adrienaline]

Whereas I completely disagree.

Princess and Dragon, with at least one other mini expansion thrown in (The Tower for that real backstab flavour).

Then again, I actually like The Catapult, and I prefer playing Carcassonne with more than 2 players. For two player games, the vanilla Carc with I&C and T&B is fine, but still kind of boring, imo.

[Ozle]

I have nothing against the sets like caapult and princess and dragon, but they mark. Big shift in the way the game is played to add an extra large portion of randomness.

My personal preference is 3 players

[Watno]

Hey, Catapult is pure skill. I don't know what you're talking about.

[jotheonah]

Has anyone bought the Big Box? I seriously consider it every time my game store gets one in stock. (I don't actually own the base game yet, just play it at friends' houses).

[Kuildeous]

Has anyone bought the Big Box? I seriously consider it every time my game store gets one in stock. (I don't actually own the base game yet, just play it at friends' houses).

I do have the big box.

Is it worth it? I guess it might be. I couldn't tell you.

For some reason, my wife has an aversion to playing with the expansions. So when it comes out, and I mention expansions, she declines. If we were in the mood to learn a new rule, then we wouldn't be bringing out Carcassonne.

Maybe I'll just sneak something in there someday.

But I remember enjoying Inns. Haven't done much with the pigs. Never saw the tower or the dragon.

[AHoppy]

I've go the big box, and it's pretty good.  It's nice because it does provide a lot of variety that you wouldn't get from just having the base set.  I feel like vanilla Carcassonne would get boring rather quickly...

[spiritbears]

Has anyone bought the Big Box? I seriously consider it every time my game store gets one in stock. (I don't actually own the base game yet, just play it at friends' houses).

I do have the big box.

Is it worth it? I guess it might be. I couldn't tell you.

For some reason, my wife has an aversion to playing with the expansions. So when it comes out, and I mention expansions, she declines. If we were in the mood to learn a new rule, then we wouldn't be bringing out Carcassonne.

Maybe I'll just sneak something in there someday.

But I remember enjoying Inns. Haven't done much with the pigs. Never saw the tower or the dragon.

Your wife won't play with your big box?  Sounds like a personal problem

[Watno]

My parenst call the  Inn & cathedrals expansion "Dicker" (Fat Guy) and the Traders & Builders one "Schwein" (pig)