The Tao of Gaming

I played Twilight Struggle three times last week! And in each game the bluebird of happiness left a little gift on my shoulder.

Once was clearly my fault. I played a new player and we took sides randomly. I should have taken the US. I don't particularly believe that the game is pro-Soviet, but they are probably easier to play (in the opening, anyway).

The second game highlighted my concern about the neutral cards. I got Red Scare/Purge on T1, then again on T4. At this point, my opponent was down 10+ Opps, and has had worse luck on the space race. Game called.

My third game was the most interesting, in that it went the distance (I lost on T10). But my opponent was frustrated constantly dealing with a handful of my events. [I like that part of the game]. Afterwards we discussed several issues with the game, including it's historic accuracy. It's certainly baffling that Vietnam isn't a battleground, at the very least.

One opponent said that the real problem was the granularity of luck. Either you make a space race or miss it. Each coup roll is big. I'm not sure I agree. Even in Titan (where you through lots of dice) there are significant breakpoints where a slight change in the result can have long reaching implications. Now, you could certainly argue that the space race should have less luck (or a different system entirely where your roll depends on the opps you spend), but I'm not sure that the granularity matters.

There are now a dozen or so 'real' CDGs (as compared to games like Manifest Destiny), and the design of the card system (as compared to the board system). Here are the design issues I see:

• Single deck, or one deck per player?
• All the deck at the start, or incrememntal additions & deletions?
• How to handle going first/last each turn? [Letting one player go last, and then having a VP phase, can introduce problems].
• How to balance operations with events to grant historic feel?

I'm not sure there's a 'right' decision. The strength of the CDG is that you can take a similar base system and hide the complexity in the cards. In reality, the rules are still plenty complex. Twilight Struggle is simple enough, but if I break open another CDG, I'll spend an hour (or more) skimming the rules. And I do want to play them. There are great ideas in the system -- the fog of war, tons of historic feel (right or wrong), and nice replay values. But the downsides are showing, too. The game space is so wide that flaws appear despite playtesting. [I'm thinking of Here I Stand, where you have a large deck reshuffled every turn, giving lots of potential hands. I think that Twilight's issues (smallish deck you run through 3 times a game) show up quickly, so I can only assume that the designers don't consider it a serious issue].

What would I like to see in CDGs? Let's start a wishlist:

1. Since cards can break the rules, you shouldn't need too many. (This depends on the genre. A straight wargame needs less rules than a multi-faced struggle. Many of the rules in these games are too keep players 'on the rails').
2. There should be no 'key cards' that wildly swing the game depend on who gets them. Some cards will invariably be better than others, but the variance should be lower. A generally useful card is the ideal. Cards useful in fewer situations should be powerful when said situation occurs.
3. Cards should be balanced so that the decision to use it for Operations or an Event is meaningful.
4. Each position should be interesting to play. [I'm thinking of Prussia in The Napoleonic Wars, here].
5. The card deck shouldn't have such a complicated structure that it is necessary to have spreadsheets of card flow to truely understand the game [I'm thinking of WWII: Barbarossa to Berlin's invasion cards].
6. Players should have some hand management abilities, but not too much. In general, I think that the play 6 out of 7 (or 8) cards makes for tense choices.

And this is all before you get to the board play. Am I putting the cart before the horse? Probably. I'm sure there are other design criteria I'm forgetting. Any ideas?

One of last years "let's take a chance" purchases was Antike. Since Eggert-spiele makes so few copies, when I had the chance to buy one, I took it. I've only played Neuland once, but it struck me as a good game. And Antike tries to fill that "Sweep of nations in two hours" role (like Mare Nostrum).

Antike arrived after game night (of course), so I was reduced to pushing pieces around to get a feel for the game. [I fool nobody. I love to do that]. Finally, after a few months, I got to play a few games. The rules are online (at BGG), so I won't go over them in detail. Here's a summary of some relevant purchasing decisions — Antike has no luck (apart from initial country selection), you get victory points by various methods (having control of cities, seas, or temples, being the first to purchase a technology, and sacking opponents cities).

Antike has a new mechanism, at least new to me — The Rondel. This is a circle with 8 spaces. On a nation's turn, it moves it's marker along the Rondel. The farther you move, the more you pay. You can move 1, 2 or 3 spaces for free. Moving zero isn't allowed. Three of the spaces generate income (in Iron, Marble and Gold). Three more let you spend income (Iron gets troops, Marble gets Temples, Gold gets technologies). The last two spaces activate your troops for the lofty business of grabbing new territories, fighting, and sacking.

On reading the rules, I thought the Rondel could shake up the genre. Now that I've pushed the pieces around ... I still think that, but Antike will inspire the game that does it. It will be a Verrater to someone's Puerto Rico. This is another "Turn order is fluid, but completely up to the players" shifts that could work well. Imagine if the various actions had more differences, and if the cost varied as players occupied a space (as well as distance). Even with the limited types of spaces in Antike (income, purchase, move), I can see that you can anticipate moves and put pressure on people based on their Rondel position as well as board/money situation.

Saying that I hope to see a brilliant execution doesn't mean that Antike is bad. But a luckless game where one oversight can put you out of the running, I think the audience is limited. Its too static. Sacking temples (although it provides a VP) is expensive and difficult. I shudder to imagine what a slow player would do to this game. [Most turns take almost no time apart from the decision as to how far to move on the Rondel. You just get income or buy stuff. And early on the moving turns only involve a piece or two]. The first half of the game has 'jockeying for position' conflict, with no direct interaction.

Our first game ended on literally the first combat. Our second game was better, but left me cold. Last week I taught some people how to play, but felt no urge to spend an hour or two playing. I think that the first game was probably right ... if you exchange lands, then everyone not involved has gained. So the only really effective combat is sacking a temple. This does not make for an interesting game, in my opinion.

I'm open to arguments that played slowly, Antike would blossom like a flower to reveal the nectar of the ancients. But I'd rather slam my drink than wait for the sommelier. Which means letting this one go...

Apart from 7 Ages, my long game last week was Here I Stand. I'd ignored this (following my New Years Resolution), but the buzz intrigued me.

Let's just start with the problem. The rules and it took at least 90 minutes. My personal preference would have been to just teach as much as possible in 20-30 minutes (the basics) and go. At 90 minutes we were still nowhere near complete, but everyone had been worn down.

There's a ton of theme here, and story, but my gut feeling is that the full game doesn't work well fully loaded. Let's say a turn takes 45 minutes (I imagine it would be 45-60 for new groups, but maybe as little as 30 for an experienced group). England (aka Henry VIII) has four cards at the start of the game. One of these cards will be used to roll a single die on the pregnancy chart most turns. That leaves three cards. One play per ten minutes. Can't you feel the excitement? In fact, one of Henry's better plays is to send an explorer to the new world, which resolves ... by rolling two dice at the end of the turn!

The protestants and papacy have their own war, but (at least at the beginning) it doesn't have troops. You just throw dice, or spend actions to translate the bible, etc. At the beginning of the game, at least, only the turks are really getting their war on (with the Hapsburgs a close second). Everyone else is doing their own thing, to a certain extant.

It's easy to mock, but I'm still interested in playing again. There are several ways the game could work, in my mind. First, you could play with three players. Everyone gets two powers, which means that you cut the downtime way down. I believe each player gets a primarily military power and a religious (or "other") power.

And then there is email. Downtime isn't a big issue, and it lets the diplomatic phase really shine. While I don't care for Diplomacy, I've got nothing against negotiation games. Here I Stand's diplomacy phase lets players trade, but with a level of uncertainty reflected in the times. I can give you troops or cards, but only mercenaries (who disappear quickly) and not the card of your choice. Only random cards. Players can agree to anything, but if it "changes the game state" (moves troops, cards, counters, etc) then they have to publicly announce the deal.

The rules are long, but they are fairly clear on most points. Each country has a few sections they have to know well, but can ignore page upon page. It's not just a "let's gang up on him" game. The players have strong incentive to behave historically, and the 'deploy for spring, then retreat before winter' keeps the troops from wandering too far.

I strongly considered buying a copy, but decided against it, at least for now. While I suspect I could find opponents, when will we find the time? Besides, I already have plenty of CDGs gathering dust. And my copy of 7 Ages cries out for time. I'm not sure it's a good game, but I'd like to find out.

I'd look kindly on trade offers, too.

Roma vaulted onto my 10+ list last week. Despite the boxes claim of 45 minutes, the game often plays in 10-20, and nicely mixes luck while leaving choices for the players. The components are simplicity -- a deck of 52 cards, some dice, and some counters to build a board.

I'm reviewing this with Frunk's house rules.

Each player starts with some VP (10 for the first player, 11 for the second) and four cards set up. Each card is in front of a platform with a number (1-6). First you lose 1 VP for each number that doesn't have a card, then you roll the dice. You can use a die to activate a card. There are about twenty different cards, in two types: characters and buildings. Some cards attack your opponents cards, for example the catapult can attack any enemy building ... if you roll its number. To attack a building, you just roll a die and have to tie or beat a defensive number.

You can also spend dice to get gold or cards [by the house rules, no more than 6 gold and 1 card from a choice of six]. You can buy a card at any time during your turn. Sometimes you want to plug a hole (since that costs you 1 VP a turn), othertimes you want to discard and play a new one, to take advantage of a juicy roll.

There are 36 VP in the game. If you run out, you lose. If the bank runs out, the player with most wins. (Shouldn't there have been an odd number of VPs to prevent ties?) Some of the cards let you gain VP, in particular the forum lets you spend an unused die to gain VPs, and the merchant lets you buy VPs from your opponent.

Typically games end with one player running out, but sometimes you get into a race to break the bank. And sometimes you have one player trying to break the bank and the other desperately trying to knock him down and slowly sacrificing their own points.

It takes a few games to get a hang of what card does what. The blame falls on a rulebook that lists cards in bafflebetical order. Other than that, a nice filler. Some skill, but enough luck to give anyone an excuse.

I've entered my games played into the geek (and initial ratings). But here's the list:

Unpublished Prototype	23
Roma	                12
Maus nach Haus	        5
Um Krone und Kragen	5
Caylus	                4
Times Square	        4
Twilight Struggle	3
Ca$h'n Gun$	        2
California	        2
Geschenkt	        2
Thurn und Taxis	        2
TTR - Märklin Edition	2
7 Ages	                1
Ark	                1
Ausburg 1502            1
Blue Moon City	        1
Bolide	                1
Crokinole	        1
Diamant	                1
Hacienda	        1
Here I Stand	        1
Indonesia	        1
Masons (Mauer Bauer)    1
Nexus Ops	        1
Poker	                1
Target	                1
Time's Up	        1
Up Front	        1
War of the Ring	        1

Overall I thought many of the new games were fine, but felt no strong urge to play them again, although I'd play them if others wanted to. I'd try Hacienda again. I'll probably get Roma and Um Krone und Kragen (by sometimes co-blogger Tom Lehmann) good fillers. I'm tempted to spring for Indonesia, since it's a long, relatively luckless business game (like 18xx).

The funny game above is Target. Jeff suggested it as a nice filler and I looked at the box and thought "I own this." Sure enough, I do. Had never played, though.

Overall, most of the new games were inoffensive. Play and forget. Only a few were not to my tastes. Lots of 5s and 6s according to the BGG scale.

The games that I thought stood out were: Roma, Times Square, TTR: Marklin, Cash 'n Guns (if you like the blustering theme), Krone und Kragen. There could be more to Hacienda or California or especially Indonesia, but they need more plays. Marklin is Ticket to Ride with more meat. So many of the games depend on your tastes, I suppose. Ausburg I only played once, with a rule wrong. I wasn't taken by the theme, but it may be good.

So there you have it.

Over on spielfrieks, the yearly discussion appears. "Am I Jaded?"

People play games for a variety of reasons:

• Hanging out & socializing — In this case, the game doesn't matter, although good beats bad. Lighter works better. Nobody considers Die Macher a party game.
• System Analysis — "What if I go here?" "What if I do that?" Lots of Euros have an interesting system; but often it's a small variant. Tbe Puerto Ricos and Caylii of the world get praised to high heaven for having an interesting system that feels fresh. Or at least fresher.
• Telling a story

Over the last week, I've realized that story matters much more to me than I'd credited. I've always known that my tastes don't run to pure abstracts, but my internal monologue matters more than I thought.

And the new batch of Euros? There are some interesting systems. And the themes aren't just tacked on. I think Thurm und Taxis feels like setting up routes in Europe, etc etc. But when I'm playing a game, I don't say "Ooh, I just set up Bavaria!" Mechanics? Fine (if a bit shopworn). Theme? Yes. Story? No. There's no growth, no arc. I'm just winning or losing.

A few examples from last week.

I played War of the Ring (with the Will of the West Variant). The fellowship tap-danced to Mordor. The game neded up closer than I imagined (since I slowed down to play it safe), but in looking back at the game, I can say "Frodo and the fellowship went through Moria while Isengard went after the Grey Havens (!!!). Bypassing Lorien, Gandalf sacrificed himself to keep the fellowship safe and then the Witch King showed up to finish of the Havens and then Rivendell...." I can discuss the game without reference to the mechanics, although people who have played can fill in the blanks.

I also played 7 Ages. A long, chaotic game (with lots of take that) is a recipe for disaster, and I forgive all. One player founded the Romans and I promptly started the Saxons and the Goths, only to have the Goths switch from barbarians to housekeepers. Then my Persians got evicted by the Babylonians. The right play would be to end their empire and start another. The fun play? Vow vengence and destroy Babylon. After a few turns of buildup, I caught the Babylonians napping (I switched them from a production to another turn, perhaps destiny). I got to proclaim "You forgot you are scheduled to be conqured." and then took their homeland, when a volcano wiped them out of Persia. Thus vindicated by the gods themselves, I returned home.

This, by the way, took five hours. I enjoyed it. And I enjoy retelling the story.

I enjoy Twilight Struggle even though it has flaws (and boy did they show up in spades last week). Here I Stand gave me 3 decisions per hour and I still want to try it again because of theme. [I think 3-player would work nicely for face-to-face].

My two "I really want this from the prize table" picks were a very mechanic heavy game (Indonesia), and a good story/party game (Cash 'N Guns). [I got the latter].

I'm not going to play a greatly themed game with a system I actively dislike. But a good story with mediocre gameplay trumps a good game with no story. Mechanics certainly matter, but I've played hundreds of games with reasonably good mechanics.

Does this make me an "American" style gamer? I don't know. Right now I've been more fond of games that avoid the 60-90 range. The shorter games have more bang for the buck, and the longer games have better stories. Mechanics are also easier to get right. Story is a taste.

I'll try to do a final summary later tonight or tomorrow, and then I'll review some games.

Update: Welcome people sent by Alfred. When groveling under his gentle dictatorship, consider how best to correct his minor mistake. I did not get a copy of Indonesia. I wish.