The Tao of Gaming

Worried about Calamari-based life-forms ruining your day? Design a death star! Be sure to stay under budget.

[Hat-tip: Greg Costikyan].

Gone Gaming has opened up the 2006 Board Game Internet Awards. (Thanks to those who've nominated my stuff).

Anyone who reads Tuesday Morning Quarterback may like this (mean-sprited) parody.

Peter Watts just put his new book online. Blindsight. Nice hard SF. I need to check out more of his stuff.

On an admin note, I'm tinkering with the layout of the blog, so don't be alarmed if things change over the next few weeks. Nothing radical. Just adding high tech features like a right margin. Ain't technology grand?

Took Antiquity out for a spin on Monday. This is another Splotter-title. Nice production, 2-3 hours, little to no luck. Unlike Indonesia, not much direct interaction early. More along the Roads and Boats style.

Ten phases to a turn, but most are mechanical -- resetting workers, turn order, harvesting, checking storage limits, victory check, famines. Most of the game takes place during two building phases. In the city phase, you buy buildings and assign workers. Most buildings cost a wood or a stone, but some cost other items (like food, or luxury). Some have combination costs, like two different food. Once you buy the buildings, you have to arrange them. Each player starts with a 7x7 grid of spaces ... some buildings take one space; most need more. A few require eight or nine. Getting them set up takes work.

Each building provides a benefit, similar to the genes in Ursuppe. Most buildings have to have a worker to activate the benefit (a few buildings don't). So, in addition to buying and placing buildings, you move your workers around to activate what you need.

This phase is simultaneous. In theory, players should have screens to shield their city; in practice we just ignore each other.

One of the buildings (The Cart House) lets you build on the main board, which shows terrain (water, clear, woods and mountain). Building in the "fields" phase is the other main area for decisions, but is done in turn order. Typically, you'll use Cart House workers to get resources ... chopping down trees, farming, mining or fishing to get more goods. These all follow the same basic mechanism -- you set up the worker (who may need a specific good to get started) in a space and place the appropriate good in all adjacent spaces. The worker has to be placed within your zone of control (two hexes from a city). You can also use the Cart House to build an Inn (which increases your zone of control) or another city (which gives you another 6x6 grid to place buildings and increases your zone of control).

Two of the other phases are of particular note. In the famine phase you check your food supply versus the famine level. If you don't have enough food you get graves, which fill up spaces in your city. During the pollution phase you dump your trash in the nearby countryside inside your zone of control, cluttering the board. (You also trash the board when you mine and farm). If you can't find a space, you get graves instead. The more cities you have, the more trash.

In order to win, you have to build a cathedral. That doesn't win -- it merely determines your victory condition (and bonus power). One Saint requires that you surround another player, another saint wants you to get twenty workers. Another saint demands you build up buildings. One wants you stockpile resources. And Santa Maria demands that you fulfill two of those victory conditions .... but provides you with the special powers of all four 'basic' saints.

There are other phases, but that's the gist. (Other reviews go into more detail, and the rules are online.)

Overall, I enjoyed this. It's processional, but the sequence of play's structure just gets you started. The decisions (What to build, what to man, how to arrange your city, what Saint to worship) reduce the "Over and Over" feeling. That's not to deny the importance of turn order. You have to get a feeling for when resources enter (and leave) the game; the phase order has implications. I see why Sumo feels Antiquity's flow just repeats, but it didn't bother me.

Much like R&B, Antiquity features tough growth. You'll have to accept some deaths and pollution to grow quickly, but too much and you'll run out of city (or countryside) space and fall into a 'death spiral.'

Antiquity's superiority over Roads and Boats jumps out after a single play. I find the 'ten phases' approach cleaner than R&B's fewer phases with turn order (potentially) changing each phase. That means less times where the game pauses. Antiquity also 'gets right into it.' By the second turn players differences are apparent -- Saints can be chosen, deciding how many men to have in the fields vs manning buildings, etc. In Roads and Boats, the first five turns (or so) feel like prologue.

But mostly, I prefer the indirect interaction. In R&B, your primary conflict with others is done by stealing goods (or getting priority in mines, etc). Then you have a second order interaction by how you build. In Antiquity, you can't steal. You compete for space (first to an area can harvest it) and can trash shared areas (if your opponent doesn't have the "Dump" building), but these are second order effects. By removing the direct resource conflict, antiquity focuses on pressure in space and time. This feels cleaner, and then emphasizes differences in buildings.

Players still squeeze each other (expanding and polluting to try to force an opponent into the spiral); but the asymmetry of R&B is missing. Here, if I pollute (or grab land from) one opponent, I've hurt him and gained a benefit. But it doesn't help me with other two opponents. In R&B, if I steal my victim's geese/bricks/whatever, then I'm the clear leader. A weaker player isn't as important.

Finally, it's easier to deal with a game where my infrastructure is mine. Roads and Boats (and Neuland) just feel weird.

Components look nice, but fiddly counters everywhere.

Our game clocked in at three hours, including a fairly detailed rules briefing and slow first turns. This could easily fall to 2.5 or 2.

One ominous sign -- I had a nigh-unstoppable win 2-3 turns before the end. I believe that was because I'd gone over the rules 3-4 times myself, so could focus on decisions after a turn or two (and my opponents spent longer getting a feel for the game). This will take repeated play, but I imagine those will disappear as we learn defense.

Antiquity's learning curve appears steep. I like that in a game, but it will probably keep me from playing with new players once I have numerous games under my belt.

Still, a happy acquisition.

I Love Math, a site for math teachers, has an interesting page on probability & statistics. The Game of Greed is a precursor to Diamant — although I don't know which came first. You have five rounds. In each round, you start with some point (they use 2d6). Each student can sit (and score) or risk. Once everyone's decided, the teacher rolls a die. One number 'craps out.' Any other number adds to the current score.

They have a lesson on statistics with that, but lets ignore that.

(Interesting aside — the break even point (the score at which sitting or standing shows the same Expected Value) doesn't depend type of die, assuming only one side "craps out", and is just equal to the total of the other sides. Proof is left as an exercise for the reader.)

Assume you were playing for extra credit, but for the winner only. It's the first round, simultaneous decisions. The score is at 14. Expected Value says to risk. (We'll assume the sides are 1,2,3,4,5,Bust.

Suppose you sit. The ideal outcome has everyone else craps out. You are up 14 points with four rounds remaining. More likely, you'll be down ~3 on everyone. Presumably (given EV) most people will now sit. Some may push on and be 6-10 ahead of you. Let's assume someone gets to 10 ahead. Not good, an almost certain loss. But with 25 students, losing is expected. Being +14 gives you good odds of winning (and a 1/6th shot). So others should also sit out.

In Bridge, this is like matchpoints tournament strategy. A solid 60% game is good, but won't win. If you add risk to your game (bringing your average score down but increasing volatility), you stand a better chance of winning. [I remember an article in Bridge World about this].

The more I ponder this, the more intrigued I get. As the number of players increases, you can either risk by pushing past everyone, or by dropping out and hoping for a bust. An early drop mirrors a late push. [Of course, here the payoffs or the same, which isn't true for Diamant, and the odds change with tile draws in the real game.]

Consider the final round. Abby leads, with Betty one point back and Carla eleven points back. Everyone else is hopeless. Opening roll is a twelve. Who do you like in that situation?

You know, Carla has a shot. She passes and the roll survives. Can Abby and Betty pass now? if either one does the other just needs to survive one roll (5/6). [Technically Betty may need to survive two rolls to win outright, but lets assume that the numbers preclude a tie ... make it 2,3,4,5,6,Bust]. So both risk and survive. Do they have to keep going? Either one stopping gives it to another. At three rolls the score should be ~22, but they've only got a 50/50 shot of making it there. Great odds for Carla, because the leaders won't stop.

If both Abby and Betty keep rolling forever, they lose. Who should give ground first? Suppose they keep going for three more rolls, then Betty (being in the inferior position) stands down and takes the 1/6 shot of the next roll crapping out.

Under this scenario: Carla wins 131/256 (~50%) of the time (Crap out in the middle) [51.1%] Betty wins 1/6 * (125/256) [8.1%] Abby wins 5/6 * (125/256) [40.7%]

Not bad for Carla at all.

But Betty can improve. Suppose that Betty stands down the round after Carla. Carla's got a 1/6 chance. Betty has a 5/36 shot (makes the roll, sits down, Abby busts) and Abby gets 25/36. Carla has better odds than Betty, but not obscenely better.

Another finesse. Betty, knowing that Carla will sit, sits at the same time. Carla can't win, Betty gains 1/36th, and Abby pockets the rest. But Abby, figuring the same thing, may sit at the same time. Abby wins automatically.

Remove Carla, and the situation is simple -- Abby pushes. If Betty pushes, then Abby wins 1/6th of the time and we're back to start, so Betty just has to sit and give Abby the 5/6th shot. Carla confuses the issue.

I'm not even sure how to handle this (assuming Carla sits and we're down to two decision makers). It's not a zero sum game, it's a negative sum game (the excess value going to Carla). There's a recursive entry (both risking gives Carla a 1/6th shot, removing value from the Abby/Betty matrix).

So if Carla sits, what do you do as Betty. You sit most of the time, but you have to risk sometimes, to prevent Abby from sitting at the same time.

Putting it all together -- how many people (out of the class of 25) should take wild risks in the first round? This splits the pack into two groups, one of which is probably 15 points ahead of the other. Then how many of that group should take a high risk strategy? Meanwhile, the losing group has to go riskier, since they are behind ... should some of them play for a minor gain, let the rest of the group (probably) fail, and then try again next round. I wonder if these questions have been answered in the literature?

I'm terrible at Diamant, by the way. But I think that I may try my "Drop out slightly early and pray for disaster" idea. [Of course, Diamant lets you score extra depending on when you drop out, complicating the issue]

My gaming resolutions were to play my languishing new games, clean out the chaff, and "no more GMT games." (Sorry guys, but your titles sit in the closet).

How did I do?

Play the unplayed:

• 7 Ages DONE!
• Antike DONE!
• Ars Mysteriorum
• Battlestations DONE!
• Control Nut!
• Downtown Sold
• Europe Engulfed DONE!
• Fiese Frunede Fette Feten DONE! (and sold)
• Flying Colors
• For the People Sold!
• Lowendynastie
• Oriente
• Railroad Dice Sold!
• Sword of Rome DONE!
• Tahuantinsuyu DONE!
• TATATA!
• WWII: Barbarossa to Berlin
• Warangel

So, I played (or unloaded, or both) 10 out of 19 games. But some newbies haven't seen the table...

• Age of Napoleon
• Ticket to Ride — 1910
• Why did the Chicken?
• War of the Rings — Battle of the 3rd Age
• Pax Romana

I'm not counting games acquired this month (BattleLore & Antiquity); although there's a chance I'll play both soon.

And Pax Romana is by GMT. Sigh. [I've ordered Combat Commander and the Sword of Rome expansion, too. I just traded for Here I Stand, but that doesn't count. Because I say so.]

As for chaff, I'm doing good. My collection stayed roughly the same, and I bought who knows how many games this year. (I really don't know. Let's see, I make it about 25 games. So I must have cleaned out that many. ) While some acquisitions were themselves chaff or things that I got cheaply (or regret), some solid entries:

• Cash 'n Guns
• Caylus
• Fussball Taktik
• Indonesia
• Roma
• Scepter
• Smarty Party
• T2R - Marklin
• Vegas Showdown
• The new games (BattleLore, Antiquity, Here I Stand)

Most reductions via ebay, and agressive 'trading up.'

The lesson, as always -- New Year's Resolutions don't work. Although this went better than most. Ah well, my closet seems happy.