The Tao of Gaming

I noticed Tom's comment a few days ago (in the Universal Symbiont thread)...

My second reaction was to look at the top start worlds and note that they were all worlds that give players early card advantage. The led me to hypothesize that the play on Genie taken as a whole was what I would call "intermediate" level, based on comparisons with the playtest groups' experiences with start worlds. (This is not to say that some Genie players aren't extremely strong or that this won't change over time.)

Now, to give Rob credit, he did go back and take a harder look at the Alpha Centauri data and found that it fared less well in winning % among the stronger players. To me, that was expected. Card advantage is something that is fairly easy for beginning and intermediate players to exploit (as opposed to leeching or explore powers, etc.).

(The emphasis on the last sentence is mine; earlier emphasis is Tom's).

This got me thinking: How do I deal with Early card disadvantage? Well, you stop calling Develop and Settle, for one thing (barring timing constraints, like the need to ensure your military is high enough so that you can leech a settle). Assuming you have card flow a turn or two later, then you will naturally consume/produce to trade, which will tend to balance tempo.

As I've played more, I've become more willing to drop a build tempo to look for a good combination (as compared to just 'increasing card flow'). With the increased variability in two expansions, you can't expect a reasonable card to just appear if you build mediocre cards.

I'll have to think some more about this ... I think I can do it, but I can't explain it well. Or perhaps I'm still an intermediate. Who knows?

Despite what I said earlier, Keldon's AI crushes me quite frequently.

In response to my comments regarding Le Havre, Larry wrote:

I can't believe a game can reach the Top 10 on the Geek (right behind Dominion, and with a higher average rating) if there's only one path to victory.

As others pointed out, games with a single way to win can have a large following. You could argue (with some conviction and merit) that classics like Chess and Go have only one way to win. ("Mobilize your pieces better" and "Make efficient moves.") But in those cases, the devil is in the details, and these aren't particularly helpful discussions (which is why I don't think these games apply ...)

For definition, my single path to victory is a simple hueristic that will defeat someone who shuns (or is unaware of) that path.

If everyone groks the strategy and plays accordingly. then tactics and second level efficiencies dominate. I'm sure Le Havre contains levels I haven't explored (for efficiency), but I can feel like I could summarize the first level strategies ... (and ignoring them will cost you the game against competent opponents). [The fact that Alex Rockwell explicitly stated said strategy cemented my conviction. If he's recanted I'd certainly have to re-evaluate.]

In the BGG Top 100, games that have a single path that I feel confident I could (or have) stated are:

• Puerto Rico
• Le Havre
• Caylus
• St. Pete (without expansion)

Games where I suspect a strategy exists, but I'm not confident I can state it:

• Through the Ages (I've followed the strategy articles, and I think they are right, but the variance in that provides a lot of tactical exceptions)
• Brass (I don't like Brass enough to find out, and I may have had a rule wrong) ...
• Age of Steam (several maps, anyway)
• War of the Ring (base game)
• Automobile
• Ingenious seems like a candidate

I bet most of the (non-fluffy) tournament games at WBC probably have a guideline you can't violate ... that doesn't mean they have a single way to win; that depends on the guideline.

And yes, you get lots of Coal, make a huge coke conversion and ship it. To be fair, there are details you need to consider (avoiding loans isn't one of them). "Be efficient" and "Coal is most efficient" are your watchwords.

Non-bridge players should check out Wei-Hwa's article "Why Bridge Bidding Looks Crazy."

There's a computer AI for Race.

"My insights into Fairy Tale strategy are markedly better than random play." OK, it's not that comforting.

Based on feedback, I'm skipping the Neural Network and just going with a correlation matrix (which will eventually evolved). I've hardcoded my default correlation matrix (80 x 40) and initial weighting of cards (1 x 40). [Player #1 is the non-random one].

 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #1 won 82 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #2 won 9 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #3 won 5 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #4 won 8 games.
 INFO  9859 - GameState - Player #5 won 3 games.

Right now I'm just using a "Play the card you like best each round", but perhaps I should look at the breakpoints ... if I know I won't be playing two of the cards at all, perhaps theirs a way to let it evolve ways of ordering the rest of the card play.

Now I just have to program a mutator, a serializor and a reaper. Then it's off to the evolutionary races! (Eventually I'll need to write a GUI so I can play against it, assuming it gets good enough ...)

I'll write some more bridge in a few days. And some actual game stuff later...

Or just help it out. If you've done Neural Nets in Java, can you lend a hand?

While I figure out what to do, I'll start writing some test cases for obscure scoring issues for the game I implemented. Or not. (Don't expect a release anytime soon, this is mainly a NN testbed right now. Doesn't even have a GUI yet).

I received my upgrade kit for Through the Ages earlier this year, so it went back into the bag, so I've played three more times this last half-year. Looking back on the various strategy comments, I think they hold up well, although looking at BGG's strategy forum, I'm shocked to see even more emphasis on military. (Ten Military by the end of Age I? Vhojha Moi!)

In short, TtA's second wind has strengthened. My most recent game (a four player game with new players) took 6 hours, but didn't overstay its welcome. As I approach the ten game mark, I don't think my copy will be jettisoned anytime soon.

I'm in the camp that would like to see an expansion that didn't just add cards, but also removed an equal number each game (to add variability). For example, instead of having the same four leaders in each age, have four "Leader/Wonder" cards, and then randomly pick them out. So one game might not have Napoleon, etc. [For planning purposes, you could randomly deal out the leaders/wonders used before the game, or not, depending on how you feel about adding chaos to a long game]. Adding a few new events (and enough tactics/agressions to balance) would also be nice.

Is anyone else still playing this, or has it's time come and gone?

That thought crossed my mind when we pulled out the old classic last night. We played a deck setup I wasn't familiar with (Wax Beans-22, included; but only twice through the deck; five players. Was that a mistake?) I decided (after a terrible string of luck) to shoot out the 3rd field and try for the wax and blue beans. I got smoked. (In any case, I was losing before that), so no big deal.

But has anyone ever won with the 3rd field? If not, then shouldn't we house rule the 3rd field to only cost 2 gold? (For all I know that has been changed in the newer versions, I have a very old copy of this, and have never read the newer rules).

Finally getting around to answering some comments in the last thread...

One thing that I touched upon, but that Alexfrog explicitly called out, is that having a loan provides a cash infusion (if you manage your entry fees). This is definitely troubling. I agree that the cokery is where to aim. You only need to go there once, and then you have plenty of energy, a nice income boost (15-25 can happen, 10 is pretty easy).

[In fact, my flirtation with the courthouse last game was me trying to delay the cokery for as long as possible and see what happens. Since I was playing for no cokery to show up, I spent 5-8 coal on energy early, which narrowed my margin of victory].

Regarding Larry's question ("Is the player the one who always takes out lots of loans?") I don't have enough data to answer. So far, every game I've played the winner had lots of loans. But ... it's been me.

I can see Uwe's point ... if two players are taking out loans then the 3rd player should be able to get food cheaply ... but just because I'm taking out loans doesn't mean I'm giving up on fish. (Among other things, fish pay entry fees), just that I'm not desperate for it. I won't take 3 or 4 fish (unless there's really nothing to do, which sometimes happens on the first round or two). I'll happily take 6+ (until the late game). But that's not because I'm worried about loans; Taking 6+ fish is efficient. Just like taking 6+ wood. Or 3+ Iron.

The lack of various routes to efficiency is somewhat disturbing. Take a luxury yacht. It's 30-38 points. But it costs 3 Steel + 3 Energy (call it a coal). Well, you could use that coal to ship 3 Steel for 24. And you could ship other goods (if you had more goods, energy and boats) for more money. In other words, depending on what you've got, shipping may be more efficient than a yacht (but since you can't ship twice in a row, it may be best to ship/yacht/ship). That's the thing about the cokery .... it provides energy (for shipping, processing steel, etc) and a good commodity to ship, and income. Whereas building steel is strictly limited, costs energy. and often doesn't get money. You'll need some steel for steel ships, but it's a definite limited thing.

When I said

I'm not positive there's a dominant path to victory in Le Havre, but I wouldn't need much convincing.

Slaughtering cows gives you furs, but you can only process them a few at a time. [And cows ship for more than meat, which saves actions]. Ditto fish. Baking bread isn't bad, but costs energy. Maybe some special buildings mitigate, but the base buildings practically force you towards coke. And you can't stop people from getting into buildings.

(Consider a variant where the harvest rounds that build the cheapest building just remove the cheapest building. Now suddenly something might not get built and be missing for the whole game! Or that each special building also had a building it removed from the game (unless already owned by a player. Now in this case you'd have to worry that the cokery wouldn't be built. But even if it's buried at the bottom of a stack, it will probably still show up early enough ...)

Alex's discussion of the Coal strategy is here.

You are in the audience at a small, intimate theatre, watching a magic show. The magician hands a pack of cards to a random member of the audience, asks him to check that it's an ordinary pack, and would he please give it a shuffle. The magician turns to another member of the audience and asks her to name a card at random. "Ace of Hearts," she says. The magician covers his eyes, reaches out to the pack of cards, and after some fumbling around he pulls out a card. The question to you is what is the probability of the card being the Ace of Hearts?

Answer in the comments and then read the whole article.

(I could argue that this is related to game strategy, and it may be, but I really just like the arguments this causes.)

Well, a number of responses to Problem #5.

• Frunk & Phil pitched the Genetics Lab and Investment Credits and (after the obligatory waffle) Developed (the mercenaries).

• Lou & Joe chucked Galactic Resort and Rebel Miners, and Explore +1'd.

• Hermit tossed Galactic Resort and Investment Credits and Explored +5'd (looking for military or a great destination).

• Kester relinquished Rebel Warrior Race and Genetics Lab and settled.

• David discarded investment credits and genetics lab, and settles, presumably for the galactic resort. [To me, this seems odd. If you are going to do this you may as well keep the investment credits and chuck the rebel miners. That way, if there's no develop T1, or a develop without explore, you get to drop the credits].

• Jeff & Buddha discarded credits and the resort and explore'd +1.

Brian at the table — This was one of the hardest choices I've seen in ages. I probably spent minutes on this. But I eventually (after writing the hand down) reached the same decision as Frunk/Phil. So, how'd that work out? — Ancient Race traded (of course), and the other two players settled. So you can drop Space Mercenaries and Rebel Warrior Race (leaving you an empty hand, but a good trade next turn) or escape the Doomed world for the Galactic Resort, and have RWR, Rebel Miners + 1 Card & 1 VP.

I went for the Rebel Warrior Race, which is a questionable call. If there had been an explore, this option would be great .. you could settle the RWR and keep Galactic Resort or Rebel Miners ... but there was no explore (as expected).

How would exploring work out? — Tough to say, but there are a number of really good cards you could stumble on. Fleeing to Galactic Resort and consuming it would leave you with your other 3 cards + three more, so even if you hit nothing good now, there are still plenty of decent options (Drop Ships, Several of the sixes, lots of worlds). Exploring also gives the other players (particularly Ancient Race) a shot at a better world.

I'm not sure I like pitching the Galactic Resort and exploring ... now you may miss out on the opening settle (which would be unlucky, but not the strangest thing ever). More likely you'll have the choice of paying for a mediocre world and breaking up your hand anyway, or using the doomed world's power on something worse the resort. I think that exploring should cater to a bad draw.

The other issue with exploring is that your hand really wants to see those mercs on the board, and you didn't get lucky.

In short — I don't like any of the answers. (Perhaps Frunk/Phil would have gone 1b — Mercenaries + flee to the resort].

Grades: I'm giving the Brian/Frunk/Phil option a solid B. I exploring +1 gets an A-. Settling is a B-. Not keeping the Galactic Resort drops you a letter grade, in my book.

The Alien Nightmare Solitaire variant is worth checking out. Tough.

I see in a different thread that Tom/Wei-Hwai could beat this type of setup ~40% of the time. Shows me I have some learning to do...

You are the Doomed World, vs Ancient Race, Earths Lost Colony, and Epsilon Eridini (not a bad place to live).

Your opening hand:

• Galactic Resort (3 Cost Novelty Windfall, Consume for VP+card)
• Genetics Lab (+1 Trade Genes, produce on Gene Windfall)
• Investment Credits (-1 to developments)
• Space MERCENARIES (+1 Mil, Discard up to 2 cards for +1 mil each)
• REBEL Miners (2 Def Rare production)
• REBEL Warrior Race (3 Def Gene Windfall, +1 Military)

Lest I be beset by Malevolent Lifeforms, let me just state that the Race expansion is a most welcome guest. We're back to 3-6 games per session (just without tiles). Lots of new cards are getting discussed on BGG, the homeworlds, Alien Toy Shop, I see chatter about Improved Logistics ... but nobody mentions the Terraforming Guild.

Terraforming Guild -- 6 Dev. Phase III -- Get a rebate after settling/conquering a world. Phase V -- Produce on a Windfall world. 2 VPs per Windfall World, 2 VPs per Terraforming card (including this one).

From my (admittedly limited) expansion experience, T.G. is a harbinger of a huge score. A fair chunk of homeworlds really want a nice, sellable Windfall early, at which point, dropping the Guild becomes quite attractive. It provides very nice income, between the rebates and the additional leeching on a production strategy, it will usually pay for itself and then some. Like Mining Robots or Genetics Lab, developing this when someone else produces and getting a surprise windfall production is a Big Deal. Until now, Trade League was probably the frontrunner for "Development that, dropped at the right time, changes the game." But the Trade League usually scores poorly. The Guild can hit double digits without much effort. Worth paying attention to.

[And in the category of "Things I'd never thought I'd see" -- New Sparta chucking New Galactic Order to play Imperium Lords and Galactic Imperium].

Since you asked ...

The emotional reason? They bore me. Also, I fear change.

The intellectual reasons used to justify the emotional one --

1. They add big, non-granular randomness to the game. (Don't you just love being New Sparta and then seeing the Biggest Military tile not in used? It's like rain on your wedding day). [It hasn't happened yet, but I'm just waiting for player A to win because B and C tied each got 3 VPs instead of B winning because he got 5 VPs.]
2. They reek of chrome. I don't play Cosmic with Lucre, or moons, or reverse hexes, either.
3. I happened to like the prior level of interaction, which focused on role selection. I didn't think we needed a whole lot of cards like "Mining Conglomerate," but now we've six of them in every game.
4. They slow the game down.

As race expansion spoilers pop up, young lifeforms' thoughts turn towards malevolence, sweet malevolence. I'm tempted to buy the 2nd printing just to have a lighter set. And a spare. Oh yes, a spare.

Anyway, since Luke H just left a comment in an alternate thread, only to have it's comment period expire, I figured I'd answer it here.

Luke wrote:

Have you considered games with mechanics that are functionally equivalent to worker-placement, but don't have actual worker tokens? The two that always come to mind are In the Shadow of the Emperor and Im Auftrag des Königs. The former has a money system on top of the actions, but just think of that as different number of workers and different costs of actions in number of workers. Actions taken are not available for others, with 1 exception. Seems equivalent to me. The latter uses a very straightforward drafting of 3 actions. The only difference would be physically taking the card vs. putting a marker on the card. Are there any other games like this, with drafting actions?

I only played ITSoE once (3 years ago). I haven't played Auftrag. I guess that doesn't count as "answering", so I'll throw open the question to the floor. Along with any malevolent thoughts you may wish to share.

Another efficiency game to dominate my thoughts for a few weeks or months? Don't mind if I do!

Random thoughts in no particular order. (Note to David -- Feel free to comment or just laugh maniacally, but stay away from my car).

• As noted before, the early game focuses on family expansion. Get your house ready ASAP (especially in a 5 player game, when you know at least one family growth space will be ready on turn 5). If multiple people are ready, you'll have to fight for start player as well.
• The other early game race is often to a fireplace/hearth. Particularly if sheep are the first card, getting one early can often mean a single action for 6-8 food, and flexibility throughout the game. (Also in a 5 player game where an extra livestock card is set. It doesn't accumulate from turn to turn, but it's always worth 3 food with a fireplace).
• Much like Race, a few cards that combine well tops many random cards.
• You don't need five occupations down to win. They are (often) cool, but a time sink. I've won with as few as two.
• I Often have a fair number of improvements down, but that's because many of the best spaces in the game (Family Growth, Renovate, and Start Player) let you drop an improvement. Since you are already spending the action, dropping the card (even for a resource or two) often pays off.
• If you have an unblockable play, take the other play first. Common sense, but I see players rush for their great first play without realizing nobody else can (rarely, can but won't or shouldn't) take it.
• I've now seen several people try to dominate clay, then renovate and build a huge clay house. Maybe you can do this purely (without expanding on wood), but I've never seen it done. Get to 3 rooms with wood -- the cards have to be perfect to do it the other way.
• If you have a travelling improvement (one that passes to the left), consider holding it for an extra turn or two. Other players may splurge to get it spent, then be done. On the other hand, if you are always going to have a problem obtaining whatever the card gives, you may want everyone to know it exists and hope that it gets back to you.
• Assuming you have enough plowed land, you can go from 3 grain to 9 and 2 vegetables to 4 in one turn. Harvests gain livestock, sowing gains agriculture. It's tough to jump up in livestock, unless some have accumulated.

Since I haven't done any race in a while...

Terraforming Robots 3 Cost Development (2 VP).
Settle — Draw a card after you settle/conquer a planet.
Consume — Consume a rare good for 1 VP + 1 Card.

Alexfrog, in his card-by-card guide, says:

Terraforming Robots (3) */* Until the expansion is out, this is overcosted. You’re basically paying one extra card for the fact that it says ‘Terraforming’. That makes it harder to make use of. However, it can be good, in military or production strategies that want a brown consume power. Or with New Economy, to score. I’m sure its better in the expansion when there are terraforming cards.

I'm not sure exactly how Alex gets overcosted ... If you develop this, then you spend 3 cards (including this one) to get this out. If you hit this early enough, then you'll probably get your money back from settle rebates. Still, with the "time value of money" earning back your income may not be particularly good. Getting double your cards back is better.

First of all, let's look at the mining worlds. There are 13 brown planets (6 production, 7 Windfall). Of those, exactly one has a consume power — New Earth. Apparently mining planets export, require a destination. Terraforming Robots will be a big interest to Alpha Centauri or anyone going the brown route. The real downside for Terraforming Robots, from Alpha Centauri's point of view, is that it isn't the Mining Conglomerate. The conglomerate earns income faster and triggers many more six developments (Mining League, Trade League; both score for New Economy and Galactic Federation). The conglomerate works less well in a diversified economy, whereas Terraforming Robots are fine with a single mining world. It won't score VP for Mining League, but it does consume efficiently.

The Conglomerate is a "brown pioneer" card. Assuming you have the most mining worlds, you'll get two extra cards per produce, an extra card per trade, and be able to consume with your spare worlds. The Robots are metallic leeches. If someone else consumes, you get a card + VP. You get an extra card whenever you settle, which lets you leech a military sprinter. Neither leeching role is amazing, but opponents tend to stop calling roles where you can leech for huge draws (unless they have a monstrous setup). How much would you have to be getting to call produce if it triggered someone else's mining conglomerate?

As Alex notes, A military strategy will happily play this card. Conquer a world, draw two cards. You'll probably luck into a military world every 3rd turn you do that (or get enough to pay for a six cost development).

Terraforming Robots will improve in the first expansion. I honestly don't remember what the Terraforming Guild does. You can't just slap down the Robots, but they work in a reasonable number of situations. If you've got any mining planets at all and are short of consumption powers, they're dandy, you'll consume an extra good and earn several cards back, not to mention rebate cards. A reasonable middle game card.

Update: I do, however, remember that the expansion contains another development that combines well with this ... Improved Logistics. Since the card hasn't been spoiled (that I've seen), let's just say that it combines well. (I.L. is a game changing card, to be sure).

This thread on BGG mentions what the Terraforming Guild does ... 2VP for each Terraforming card or windfall, and an extra rebate after each settle, and produce on a windfall world.

There's someone running a team RftG game over at BGG via Geeklist.

May as well knock this out, too. To recap:

You are New Sparta in a 3 player game (against Alpha Centauri and Epsilon Eridani, if you care). The deck hits you over the head with:

• Alien Tech. Institute (Alien 6-dev)
• Lost Alien Warship (Defense 5 Windfall, +2 Military)
• Deserted Alien Colony (5 Cost Alien Windfall)
• Replicant Robots (-2 Cost for worlds)
• Blaster Gem Mines (3 Cost Rare Windfall, +1 Military)
• Spice World (Novelty Production, +2 to trade a novelty).

The panel selected:

• ZZdroman -- RR & BGM, Exp+5
• Alexfrog, Huber, Lou -- RR & BGM, Exp+1
• Frunk -- DAC & SW, Exp+1
• Linnaeus, Rubbo -- ATI & DAC, Exp+1
• Tom Lehmann, Jeff -- RR & SW, Exp+1
• Phil -- RR & SW, Exp+1

OK, apart from ZZdroman, everyone explored + 1. I see one strong argument for exploring +5. New Military Tactics. If you get that, it's off to the races. Keeping DAC for a 2nd turn play is interesting, and one I overlooked.

Brian at the table. As usual, I took a different road. I pitched the Blaster Gem Mines and Deserted Alien Colony, saving SPICE WORLD as my expected first play. At the table, the deck hits new sparta over the head with the explore, given you Avian Uplift Race and Alien Rosetta Stone world. There was a T1 Settle, so I dropped the Avian World, sold it next turn ... on my last turn I played the 6 cost alien production world for free (thanks to Robots, ATI, and Rosetta Stone)... a brutal game for the opponents.

But, was I right? In retrospect, keeping the DAC would have given me a better backup plan (but pretty much anyone will be off to the races with that explore. I can see pitching RR, but keeping them gives options, especially when you've got a very good non-military play (Spice World). If there's a Develop and Settle (which is unlikely, but not impossible), you could drop SW on T1 (at the cost of your hand). More realistically, you can develop on T2, which lets you get SW for free and keep one other card to develop (two if there's another explore).