Samurai Swords

Yesterday, we played two games. First up was good old Shogun. The easiest way to describe this game is Risk meets Axis & Allies.

You play a Shogun that is trying to unify Feudal Japan under your rule. The game begins with all of the 68 cards being dealt to the players evenly. Any remaining cards are up for grabs by the players during the game. Gameboard units are divided into two groups, Daimyo armies and provincial armies. Provincial armies are limited to a maximum of 5 units per province, and can be comprised of any type of unit. They are limited in that they can only attack adjacent provinces and can only move at the end of your turn. Daimyo armies have a great deal more flexibility as they can move before and after a battle. Their movement allowance is equal to the experience level of your Daimyo (which you get for fighting at least one successful battle during your turn, you are limited to one increase per turn). Daimyo armies are also limited in the number of units you can have in each. You can have no more than 3 Daimyo armies.

Combat is resolved by rolling dice. There are several different units, each of which have their own set of capabilities.

Samurai Bowman - 1 koku - Samurai bowman hit on a 6 or less on a d12. They fire at the beginning of every combat phase, and losses they inflict are immediately removed.
Samurai Swordsman - .5 koku - Samurai swordsman hit on a 5 or less on a d12. They attack at the end of the combat round. Losses they inflict still get a last shot in that combat round.
Ashigaru gunners - .5 koku - Same as samurai bowman, but they hit on a 4 or less.
Ashigaru spearmen - .33 koku - Same as samurai swordsman, but they hit on a 4 or less.

After combat, the province is left vacant of troops. During final movement, the attacker can elect to move into the province or leave it vacant. With combat covered, let's go into the turn detail.

The first step is the planning phase. Each player counts their territories and divides the number by three and rounds down. This is the amount of koku the player receives. He then plans his expenditures for the turn.

The second phase is drawing swords. Players allocating money here pick their position in the turn order, while the others draw swords for their turn position. This determines which order they will fight and move their armies later in the turn.

The second stage of the turn is the building phase. If a player allocates two koku to building he may place a castle or upgrade a castle with fortifications. Each player can only build one item per turn. Castles and fortifications give you additional troops for any battle fought in the province.

Next players raise troops with any koku they have allocated here during the planning phase. Only one unit can be built/raised in any province.

After raising troops, players hire ronin samurai (basically samurai swordsman) and place them on the province card where they will be raised. The ronin samurai can be played at any time during the turn.

Finally, players reveal who got the ninja. The ninja allows a player to assassinate an enemy daimyo or they can look at another player's koku allocation on the next turn.

Players then in turn order do the following:
First movement
Declare battles
Resolve combat
Final movement

When the final player does each of the above, the round is over. Players then count up their total provinces and if one player has more than 35 provinces, he is declared the winner.

I like this game a lot. It is the best of the light wargames out there. However, there is one big problem with the game and that is downtime. We played a five round game, and it took about 3.5-4 hours to play. I give this a 7 out of 10.

Tigris & Euphrates

Today, I am reviewing one of my favorite games, Tigris & Euphrates.

If I had to sum this game up in one word, it would be nirvana. This game has everything for the strategy gamer. It has replayability, overt strategy, subtle strategy, some randomness, and conflict.

The premise of the game is you are the head of a dynasty in Mesopotamia. You must become the most balanced dynasty in the region. To win, you must score the most points in your worst category (have the most of your least). You do this by placing leaders, tiles, and fighting conflicts. Each turn, you can take two of the following actions:

1) Place a tile
2) Add, remove, or move a leader
3) Play a catastrophe tile
4) Exchange tiles - Players have 6 tiles that comprise their hand

There are four different types of tiles in the game, red (temple), blue (farm), black (settlement), and green (bazaar), and there are four types of leaders that correspond to each of these colors. If a tile is played in an area that can trace a line of tiles back to a leader of that color, the player that owns the leader, receives a point in that color. If there is no leader of the corresponding color, then the player owning the black leader, if present, receives the point. Leaders must be played adjacent to a red tile, as these provide support for the leader. If a tile is played such that two regions with leaders are joined, then an external conflict is initiated. If there are two leaders of the same color in the new kingdom, a fight will occur. Each player totals the number of like colored tiles in each part of the former kingdoms, and adds any like colored tiles from their hand to the total. The winner is the player with the most tiles, with ties going to the defender. The winner removes the tiles from the loser's kingdom, along with the leader, and scores one point for each tile/leader removed.

Leaders, as mentioned previously, must be played adjacent to a red tile. However, if a leader is played in a kingdom with a leader of the same color present, an internal conflict results. The leader with the most red tiles adjacent plus any red tiles commited from the player's hand wins. Again, ties go to the defender. The losing leader is removed from the board. The winner receives one red point.

A catastrophe tile is the ICBM of the Fertile Crescent. When played, nothing else can be played in that hex, it also destroys whatever it has been played on. These are frequently used to weaken or divide a kingdom, and to isolate leaders from their temples.

Finally, players can exchange tiles, which can be done to get a better hand, or to shorten the game, if they feel they are winning.

There is another way to score points, aside from conflicts and placing tiles. Monuments are constructed when a player plays four of the same type of tile in a square. A player then selects one of the two-color monuments and places it on the board. When a player with a connected leader of the appropriate color ends his turn, he gets a point. Because of this, they represent a focus for conflicts once constructed.

When all but two treasures on the board are collected, or the tile supply runs out, the game ends. The winner is the player that has the most points, in their weakest sphere. So, if a player has 10 black points, 15 blue, 7 red, and 2 green, he has 2 points. If there is a tie, players compare their next weakest sphere, etc.

This game is a solid 10. I try to play this at every opportunity. Even when all seems lost, it just takes one or two great plays to get back into the game.

Middle Earth: The Wizards CCG

Last night, I finally got to play Middle Earth: The Wizards. This CCG is set in the Tolkein universe and each player plays one of the five wizards sent to Middle Earth to rally the Free Peoples against Sauron.

The object of the game is to win the support of the Free Peoples to your cause and means of defeating Sauron. There are three ways to do this:

1) Destroy the One Ring
2) Call the Council of the Free People, and have more Marshalling Points than your opponent.
3) Destroy or corrupt your opponent's wizard.

The game is character driven. Your characters go around Middle Earth scavaging items and lore to use in the fight against Sauron. Each character has a different set of stats. The stats are: prowess, body, mind, direct influence, and skills. Prowess determines how well you fight in combat, the higher the number, the better. Body determines how durable the character is, again, higher is better. Mind is how difficult the character is to control. Direct influence is a measure of the character's leadership. Finally, skills determine what kinds of cards the character can play.

The two most important stats are mind and direct influence. Mind determines how much influence is required to bring and keep a character in play. Each player has 20 general influence available to control up to 5 starting characters. The more powerful the character, the more influence that is required to control him. Direct influence allows your characters to control other characters, without dipping into your general influence reserve. The two stats serve to balance all of the characters in the game. Aragorn II who is worth 3 MPs(Marshalling Points) is a 6/9 (prowess/body) warrior/ranger/diplomat, who is required to play certain cards. However, depending on your strategy, is he more useful than Beregond, a 4/8 warrior? Aragorn II has a mind of 9 and 3 DI, where Beregond has a mind of 2, and 0 DI.

At the start of the game, each player picks up to 5 non-wizard characters, with a total mind of 20 or less, and they reveal them simultaneously. Any characters that are duplicated are shuffled back into each player's deck. All characters start out at the haven of Rivendell. Each player draws 8 cards from their play deck.

There are several phases to each turn, they are:

1) Untap Phase - Each unwounded character untaps, and wounded characters may heal, if they are at a haven.
2) Organization Phase - Each player can play one character or wizard to their home site or haven. Characters can store items at havens, or can give items to another character. Characters can also join or leave companies at this time, provided they are at a haven. Each company decides where they are going to move this turn, and this site card is played face down in front of the company.
3) Long Event Phase - Long or permanent events can be played at this time.
4) Movement/Hazard Phase - Companies reveal their new site card, each player draws cards as indicated. The opposing player now plays hazards against the moving player keyed to his site path or the new site (number of hazards playable against a company is 2, or the size of the company, whichever is greater. Hobbits count as 1/2 of a character rounded up). After reaching the new site, the old site card is moved back to the site deck, or discarded (if it has been tapped). Discard to 8 cards after each company moves.
5) Site phase - After all companies have moved, each company determines whether they are going to enter the site, or remain outside the site. If they enter the site, they face any automatic attacks, and then may play cards playable at that site, provided they have a character with actions to use. If any items, factions, or allies are brought into play, the site card is tapped.
6) End phase - Each player may discard one card from their hand, and draws to maximum hand size (8 cards).

The first question you need to ask is, how do I plan on winning the game? Will I go for a win on points, dunking the ring, or defeating the other wizard? Will I opt for strength in numbers, or will I go for small companies that can bring more items into play, but are more vulnerable? Will I bring my wizard into play, when available (unplayed wizards cannot be corrupted or killed, but your wizard is one of your most powerful characters)? Will I attempt to play a theme deck? What type of characters will I play?

Since I feel the characters are the best part of the game, I will go into a little background on all of the races.

Dunadain - Dunadain are more powerful than normal men, but suffer some big drawbacks. First, they are more powerful, with a average prowess of 3.33, and a body of 7.4 (normal men have 3.06 and 7.26 for avg. prowess and body). Their drawback is their high mind when compared to normal men. Plus several of the more powerful characters have a -1 to any corruption check. Aside from Aragorn, Halbarad, and Beretar, all of the Dunadain home sites are in, and around, Gondor. For character classes, the only weak spot for the Dunadain is they only have two sages, each of whom are unlikely to be in play.

Dwarves - Dwarves are stout fighters, very durable (avg. prow/body 3.6/7.26), and most have a bonus when fighting orcs. In comparison to the Dunadain, their mind is both higher and lower. Their best characters have higher minds for the most part than the Dunadain (Aragorn excepted), and their lesser characters have lower minds than the low Dunadain. Unfortunately, they have far fewer skills than the Dunadain. Their homes sites are either the Iron Hills, or the Blue Mountains.

Elves - They are simply put, the best characters in the game, BUT they have very high minds (avg. mind 5.3!) . 10 out of 15 characters have a 5/8 or better for their prowess and body. Glorfindel at 8/9 is the best fighter in the game. The only weak spot for the Elves is their classes, they have 3 scouts, and each of those scouts are unlikely to see much table time, with the exception of Galadriel. Their home sites are scattered around the map, with emphasis on Lorien and Rivendell.

Men - They have no great strong points, and their only bad attribute is poor body on their high prowess characters, and low prowess on their high body characters. They have a good selection of skills available. Their home sites are scattered across the map.

Hobbits - There are only 6 hobbit characters, but they have some very good abilities. Their are each a 1/9 character, but three of them have bonuses to their corruption checks (makes them very good for toting that trinket to the Cracks of Doom). All of them are worth at least 1 MP. But wait, there's more (couldn't resist)! They have the ability to burgle a site. They can avoid a site's automatic attacks by rolling a 5 or more on 2D6 to play an item at the site. If they fail this roll, they must face the automatic attacks alone (translated, one dead hobbit).

The items in the game are very cool, and most of them are taken straight from the books. Each item is carefully weighted by difficulty to bring the item into play, its worth, and the corruption it gives a character. Weaker items are worth less, and are easier to bring into play. Stronger items are worth more, are more difficult to bring into play, and beware of the corruption checks!

The hazards are the other great part of the game. There are three types of hazard, events, creatures, and enhancements/corruption cards. The order in which you play them are important. Just when your opponent feels they have made it to the site unscathed, out comes some nasty opponent, after they have spent all their cancelling, avoiding, and buffing cards. When all else fails, you can corrupt them.

Theme - I think I said it before, this game oozes theme. From the artwork, to the quotes on each card, it just oozes theme.

The only bad part of the game is the movement. In playing the basic game, you go from haven to site, and then site to haven. This slows the game down somewhat, but it does help the newbie by giving him a chance to heal every other turn. The advanced game uses both the basic game movement system (haven to site, site to haven, with the site path as listed on the site card), and introduces region movement. So you can move from Minas Tirith to Mt. Doom without first moving to Lorien. I believe this will speed up the game immensely, because you can cut out approx. 40% of all moves in the game.

Overall: 8

I can definitely see me playing this again and again. The game is well balanced, and fun to play. There is no turn angst, as you are constantly playing cards on each other, and creating themed decks is great.

Wildlife

I played Wildlife for the first time today with a full complement of 6 players. The premise of the game is you are in charge of an animal species and must be the most succesful animal. Each animal has a preferred set of terrain, of which there are 6. Each terrain type is rated as no action, migrate, expand, and attack. Each species starts out with two terrains as no action, two as migrate, one as expand, and one attack.

If a terrain is rated as no action, you cannot do anything in the terrain. If a terrain is rated as migrate, you can move tiles to that area. If a terrain is listed as expand, you can place new tiles to the area. Any terrains listed as attack, if the terrain is completely full, you can discard one of your opponents tiles, and place one of your tiles in its place. The ratings are heirarchical, so if you can attack into a terrain, you can also expand and migrate to the terrain as well.

Each player receives 10 cards at the beginning of the game. They are divided into 4 groups. Terrain cards have terrain types listed on them that you can use to play actions. For example, if I play a desert card, and I have desert rated as attack, I can play the card, and migrate, expand, or attack into a desert space. There are adaptation cards which allow you to increase your rating in a terrain type. No action can be increased to migrate, which can be improved to expand, and then to attack. The third type of card is a special event card, these can range from plagues which require other players to remove their tiles from the board, to food surpluses which give you additional food (which is used as money). Finally, there are wildlife enchancements which give you benefits while you hold the card. Food gives you points each turn, aggression allows you to launch a free attack each turn, intelligence allows you to play one additional card per turn, etc.

Each turn you get to play three cards, but at least one must be auctioned off to the other players. Then you increase your hand size back to ten. You also get one free migrate per turn. During the auction, one card is auctioned off, and the player who wins the auction plays the card immediately.

Points are scored in two ways. When one of the terrains on the board is filled, they receive points from what I will call the terrain track. It starts at 3, and as more terrains are filled, increases to 5. The player who fills the terrain by occupying the last space scores the points. After every 4 terrains are filled, a major scoring phase occurs. Each terrain is scored based upon monopolies (major and minor, if you are the only player in a terrain, and whether or not all the spaces are filled) and places (1st, 2nd, and 3rd). After that, the largest herd (most contiguous spaces filled), most adaptations, most enhancements, and most food are scored. After 3 major scorings are completed the game is over (12 terrains filled, if I remember correctly, or one player plays all of his tiles).

That's all there is to the game. It does allow a variety of strategies to be played, but I did have several issues with the game.

1) Card draw - Drawing cards can improve replayability, but it can severly hamper players as well. In our game, one of the players was hampered because he was drawing cards that he could not play into, and he was not drawing any adaptations. On top of that, every enhancement he had was taken away from him immediately (Once all of an enhancement type has been taken from the pool, players take them from each other, with players in the lead having their enhancements removed first. For example, I want to get intelligence, Neal and Brock each have one, Neal has 3 points, and Brock has 5, I need to take Brock's intelligence, I cannot choose to take Neal's). The other players said that there are ways to avoid this, and that it was a special case, etc. However, I have to give the game a black mark in this regard, if it happens in the first game I play, it is bound to happen again. It's not fun just playing out a game that lasts 2 hours. Also, even though you get 10 cards, if you start off with a bad hand, it is hard to turn over the poor cards in your hand since you cannot discard, and must play three cards each turn.

2) Game Length - Granted this is dependent on the card draw, the number of players, and the pace at which the players play, but we were playing at a good pace, and it still took 2-1/2 hours. There are a good number of other games that I would rather play for this length of time.

3) Play limits - While it is great that each species has a different preferred terrain, and they are randomly dealt to the players, it can provide an advantage to players that do not compete with other players. If I am the only player that can play new pieces to water, that means that other players will try to deal the water from their hands during the auction. Since no one else needs water, I can get it at a good price. Someone can play adaptations to make water useful to them, but it may be too late to be useful. In addition to lower prices, any terrains that I do not need will probably fetch a higher price due to increased demand. While this does not necessarily mean I will win the game, it can be a big advantage.

4) Tactical, not strategical - Most of the plays are due to the current set up on the board. While you can opt for longer term options, these are pretty much limited to adaptation cards. The good enhancement cards could be considered strategic options, but the fact that the more strategic of them are in great demand, it limits their effectiveness. In the late game, the use of enhancements comes down to, which one do I need for this turn? While I love tactical games, I prefer longer games to be strategic rather than tactical. It means little if I get intelligence on the first turn to let me play four cards each turn, if I need to play another enhancement to get it back each turn. Sure, I can play other enhancements, but, how do I know if the other players are going to take that back from me on their turn.

Wildlife is a solid game, no more, no less. I would play it again, but I will not request that it be brought out. I give it a solid 6. Unlike other games, I really do not see any improvement in this score. My main knocks are the length of the game and the lack of immersion for a game of its length. Die Macher can be played in a similar length of time (say 3 to 3-1/2 hours for experienced players, and I enjoyed that game far more after one play). For the same time frame, you could fit in two games of Puerto Rico, Princes of Florence, or Traders of Genoa (without micromanaging the deals), or a game of Tigris & Euphrates. That said, it is a good 6 player game, and there are not many of those, so it does have some merit when 6 players are present. With fewer players I would rather play one of the other games I named.

Overall: 6

Modern Art

Alan, Joe, Todd, Jamie and I played our first game of Reiner Knizia's Modern Art Friday evening. Just so you're not under any suspense: Alan won. As usual. One of these days I'll play a game with Alan and actually beat him.

Modern art is a card game with an auction mechanic. Each player plays an art dealer, and auctions off various paintings by one of five (fictional) modern artists: Lite Metal, Yoko, Karl Gitter, Christin P., and Krypto. The game takes place over four "seasons." In the first season, each player is dealt a certain number of painting cards; more cards are dealt out in the second and third seasons. Player take turns auctioning off cards to other players. The auctioneer also takes part in the auction. The player that wins the auction pays the auctioneer, unless the auctioneer wins the auction, in which case the auctioneer pays the bank for the painting.

Each painting card has a different type of auction associated with it. There are open auctions, in which anyone bid in any order; once around auctions, in which each player gets one bid going around the table clockwise; sealed auctions, in which each player offers a bid in secret; and fixed price auctions, in which the auctioneer sets a price and the first player (again, going around the table clockwise) to accept it wins.

A season ends when a fifth painting by any artist is played; this painting is not auctioned. The paintings that were auctioned are then sold for an amount depending on the popularity of the artist. The paintings of the most popular artist, i.e. the one with the most paintings auctioned, are worth $30,000. Those of the second most popular artist are worth $20,000, and those of the third most popular artist are worth $10,000. Those of the two least popular artists are worth nothing.

The value of the paintings is cumulative over the four seasons: so if Karl Gitter was the most popular artist the first season, the second most popular the second season, and the third most popular in the third and fourth seasons, his paintings will be worth $70,000 at the end of the fourth season ($30K + $20K + $10K + $10K). So for the first couple of paintings the first season, you don't have any idea of what paintings will be worth, but after that you have some informations.

Like in most auction games, you win not by getting good deals (paintings that are worth more than what you paid for them), but by getting better deals than your opponents. Furthermore, since it is usually one of your fellow players that you will be paying for the painting, you don't want to pay so much that your opponent makes more than you do on the sale. For example, if you think a painting will be worth $50K at the end of the season, and you buy it for $30K, you've potentially made $20K on the painting - but your opponent has made $30K on the sale.

This was how Alan won the game. He hung back and let other players overpay for paintings; in particular, paintings that he sold.

The painting cards themselves are beautifully designed. It would be nice to have paintings from actual modern artists on the cards (I'd suggest Picasso, Modrian, Dali, Rothko, and Lichtenstein), but I'm sure that would make the game a lot more expensive because of copyright fees. The only complaint I have about the components is that money comes in denominations of $100K, $50K, $20K, $5K, and $1K, but no $10K. I played banker, and it would have been much easier making change if I had some $10K chips.

I hesitate to put a rating on the game just now, since I think that this game may well improve if all the players have played before. In an auction game, having just one player who overbids can throw a big element of randomness into the game, and we had several players doing that in this game. I look forward to playing it again with a group all of whom have played it before.

My Favorite Games

As I sit here eating lunch, and pondering what to do with my afternoon, I thought I would post my favorite games as a way to relax my mind.
 
1)  Puerto Rico - This is as close to a perfect game as you can get.  There are plenty of decisions to make, but not a lot of analysis paralysis.  It can play in as little as 15 minutes, or as long as 1 hour.  Plus, until the final scoring, no one is necessarily out of the game.
 
2)  Tigris & Euphrates - This could easily be #1, and may move to the top spot with additional plays.  The game has a fair degree of randomness with the tile draw, but it is mitigated by the number of strategies you can pursue, and the fact that you can always redraw your hand.  You can have conflict, or you can expand peacefully, but you will not know which was best until the final scoring!
 
3)  El Grande - The game for control of Spain.  Place your caballeros throughout the country, but beware of their meddling just before scoring!
 
4)  Princes of Florence - An auction game combined with building, this is a wonderful combination.  Try to win your auction, but do not spend too much cash, or you will not have the resources to fund your effort to produce more and greater works. 
 
5)  Web of Power - A great light strategy game that plays in 30 minutes.  Always different, and need to watch the card draws, but a great game for the time played.

6)  Torres - The more I play this game, the more I like it.  It is a very subtle brain-burner, but what a game this can be.  Move your knights around to take control of the castles and score points, but beware of your opponent's riding your coattails, or building up something unexpectedly!  Need to play with the Master Rules to get the full effect of the game. 
 
7)  Diplomacy - I do not get to play this game much, but when I do, it is a treat!   It is better suited for email play, but those games are marred by drop-outs and the like.  It is loads of fun to control everything going on in the game.  Keeping everyone's eye everywhere else, but where you are.
 
8)  Die Macher - This will probably move up after more plays to rest somewhere between 1-4, and push PoF back to #5.  A great game in which everything interacts with everything else.  The only downside to the game is the amount of time it takes to play.   However, with additional play, the time will probably work its way down to a long game of Settlers.
 
9)  Traders of Genoa - Great game, provided you play with the right group of players.  If you play with people who nickel and dime everything, it almost becomes unplayable.
 
10)  Magna Grecia - A VERY subtle game, but once you get it, it is a very elegant and deep game.  It is very much like Torres in this regard.
 
Let me know YOUR thoughts!

Union Pacific

Union Pacific
 
Players:  2 – 6
Playing Time: About 2 hours with 6 people.
Publisher:  Rio Grande Games/Amigo
Designer:  Alan R. Moon
Date played: 7-8-04
Location:  Alan’s house of games
Players:  Alan, Mark, Todd, Brock, Joe and John
Drinks served: Coke, Coffee (and if I remember correctly alcohol for Brock!)
Times bathroom used during playing of game: 0  (world record?)
Times bathroom used after conclusion of game: 3
Times coffee cup almost knocked over on table by Joe: 1
Times cell phones/home phone rang: 5
Time spent after the game in discussion: 45 minutes (minimum)
Winners (in order): Mark, John, Alan, Brock, Todd, and Joe
 
Ok, now that we have the statistics out of the way let’s talk about the game.
 
Union Pacific, as its name implies, is a game about Trains.  The premise of the game is to invest in as many as 10 train stocks during the game.  There are 4 dividend payouts during the course of the game.  After the fourth dividend payout the game ends automatically, which in my book is somewhat anti-climatic.
 
However, let’s talk about the game play itself.  There is a nice big colorful board with tracks running between cities in the United States.  Between these tracks you have 1 through 4 spaces for “train engines”.  The game comes with multiple small plastic train engines which are probably about 7/8 of an inch long.  You have engines in 10 assorted colors (only issue here was that black and purple were sometimes hard to distinguish).
 
These train engines correlate to 1 of the 2 deck of cards provided in the game.  This deck of cards is called the “shares” deck.  In the shares deck you have 10 different companies’ shares.  The basic premise of this deck is the person who has the most shares laid on the table is first place in whichever company he has invested in and thus gets the 1st place monies.  The person in second place would get the 2nd place monies.  You get nothing during a dividend round if you do not hold first or second place.
 
The second deck of cards shows a type of track (which there are 4 different types of tracks in the games).  On the board is printed 4 different types of tracks, some have dotted lines running through them, others have a single solid white line, one has a solid black line, and one looks like a plain railroad track.  You use the “track” deck to put an engine out on the board.  Of course, you have to have the corresponding track card that shows which track you want to place an engine.  In other words, if you wanted to place a track between Fargo and Marquette you’d have to have a track card that showed a dotted white line track on the front of the card.  If you don’t have one?  Too bad, you don’t get to place an engine in that area.  There are a couple of “wild” cards in the train deck which allow you to place an engine anywhere on the board.  What’s so good about placing an engine?  It allows the stock you possibly might control to rise in value.
 
This sounds all well and good, but some companies are bigger than others and thus there are more shares available in these companies.  Thus the competition might be higher for some of the larger companies than the smaller companies. 
 
So, you have the “shares” deck and the “track” deck.  However, there is another type of card available and this is called “Union Pacific” stock.  We’ll get to that in a moment.
 
At the beginning of play each player is dealt 3 track cards and 4 shares cards and given 1 Union Pacific stock card (out of 20 available, all UP stock cards are the same).  Everyone selects one of the shares cards from his hand and flips it up simultaneously.  This is the player’s initial investment into the companies running trains on the board.  
 
The shares deck is then placed to the side of the board and 4 shares cards are turned face up next to the deck.  If at anytime the shares deck shows 4 of the same stock face up, those four are immediately discarded.  The track deck is placed next to the side of the board also with the remaining UP stock cards.
 
On a players turn he always draws a track card and then has 2 options:
 
1)      He can either lay track (place a colored engine on the board) and then draw from one of the 4 face up shares available (and replace the one selected with one from the deck) or draw from the top of the shares pile (which is  only known by the player drawing the card).  And either keeps all the shares cards in his hand or discards one and chooses a Union Pacific share card.  Or
 
2)      He can invest.  To invest you simply lay down up to 2 share cards that are different from each other or you can lay down 3 types of the same share cards. 
 
Remember, at all times the players hands are kept secret.
 
In this way the game can proceed very quickly.  Built into the shares deck is 4 dividend cards.  When the fourth dividend card is drawn the game automatically ends.  There isn’t a dividend card in the first six cards that are drawn.  However, in the next 18 share cards there is 1 dividend card.  After those 18 cards the rest of the dividends are shuffled randomly into the remaining cards.  So, the game could end quite quickly after the first 24 share cards drawn, or the game could go long with the last dividend card being the last card in the share deck.
 
When a dividend card is drawn you earn money from your investments (in denominations of millions).  First, you have to have the majority or second majority of stock in a company to get paid.  You get 1 million for the main station of a company and an extra million per engine on a track connecting different cities.  The first place finisher with the most amount of stock in a company gets the full amount.  So, for example if there is a company out there with 5 engines on the board connecting different cities the person with the majority of the stock would get 6 million (5 for the engines and 1 for the station).  The second place investor would get 3 million.  If the total had been 7 million, the second place finisher would still receive 3 million (always round down for second place).  However, in order to get paid you have to invest in these companies, which becomes important after the first 6 share cards (since there is not a dividend card in the first 6).  If there is a tie for first place you would add the full value and half value of the company and divide by 2 and split between the players tied for first place.  If there is a tie for second, the second place value is simply split between all players tied for second (rounding down).
 
Then you score the UP stock.  On the first dividend no one gets any money for the UP stock.  However, during the next 3 dividends millions are paid out to the first thru fifth place finishers.  On the second dividend the player in first place with the UP stock gets 10 million, 2nd place gets 8, 3rd gets 6, 4th gets 4, and 5th gets 2 million.  If there is a tie, the two totals are combined and split between the players that tied.  In other words, if 3rd and 4th place tied you would add 6 + 4 which would equal 10 then divide by 2.  So, both players would get 5 million.  What’s interesting about the UP stock is that the value goes up with the 3rd and 4th dividends.  On the third dividend 1st place gets 15 million on the second dividend payout and drops by multiples of 3 to each player finishing behind 1st place.  On the 4th dividend 1st place gets 20 million and it drops by multiples of 4 to each player finishing behind 1st place.
 
As stated, when the fourth dividend card is drawn the game ends after scoring.  The person with the most millions wins!
 
Opinion:
 
Great game and very interesting.  However, I like to play games where you can see clearly who is winning and who is not.  In our game it was a complete surprise to me that Mark had won.  Some people like this, but to me I’d rather know who is leading and who is not.  Also, there didn’t seem to be enough player interaction.  I like games with a lot of player interaction.  However, in this game by playing a certain way you could affect other players’ play.  Although the UP stock was nice to score, I think it is more important to invest in companies than UP stock.  You are caught in a dilemma on your turn though, do you invest hoping the next share card is a dividend card or do you press your luck hoping you can get one more turn in (I liked this mechanic!).  Sometimes almost a nail biter if you decided to press your luck.  The game was fun and I would love to play again now that I know how to play.  Hopefully I didn’t miss anything in my review and is easier to read than I think it is!  J
 
Rating:  7 out of 10.
 
Alan Ray

Medici

Where to start with this wonderful game by Kiniza?
 
Medici is a pure auction game featuring a one bid per player per auction mechanic.  This may seem to be a weak mechanic to build a game on, but it works masterfully.
 
The game spans three days of trading in which you fill your ship's holds (your ship has 5 holds for carrying cargo) with one of five different types of cargo.  Each player gains gold for the highest values cargo, as well as the most cargo of each specific commodity.
 
During each day of trading, the players will go through the deck of cards once.  Each card represents a cargo (dyes, cloth, grain, spices, and furs are the five commodities) with a number from 0-5 representing the value of that cargo.  Each cargo has one card of each value, except there are 2 cards with a value of 5 for each commodity.  Additionally, there is a gold card worth 10 points.  During a player's turn, they turn over 1-3 cards from the deck for the players to bid on.  He may see what he has turned over, before determining if he will add another card to the auction. 
 
This is one of the central parts of the game, as a great auction can be made worthless  with the addition of a card that a player does not value, or a poor auction could turn into a fierce bidding war with the addition of a valued commodity.
 
Each player gets one opportunity to bid.  The high bidder moves back the number of spaces bid on the scoring track, and play continues with the next player drawing the cards for the next auction.  After the deck is exhausted, the player total the value (the number of each of their cards) of their shipment.  The player with the highest total gets 30 florins (points), 2nd gets 20, 3rd - 15, 4th - 10, 5th - 5, and 6th - 0.  Then the players determine who shipped how many of each commodity.  The player that shipped the most of each commodity scores 10 points, and the player that shipped the 2nd most scores 5.  The total holds for each commodity carries over from day to day, so if you can get a lead in one of the commodities, it can score big for you if you can hold on to the lead.  Additionally, if you have shipped 5 or more holds of one commodity, you get bonus points, 5 for 5 holds, 10 for 6 holds, and 20 for 7 or more holds. 
 
Repeat this three times, and you have played a full game!
 
Today, Alan, Brock, Kristen (?), Jaime, Neil, and I played what turned out to be a contest for second place.  In the first day's worth of trading, all the players were fairly close in the scoring, as we were only separated by 10 points from 1st to last.  However, Alan had laid the foundation of his dominance by shipping 4 furs in the first round!  This meant that all he needed to do was ship 3 more furs, and he would get 20 bonus points each turn thereafter!  That is EXACTLY what he did the second day.  There was an auction for 2 furs and a 1 grain, unfortunately, I was the only other person interested in fur.  However, Alan bid before I did, and he bid 18 florins, which would be made up by the bonus he would get for the cargo.  I was too far behind on the fur track, and it would get me to 4 holds shipped which would put me just below the bonus scoring.  So I let him have it.  Rather than bore everyone with the details, this gave Alan 40 bonus points in fur alone for the game.  He finished with 125+ points which is virtually unheard of in this game.  Second place was hotly contested by Jaime, Brock, and me.  I nailed down second place honors with a very respectable score of 97 points, which would have been enough to win most games!
 
All in all it was a fun game, even if we were only playing to see who would win second.  Then again, I guess had I been there for the game of Princes of Florence they played before Medici, every one would have been playing to see who would finish behind me in that!

My Rating:  a very respectable 8 of 10! 

John

Ra

I borrowed Alan's copy of Ra last night for a game with a couple of friends. Ra, designed by Reiner Knizia, is one of my all-time favorite games.

The game is Egyptian-themed, although the game itself has very little to do with Egypt. The game has an auction mechanic, and could accomodate just about any theme. The rules are simple. On each turn, a player may take one of three actions: draw a tile from the bag (bag not included, we use a Crown Royal bag) to add to the collection of tiles to be auctioned; exchange a "god tile" that one has for one of the tiles on the track; or call an auction by "invoking Ra" (done with a small wooden Ra statue). Thus each turn a player faces a choice: add to the collection to be auctioned, or force the auction before the collection becomes to valuable. Obviously, a player who anticipates winning the auction will sweeten the pot, and a player who anticipates losing the auction will call an auction rather than let the pot get too valuable.

Auctions are of the "once around" variety, and the player who calls an auction is required to bid if no one else does. Thus if you call an auction too soon, you could be forced to pay for a group of tiles that is not worth much.

The most unusual feature of the game, which sets it apart from other auction games, is that the auctions are conducted not with money that can be spent in arbitrary amounts, but with "sun tokens." The sun tokens are numbered 1 through 16, and each player starts an epoch (Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, and New Kingdom) with the same number of tokens. You may only bid with one token, and higher tokens beat lower tokens. Furthermore, the winning bid is placed in the center of the board, and is auctioned off with the next group of tiles.

Scoring is based on the tiles one wins at auction, and is done at the end of each epoch. The tiles themselves are of various sorts, and score in different manners. Some tiles, like the gold tiles, are worth a fixed number of points. Others, like the pharoah tiles, are scored based on who has the most and least number of them. The civilization tiles earn points by having three or more distinct tiles, and the monument tiles earn points by having sets of three or more that are alike. The god tiles score a fixed amount, like the gold tiles, but can be exchanged for any one tile on the auction track, without having to bid. There are also "disaster tiles" that lower the value of the pot.

Each epoch comes to a conclusion when either all players have spent all of their sun tokens, or when the Ra track fills up. Whenever a Ra tile is drawn, it is added to the Ra track, and an auction is forced. No one is required to bid in a forced auction, but when the last spot on the Ra track is filled, the epoch is over and there is no auction. So towards the end of the epoch, when all but one of the spaces in the Ra track is full, a player (often there is only one left at this point) faces a very tough decision: draw a tile in hopes of sweetening the pot, and risk drawing the final Ra tile; or call an auction to take what's available. This is the most exciting part of the game, whether it is you or your opponent doing the drawing.

The game only lasts about 30-45 minutes, so it's a good game for situations when you don't have a lot of time. The board and tiles are beautifully designed, although I wish that Rio Grande had included an Egyptian-themed bag to draw from. The biggest downside to the game is that it is currently out-of-print. Hopefully Rio Grande will reissue it soon.

Rating: 10 out of 10.

Java

This afternoon Alan, Brock, and I enjoyed the attractive tile laying game "Java", published by Rio Grande Games. The game is one in a series of three by authors Kiesling and Kramer (the other two are Tikal and Mexica). The game takes tile laying to new heights, literally, by having players stack tiles on top of each other.

The beautifully illustrated map depicts the undeveloped land of central Java, a volcanic island in South East Asia. Each player is a ruler trying to assert his own control and culture over the land. Fame points are scored during the game by building and improving palaces, irrigating land, and arranging palace festivals.

The first two are accomplished by placing tiles, which range in size from 1 to 3 hexes, on the board in strategic locations. Palace festivals are resolved in an auction, with players bidding cards whose symbols must match the festival's symbol(s). The player with the most matching symbols wins the auction and scores fame points based on the size of the palace.

Once the last 3-hex tile is placed, each player takes a last turn and performs a final scoring. Having control of the highest points within the cities and around the irrigation areas is the key to winning, especially in the final scoring turn. As the island fills up, deciding where to place the next tile becomes increasingly difficult (players must place at least one every turn).

However, it's the tile stacking that I like most about the game because of the many creative possibilities. The layered tiles create an interesting terraced effect as the game progresses. I also like the scoring track on the outside edge of the map, which helps players keep tabs on their rivals.

In the end, Alan skunked Brock and me with at least a 30-point lead. Now that I've seen the final scoring, I'd like to give Alan a run for his money. I give it an 8 out of 10.

Memoir '44

Alan, Todd, and I played a couple of games this afternoon at Cafe Francisco. One was Java, which Todd will be reviewing. The other was Memoir '44, a game in which you recreate battles from the Allied invasion of Normandy.

The game is played on a hex board, with tiles such as woods, villages, rivers, and bridges, that are arranged in different ways for the various battles. We played the battle for Pegasus bridge, which took place shortly after midnight on June 6, 1944. Players command units, which consist of plastic army men, very similar to the ones we all played with as children. (There are also armored units, but there are no armored units in the Pegasus bridge scenario.)

Players may order the units based on the cards they have in their hands. A card may say something like "order two units on the left flank," or "order one unit in each section of the board (left, right, and center)." One order consists of attacking, moving one hex then attacking, or moving two hexes. The cards are one random element of the game. The other random element is the dice rolled to make attacks. Up to four dice are rolled to attack, depending on how far the target is from the attacker, and what sort of cover (such as forests, sandbags, or wire) the defender has.

Each side scores points based on battle objectives, such as capturing the bridges over the Orne River and the Caen canal, and by eliminating enemy units. The first side to score a fixed number of points (which I believe is scenario-dependant), wins. Since one side may well have a distinct advantage over the other in a scenario, you're supposed to replay the scenario with the players switching sides. We only played the Pegasus bridge scenario once, however.

Unfortunately, unlike in history, the Allies, played by Alan and me, lost to the Axis, played by Todd. We made a bold rush on the machine gun nest near the Caen canal bridge, and our units were quickly gunned down.

The rules are easy to learn, and playing a single scenario only takes about 30 minutes. There's more randomness to the game than I really like. The gameboard and pieces are well-designed, and the historical information makes the game very educational.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

What makes a good game?

With work so slow today, I figured I would post some ramblings on something I have been thinking about for a while. What makes a good game?

For some this is a difficult idea to grasp, especially those who's likes cross many different genres. Most of the time, it can be boiled down to a number of items:

1) Decisions - You need to be able to make some important decisions during the game. However, the decisions should not be tedious. For example, when playing a wargame, deciding how to supply your troops may be an important decision, but what kind of trucks you are going to use is going a bit too far.

2) Replayability - Games need to be able to be played with different strategies to pursue, and each have an equal chance of victory if played well. So this item ties in with the item above. Axis & Allies is a perfect game to illustrate the importance of replayability. The first few times you play, it is a great light wargame. Then, you begin to realize, if you are the Allies, you must invade North Africa. The Russians HAVE to build at least 8 infantry every other turn. The Germans HAVE to make a play for Karelia and take it by turn 2 or 3, or else they lose, etc. There are decisions you need to make, but unless you make the right decisions, you will lose the game.

3) The Random Factor - No one wants to play the same game time after time. We long for the unexpected in games, so we can react to that. In some games, this is accomplished by rolling dice, in others, it is tile draw, etc. However, it is important to not have the game be so unpredictable to completely eliminate strategy from the game.

Several good examples of the random factor in games is Puerto Rico's plantation tiles, Princes of Florence's profession, bonus card, and prestige card draws, and the card draw in Medici.

This is not to say that some games cannot be more random in others, but it entirely depends on what the game is trying to be. If a game is of the lighter variety, it is good to have a higher random factor, then a brain-burner strategy game.

4) Time - Time is a factor that is dependant upon other factors. For example, you do not want to play a simulation of WWII that lasts only 5 minutes. On the other hand, you do not want to play a 6 hour hand of poker. Because of this, time is a fuzzier factor than the others here. A good rule of thumb a light game should play in 15-30 mintues, whereas a deeper more complex game should play in 1-2 hours, and a historical simulation should play in 3+ hours.

5) Complexity - Typically, the simpler a game is, the better it will play. However, the longer the game the more complex it can be. Also, simulations and more complex games can afford to have a higher degree of complexity. However, you do not want to have rules that border on fiddley. For example, normally you draw two cards, but on the first full moon, after the third Monday of the month, etc.

6) Well-written rules - This is not as much of a factor as the others listed, but it is important nevertheless. No one wants their game ruined by a rules lawyer.

7) Immersiveness - This is another important factor, that follows a sliding scale. The longer the game, the more immersive it needs to be.

A good game follows 3 or 4 of these tenants, whereas a great game follows all of them. I will use the examples of three games, Puerto Rico, Empires in Arms, and Robo-rally.

Puerto Rico gives you the opportunity of developing your own settlement in Puerto Rico, the more you develop and exploit the resources of your plot of land on the island, the more prestige you gain. The player with the most prestige wins. The game is very tactical, and you must make a number of decisions each turn. The random factor is low, and the complexity is medium. The rules are well written, but reading them you scratch your head because of everything that is happening. However, halfway through your first game, everything will become second nature to you. The game can be played in an hour easily, and I have played some games as fast as 15 minutes. The weakest part of the game, as it is with many of the "German" games is its immersiveness. Most everyone that plays this game hails it as one of the best games of all time.

Empires in Arms is a game that enables you to steer one of the 7 major European nations through the Napoleonic Wars. The games last anywhere from 2 hours for a scenario, to 200+ hours for the entire 10 year campaign game. The rules are very complex, and there is a high random factor, as each battle is fought based upon army tactics and die rolls. Good or bad die rolls can make or break an entire war, though this can be mitigated somewhat. The replayability is high, as you have free reign to negotiate with any and all powers throughout the game, however, it does get some black marks here, as most games boil down to how can everyone gang up to stop France. Finally, the immersive factor is very high, as you get attached to your leaders and how your nation is performing. However, it only receives a rating of a good game. Why? The rules are poorly written, and combined with its high complexity, it causes many game play errors. Also, the time needed to play the game makes it very difficult to find players to play, without having 1st, 2nd, and 3rd alternates for each country.

Robo-rally is a light racing game in which players try to complete a race course with their robots. Each player receives cards which have simple commands on them, move forward x spaces, turn left, turn right, U-turn, and move backwards. They pick five of these cards to move their robot for the turn. To make things difficult, different spaces on the board present different hazards, conveyor belts, crushers, pushers, gears, lasers, etc. Also, other players can shoot and damage your robot. As you take more damage, you receive fewer cards which limit your options. If the game moves along quickly, it is a great game. Unfortunately, there are always two or three players that decide they need 5 minutes to figure out their move, which bogs the game down horribly. The decisions made each turn range from none (low card draw) to many (wide selection of cards). The random factor is in the card draw, if you get good cards it makes everything a lot easier. The rules are straight forward and easy to understand. Immersiveness is low. Finally, the game is highly replayable with different boards, and different flag locations can make each board play differently from game to game. That said, the fun factor comes down to time. If the game plays in under an hour it is great fun, but if it starts moving into the 2-3 hour range, people will not ask for it to come out of the box again, especially if they were losing!

Well, that is all for now, I gotta go earn some money to fund my "habit!"

Warhammer

El Grande

We (Alan, Todd, Nick, Ram, and I) played a fantastic game of El Grande last night at Alan's house.

El Grande is a political conquest game set in medieval Spain. The board is divided into the provinces of Spain, such as Valencia, Aragon, and Basque, and scoring is based on who has control of the regions, by having the most, the second most, or the third most "Cabaneros" in a given region.

Each player has a home region, containing the player's Grande (lord), and players score bonus points for controlling their home region. The King moves from region to region, and controlling the King's region also scores bonus points. There is also a special region, the Castillo. Cabaneros placed in the Castillo are moved onto the board right before scoring, which gives players a final chance to seize control of a region.

Each turn has two phases. In the first phase, the bidding phase, players bid on the right to go ahead of other players in the second phase, the action phase. Each player starts with thirteen "power cards," numbered through 13, and bids using these cards. No player may bid the same number as another player, and the second phase goes in order, from who bid the lowest to who bid the highest. The power card used to bid also determines how many Cabaneros the player may bring from the "provinces" to his "court," in preparation for placing them on the board in the action phase. The lower numbers let you bring in more Cabaneros to the provinces, so there's an advantage to bidding low as well as to bidding high.

In the action phase, players choose from one of five "action cards" from five stacks. These action cards determine how many Cabaneros a player may move from the provinces to the board, and also grant the player an optional action he may take. Actions may be something like "move five Cabaneros of your choice," or "score one region of your choice," or "send all the Cabaneros in your opponents court back to the provinces." One action card is always present: the card that lets you move the King. The King's region is special, in that no Cabaneros may move into or out of it. So if you move the King into a region that you control, no one else may seize control of from you without moving the King first.

All regions are scored at the end of the third, sixth, and ninth turns (or after the second, fourth, and sixth turns in the short game).

The rules can be learned very quickly. The only thing complex about the rules is interpretations of the action cards, which are sometimes ambiguous. Fortunately, the rule booklet has a clear explanation for each of the action cards.

El Grande uses a scoring track, which is a feature I like in a game, as this gives you a good idea of each player's standing. The board is not so complex that one can't have a pretty good idea how scoring would go if it took place at any given point. The state of the board, however, can change greatly in a few turns, and a person who looks like they have a comfortable lead may see that lead evaporate.

This happened last night. Todd was well ahead of everyone else on the scoring track going into the final three turns. Alan was in second place, and Ram and I were tied for third. When the final round of scoring took place, Ram pulled ahead of Todd, and then Alan pulled just ahead of Ram to win by one point.

A lot of the strategy in El Grande is psychological. How you decide to act is determined greatly by what you think other players are going to do. We played one action that said "Each player secretly picks one region to score. If more than one player picks a region, it is not scored." You choose regions secretly with a cardboard wheel and pointer that each player has. When we did this, two regions were both chosen by two players, and so only one region scored. (The one I picked, New Castille!)

The only downside to the game is that the psychological elements to the strategy can make it easy to get caught up in "analysis paralysis," and slow the game down. This is compounded by the fact that one's strategy is very dependant on what other players do, making it difficult to plan what one is going to do in advance of one's turn. A group decision to limit table talk, i.e. giving other players advice, can make the game go quicker.

The game lasted about two and a half hours, which is quite a bit longer than the playing time listed on the box.

Overall, I'd rate El Grande 9 out of 10. The only five-player games I like better are Princes of Florence and Ra.

Die Macher

I finally got to play this monster game this Sunday. The players trying to lead their parties to the head of German politics were Todd, Alan, Joe, Neal, and myself.

WARNING: For first time players, expect this game to take 5-6 hours. Additional plays will probably run 3-4 hours.

To begin, the rules for this game seem daunting when you read them. Each rule in and of itself is not difficult, but the sheer number of things going on at anyone time does make it difficult to fully grasp until your first game.

There are 8 phases to each round of play:
1) Bid for starting player: Each player bids to get the opportunity to name the starting player.

2) Change Party platform: Each player, starting with the starting player, changes one of their 5 party platform positions. Each player has a hand of 2-3 cards, which they discard from, draw back to 3, and then play one to their platform.

3) Play Shadow Cabinet cards: Each player has 7 party members that can each be used once. They are played to a region, and can influence the election in the region. Only one Shadow Cabinet card per player can be played to a region per turn. They are all played face down, then revealed and resolved.

4) Form coalitions: As is common in European politics, it is necessary to form coalitions to win elections. Coalitions can be played between parties that have played the necessary Shadow Cabinet cards, AND if they have at least 2 platform positions in common. If they have 3 or more in common, one party can force the other party into a coalition. This can be very important, as it can let a minor party ride a larger party's coattails to victory.

5) Media Influence: Each player, in turn order, has the opportunity to purchase media influence in the regions, one marker at a time. Play continues until all players pass in turn. There are only spaces for 5 media markers in each region. If a player has more media markers than the other players in a region, he can influence the people's opinion in a region. This is accomplished by exchanging one of the region's opinion (of which there are four, which correspond to the party platform cards) cards with one from a common pool.

6) Party Markers: Each player, in turn order, can purchase party markers, that are playable to a maximum of 10 in each region. Party markers can be translated into votes later in the round. A maximum of 4 markers can be played into each region per turn, per player, however, due to marker limits, most players will not be able play all of them.

7) Opinion Polls: Opinion polls are now sold in each of the regions. Players may bid on them, and if successful, may either elect to publish the poll, or take additional party membership. If they publish the poll they can move one or two parties up or down on the region's trend, which can help or hurt that party's chances in the upcoming election.

8) Converting Party Markers into votes: Each player, in turn order can now turn their party markers into votes. In each region, in turn order, players can cash in their markers for votes. For every party platform issue that matches the region's opinion cards the party gets a +1 multiplier. For each issue that is in opposition they get a -1 multiplier. For key issues, these are doubled to +2 or -2. Finally, the party's trend in the region is added to this and applied.

For example: If the Green party, is agrees with the region's opinion of education, pollution, and security, but differs on health and genetic foods, they get a +1 multiplier for their issues. If their trend marker is at +3, it is changed to +4 (1 + 3 = 4) This is now multiplied by the number of party markers they are converting. So, if they are cashing in 5 party markers, this gives them 20 votes (5 x 4 = 20) in the region (out of a possible 50). If the party's multiplier is 0 or negative, markers are converted at a rate of 2 markers for every vote.

9) Determine the current election: This is basically step 8 in the current region. However, the results of this are final and the results are tallied. As mentioned before, coalitions are very important. The most votes a single party can get in an election is 50, but a coalition can get more votes than 50 (the votes of each party in the coalition are added together). So, if the CDU has 50 votes, but the Green and FPD parties are in a coalition and have 30 and 21 votes respectively, they win the election 51 to 50. If there is a tie, there are several ways to work this out. If the tie is between individual parties, then the party that got to that vote total last, wins by a nose. If the tie is between a single party and a coalition or two coalitions, the party (or coalition member) that has the most individual votes wins the election.

Example: CDU and PDS are in a coalition and Green and FPD are in a coalition, CDU has 50 votes, Green has 45, FPD has 20, and PDS has 15. The CDU and PDS coalition wins, because the CDU had the most votes of the individual parties. However, if the Green party had 50 votes, and had gotten to 50 votes last, and the FPD only had 15 votes, tehn the Green and FPD coalition would have won the election by a nose.

10) Determine election results: The winning party can move one of their media markers from the current region board to the national board. Additionally, up to two regional opinions can be moved from the current board to the national board to reflect the current national opinion. If the result is a win by a nose, only one issue can be moved to the party board, and the loser can move one of his media markers from the region to the national board. If it is a coalition victory, each member of the coalition can move one of their media markers (again, from the current region) and one opinion card to the national board. IMPORTANT: The party with the most votes in the coalition gets first choice of opinion cards. Also, Mandate is determined. Each region is worth a certain amount of seats in the Bundestag. Based upon the number of votes you receive, you get X number of seats.

11) Increase party membership: Party membership is increased based upon the being in line with the current national opinion. The more you agree with it, the more members you get.

12) Receive money: You receive money equal to the amount of Mandate (or seats) you gained in the current election x 1000. Also, on rounds 1-5, each party can accept outside contributions. However, there is a risk associated with this. The larger the amount you accept, the more likely your party members are to leave due to the party being corrupted by outside influences. Finally, after rounds 1, 3, and 5, your party members contribute 1000 x your party membership to the cause.

WHEW! My fingers are getting tired. All in all, I feel this is a great game. However, this is not a game you introduce non-gamers to. This is definitely a gamer's game. The rules may seem like a lot, but once you sit down to play they flow together rather well. Our first turn took 2-1/2 hours, turns 3-4 took another 2-1/2, and turns 5-7 took 1 hour.

A couple of nice twists to the game are the following:
1) The regions, only four regions are visible at a time. The current region all 4 opinion cards are displayed. In region 2, only three are visible, region 3, only two, and region 4 only has one card displayed. Additionally, there are 16 regions in the game, only 7 of which are used, and the last three you do not know until other elections are completed and boards are freed up. This means that you need to carefully plan which regions you are going to make you biggest efforts in.

2) You need to win some elections, but cannot win them all. Due to card distibution, and your inability to make radical changes to your party platform, and limited party markers, you must carefully determine whether you try for the smaller region with opinions that closely match your platform, or do you try to go for the monster region with very little in common with you, but is worth more?

3) The scoring system, although it is math intensive, it rewards you for early wins, and less for late wins. However, later wins mean you get more party membership as those issues are more current. Scoring is determined by:

Mandate (seats won)
National Party Membership
Platform compared to National Opinion (The longer the opinion has been on the national
scene, the greater the bonus)
Media Influence +
-------------------------------------------
Total score

4) Little downtime between players. The most downtime I saw in the game is during party platform selection. Even then, it was at most 2 minutes before we embarked on the next round.

5) Coalitions: These ensure that even a minor party in a region can still ride their way to victory. So even if you find yourself behind early, you can still comeback and win.

Negatives:
1) The lack of a visible scoreboard. However, you can easily tell by looking at the various boards how a player is doing at a given time. So it is not as bad as Puerto Rico, but not as nice as Princes of Florence. On the other hand, visible scoring could lead to Analysis Paralysis for every decision as players try to min/max everything.

2) Coalition victories: I like the mechanic, but the rules state the player with the most votes gets first pick of opinion to place on the national board. Unfortunately, the lesser player in the coalition could choose to take that issue off the national board and replace it with another opinion. I think a better rule would be to allow the first player in the coalition his choice of first or second pick.

Overall rating: 9 (this could go up with additional plays) It is incredible how many decisions you need to make, and how everything ties together. This is definitely a great game.

Other opinions: Joe definitely enjoyed the game but had to leave early.
Alan and Todd were willing to give the game another go. I think Todd had some issues early with the rules, but picked then up and enjoyed the game more as it went on. Neal disliked the game, but I think much of this was due to his getting saddled with two coalitions he did not want to be part of. Plus, he got hosed with what I described above with the national opinion cards.
 
EDIT:  Rating - 9 of 10, could increase to a perfect 10.

Princes of Florence

(This is a repost from May 15 from my other blog, Signifying Nothing.)

I played two games of Princes of Florence this afternoon at Cafe Francisco downtown.

The theme of the game is Medici-era Florence, and the goal of the game is to gain the most prestige, which you get by building a magnificent Palazzo, with lots of buildings and landscapes, and by commissioning works from artisans, artists, and scholars.

Turns in the game consist of two phases, an auction phase and an action phase. In the auction phase, players bid to add landscapes to their Palazzo and hire architects and jesters. In the action phase, players build buildings and commission works. Each artisan, artist, and scholar has a preferred type of building to work in, a preferred type of landscape for recretation, and a preferred freedom (travel, opinion, or religion), which makes the works they produce more valuable.

There are three things about this game that make it one of my favorites.
First, the auction mechanic acts as a natural balancing mechanism for the game. There can be no consistent winning strategy for the game. If there were a winning strategy, everyone would pursue it in the auction phase, bidding up the value of the items. This would give an advantage to anyone not pursuing that strategy, since they could buy the items they need cheaply.

Second, the game appeals to the amateur economist in me, since it illustrates so well the concept of opportunity cost. Each player can only buy one item in each turn’s auction, so even if you get a good deal on, e.g., hiring a jester, you might have gotten a better deal on hiring an architect. The game is won by getting a better deal than everyone else at the auction.

Third, the goal of the game illustrates Aristotle’s virtue of magnificence. It’s good to earn money, but only because it lets you do great things with it.

If you live in the Memphis area and would like to play Princes of Florence or other strategy board games, you should sign up for the Memphis Strategy Board Gaming Community Yahoo group. We meet to play games at least twice a month.