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.