Gaming (Thankfully)
Apr. 23rd, 2005 11:01 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aIt's been a pretty shitty week. I've been some degree of sick since at least last Sunday. Nothing major, mind you, but I've been fatigued consistently, often thinking slowly, and phlegmy and/or coughy at various points. And, Kimberly has been severely depressed and at least baseline anxious, though clearly not as anxious as last week. And, to top it all off, we had to spend 3 or 4 hours filling out her disability paperwork to make sure the gov't doesn't take away her disability. And we also had to at least consider the fact that we'd be fairly totally fucked if they did.
Our gaming group didn't have enough people around for regular roleplaying today, but thankfully Eric F. and Dave W. decided that they'd like to come up to Berkeley to play some board games. It was very good to get out of the house, which I hadn't much this week, and do something different (even if the walk over to Donald's house did tire me a bit).
So, I brought a bunch of four-player games that we don't play that often due to group size issues, and we played.
First up was Domaine, probably my favorite game that I don't play enough. It's a clever little game of territory encirclement, expansion, and warfare. It's also a game of hard decisions between short-term good (mines, which give you gold, which give you actions) and long-term good (forests & villages, which give you VPs).
I told everyone that I tend to go for mines early in the game, as an indication of the strategy I engage in. I was the fourth player to go, and once everyone else had gone I decided which of my four domaines to develop. I choose a domaine to work on, baesd upon who else was building my walls for me, even though it was a really constrained domaine, tight in behind a couple of other players. I managed to get the second domaine on the board, on the same round as the first domaine went down (and I think getting an early domaine is very critical).
With judicious application of first wall building, then domaine expansion, I managed to have 2 mines with other players had 1 at the most, and 3 when others had 2. This gave me more money to spend, and thus ultimately more actions, and I was able to turn this to my advantage.
I was far, far out front for most of the game. This isn't the first time I've dramatically sharked other players when they played Domaine for the first time, which makes me feel a little bad, but I really do try and offer good strategic advice. About 3 rounds from the end of the game I made a crucial mistake by taking away a mine from another player rather than taking a forest for +1 VP. It was that same short-term v. long-term issue, and I tend to fall on the short-term side in this game. If I hadn't done that I would have won the game on my next turn; as it was I was 1 VP short, with everyone constantly attacking me.
I still did manage to win, when we ran out of cards. I had 29 VP (still, 1 short of the instant victory of 30) v. a 26 (Dave W.) and a few lower scores. Eric F. totally tanked
Second up was Tigris & Euphrates. Here I totally tanked, though only Donald and I had played before. I didn't successfully win any external conflicts until the last round, which is part of what cost me dearly. I also didn't build or steal any monuments. Thus, it really shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't have a lot of points. On the one hand I played too conservatively, but on the other hand I had a couple of conflicts that I tried early on that turned against me, even though I'd been conservative in hoarding tiles before the attack.
I want to play this game a couple of more times face-to-face, then rewrite my original review, because it's been ages since I wrote that, it's in the older format at RPGnet, and I was a lot more inexperienced with German games at the time.
Still, I don't entirely understand the top-level ratings for this game because it has a higher random element than I'd like for a game of this apparent weight, but on the other hand there's not a lot of variety of play. Though it's still a fine game, mind you, just a "4", not a "5" on the RPGnet scale. At least for now.
I believe the final scores were something like 5-6-6-8 at the end (pretty low scoring), with Eric F. winning, offering a total turnaround from the game of Domaine.
Third was Four Dragons, a weird trick-taking game where a lot of the card plays interact with each other, and thus there's a high tactical element (if I do "A", and he does "B", then "C" happens, but if he does "D", "E" happens).
I often feel like I'm not in control of this game, and this time around was no exception. For the first two rounds I (and partner, Eric) flailed and we were behind by 1 or 2 points after the first two rounds, though we had a bunch of standalone rain cards (all scoring is based on sets of 1 rain + 1 earth, and thus we had half of what we needed to catch up).
Then in the third round, everything clicked. I could tell what cards everyone was holding, and so I knew what I should probably play. I did things I've never done before, like leading off the scoring cards because I could see we'd win them.
Now, I've never had quite that degree of revelation in Four Dragons before, but I have drifted back and forth between having-a-clue and helplessness; I think last time I played I felt very in control the first two rounds, and not the last. Thus, I wonder how much of it is luck of the draw as opposed to finally getting into the groove of the game. I'm not entirely sure because there is a lot of thought required in the game, and once you get the thought patterns right, things work a lot better.
Anyway, I like the game. Eric & Dave W. both found it more random than most trick-taking games, because of the fact that you take cards from opponents whenever they win a trick, and thus your hands aren't stable. I think that meant they didn't like it as much as a standard trick-taking game.
Eric F. and I won, catching up with our spectacular last round.
After dinner the last game of the day was Primordial Soup, the simulationistic game of amoeba evolution and eating.
I got to go first, and so I set myself at the front of the score line, which is disadvantageous in keeping your amoebas fed, but advantageous in choosing mutations. I then, mainly to see how it worked out, tried the strategy that Chris A. pushed last time, which was Spores + Division Rate, which allows you to cheaply create amoebas anywhere on the board.
Last time I played Primordial Soup, one of my problems was never having enough money to buy good mutations, because I was always spending it all on creating new amoebas. This time around I was determined not to make the same mistake. As hard as it was, on the second or third round, I didn't produce at all, so I'd have enough money to buy the Division Rate I needed to make my amoeba creation cheaper.
That worked terrific. I fell back a space in scoring because I didn't procreate, but then leapt forward after that, and at one point was 5 points ahead of my closest competitor.
Unfortunately, Primordial Soup is pretty brutal to leaders, because you always eat last. To top that I didn't have any mutations that made it easier for me to eat, and so almost every round most of my amoebas were taking damage. My procreation advantage could only keep me going for so long.
Eventually, even with longevity, my amoebas started dying out, and this allowed Dave W. to pass me on the penultimate turn, and then Eric F. to pass me on the final turn (by 1 point; sigh).
A few amusing things (and I mainly find Primordial Soup to be more of an amusing event than a serious game):
So I guess the moral of the story is that anorexia won't win you any games, but neither will being a bully.
At least not this time.
Came home. Tomorrow I want to spend at least a couple of hours writing.
Our gaming group didn't have enough people around for regular roleplaying today, but thankfully Eric F. and Dave W. decided that they'd like to come up to Berkeley to play some board games. It was very good to get out of the house, which I hadn't much this week, and do something different (even if the walk over to Donald's house did tire me a bit).
So, I brought a bunch of four-player games that we don't play that often due to group size issues, and we played.
First up was Domaine, probably my favorite game that I don't play enough. It's a clever little game of territory encirclement, expansion, and warfare. It's also a game of hard decisions between short-term good (mines, which give you gold, which give you actions) and long-term good (forests & villages, which give you VPs).
I told everyone that I tend to go for mines early in the game, as an indication of the strategy I engage in. I was the fourth player to go, and once everyone else had gone I decided which of my four domaines to develop. I choose a domaine to work on, baesd upon who else was building my walls for me, even though it was a really constrained domaine, tight in behind a couple of other players. I managed to get the second domaine on the board, on the same round as the first domaine went down (and I think getting an early domaine is very critical).
With judicious application of first wall building, then domaine expansion, I managed to have 2 mines with other players had 1 at the most, and 3 when others had 2. This gave me more money to spend, and thus ultimately more actions, and I was able to turn this to my advantage.
I was far, far out front for most of the game. This isn't the first time I've dramatically sharked other players when they played Domaine for the first time, which makes me feel a little bad, but I really do try and offer good strategic advice. About 3 rounds from the end of the game I made a crucial mistake by taking away a mine from another player rather than taking a forest for +1 VP. It was that same short-term v. long-term issue, and I tend to fall on the short-term side in this game. If I hadn't done that I would have won the game on my next turn; as it was I was 1 VP short, with everyone constantly attacking me.
I still did manage to win, when we ran out of cards. I had 29 VP (still, 1 short of the instant victory of 30) v. a 26 (Dave W.) and a few lower scores. Eric F. totally tanked
Second up was Tigris & Euphrates. Here I totally tanked, though only Donald and I had played before. I didn't successfully win any external conflicts until the last round, which is part of what cost me dearly. I also didn't build or steal any monuments. Thus, it really shouldn't be a surprise that I didn't have a lot of points. On the one hand I played too conservatively, but on the other hand I had a couple of conflicts that I tried early on that turned against me, even though I'd been conservative in hoarding tiles before the attack.
I want to play this game a couple of more times face-to-face, then rewrite my original review, because it's been ages since I wrote that, it's in the older format at RPGnet, and I was a lot more inexperienced with German games at the time.
Still, I don't entirely understand the top-level ratings for this game because it has a higher random element than I'd like for a game of this apparent weight, but on the other hand there's not a lot of variety of play. Though it's still a fine game, mind you, just a "4", not a "5" on the RPGnet scale. At least for now.
I believe the final scores were something like 5-6-6-8 at the end (pretty low scoring), with Eric F. winning, offering a total turnaround from the game of Domaine.
Third was Four Dragons, a weird trick-taking game where a lot of the card plays interact with each other, and thus there's a high tactical element (if I do "A", and he does "B", then "C" happens, but if he does "D", "E" happens).
I often feel like I'm not in control of this game, and this time around was no exception. For the first two rounds I (and partner, Eric) flailed and we were behind by 1 or 2 points after the first two rounds, though we had a bunch of standalone rain cards (all scoring is based on sets of 1 rain + 1 earth, and thus we had half of what we needed to catch up).
Then in the third round, everything clicked. I could tell what cards everyone was holding, and so I knew what I should probably play. I did things I've never done before, like leading off the scoring cards because I could see we'd win them.
Now, I've never had quite that degree of revelation in Four Dragons before, but I have drifted back and forth between having-a-clue and helplessness; I think last time I played I felt very in control the first two rounds, and not the last. Thus, I wonder how much of it is luck of the draw as opposed to finally getting into the groove of the game. I'm not entirely sure because there is a lot of thought required in the game, and once you get the thought patterns right, things work a lot better.
Anyway, I like the game. Eric & Dave W. both found it more random than most trick-taking games, because of the fact that you take cards from opponents whenever they win a trick, and thus your hands aren't stable. I think that meant they didn't like it as much as a standard trick-taking game.
Eric F. and I won, catching up with our spectacular last round.
After dinner the last game of the day was Primordial Soup, the simulationistic game of amoeba evolution and eating.
I got to go first, and so I set myself at the front of the score line, which is disadvantageous in keeping your amoebas fed, but advantageous in choosing mutations. I then, mainly to see how it worked out, tried the strategy that Chris A. pushed last time, which was Spores + Division Rate, which allows you to cheaply create amoebas anywhere on the board.
Last time I played Primordial Soup, one of my problems was never having enough money to buy good mutations, because I was always spending it all on creating new amoebas. This time around I was determined not to make the same mistake. As hard as it was, on the second or third round, I didn't produce at all, so I'd have enough money to buy the Division Rate I needed to make my amoeba creation cheaper.
That worked terrific. I fell back a space in scoring because I didn't procreate, but then leapt forward after that, and at one point was 5 points ahead of my closest competitor.
Unfortunately, Primordial Soup is pretty brutal to leaders, because you always eat last. To top that I didn't have any mutations that made it easier for me to eat, and so almost every round most of my amoebas were taking damage. My procreation advantage could only keep me going for so long.
Eventually, even with longevity, my amoebas started dying out, and this allowed Dave W. to pass me on the penultimate turn, and then Eric F. to pass me on the final turn (by 1 point; sigh).
A few amusing things (and I mainly find Primordial Soup to be more of an amusing event than a serious game):
- Dave W., the winner, based his victory on being able to move his amoebas all around, with Movement 1 + Speed + Streamlining + Escape. This was similar to the strategy I tried last time. (I lost, and the winner had the strategy I tried here.)
- Donald came in last. By the end of the game he had Struggle for Survival, which allowed him to eat other amoebas. This is the second game I've played where the SfS amoeba was the big loser.
- Because I was out ahead when Donald got SfS I got eaten more than anyone else; this probably cost me second place, but not first.
- My amoebas were the little anorexic amoebas, never eating, just taking damage. By the end of the game almost all of my colored food cubes were sitting next to me, while Eric and Dave kept running out of theirs.
So I guess the moral of the story is that anorexia won't win you any games, but neither will being a bully.
At least not this time.
Came home. Tomorrow I want to spend at least a couple of hours writing.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 08:41 am (UTC)I really enjoy Tigris and Euphrates though I often get hammered at it. We generally play with three tiles from the bag face up, which can be chosen instead of the random draw. I think that alleviates some of the randomness you describe.
Domaine is Lowenherz, right? I've played Lowenherz a few times and enjoyed it, but it's not one that demanded to be re-played all that often. Perhaps there's a bit too much sniping in it. Is Domaine in any way different to Lowenherz?
I'm sorry to hear that Kimberly is having such a bad time of it lately. It's hard on you both. I hope the disability support stuff goes through the bureaucracy smoothly (as smoothly as can be expected, that is).
no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 06:54 pm (UTC)Yeah, it is pretty long for amusing, and I thus I can't see it ever being a more than 2-3 times a year game. I think it'd work fine if you just went up to a lower score (30 or 32) and that would shorten things. Ironically my strategy that game would have worked if we'd played a shorter game (which makes you wonder about how such a change might actually warp things).
And I totally agree on the trailing problem. One of our players got behind, and I'm not even sure how, and was totally out of the game. Fortunately, on the front end, things stayed very competitive.
I really enjoy Tigris and Euphrates though I often get hammered at it. We generally play with three tiles from the bag face up, which can be chosen instead of the random draw. I think that alleviates some of the randomness you describe.
Yeah, I can see that, and that's a pretty good fix for any game of this type (though I'm somewhat loathe to muck with the rules of any game as they're written).
Domaine is Lowenherz, right? I've played Lowenherz a few times and enjoyed it, but it's not one that demanded to be re-played all that often. Perhaps there's a bit too much sniping in it. Is Domaine in any way different to Lowenherz?
Domaine is second-edition Lowenherz, which was released in 2002 or 2003. I've never played first-edition, but it had an auction for the action cards as I understand, while the second edition does not. Second edition is also a bit more casual than first. So, it may or may not be the game you've played;).
I'm sorry to hear that Kimberly is having such a bad time of it lately. It's hard on you both. I hope the disability support stuff goes through the bureaucracy smoothly (as smoothly as can be expected, that is).
It probably will, it would just cause enough problems if it didn't to cause some concern. But, it's supposed to be based on whether she can work or not, and she honestly can't right now.
no subject
Date: 2005-04-25 08:26 pm (UTC)I always seem to get stuck in some sort of bizarre coercive telepathy with one of the other players in that sort of auction, particularly in Edel, Stein und Reich, which I played last night with my wife and a friend. The friend won handily, as my wife and I managed to match our bids and choices too often.
I'm not so picky about making rules changes. I think the suggestion for Tigris and Euphrates works nicely, as it doesn't really change the play too much, but does act directly on the randomness of the draw. We also often play with open scoring, as the memory work for hidden scores benefits certain players more than others.