Tab runs thru a gauntlet of tacklers!
Monday, March 28, 2005
Football with friends
Played football Sunday on a muddy, wet (1 inch of water) field with the brothers from Carbondale, and a few from further out (Honesdale?).
I played center and defensive lineman most of the game, but did run two series as QB, punted once (a quick kick), completed 1-2 passes, scrambled for 40-50 yards or so. Had 2 RB rushes for 30 yards. I threw one interception, recovered one of my own fumbles, had 1-2 QB "hurries" on defense at least one of which created an interception. I had 3-4 bad snaps in the game, mostly due to the slippery ball. I called all the plays on the first drive of the game for a touchdown (although I played center).
My brother did well, scored a couple of times, had a couple interceptions, and some good tackles. He brought some plays with him, and we used those a few times for a several good gainers. He had an amazing catch from Moe, slidding on his needs in the mud, getting up and running it 20 more yards. Moe had most of the offense, scoring a couple of times in the run, catching a few, throwing a few, several great tackles, plus 1-2 interceptions, and at 2 fumbles. Chris had a forced sack-fumble on defense, several hurries, many tackles. He had some good rushes, and a few catches. James had some good rushes, and several bone-crunching tackles.
Their offense was stymied by us in the first half of the game, but in the second half, Paul took over. Rushing as the QB on almost every play, he must have scored 3 times. He also scored a few touchdowns by passing on the run. Austen caught 1-2 TDs, can't remember who else scored. Burke was assigned to block me on the line, and we must have slammed into each other 30 times that game, and I am still very sore from the experience!
One of the coolest things was that a photographer from the Scranton times happened by, and recorded several shots of the action, took our names at the end of the game, and claimed she was submitting the game for the paper! I will post the photo here if she does...
I will never forget James belly flop/slide in the mud 15 yards... Great game overall, we lost 7-8, but had a great time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Played Star Wars Minatures game with Tab on Saturday, played football on Sunday.
We played a scenario from an expansion book, instead of the normal "point battle" where you buy a squad with a preset number of points. The scenario was based on the opening encounter from Phantom Menace, where Obi Wan and Qui Gon are attempted to battle their way into the command center of the Trade Federation ship.
The two characters start on the map 2-3 turns away from the command center doors. They must fight their way thru to them, then spend 3-4 turns cutting thru them with lightsabers. Meanwhile, 10 droids are on the map, blasting away at the Jedi, and 2 more enter the map each turn. If the droid player loses initiative (a 50% chance), 2 droidakar units (the rolling droids with cannons and shields) enter the map. The droids are almost unstoppable, as they have a 50% chance each turn of avoiding all damage because of their sheilds, and they dish out 20-30 (can't remember) on their own each turn. With 6-10 battle droids (including the security droids that do 20 damage against unactivated opponents) plunking on you on top of that, it's not clear how the Jedi can survive.
After two plays, Tab and I realized that the battle was really a loss (or a standoff) for the Jedi, as was the case in the movie. Even with incredibly good rolls, the Jedi simply do not have time to take down the blast doors before falling to damage from their enemies.
That means 90 minutes of game time was simply... wasted... on a broken scenario. The instructions gave no hint that the Jedi had no reasonable chance of winning, so we had to play the game out to determine this for ourselves. For some gamers I suppose that might have been fun. But I felt like we were tricked by the game designers into believing that the scenario was balanced, and was somewhat annoyed that we had to discover this for ourselves...
I played center and defensive lineman most of the game, but did run two series as QB, punted once (a quick kick), completed 1-2 passes, scrambled for 40-50 yards or so. Had 2 RB rushes for 30 yards. I threw one interception, recovered one of my own fumbles, had 1-2 QB "hurries" on defense at least one of which created an interception. I had 3-4 bad snaps in the game, mostly due to the slippery ball. I called all the plays on the first drive of the game for a touchdown (although I played center).
My brother did well, scored a couple of times, had a couple interceptions, and some good tackles. He brought some plays with him, and we used those a few times for a several good gainers. He had an amazing catch from Moe, slidding on his needs in the mud, getting up and running it 20 more yards. Moe had most of the offense, scoring a couple of times in the run, catching a few, throwing a few, several great tackles, plus 1-2 interceptions, and at 2 fumbles. Chris had a forced sack-fumble on defense, several hurries, many tackles. He had some good rushes, and a few catches. James had some good rushes, and several bone-crunching tackles.
Their offense was stymied by us in the first half of the game, but in the second half, Paul took over. Rushing as the QB on almost every play, he must have scored 3 times. He also scored a few touchdowns by passing on the run. Austen caught 1-2 TDs, can't remember who else scored. Burke was assigned to block me on the line, and we must have slammed into each other 30 times that game, and I am still very sore from the experience!
One of the coolest things was that a photographer from the Scranton times happened by, and recorded several shots of the action, took our names at the end of the game, and claimed she was submitting the game for the paper! I will post the photo here if she does...
I will never forget James belly flop/slide in the mud 15 yards... Great game overall, we lost 7-8, but had a great time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Played Star Wars Minatures game with Tab on Saturday, played football on Sunday.
We played a scenario from an expansion book, instead of the normal "point battle" where you buy a squad with a preset number of points. The scenario was based on the opening encounter from Phantom Menace, where Obi Wan and Qui Gon are attempted to battle their way into the command center of the Trade Federation ship.
The two characters start on the map 2-3 turns away from the command center doors. They must fight their way thru to them, then spend 3-4 turns cutting thru them with lightsabers. Meanwhile, 10 droids are on the map, blasting away at the Jedi, and 2 more enter the map each turn. If the droid player loses initiative (a 50% chance), 2 droidakar units (the rolling droids with cannons and shields) enter the map. The droids are almost unstoppable, as they have a 50% chance each turn of avoiding all damage because of their sheilds, and they dish out 20-30 (can't remember) on their own each turn. With 6-10 battle droids (including the security droids that do 20 damage against unactivated opponents) plunking on you on top of that, it's not clear how the Jedi can survive.
After two plays, Tab and I realized that the battle was really a loss (or a standoff) for the Jedi, as was the case in the movie. Even with incredibly good rolls, the Jedi simply do not have time to take down the blast doors before falling to damage from their enemies.
That means 90 minutes of game time was simply... wasted... on a broken scenario. The instructions gave no hint that the Jedi had no reasonable chance of winning, so we had to play the game out to determine this for ourselves. For some gamers I suppose that might have been fun. But I felt like we were tricked by the game designers into believing that the scenario was balanced, and was somewhat annoyed that we had to discover this for ourselves...
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Hansa
Got around to playing Hansa again, this time with Grayson and even talked Tam into playing with us. I read the rules and played a trial solitare game a few weeks ago, discovered a pleasant little 60 minute game that has deceptively clever rules.
A famous trait of German games is their ability to frustrate deep analysis. They frequently introduce many agonizing decisions into each play, denying players the ability to concoct perfect strategies. All style multi-player games have a certain degree of this, but German game designers relish chances to give you many possible choices, almost as if this agony is the trill of playing all by itself.
And sometimes it is! Puerto Rico (currently #1 in the world) is like that a lot, as are games like Java that allow you to "purchase" actions with a limited number of points each turn. Area control games like El Grande would defy any computer analysis for this reason too.
There are 5 basic actions each turn in Hansa that I'm refering to. First, use (or don't use) one of your "actions points" to refill the supply spaces on the board. Second, move your trading ship to a new location. Three, four and five are: purchase a trading good, trade in a pair of goods for victory points, or trade in a single good to build a market location.
These 5 basic actions are the crux of the game. As simple as they sound, the analysis around these decisions can be amazingly complex. For example, where do I move my ship to each turn? Logic would suggest moving to where goods are pleantiful, so you can set up a trading route. But your opponents may be able to use your route more efficiently due to their market locations. Okay, I'll build more markets to make my opponents use my locations. No, they just bought up all the goods in the area, and are moving to a different area. Okay, why not delay your turn, forcing your opponents to refill the empty trade good locations. Instead, they choose to trade in their goods for victory points and now you are behind in points. Arrrgghgh!
I love this game! Picked it up for $20 at Fair Play, you won't see it in stores in the US, but it's published by Uberplay (New England is a recent highly touted release by them, as well as Tongiaki) and currently ranked 144 in the world according to the 'Geek. I look forward to playing this 4 player game with you sometime!
A famous trait of German games is their ability to frustrate deep analysis. They frequently introduce many agonizing decisions into each play, denying players the ability to concoct perfect strategies. All style multi-player games have a certain degree of this, but German game designers relish chances to give you many possible choices, almost as if this agony is the trill of playing all by itself.
And sometimes it is! Puerto Rico (currently #1 in the world) is like that a lot, as are games like Java that allow you to "purchase" actions with a limited number of points each turn. Area control games like El Grande would defy any computer analysis for this reason too.
There are 5 basic actions each turn in Hansa that I'm refering to. First, use (or don't use) one of your "actions points" to refill the supply spaces on the board. Second, move your trading ship to a new location. Three, four and five are: purchase a trading good, trade in a pair of goods for victory points, or trade in a single good to build a market location.
These 5 basic actions are the crux of the game. As simple as they sound, the analysis around these decisions can be amazingly complex. For example, where do I move my ship to each turn? Logic would suggest moving to where goods are pleantiful, so you can set up a trading route. But your opponents may be able to use your route more efficiently due to their market locations. Okay, I'll build more markets to make my opponents use my locations. No, they just bought up all the goods in the area, and are moving to a different area. Okay, why not delay your turn, forcing your opponents to refill the empty trade good locations. Instead, they choose to trade in their goods for victory points and now you are behind in points. Arrrgghgh!
I love this game! Picked it up for $20 at Fair Play, you won't see it in stores in the US, but it's published by Uberplay (New England is a recent highly touted release by them, as well as Tongiaki) and currently ranked 144 in the world according to the 'Geek. I look forward to playing this 4 player game with you sometime!
Monday, March 14, 2005
Doug Wins GOF 3!
Well he did it - Doug F. won the 4-player game of Settlers, besting Mike S., myself, and Jamie P. to conclude the final match of GOF 3. Final scores in the game were: Doug 10, Mike 9, Dave 8, Jamie 7. This brought the final GOF 3 scores to: Doug 16.2, Mike 14.1, Jamie 10.1, Dave 7.1.
Doug won Mare Nostrum and Settlers, coming in second in his Risk game (lost to Jamie). Mike won Risk, came in second in Mare and Settlers.
The final game of 4-player Settlers was interesting, and evenly matched. We played with a strict interpretation of the trade rules (no trading after building), and card playing. Also, standard 2-settlement start, and the suggested starting board found in the box.
Mike was on his own, expanding with no interferance, and taking the longest road from Doug during the midgame. Doug raced to 4-armies quickly, and hung onto the largest army card all game. Jamie got wedged between Mike and I, and I crawled along with only settlements, building 5 of them before finally upgrading to a city after playing a monopoly card to get some ore from everyone. Lack of ore/cities would be my undoing, as I was never able to generate a killer resource pile, and lost out in the army race to Doug.
Doug played the game very well, winning the game with a card pull at the end (a victory point). Jamie and I attempted to cut him and Mike out of trading at the end as they started to pull away, but we had the wrong resources to help each other.
Overall, though losing I thought I played my best, and the competition was fierce! I have lost 4-5 games in a row of Settlers now though... Not sure what to do about this!
Congrats again to Doug, who hosted an excellent party - and was a fine host of the evening. He wins a copy of "nostalgia Risk" for his fine play over two game nights! Good work Doug!
Doug won Mare Nostrum and Settlers, coming in second in his Risk game (lost to Jamie). Mike won Risk, came in second in Mare and Settlers.
The final game of 4-player Settlers was interesting, and evenly matched. We played with a strict interpretation of the trade rules (no trading after building), and card playing. Also, standard 2-settlement start, and the suggested starting board found in the box.
Mike was on his own, expanding with no interferance, and taking the longest road from Doug during the midgame. Doug raced to 4-armies quickly, and hung onto the largest army card all game. Jamie got wedged between Mike and I, and I crawled along with only settlements, building 5 of them before finally upgrading to a city after playing a monopoly card to get some ore from everyone. Lack of ore/cities would be my undoing, as I was never able to generate a killer resource pile, and lost out in the army race to Doug.
Doug played the game very well, winning the game with a card pull at the end (a victory point). Jamie and I attempted to cut him and Mike out of trading at the end as they started to pull away, but we had the wrong resources to help each other.
Overall, though losing I thought I played my best, and the competition was fierce! I have lost 4-5 games in a row of Settlers now though... Not sure what to do about this!
Congrats again to Doug, who hosted an excellent party - and was a fine host of the evening. He wins a copy of "nostalgia Risk" for his fine play over two game nights! Good work Doug!
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Power Grid
I enjoy thinking games very much. Tigris and Euphrates, Puerto Rico, Princes of Florence, El Grande, etc. I don't have quite as much opportunity to play these games, as they usually exclude casual gamers and younger players. Better choices for mixed groups are found in Risk, Settlers, Formula De', Carcassone.
Tommorow, I will have a chance to try Kevin's copy of "Power Grid", by Rio Grande. Here's the description from BGG:
The latest cooperative publishing effort from 2F and Rio Grande Games, removes the crayon aspect from network building in the original edition while retaining the fluctuating commodities market like McMulti and an auction round intensity reminiscent of Princes of Florence. The object of the game is to supply the most cities with power when someone's network gains a predetermined size. In this new edition, players mark pre-existing routes between cities for connection, and then vie against other players to purchase the power plants that you use to supply the power. However, as plants are purchased, newer more efficient plants become available so you're effectively allowing others to access to superior equipment merely by purchasing at all. Additionally, players must acquire the raw materials, like coal, oil, garbage, or uranium, to power said plants (except for the highly valuable 'renewable energy' wind/solar plants), making it a constant struggle to upgrade your plants for maximum efficiency while still retaining enough wealth to quickly expand your network to get the cheapest routes.
Will keep you informed - it looks good! Click here for PDF of rules.
Tommorow, I will have a chance to try Kevin's copy of "Power Grid", by Rio Grande. Here's the description from BGG:
The latest cooperative publishing effort from 2F and Rio Grande Games, removes the crayon aspect from network building in the original edition while retaining the fluctuating commodities market like McMulti and an auction round intensity reminiscent of Princes of Florence. The object of the game is to supply the most cities with power when someone's network gains a predetermined size. In this new edition, players mark pre-existing routes between cities for connection, and then vie against other players to purchase the power plants that you use to supply the power. However, as plants are purchased, newer more efficient plants become available so you're effectively allowing others to access to superior equipment merely by purchasing at all. Additionally, players must acquire the raw materials, like coal, oil, garbage, or uranium, to power said plants (except for the highly valuable 'renewable energy' wind/solar plants), making it a constant struggle to upgrade your plants for maximum efficiency while still retaining enough wealth to quickly expand your network to get the cheapest routes.
Will keep you informed - it looks good! Click here for PDF of rules.
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Annoying pop-up ads
Colin recommended Firefox to me as a browser instead of IE, and it's excellent. It will usually eliminate the annoying pop-ups that Blogger forces upon readers of Brett Spiel Cafe. Click here to get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
