Well only a few days left til Gathering of Friends 4 in Clarks Summit. Kevin has been rounding up participants from Northampton, and I've been encouraging a few from Carbondale. Estimates look like about 16 players for Saturday.
I've been rethinking the tournament format during the week. At least 4 of the folks from up this way will not have played most of our games before, and certainly never played in a tournmanent.
The thing that bothers me a bit is the qualifying aspect - being forced to start with a 2-player game. For most of us, the choice of Chess, Stratego, Pente, etc. all makes sense. We've played these games before, and have a decent chance of winning unless we play an expert (i.e. the owner of the game). We will not be discouraged with a loss, and will give a good game regardless of outcome.
But what for the non-gamers? There will be a few there who are not familiar with the rules of chess. I have "Baseball Pinball" (a simple 'pachinco' or upright pinball game based on a baseball theme) which is noisy, simple and fun. Five 9-inning games take about 30 minutes. All the Kings Men is a simple chess variant, with easy to explain rules. And Lost Cities is a fairly simple card game that I can explain.
But will this be fun for the newcomers? I know that many of us will get a kick out of a game of chess based on the Fischerandom setup (eliminates the opening move memorization problem by randomizing the setup of back row pieces), and will enjoy the opportunity to play almost anything. We'll enjoy the rankings because it will make each game mean something, and encourage better play.
I am concerned that this phase of the event will be too dry for some - not knowing many of the games, certainly not considering themselves to be experts, do we risk turning them off in the first 30 minutes of the day by making them duke it out in a 2-player game of Stratego?
Should I instead match them up 4-player games of Settlers or Risk? Alhambra or Through the Desert?
Your thoughts would be appreciated, click "x comments" below and leave them!
Sunday, February 26, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
The Games Journal: back?
What's the essence of a "Euro" or "German" board game?
The web site, "The Games Journal" (www.thegamesjournal.com) attempts to address this question in a interesting article, quoted below. TGJ has not had new content since September, but the webmaster decided to reopen it occasionally as new content was delivered to him.
The Games Journal is a excellent source for deeper reading on the subject of gaming, German-style games in particular. I'd recommend taking a long look at their archieves if you are interested in the subject.
Here's a quote from a new article:
"What I am going to try to do is briefly describe the characteristics that have made "German" or "Euro" style boardgames so popular. In the past when I have done this, people have tried to stretch definitions to include one or another game that they like, whereas I'm trying to find a more narrow definition. What I think happens is that people who regard themselves as fans of Euro-style games, come to regard any game they like to play as a Euro-style game, and try to find a definition that can encompass whatever they like. My view is that there are many games that have some Euro characteristics and not others, and we need not try to include those other characteristics in the Euro definition. For example..."
The web site, "The Games Journal" (www.thegamesjournal.com) attempts to address this question in a interesting article, quoted below. TGJ has not had new content since September, but the webmaster decided to reopen it occasionally as new content was delivered to him.
The Games Journal is a excellent source for deeper reading on the subject of gaming, German-style games in particular. I'd recommend taking a long look at their archieves if you are interested in the subject.
Here's a quote from a new article:
"What I am going to try to do is briefly describe the characteristics that have made "German" or "Euro" style boardgames so popular. In the past when I have done this, people have tried to stretch definitions to include one or another game that they like, whereas I'm trying to find a more narrow definition. What I think happens is that people who regard themselves as fans of Euro-style games, come to regard any game they like to play as a Euro-style game, and try to find a definition that can encompass whatever they like. My view is that there are many games that have some Euro characteristics and not others, and we need not try to include those other characteristics in the Euro definition. For example..."
Monday, February 20, 2006
Puerto Rico: PC
I received the Puerto Rico for PC game in the mail a week or so ago, and after some tech support emails, and some forum surfing, have got it working like a charm.Only $22.49 on Thoughthammer, it's cheaper than the actual boardgame, and a decent substitute for times when you have the itch for PR, and have difficulty finding 3-4 people to play with you.
I have been playing PR on Brettspielwelt for a couple of years now, and have gotten used to their interface. It took me several plays to get the hang of the BSW version, and it has the big advantage of natice multiplayer support online. As a matter of fact, it is only available to play on-line. Competition is top-notch, and you usually can find a game at any time of day or night.
The Eaglegames version of Puerto Rico seems to be built for single player action. It offers hot-seat (single computer, multiple humans) play, which might be okay if you are on the road and forgot to bring your game, or only have two players and need a 3rd computer opponent.
The multiplayer online play requires someone to host the game, and the inputing of IP addresses. Supposedly, there is a spot on the Eaglegames forums where you can find opponents, but I think this is a rediculous option when you can simply jump on BSW and play easily and for free.
The computer AI appears to be competent, and although I am 2 for 2 against the PC in 4-player games so far, I think that it will offer me a fair challenge. Nothing beats the "PR-Evolver" spreadsheet in terms of a challenge, but I think PR:PC will be okay.
The graphics are excellent, sounds and background music fine. There is a 3D view of your "island", with 3D representations of each of the buildings and plantations as you play. I prefer the 2D screen, with more information and simplicity, but it's neat to look at. I would have rather had them implement a better match-making service for multiplayer action, than simply add some eye-candy.
Overall, not bad for $22.49, I would recommend it for anyone who enjoys the boardgame, and is looking for an attractive solo option to play PR on the PC. For those willing to spend the time on the interface, I highly recommend spending some time on Brettspielwelt. Check out the Brettspielwelt "info" site, written in English, with excellent tutorials on this fantastic FREE online games service.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Settlers thoughts
I've been playing Settlers of Catan online quite a bit lately, probably 30 games in the last couple of weeks. Doing so has got me thinking a lot about strategy and tactics in the game (probably because I've been losing so much!). My average score dropped to 6, my rating is in the 1600's, and my win rate is 40% (down from the mid and high 40's).
So how could I be in a position to write a strategy article? Well, perhaps doing so will get me back to the 50% win mark I set for myself months ago - or maybe this is a form of therapy? Either way, here we go:
Truism #1 : There will be games that you will win and lose that are due to pure chance.
Make your roll, and you will win. Miss it, and the next player will have chance, and if he makes it, he wins.
Truism #2: There will be games that you will win or lose, and it will only appear that this happens by chance.
You will forget that you fought and clawed your way through 60 minutes to get to this point in the game. You will forget that you were way ahead, and your opponents caught up. Or, you will forget that you were way behind, things looked terrible for you, and you got into a position where a single roll could win it, and you didn't make the roll. Your opponent did, and you lost. This will feel bad, and will feel like you lost entirely to chance.
In actuality, there was little in the way of chance that got you to that point - there was pure strategies and tactics that you successfully used to get yourself into a winning position.
And, it's possible that there were a number of purely "chance" rolls that put you into the final position - and then finally the die rolls came around against you.
Truism #3: 95% of the games you will play will be won by someone having either the Longest Road, or the Largest Army.
Truism #4: In 1% of the games that you play, someone will win with 4 or 5 Victory Point cards.
Have seen it happen twice in 150+ games. It's amazing when it happens - I try to play for this to happen whenever possible. Great way to win (although it will drive your opponents nuts).
Truism #5: In 99% of the games that you play, someone will have at least 1 victory point card.
Not sure how to capitalize on this, but it is true. You must be wary of Development cards, un-played.
Truism #6: In 99% of the games that you play, the winner will have good access to Ore.
By this, I mean have better than a 2 or 12 spot, or will have a very rich 2-1 port situation to acquire Ore efficiently.
Ore is essential for winning consistently. There will be very freakish circumstances required to win without a good Ore situation. The closer to "7" the Ore number, the higher the odds and opportunities to win. {this deserves much more thought and discussion}
I speculate that Ore is worth in general at least 50% more than of any other resource in most trade situations, because of what can be done with Ore. {special situations frequently arise, that might bring the value down to even, this deserves discussion }
Truism #7: Ports are necessary to win.
{I haven't thought enough about win percentages here - so I am guessing, but perhaps 95% of the time a port is required to win?}
Truism #8: Setup is... Everything.
If you screw up your opening setup, it is highly unlikely you will be able to recover against competent players. Period.
It is very difficult to pick a starting position that gives a huge advantage, but it is almost always possible to find one that gives at least a small advantage.
Taking advantage of this in large part depends on your position in setup. Sometimes (rarely) it's best to go first (perhaps 25% of the time in 3-player games), but usually last is best.
Truism #9: In 25% of your games, there will be an extreme setup position that appears.
Coosing an "extreme" starting setup means generally a double resource placement, with average or better numbers, also on a port of the same resource. Or, choosing the center of a 3-hex area, where all three resources are the same (this happens mostly with Wheat, Sheep and Wood due to 4 hexes of each in the mix).
Exteme setup oddities are dangerous for these reasons: 1) It reduces your access to a variety of resources, making your plays very obvious to your opponents, allowing them to deny you key resources for trade. 2) The die rolls, when they fall against you, hit harder. When they fall for you, your gains are somewhat moderated by the lack of diversity. What you do get, must be traded away with the port, negating some of the gain.
You will win with a "freakish" starting strategy - there is no doubt that it can work. But you do not play in a vacuum, and players will work against you to prevent your extreme strategy from working.
Truism #10: Diversity is important
I have gone back and forth on this and have decided that number diversity is very important.
Number diversity means having 5 or 6 different numbers on your opening play, other than 2 or 12.
The best possible situation would be to own: 4-5-6 on one settlement, and 8-9-10 on the other. This means that you will be "hit" on the resource die roll 2 out of every 3 times!
Consider the probabilities of different rolls of 2 six-sided dice:
Number # of ways to roll
2 or 12 1 in 36 possible ways to combine two dice
3 or 11 2 in 36
4 or 10 3 in 36
5 or 9 4 in 36
6 or 8 5 in 36
7 6 in 36
So in the example above, adding the possibilities, there are 24 total ways for your number to come up if you own 4-5-6-8-9-10 (3+4+5+3+4+5=24) out of 36 total combinations on two dice. 24/36=.6667 = 2/3
If you have this combination, and your neighbor has something like: 3-3-6 and 5-9-10, you have the advantage (2+5+4+4+3=18/36), as he will be hit only half the time (18/36=.50=1/2).
In a game that has probably 20 rolls of the dice, perhaps 10 in the opening stages, this is 5 hits to 7. If you have resource diversity as well as numeric diversity, in the long run you will win a lot more games.
So how could I be in a position to write a strategy article? Well, perhaps doing so will get me back to the 50% win mark I set for myself months ago - or maybe this is a form of therapy? Either way, here we go:
Truism #1 : There will be games that you will win and lose that are due to pure chance.
Make your roll, and you will win. Miss it, and the next player will have chance, and if he makes it, he wins.
Truism #2: There will be games that you will win or lose, and it will only appear that this happens by chance.
You will forget that you fought and clawed your way through 60 minutes to get to this point in the game. You will forget that you were way ahead, and your opponents caught up. Or, you will forget that you were way behind, things looked terrible for you, and you got into a position where a single roll could win it, and you didn't make the roll. Your opponent did, and you lost. This will feel bad, and will feel like you lost entirely to chance.
In actuality, there was little in the way of chance that got you to that point - there was pure strategies and tactics that you successfully used to get yourself into a winning position.
And, it's possible that there were a number of purely "chance" rolls that put you into the final position - and then finally the die rolls came around against you.
Truism #3: 95% of the games you will play will be won by someone having either the Longest Road, or the Largest Army.
Truism #4: In 1% of the games that you play, someone will win with 4 or 5 Victory Point cards.
Have seen it happen twice in 150+ games. It's amazing when it happens - I try to play for this to happen whenever possible. Great way to win (although it will drive your opponents nuts).
Truism #5: In 99% of the games that you play, someone will have at least 1 victory point card.
Not sure how to capitalize on this, but it is true. You must be wary of Development cards, un-played.
Truism #6: In 99% of the games that you play, the winner will have good access to Ore.
By this, I mean have better than a 2 or 12 spot, or will have a very rich 2-1 port situation to acquire Ore efficiently.
Ore is essential for winning consistently. There will be very freakish circumstances required to win without a good Ore situation. The closer to "7" the Ore number, the higher the odds and opportunities to win. {this deserves much more thought and discussion}
I speculate that Ore is worth in general at least 50% more than of any other resource in most trade situations, because of what can be done with Ore. {special situations frequently arise, that might bring the value down to even, this deserves discussion }
Truism #7: Ports are necessary to win.
{I haven't thought enough about win percentages here - so I am guessing, but perhaps 95% of the time a port is required to win?}
Truism #8: Setup is... Everything.
If you screw up your opening setup, it is highly unlikely you will be able to recover against competent players. Period.
It is very difficult to pick a starting position that gives a huge advantage, but it is almost always possible to find one that gives at least a small advantage.
Taking advantage of this in large part depends on your position in setup. Sometimes (rarely) it's best to go first (perhaps 25% of the time in 3-player games), but usually last is best.
Truism #9: In 25% of your games, there will be an extreme setup position that appears.
Coosing an "extreme" starting setup means generally a double resource placement, with average or better numbers, also on a port of the same resource. Or, choosing the center of a 3-hex area, where all three resources are the same (this happens mostly with Wheat, Sheep and Wood due to 4 hexes of each in the mix).
Exteme setup oddities are dangerous for these reasons: 1) It reduces your access to a variety of resources, making your plays very obvious to your opponents, allowing them to deny you key resources for trade. 2) The die rolls, when they fall against you, hit harder. When they fall for you, your gains are somewhat moderated by the lack of diversity. What you do get, must be traded away with the port, negating some of the gain.
You will win with a "freakish" starting strategy - there is no doubt that it can work. But you do not play in a vacuum, and players will work against you to prevent your extreme strategy from working.
Truism #10: Diversity is important
I have gone back and forth on this and have decided that number diversity is very important.
Number diversity means having 5 or 6 different numbers on your opening play, other than 2 or 12.
The best possible situation would be to own: 4-5-6 on one settlement, and 8-9-10 on the other. This means that you will be "hit" on the resource die roll 2 out of every 3 times!
Consider the probabilities of different rolls of 2 six-sided dice:
Number # of ways to roll
2 or 12 1 in 36 possible ways to combine two dice
3 or 11 2 in 36
4 or 10 3 in 36
5 or 9 4 in 36
6 or 8 5 in 36
7 6 in 36
So in the example above, adding the possibilities, there are 24 total ways for your number to come up if you own 4-5-6-8-9-10 (3+4+5+3+4+5=24) out of 36 total combinations on two dice. 24/36=.6667 = 2/3
If you have this combination, and your neighbor has something like: 3-3-6 and 5-9-10, you have the advantage (2+5+4+4+3=18/36), as he will be hit only half the time (18/36=.50=1/2).
In a game that has probably 20 rolls of the dice, perhaps 10 in the opening stages, this is 5 hits to 7. If you have resource diversity as well as numeric diversity, in the long run you will win a lot more games.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Closest Catan Game... Evar
Check out this screen shot: yesterday I was the winner of the closest game of Settlers I have ever seen! (This coming from someone who has play 120+ online, and at least 30+ face to face.)Bob, cousin Rich, and myself squared off on a fairly standard map. Bob took the right side of the board, and we fought for a bit for the longest road. I had the lower left, and Rich was split on the top and bottom.
I had an Ore port, and three Settlements on an "11" spot - which came up perfectly at the end to allow me to build a final city - I finished with 10 points with 2 Cities, 5 Settlements, and 1 VP card. Bob had 9 with the Longest Road, and Rich had 9 with the Largest Army.
Interestingly, Bob and Rich each also had exatly 1 VP card.
Perhaps the first time I have ever won (or even seen anyone win) a game WITHOUT the Army or Road bonus, and the first time I have ever seen a score as tight (10-9-9).
Kudo's to Bob, for cleverly "laying low" (I could call it "sandbagging") and NOT taking the Longest Road, keeping Rich's attention on me when it came to Thief play.
Great game you guys... Any one of us could have won on the final turn, I was pretty fortunate my number came up at the last second.
Saturday, February 11, 2006
GOF4 Rules Revision
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GATHERING OF FRIENDS 4 ~ Tournament Rules rev.3_4
1. GOF4 will be a tournament format, with players playing 3 or more games in an 8-hour session, scoring points based on finishing position. At the end of the evening, points are totaled, and the player with the highest total wins a prize!
2. Game play begins at 1 o'clock on Saturday, and with the last games starting 8 o'clock (with finish time 10:30pm at the latest).
3. Twenty or so games will be available to play, in different categories. Categories are based on number of players and length of time to play. Players may choose any game to play, but must play at least one 2-player game, and one 3-player game to qualify for the tournament.
4. Players will be awarded points based on their finishing position in each game played. The size of the award is based on the number of players, as well as the length of the game (fewer numbers of large games can be played due to available time, hence a larger incentive to play and finish well).
| # of players | 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th |
| 2 | 4 pts | 0 | | | |
| 3 | 8 | 3 | 0 | | |
| 4 | 16 | 6 | 3 | 0 | |
| 5, 6 | 20 | 8 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
5. Players may play a particular game with more players than list by their category, but points will only be awarded based on the category – for example, if Alhambra is played with 4-players, points will only be awarded for finising 1st or 2nd, and the points for finishing in first place are only 8 (not 16), because it is rated in the 3-player category.
Players may play a particular game with less than the suggested players, but the points received will be based on the number of players, or the category level. For example, a 3-player game of Risk will be worth only 8 points to the winner, and 3 for second place.
6. The first 8 games played for the event will count for tournament points. (Excess games played do not count towards tournament, but for fun!). Players may choose the first game of the day as a “practice game” if all agree, and it will not count for points or towards the 8 game limit. This decision must be made before the game begins, and is irrevocable.
7. Fair play requires players to give their maximum effort for the position that they are faced with. Players are strongly discouraged from “suicide” maneuvers in an attempt to end a game early so they can start another game in the hopes of a better result.
In the case of a stalemate (rare) or tie in a game, players will be asked to repeat the game, or they will split the points available at their position level. Players should not play in an attempt to tie, and they may not collude to arrange one in advance.
8. Final Tiebreaker - at the end of the evening, in case of a tie, it will be broken by: total number of wins. If still tied, then total number of 2nd place finishes, etc.
9. Prizes - at the end of the evening, there will be a prize given for first and second place. There will also be a prize given for:
- First player to win two games of Chess with the black pieces.
- First player to roll a ‘7’ in Settlers of Catan after a ‘7’ is rolled by another player
- The player who plays the most games without winning (good sport award!).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Games categories, and average play time.
2-player games
1. Fischerandom Chess, clocked, 30 min
2. Stratego, 30 min
3. Pinball Baseball, 30 min
4. Twixt, 30 min
5. Lost Cities, 30 min
6. Pente, 30 min
7. All the Kings Men, 30 min
3-player games
1. Carcassone, 60 min
2. Scrabble, 60 min
3. San Juan, 45 min
4. Mississippi Queen, 45 min
5. Alhambra, 60 min
6. Cartagena, 45 min
7. Through the Desert, 60 min
4-player games
1. Settlers of Catan, 120 min
2. Puerto Rico, 120 min+
3. Acquire, 120 min+
4. Ticket to Ride, 90 min
5. Castle Risk, 120 min+
5+-player games
1. Risk, 180 min+
2. Power Grid, 180 min+
3. Risk 2210, 240 min
4. Shogun, 240 min
5. Mare Nostrum, 180 min
Prize for first place: The new
Friday, February 10, 2006
Sale @ Fairplay
Just received this email message from Fairplaygames:
"Free Shipping It’s back – for a short time and available to newsletter recipients first. Everyone knows that the price of gas is going up and UPS and the post office is constantly raising their rates, but from time to time I still plan on offering this great deal.
Use the discount code WINTERSHIP and UPS shipments will be FREE if you have $150.00 or more in games."
Not bad! I have been checking Boardgameseeker to get a line on prices from the major players, and there is a pretty big discrepancy is some titles. Also, you need to factor in the shipping costs, which may make Fairplay the place to go.
For example, Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition is available at Boulder Games for $49.80, and with $13.86 shipping it totals out to $63.66 - Same title at Fairplay goes for $53.95 with $12.50 shipping, and totals out to $66.45. If you get your total up to $150, you can save around $20 in shipping charges.
"Free Shipping It’s back – for a short time and available to newsletter recipients first. Everyone knows that the price of gas is going up and UPS and the post office is constantly raising their rates, but from time to time I still plan on offering this great deal.
Use the discount code WINTERSHIP and UPS shipments will be FREE if you have $150.00 or more in games."
Not bad! I have been checking Boardgameseeker to get a line on prices from the major players, and there is a pretty big discrepancy is some titles. Also, you need to factor in the shipping costs, which may make Fairplay the place to go.
For example, Twilight Imperium 3rd Edition is available at Boulder Games for $49.80, and with $13.86 shipping it totals out to $63.66 - Same title at Fairplay goes for $53.95 with $12.50 shipping, and totals out to $66.45. If you get your total up to $150, you can save around $20 in shipping charges.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
Dave wins first All-Oberheu Catanonline Game
Played cousin Richard Oberheu and Bob Oberheu in Catanonline tonight, and won a big one: 10 to 5 to 3. Drew 2 victory points, and managed to sneak the longest road away from Bob for the win.Was a difficult setup, particularly for Richard. He and Bob focused on getting Ore in their starting setup (normally a good thing), ended up short Brick, limited their ability to build outwards. There was some good trades, and they tried hard to block me out when I got to 5 points, but for no effect! :)
The game was notable for the lack of the thief, I think it only came up 3-4 times. Also, it was really quick, probably 25 minutes for the match. Good game guys!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2/1 Update: Bob won a tough one tonight, same three players. He built a devastatingly long road to grab the final two points for a 10-7-5 point win. I had the five. Sigh. Good game Bob!
(Note to Rich - don't trade Brick to a guy with 7 points and a development card showing, when he can connect a 7-piece road and make it an 11-piece road with one play, and you only have an 8-piece road!)
2/11 Update: After several more games against Rich and Bob the results have been mixed, and now Bob is tearing ahead in the rankings. Rich is piling on a lot of games, and has passed me already with over 120. My ranking has been taking a beating lately.
Gathering of Friends 4
It's that time again - it's been over a year since our last Gathering of Friends. We've had three GOF events, and they've been great fun. The GOF events have featured:
1. Tournament-style play with a prize
2. Diversity of players
3. Variety of gameplay types
4. Large numbers of players
With spring only 2 months away, Saturday March 4th looks like perhaps a good time for our gathering?
My thoughts about the GOF4 format revolve around the same 4 points as usual, but I have been tinkering with the following idea:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GATHERING OF FRIENDS FOUR ~ Tournament Rules
1. GOF4 will be a tournament format, with players playing a series of games in different categories, and scoring points for wins and in some cases second or third place. At the end of the evening, points are totaled, and the player with the highest total wins a prize!
2. Game session will begin at 1 o'clock on Saturday, and the latest games can be started will be at 8 o'clock (with finish time 10:30pm at the latest).
3. Twenty or so games will be available to play, in 3 different categories. Categories are based on number of players, for example 2-player games, 3-player games, etc.
Players must play at least three total games to qualify for prize, with one game played from each of three categories:
a. One 2-player game
b. One 3-player game
c. One 4 or 5 player game
4. Players will be awarded points based on their finishing position in each game played.
a. For winning a 2-player game, 4 points will be awarded.
b. For winning a 3-player game, 9 points will be awarded, with 3 points for second place.
c. For winning a 4-player game, 16 points will be awarded, with 6 points for second place, 1 point for third place.
d. For winning a 5-player game, 25 points will be awarded, with 9 points for second place, 3 points for third place, 1 point for fourth place.
5. Tiebreaker - at the end of the evening, in case of a tie, it will be broken by: total number of wins, then total number of games played, then total number of players defeated.
6. Players may play a maximum number of games in each category:
a. No more than four 2-player games, no more than 2 against the same opponent
b. No more than two 3-player games, if possible with different opponents
c. No more than two 4 or 5-player games
Players may play as many total games as they wish, but are required to play at least one game from each of the three main categories. For example, a player may choose to play 4 two-player games (e.g. Chess twice, Stratego once, Twixt once), 1 three player game (e.g. Settlers), and one five-player game (e.g. Risk 2210).
7. Matchmaking:
The spirit of the matching process will be to create games with equal skill levels whenever possible. This will insure a fair process for generating points, and will also better determine a champion by generally making winners play winners (similar to a "swiss" matching system in competitive chess play).
a. The first game of the day will generally be a 2-player game. Winners from these games will be matched in their second game in a 3 or 4-player game, and winners from these games will be matched in their third game in a 4 or 5-player game. Open positions in these games if there are not enough winners available will generally be 2nd place players if possible.
b. Non-winners will have the choice to play another 2-player or 3-player game for their second game, will graduate to a game with more players immediately after their first win (if possible).
c. In general players will be matched whenever possible against opponents that they have not played against during the first three rounds. Later rounds, players will be matched based on point totals to ensure a higher level of competition and equal play.
8. The maximum possible points scored would be:
Four wins in 2-player matches (4x4):16 pts
Two wins in 3-player matches (2x9):18 pts
Two wins in 4-player matches (2x16): 32
Total points possible: 66
Time required to play 8 games, approximately 9 hours (assuming times listed below, plus four 15-minute breaks).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are the games I have been thinking of for the categories, and average game time. Please leave comments about your thoughts on these titles!
2-player games
1. Fischerandom Chess, 10-minute timer, 30 min
2. Stratego, 30 min
3. Computer Baseball, 30 min
4. Twixt, 30 min
5. Lost Cities, 30 min
6. Pente, 30 min (Mike S. will need you to bring this)
3-player games
1. Carcassone, 60 min
2. San Juan, 45 min
3. Mississippi Queen, 45 min
4. Alhambra, 60 min
5. Metro, 45 min
6. Cartagena, 45 min
7. Through the Desert, 60 min
4-player games
1. Settlers of Catan, 120 min (Mike S. and Doug: will need your copies)
2. Puerto Rico, 120 min
3. Acquire, 120 min
4. Nexus Ops, 120 min
5. Ticket to Ride, 90 min
5-player games (optional, instead of 4-player)
1. Castle Risk, 120 minutes+
2. Risk, 120 minutes+
4. Power Grid, 120 minutes (Kevin's or Doug's copy)
3. Risk 2210, 240 minutes (Kevin's copy)
5. Shogun, 240 minutes
Thoughts?
1. Tournament-style play with a prize
2. Diversity of players
3. Variety of gameplay types
4. Large numbers of players
With spring only 2 months away, Saturday March 4th looks like perhaps a good time for our gathering?
My thoughts about the GOF4 format revolve around the same 4 points as usual, but I have been tinkering with the following idea:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
GATHERING OF FRIENDS FOUR ~ Tournament Rules
1. GOF4 will be a tournament format, with players playing a series of games in different categories, and scoring points for wins and in some cases second or third place. At the end of the evening, points are totaled, and the player with the highest total wins a prize!
2. Game session will begin at 1 o'clock on Saturday, and the latest games can be started will be at 8 o'clock (with finish time 10:30pm at the latest).
3. Twenty or so games will be available to play, in 3 different categories. Categories are based on number of players, for example 2-player games, 3-player games, etc.
Players must play at least three total games to qualify for prize, with one game played from each of three categories:
a. One 2-player game
b. One 3-player game
c. One 4 or 5 player game
4. Players will be awarded points based on their finishing position in each game played.
a. For winning a 2-player game, 4 points will be awarded.
b. For winning a 3-player game, 9 points will be awarded, with 3 points for second place.
c. For winning a 4-player game, 16 points will be awarded, with 6 points for second place, 1 point for third place.
d. For winning a 5-player game, 25 points will be awarded, with 9 points for second place, 3 points for third place, 1 point for fourth place.
5. Tiebreaker - at the end of the evening, in case of a tie, it will be broken by: total number of wins, then total number of games played, then total number of players defeated.
6. Players may play a maximum number of games in each category:
a. No more than four 2-player games, no more than 2 against the same opponent
b. No more than two 3-player games, if possible with different opponents
c. No more than two 4 or 5-player games
Players may play as many total games as they wish, but are required to play at least one game from each of the three main categories. For example, a player may choose to play 4 two-player games (e.g. Chess twice, Stratego once, Twixt once), 1 three player game (e.g. Settlers), and one five-player game (e.g. Risk 2210).
7. Matchmaking:
The spirit of the matching process will be to create games with equal skill levels whenever possible. This will insure a fair process for generating points, and will also better determine a champion by generally making winners play winners (similar to a "swiss" matching system in competitive chess play).
a. The first game of the day will generally be a 2-player game. Winners from these games will be matched in their second game in a 3 or 4-player game, and winners from these games will be matched in their third game in a 4 or 5-player game. Open positions in these games if there are not enough winners available will generally be 2nd place players if possible.
b. Non-winners will have the choice to play another 2-player or 3-player game for their second game, will graduate to a game with more players immediately after their first win (if possible).
c. In general players will be matched whenever possible against opponents that they have not played against during the first three rounds. Later rounds, players will be matched based on point totals to ensure a higher level of competition and equal play.
8. The maximum possible points scored would be:
Four wins in 2-player matches (4x4):16 pts
Two wins in 3-player matches (2x9):18 pts
Two wins in 4-player matches (2x16): 32
Total points possible: 66
Time required to play 8 games, approximately 9 hours (assuming times listed below, plus four 15-minute breaks).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Here are the games I have been thinking of for the categories, and average game time. Please leave comments about your thoughts on these titles!
2-player games
1. Fischerandom Chess, 10-minute timer, 30 min
2. Stratego, 30 min
3. Computer Baseball, 30 min
4. Twixt, 30 min
5. Lost Cities, 30 min
6. Pente, 30 min (Mike S. will need you to bring this)
3-player games
1. Carcassone, 60 min
2. San Juan, 45 min
3. Mississippi Queen, 45 min
4. Alhambra, 60 min
5. Metro, 45 min
6. Cartagena, 45 min
7. Through the Desert, 60 min
4-player games
1. Settlers of Catan, 120 min (Mike S. and Doug: will need your copies)
2. Puerto Rico, 120 min
3. Acquire, 120 min
4. Nexus Ops, 120 min
5. Ticket to Ride, 90 min
5-player games (optional, instead of 4-player)
1. Castle Risk, 120 minutes+
2. Risk, 120 minutes+
4. Power Grid, 120 minutes (Kevin's or Doug's copy)
3. Risk 2210, 240 minutes (Kevin's copy)
5. Shogun, 240 minutes
Thoughts?
Saturday, January 28, 2006
A Capitol Idea!
During my last visit to Tab's over the January 1st weekend, we played a number of different games.Perhaps the biggest hit was a new one for me, called Captol. Designed by Alan Moon (New England, San Marco, Ticket to Ride) and Aaron Weisblum back in 2001, I had been eyeing this game since then. It's rated in the top 200 on the 'Geek, has great looking wooden bits, colorful board, cards, an interesting (and controversial) scoring track, and a good theme (City building in ancient Rome? I'm in.).
Problem, like many designer games, this one it had a small print run (German games often only are printed in 3,000 to 5,000 unit batches). I never pulled the trigger back in 2001-2 and bought a copy (back then I only really knew about Funagain, not sure if there ever were other online game stores), and it disappeared off the radar. When I discovered sites like Fairplay, Thoughthammer and the like, they were all out of stock. Fortunately, as I mentioned in a December post, I was able to find a used copy on Funagain and I grabbed it.
The basic concept of Capitol is this: you represent a faction of a Roman noble family, intent on developing your section of Rome. You earn points by the number of developments (measured by quantity of buildings and their stature (height)), and their level of luxury (measured by public works, represented by a fountain symbol). There are four phases to the game, and each of the nine zones on the board are scored, with the majority faction scoring the bulk of points, but a small number given for second place. Each turn is played in rounds, with players playing cards to develop buildings off map, complete them by symbolically adding roofs, placing them on the board in their zone by playing a zone card with the appropriate location symbol. Once players have developed, completed and placed their buildings, the game enters and auction phase where players use remaining cards in their hands to secretly bid for various improvements.
I introduced Kim and Austen to the game on Saturday, and Kim loved it. We showed Dad and Tab how to play on Sunday, and ended up playing two games. They all loved the game so much, Dad and Tab were trying to figure out whether they could buy the rights to the things to get it republished!
The game combines many different interesting elements, and has the classic winning formula for German games:
1. It's playable in less than 90 minutes
2. It has interesting bits, and "tactile" appeal (stacking little wooden blocks, putting roofs on them, placing them on the board, seeing the board develop colorful stacks of different height buildings, watching Rome "develop")
3. Cards, area control, generous ties in scoring (if two tie, they both score the points), auctions
4. Tough, even agonizing decisions (do I play this last card, or save it for the auction? Is it of high enough value to keep? Should I draw more high point-auction cards, or more zone cards? Should I bid high in the first auction, or save my cards for the more valuable items at the end?)
5. Everyones involved constantly, little downtime
I won the first game, Tab one the second, and the score was really close (everyone was seperated by 2 points, something like 42-40-38-36), where one different play at any point in the game by anyone could have made the difference.
I love the fact that the game gives you just enough control of your own destiny to make you feel like you could have made a different play at some point and perhaps won, but not so much control that you can hyper-analyze each position for the best possible play. There is what I consider to be an almost perfect mix of tactical and strategic play in this sense.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Interestingly, I am not sure if there is enough "meat" in this to satisfy the Northampton group, as we've been playing heavies like Puerto Rico or Power Grid, or light-weights like San Juan or Alhambra in our last couple of meetings. I don't believe we've played ANY area-control games yet (Kevin has asked about El Grande, but we've yet to take the plunge). And the four-player limit might make this more difficult, as PR plays great with this amount, and few of our group has played more than 3 times except Kevin and myself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
