Puerto Rico vs. Medici?
Kyle
open it yet.
I use to be interested in getting a copy of Medici, but I'm wondering now if
Puerto Rico isn't a "Medici killer." Are the games even on the same level
category-wise? Can I play them both and have fun with it, or is one simply
better than the other?
Thanks,
Kyle
Dan Blum
The games aren't anything alike (well, they're more like each other than
either is like chess or Advanced Third Reich, I suppose), so I don't see
why one would feel that they fall into the same category. For that matter,
if two games are good, I for one can enjoy them both even if they are
fairly similar. Both Puerto Rico and Medici are (in my opinion) very good,
so I certainly think playing both is enjoyable (note - not at the same
time).
--
_______________________________________________________________________
Dan Blum to...@panix.com
"I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."
Nathan Sanders
> I use to be interested in getting a copy of Medici, but I'm wondering now if
> Puerto Rico isn't a "Medici killer." Are the games even on the same level
> category-wise? Can I play them both and have fun with it, or is one simply
> better than the other?
They're both very different games. Right now, our group likes to start
off with PR, then finish off the night with Medici.
Both can be intense and taxing on the brain (especially in the endgame),
but beyond that, I wouldn't think of them as having much overlap at all.
Nathan
======================================================================
san...@ling.ucsc.edu ***** Department of Linguistics
san...@alum.mit.edu *** University of California
http://ling.ucsc.edu/~sanders * Santa Cruz, California 95064
======================================================================
Geenius at Wrok
> I use to be interested in getting a copy of Medici, but I'm wondering now if
> Puerto Rico isn't a "Medici killer." Are the games even on the same level
> category-wise? Can I play them both and have fun with it, or is one simply
> better than the other?
It's funny that you mention these together, because my group played both
this weekend (Puerto Rico with four, then Medici with six). Chances are,
if two more players hadn't joined us, we'd simply have played Puerto Rico
again -- it's that kind of game. But did we feel any dissatisfaction
afterward in playing Medici? Not at all. Puerto Rico is a great game,
Medici is a very good game, and in my opinion the great is not the enemy
of the very good, especially when the very good game occupies a niche that
the great game doesn't (Medici can be played with six, Puerto Rico can't)
and the two games have completely different mechanisms, goals, look and
feel.
If anything, Puerto Rico is a "Princes of Florence killer," because those
two games are far more similar than Puerto Rico and Medici are, yet Puerto
Rico is noticeably more satisfying than Princes of Florence. And both
Puerto Rico and Princes of Florence are great games.
--
Und sperrt man mich ein im finstern Kerker § Keith Ammann is
Dies alles sind nur vergebliche Werke § gee...@cifnet.com
Denn meine Gedanken zerreißen die Schranken § www.cifnet.com/~geenius
Und Mauern entzwei -- die Gedanken sind frei! § Lun Yu 2:24
David Goldfarb
Geenius at Wrok <gee...@cifnet.com> wrote:
>If anything, Puerto Rico is a "Princes of Florence killer," because those
>two games are far more similar than Puerto Rico and Medici are, yet Puerto
>Rico is noticeably more satisfying than Princes of Florence. And both
>Puerto Rico and Princes of Florence are great games.
I notice it's easy to get a PR game on BSW at any time of the day or
night; and it's all but impossible to get a PoF game.
--
David Goldfarb <*>| "Hey, mister -- your ninja's dragging!"
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu |
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- MST3K, "Master Ninja I"
Mike Schneider
(David Goldfarb) wrote:
> In article <20020722232845...@shell.cifnet.com>,
> Geenius at Wrok <gee...@cifnet.com> wrote:
> >If anything, Puerto Rico is a "Princes of Florence killer," because those
> >two games are far more similar than Puerto Rico and Medici are, yet Puerto
> >Rico is noticeably more satisfying than Princes of Florence. And both
> >Puerto Rico and Princes of Florence are great games.
>
> I notice it's easy to get a PR game on BSW at any time of the day or
> night; and it's all but impossible to get a PoF game.
What's the URL for BSW? Thanx.
--
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/American_Liberty/files/links.htm
Reply to mike1@@@usfamily.net sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
"Blood! Boobs! Swords! Snakes!"--fwfr.com four word film review of "Conan"
David Goldfarb
Mike Schneider <mike1S...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>In article <ahinc4$abp$1...@agate.berkeley.edu>, gold...@OCF.Berkeley.EDU
>(David Goldfarb) wrote:
>> I notice it's easy to get a PR game on BSW at any time of the day or
>> night; and it's all but impossible to get a PoF game.
>
>What's the URL for BSW? Thanx.
The web site with documentation and such is www.brettspielwelt.de.
(BSW is short for BrettSpielWelt -- board game world.) You can
play using Java from the web site, but if you're going to play there
often, I recommend downloading the client program.
There's also an email list for English speakers who play on BSW:
BSWg...@yahoogroups.com.
--
David Goldfarb <*>|"Now you're living in your own fantasy world.
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | We're into a whole weird area here."
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- MST3K, "Mr. B Natural"
Craig Brown
I have to agree with the previous responses...Puerto Rico and Medici
are really totally different games and both could be played back to
back and feel completly different...I enjoy both games tremendously
and Medici has the great ability of accomodating 6 players and in my
opinion is BEST played with 6. BTW Medici was actually the first
"German style" game I ever played and I have been hooked ever since.
PR is also a great game but in a different way. Whatever you do don't
let your purchase of PR keep you from getting a copy of Medici.
bruno faidutti
The Medici killer is called Magellan.
--
Bruno Faidutti
Games and Unicorns
9 bis rue Alphonse Daudet
30133 LES ANGLES - FRANCE
http://faidutti.free.fr
faid...@free.fr
da...@attglobal.net
"bruno faidutti" <faid...@free.fr> wrote
> The Medici killer is called Magellan.
[Megellan was also published under the name Pizarro & Co]
The one thing about Pizarro & Co that I do not like (last seen in Fantasy
Business [sorry, I don't mean to pick on Blue Games :-/ ]) is that each item
is auctioned off one at a time, and once one player has one of an item, the
next item is worth much more to him than the other players (less true for
Megllan than the other five explorers). Of course, this is offset in the
bidding for the first item in each set, but our group finds that games with
this element get less play than other auction games.
Pizarro & Co gives the explorers different values and powers, which is cool,
but I'm not overly fond of the core auction mechanism. In Medici, where
lots can be mixed, and the players get to build the lots as part of the
mechanics, in a very cool and elegant auction mechanism, even though there
isn't a lot of flash in what you are bidding *for*.
In other words, I find the games to satisfy different needs. The one thing
they really have in common is that they play best with 5+ people, and play
in 45-60 minutes, which makes both of them real winners in our group. :-)
- d
Mik Svellov
"bruno faidutti": The Medici killer is called Magellan.
No way. Medici is too elegant a game to be killed.
Although it hasn't yet been included in the Sumo/Counter HALL of FAME (it
was beaten by Settlers and El Grande) I am sure it will be included one day.
I doub't that Magellan will ever receive the same following. This is not to
say the game is bad, it's just not in the same league.
Mik
Keith Shapley
Mik Svellov <brett...@get2net.dk> wrote in message
news:nnM09.5$fs3...@news.get2net.dk...
>
> "bruno faidutti": The Medici killer is called Magellan.
>
>
>
>
>
Im with you Mik on this one. As a gamesplayer surrounded by non-games
players, Medici is one of the few games that can be guaranteed to get a
positive response whoever is playing and it is one that can be palyed again
and again. Its such a simple mechanism that works beautifully. A Hall of
Fame place cannot be far away.
Keith
Christopher Dearlove
>"bruno faidutti" <faid...@free.fr> wrote
>> The Medici killer is called Magellan.
>
>[Megellan was also published under the name Pizarro & Co]
If that is the case, then here's one player who rates Medici
highly, but has decided to retain his 100% record playing
Pizarro & Co by not playing a second game.
(OK, it's not quite that bad, and I might relent, but I
definitely didn't rate it highly - and it's also quite
different in the way I for one think about it than Medici.
There are similarities of course in the need to assess
the ultimate value of a purchase before bidding, and
wanting to deprive others as well as gain yourself. But
those are common to many bidding games.)
[Incidentally I've always thought there's someone who gets
a poor press when a game or whatever is named Magellan.
Magellan died halfway round the world. Someone did the
work of finishing the voyage and actually was the first
to command a ship which sailed round the world. And
without doing some research, I can't remember his name
either.]
--
Christopher Dearlove
Steve Kosakowski
>Magellan died halfway round the world. Someone did the
>work of finishing the voyage and actually was the first
>to command a ship which sailed round the world. And
>without doing some research, I can't remember his name
>either.]
>
Sebastian del Cano, who didn't begin the expedition in command of a ship. It's
a Vision Thing - the voyage was Magellan's enterprise (and he died in the
Phillipines, well over halfway 'round).
Kos
*-*-* _ - _ - _ *-*-*
hemmed and hawn,
Perestrello's Box
Kyle
There is already a Medici killer? Woah.
Thanks,
Kyle
"bruno faidutti" <faid...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:faidutti-C4D28B...@news.free.fr...
Richard Hutnik
Ok, to bring this thread up once again. BUT, when someone says that
game X is guaranteed to be liked by ALL, I had to chime in.
As a fan of "Modern Art", I would disagree with you (I dumped Medici,
which someone talked me into using some trade credit to get it). I
played Modern Art first, then tried Medici, and found it lacking
compared to Modern Art. So, NO, the game is NOT GUARANTEED to get a
positive response. In fact, I can't think of a single game that would
do this. I think 6 Nimmt comes close though. The best I can say
about Medici is "ehhh... It is a ok auction game, nothing special".
The point being that not all games will get a positive response from
all. Medici, IMHO is not the best auction game every made. And if
someone else doesn't like auction games (I know at least two), then
Medici will go over like a lead balloon with them. So, if the game
isn't the best in a genre, and won't appeal to people who don't like
the genre, pray tell, how then it can be said to always generate a
positive response. And yes, I am sure big fans of Medici probably
have similar feelings about Modern Art.
- Richard Hutnik
Eric
> Im with you Mik on this one. As a gamesplayer surrounded by non-games
> players, Medici is one of the few games that can be guaranteed to get a
> positive response whoever is playing and it is one that can be palyed again
> and again.
I disagree. I've played Medici twice and have never found it a
compelling game.
Larry Levy
> Although Medici hasn't yet been included in the Sumo/Counter HALL of FAME (it
> was beaten by Settlers and El Grande) I am sure it will be included one day.
Actually, Mik, Stuart Dagger decided to relax the normal rule limiting
Sumo/Counter HoF entries to two games and included Medici in the Hall
on the basis of its very strong showing versus Settlers and El Grande.
I provided him some data which helped influence his decision.
This was a fortunate decision for Medici lovers, since there has not
been a Hall of Fame vote since then. Stuart stopped promoting the
Counter HoF and Game of the Year votes about two years ago due to what
he considered to be relatively poor support. I asked him about this
in an email about six months ago and he said that I was the first
person to inquire about the "missing" features. So his contention
that these votes were not considered too important by the readership
would seem to have some merit.
Mik, if you and other Counter readers have any interest in reviving
the HoF and GotY votes, I think we'd have to let Stuart know.
Otherwise, I think they will stay good and dead. Personally, I liked
both votes, but a vote of one is certainly not enough to bring either
of these features back.
Larry
Christopher Dearlove
Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
>I think 6 Nimmt comes close though.
Plenty of people out there with anecdotes about winning 6 Nimmt by
playing at random, so I wouldn't put it close either. (Reinforcing
rather than contradicting your main point.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Mark Edwards
Agreed, I hate 6 Nimmt.
As for the MA vs Medici vs Magellan thing. If you're really a fan of
auction games you'll enjoy them all. ;-) As for which is *best*, well
that's something we can argue about for years (haven't we done so
already?). My vote goes to Modern Art, no..no... Medici.... welllll....
Ra! That's it, Ra. No, no, no, no, Traumfabrik, yeah that's the
ticket. Hmmmm how about High Society... or how about Fantasy Football
Auction leagues!
Mark
--
New email addy! danger...@attbi.com
New URL for web page coming soon.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Unity_Games
If you're interested in board games and are located in the Eastern Mass
area, check out Unity Games!
"Hey dad? ... wanna have a catch?"
Richard Hutnik
Reading between the lines of what you said, I think I understand what
you are saying. 6 Nimmt is one of those games that requires skill
that actually fools people who don't like skill driven games (prefer
luck) to actually play it any enjoy it.
Not sure what this had to do with my point, but it is noted.
- Richard Hutnik :-)
Christopher Dearlove
>> In article <37bc9e37.02072...@posting.google.com>, Richard
>> Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >I think 6 Nimmt comes close though.
>>
>> Plenty of people out there with anecdotes about winning 6 Nimmt by
>> playing at random, so I wouldn't put it close either. (Reinforcing
>> rather than contradicting your main point.)
>
>Reading between the lines of what you said, I think I understand what
>you are saying. 6 Nimmt is one of those games that requires skill
>that actually fools people who don't like skill driven games (prefer
>luck) to actually play it any enjoy it.
I'm afraid you read that which wasn't there. You suggested that
6 Nimmt was a game which came close to universal acceptance. I
indicated that this wasn't the case, and gave the sort of response
which people who don't rate 6 Nimmt give. (I've heard this
account from more than one player.) I carefully neither
indicated whether I am such a player, or whether I agreed with
this assessment. (This was partly because it wasn't relevant
and partly just to see what reaction I got.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Justin Green
> In article <37bc9e37.02072...@posting.google.com>, Richard
> Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Christopher Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8D8aju
> >AeuXR...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <37bc9e37.02072...@posting.google.com>, Richard
> >> Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >I think 6 Nimmt comes close though.
> >>
> >> Plenty of people out there with anecdotes about winning 6 Nimmt by
> >> playing at random, so I wouldn't put it close either. (Reinforcing
> >> rather than contradicting your main point.)
> >
> >Reading between the lines of what you said, I think I understand what
> >you are saying. 6 Nimmt is one of those games that requires skill
> >that actually fools people who don't like skill driven games (prefer
> >luck) to actually play it any enjoy it.
>
> I'm afraid you read that which wasn't there. You suggested that
> 6 Nimmt was a game which came close to universal acceptance. I
> indicated that this wasn't the case, and gave the sort of response
> which people who don't rate 6 Nimmt give. (I've heard this
> account from more than one player.) I carefully neither
> indicated whether I am such a player, or whether I agreed with
> this assessment. (This was partly because it wasn't relevant
> and partly just to see what reaction I got.)
So what DO you (and others) think? This is the first I've heard this.
I haven't played enough to judge myself, although I have played a
computer version and done pretty well against computer opponents
(winning perhaps 2/3 of the time). However, if there was no AI
programmed into it and the computer players were playing absolutely
randomly, I should think I should have done better!
Justin
Rick Thornquist
> So what DO you (and others) think?
There is definitely some strategy in 6 Nimmt!. Our group has played this
game almost every week for the past year. There is one player that wins way
more than anyone else and there are some players that have almost never won.
If you play it with a group of inexperienced players, I have no doubt that
picking random cards might just win the game. Play it with a good player
though, and you will often lose.
Rick Thornquist
Terminal City Gamers
www.terminalcitygamers.com
Christopher Dearlove
Thornquist <rtho...@hotmail.com> writes
>
>> So what DO you (and others) think?
>
>There is definitely some strategy in 6 Nimmt!.
OK, I'll come off the fence, there is. There's also some guessing
what other people will do. For example with a 1 I'm going to take
a hit. If I play it first round (assuming there's a cheap card)
I'll take a minimal hit. However if the players with the 2, 3
etc. take the same view they get a free play. I want to play my
1 at another time than them, but when there's a cheap hit (which
might not happen). This can actually turn back into random play
is best - but not wholly random play but intelligent random play.
If you rate a complete game (up to 66 points) then it's a typical
luck/skill balance game. Single hands of course have a high luck
rating. (I'm assuming around half a dozen players. I have played
with 10 only once that I recall - and won, but I don't read too
much into it - and it is a slightly different beast.)
However where I do disagree is that 6 Nimmt is the highest general
acceptability game (let alone close to universal). What is would
depend on which group you consider. Siedler/Settlers might be
among the "like playing games but aren't hardened gamers" group.
Something simpler might win among the general population, and
among the hardened gamer group there is enough anti-Siedler
opinion that it probably wouldn't win there either.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Richard Hutnik
> In article <37bc9e37.02072...@posting.google.com>, Richard
> Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
> >Christopher Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<8D8aju
> >AeuXR...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk>...
> >> In article <37bc9e37.02072...@posting.google.com>, Richard
> >> Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >I think 6 Nimmt comes close though.
> >>
> >> Plenty of people out there with anecdotes about winning 6 Nimmt by
> >> playing at random, so I wouldn't put it close either. (Reinforcing
> >> rather than contradicting your main point.)
> >
> >Reading between the lines of what you said, I think I understand what
> >you are saying. 6 Nimmt is one of those games that requires skill
> >that actually fools people who don't like skill driven games (prefer
> >luck) to actually play it any enjoy it.
>
> I'm afraid you read that which wasn't there. You suggested that
> 6 Nimmt was a game which came close to universal acceptance. I
> indicated that this wasn't the case, and gave the sort of response
> which people who don't rate 6 Nimmt give. (I've heard this
> account from more than one player.) I carefully neither
> indicated whether I am such a player, or whether I agreed with
> this assessment. (This was partly because it wasn't relevant
> and partly just to see what reaction I got.)
Hmm... I never mentioned 6 Nimmt originally and was curious why you
mentioned it. Because the game is being discussed, I am curious about
the luck element in the game.
How luck predominant is 6 Nimmt?
- Richard Hutnik
Iain Cheyne
richar...@hotmail.com says...
:How luck predominant is 6 Nimmt?
I have never played it, but Peter Sarrett, in www.gamereport.com, rates
this as a 6/10, in terms of skill required.
That puts it on the same level as:
+ Atlantic Star
+ Bohnanza
+ Palmyra
+ Settlers
--
Iain Cheyne
Remove the numbers and change "invalid" to "net" to reply.
Christopher Dearlove
Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
>Hmm... I never mentioned 6 Nimmt originally and was curious why you
>mentioned it.
Well, as far as I've noticed, the first mention of 6 Nimmt in this
thread was by you, specifically
In article <37bc9e37.02072...@posting.google.com>, Richard
Hutnik <richar...@hotmail.com> writes
>So, NO, the game is NOT GUARANTEED to get a
>positive response. In fact, I can't think of a single game that would
>do this. I think 6 Nimmt comes close though.
I then brought up the alleged luck element as an argument (real not
hypothetical as a claim) as to why I think 6 Nimmt doesn't come
close to universal acceptance. (Whether it has that luck element is
actually irrelevant in this context - if it's perceived to have it
by a significant number of people it fails the positive response test.)
So I didn't mention 6 Nimmt as such, I followed up to a reference
to it.
--
Christopher Dearlove
Christopher Dearlove
<ia...@1c2h3e4y5n6e7.invalid> writes
>In article <37bc9e37.0207...@posting.google.com>,
>richar...@hotmail.com says...
>
>:How luck predominant is 6 Nimmt?
>
>I have never played it, but Peter Sarrett, in www.gamereport.com, rates
>this as a 6/10, in terms of skill required.
>
>That puts it on the same level as:
> + Atlantic Star
> + Bohnanza
> + Palmyra
> + Settlers
Depends how wide your levels are (yes, I know we're talking /10, but
some people's 10 point scales hardly use the ends). I'd put it below
the three of these I've played, but not massively so. Some examples
of 5/10 (and, for those who disagree with me, 7/10) games are really
needed to judge if this is a fair grouping. (Yes, I presume I could
get those from the URL.)
--
Christopher Dearlove
Nick Wedd
Dearlove <ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk> writes
>Plenty of people out there with anecdotes about winning 6 Nimmt by
>playing at random, so I wouldn't put it close either. (Reinforcing
>rather than contradicting your main point.)
I think that playing at random, and letting it be known that you are
doing so, would not be effective. But I did once win by playing at
random and letting others think that I might be applying some strategy.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
Iain Cheyne
ch...@mnemosyne.demon.co.uk says...
:Some examples
:of 5/10 (and, for those who disagree with me, 7/10) games are really
:needed to judge if this is a fair grouping. (Yes, I presume I could
:get those from the URL.)
A while ago, I got Peter's scores from www.gamereport.com and made a
little spreadsheet for my own analysis.
I've posted it here:
http://www.icheyne.demon.co.uk/gamereportscores.htm
(I hope Peter does not mind me using his copyrighted material like this.
It will bring people to his excellent website, so I do not think so.)
These aren't all the scores from the Game Report, just the ones I am
interested in.
Chris Brua
> A while ago, I got Peter's scores from www.gamereport.com and made a
> little spreadsheet for my own analysis.
>
> I've posted it here:
> http://www.icheyne.demon.co.uk/gamereportscores.htm
Well, I personally don't agree with Mr. Sarrett's "skill" ratings. He
gives Magic: The Gathering a "3" in skill?! Evidently he has never
played in a tournament environment, or played the game much at all.
To me the evidence of a game involving skill is that some players
consistently win (win a higher percentage of the time than average).
Magic definitely exhibits this characteristic: the good players win
consistently, the poor players lose consistently.
At first I thought maybe the randomness of the cards was what caused
him to rate Magic so low, but he gives Schotten Totten and Attacke a
"5" and Bohnanza a "6" for skill, all of which have the same "luck of
the draw" factor as Magic. Bah! ;-)
--Chris
Peter Sarrett
"Chris Brua" <cb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:acbdc316.02080...@posting.google.com...
> Well, I personally don't agree with Mr. Sarrett's "skill" ratings. He
> gives Magic: The Gathering a "3" in skill?! Evidently he has never
> played in a tournament environment, or played the game much at all.
I have not played in tournaments, but played the game extensively when it
first came out 10 years(!) ago. The real skill in Magic is in the meta-game
of deck construction, not the game itself which is heavily dependent on
drawing the right cards (far more so than many other games). Still, a 3
strikes me today as being too low.
Does it have less skill than Schotten-Totten or Attacke? To be honest, I've
never looked at my skill ratings as a continuum. And while a foolish
consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, it seems it might behoove
me to strive for some modicum of it in my ratings. I intend to look at
Iain's spreadsheet, revisit past ratings, and perhaps update them online to
reflect ten years of reviews and a greater body of experience than when I
began.
However, there's no question in my mind that Bohnanza is a game of greater
skill than Magic. You can trade your way out of a bad Bohnanza hand--
indeed, the game is largely in the trades. Nothing can save you from a lack
of mana.
- Peter