Similar games - which is better?
shoo...@my-deja.com
your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
gaming experience and game X is better" ... or "now that we have game X
we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put together
a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
opinions on this subject. Union Pacific and Acquire have been compared
this way in reviews, so have Tikal and Torres, Grand Canyon and Wizard,
etc.
Please list games in this way with comments if appropriate:
Game X, GameY (where game X is in your opinion, the better game).
Thanks.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Mark Jackson
> shoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>>
>> I've read this comment before concerning games: "If you have game X in
>> your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
>> gaming experience and game X is better" ... or "now that we have game X
>> we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put together
>> a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
>> opinions on this subject.
>> Please list games in this way with comments if appropriate:
>> Game X, GameY (where game X is in your opinion, the better game).
>
> Well, from the top of my head (which is still healing from an election
> night mishap while playing with my weenie dog ... don't ask!). Keep in
> mind these are my opinions only ... others may (and probably will!)
> differ.
>
> Union Pacific (over Airlines)
I'm with you on this one...
> Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage (over We the People .. unless you want a
> simpler game, in which case choose We the People)
>
> Metropolis over Downtown (but I'd still get Big City, too!)
>
> Machiavelli over Diplomacy
>
> Titan: The Arena over Galaxy: Dark Ages
Yes! So right...
> Schotten Totten over Battleline
> Settlers of Catan over any of it's add-ons
I'm a big fan of Seafarers, but you're probably right
> Bazaar over Samarkand or Business
I'd go with Samarkand here...
> Elfenland over King of the Elves
Agreed
> Tikal over Java (but I've only played Java once so far)
And Torres over both of them (but I haven't played Java yet)
> Acquire over Big Boss
Yes, but the pieces in Big Boss ARE cool...
> Fill or Bust over For Get It
Dungeon Dice is another in this vein...
> Amazing Labyrinth over any of it's variants (Master Labyrinth, Labyrinth
> Card Game, etc.)
DEFINITELY over the card game
> Twilight Imperium over Battle Mist or Thunder's Edge
>
> Formula De over Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix or Daytona 500
don't think these are the same comparisons... I'd say:
Daytona 500 over the rest of the Formel Eins/Tempo/Top
Race/Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix series
DTM Motorspiel over Formula De or Speed Circuit
> Metro over Streetcar
Linie 1 over Streetcar... Metro's another game
> Bluff over Perudo
Yes!
> Take 6 over Hornochsen
--
Vizzini: "Hurry up! Move..the thing...and that other thing! Move it!!!"
THE PRINCESS BRIDE
Mark Jackson
Game Central Station
http://www.geocities.com/scareyjo/
Nashville, TN
Greg J. Schloesser
>
> I've read this comment before concerning games: "If you have game X in
> your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
> gaming experience and game X is better" ... or "now that we have game X
> we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put together
> a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
> opinions on this subject.
> Please list games in this way with comments if appropriate:
> Game X, GameY (where game X is in your opinion, the better game).
Well, from the top of my head (which is still healing from an election
night mishap while playing with my weenie dog ... don't ask!). Keep in
mind these are my opinions only ... others may (and probably will!)
differ.
Union Pacific (over Airlines)
Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage (over We the People .. unless you want a
simpler game, in which case choose We the People)
Metropolis over Downtown (but I'd still get Big City, too!)
Machiavelli over Diplomacy
Titan: The Arena over Galaxy: Dark Ages
Schotten Totten over Battleline
Settlers of Catan over any of it's add-ons
Bazaar over Samarkand or Business
Elfenland over King of the Elves
Tikal over Java (but I've only played Java once so far)
Acquire over Big Boss
Fill or Bust over For Get It
Amazing Labyrinth over any of it's variants (Master Labyrinth, Labyrinth
Card Game, etc.)
Twilight Imperium over Battle Mist or Thunder's Edge
Formula De over Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix or Daytona 500
Metro over Streetcar
Bluff over Perudo
Take 6 over Hornochsen
There's probably a ton more, but that's it for now!
-
Greg J. Schloesser
The Westbank Gamers: http://home.earthlink.net/~gschloesser/
Strategy Gaming Society: http://pages.about.com/strategygames
Robert Rossney
news:3A2C3B47...@earthlink.net...
> Metro over Streetcar
This one's very debatable. I prefer Metro to Streetcar/Linie 1 myself, but
Streetcar has a bluffing element that's completely absent from Metro, and
people I know prefer it for that reason.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Geenius at Wrok
> I've read this comment before concerning games: "If you have game X in
> your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
> gaming experience and game X is better" ... or "now that we have game X
> we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put together
> a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
> opinions on this subject. Union Pacific and Acquire have been compared
> this way in reviews, so have Tikal and Torres, Grand Canyon and Wizard,
> etc.
>
> Please list games in this way with comments if appropriate:
> Game X, GameY (where game X is in your opinion, the better game).
Guillotine, Family Business/Landlord/Fluxx
Get the Goods, Freight Train
Torres, Tikal
Web of Power, Medieval Merchant
Apples to Apples, most other party games (except Taboo and Imaginiff)
Vinci, Civilization (*ducks incoming rocks and garbage*)
--
"Imagine the folly of allowing people to play elaborate games which do
nothing whatever to increase consumption." -- "Brave New World"
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Live with honor, endure with grace "I notice you have a cloud of doom.
Keith Ammann is gee...@enteract.com I must admit it makes you seem
www.enteract.com/~geenius * Lun Yu 2:24 dangerous and sexy."
Dave Eggleston
> Web of Power, Medieval Merchant
I do not think these are similar at all. Medieval has a much greater
element
of strategy and diplomacy; WoP is more tactical.
> Vinci, Civilization (*ducks incoming rocks and garbage*)
AOR, Civilization.
History of the World, Vinci.
Jim Bolland
Jim
> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> >
> > Torres, Tikal
>
> You think these compare well?
> To me they are completely different categories of games...
>
> //Doc.
>
> --
> "Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje
> Voor goede tips over quoten en Netiquette: http://leerquoten.nijntje.net
Geenius at Wrok
> >> Game X, GameY (where game X is in your opinion, the better game).
>
> > Web of Power, Medieval Merchant
>
> I do not think these are similar at all. Medieval has a much greater
> element of strategy and diplomacy; WoP is more tactical.
Hey, all I can say is, the one reminds me of the other, and Medieval
Merchant bores the hell out of me.
The Doctor
Geenius at Wrok
> Maybe he meant Java and Tikal or Torres and Java?
>
> > Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> >
> > > Torres, Tikal
> >
> > You think these compare well?
> > To me they are completely different categories of games...
No, I meant Torres, Tikal. Meaning Torres and Tikal are by the same
designers and share certain mechanisms, and heretic that I am, I think the
former is a lot better than the latter. I haven't played Java, so I don't
know how it stacks up.
Rich Shipley
>
> > Vinci, Civilization (*ducks incoming rocks and garbage*)
>
> AOR, Civilization.
> History of the World, Vinci.
These are better comparisons. For me, AOR is a slightly shorter game, but
takes all the fun bits out.
Vinci beats all hell out of HotW IMHO, but does lack historicity.
Rich
Dave Eggleston
> >
> > I do not think these are similar at all. Medieval has a much greater
> > element of strategy and diplomacy; WoP is more tactical.
>
> Hey, all I can say is, the one reminds me of the other, and Medieval
> Merchant bores the hell out of me.
Fair enough. If you play MM as you would play WoP ("do a bunch of things,
get a bunch of points"), I imagine it would be boring. I just wanted to
point out that they are different types of games.
> Vinci beats all hell out of HotW IMHO, but does lack historicity.
For some of us, that makes all the difference. As flawed as it is, HotW is
unique, and games of it are memorable.
- d
Richard Heli
>I've read this comment before concerning games: "If you have game X in
>your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
>gaming experience and game X is better" ... or "now that we have game X
>we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put together
>a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
>opinions on this subject. Union Pacific and Acquire have been compared
>this way in reviews, so have Tikal and Torres, Grand Canyon and Wizard,
>etc.
Not sure that this somewhat anti-game purchasing point of view is
something we want to see. How about saying "if you like X, you will
also like Y?" instead?
Also, there are a couple of distinct situations here I think. One is
when one game is a re-issue of another, e.g. Iron Horse to Metro,
while the other is the more ambiguous and debatable "this game is
similar to that" situation. If anyone is keeping score, it might be
handy to indicate which situation applies in each case.
By the way, put me in the preferring Streetcar to Metro column.
Kevin O'Hare
Java "looks" like Tikal, but plays more like Torres.
In either event, I would play Java or Torres before
I'd play Tikal again. So,...
Torres over Java,
Java over Tikal
I don't think there is enough similarity to really state:
Torres over Tikal, although it appears that you could.
Don't know if you knew it, but your comment:
"I haven't played Java, so I don't know how it stacks up."
was quite on the mark, since that is one of the mechanisms
that Java shares with Torres, stacking pieces upon other pieces.
Kevin
Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Jim Bolland wrote:
>
> > Maybe he meant Java and Tikal or Torres and Java?
> >
> > > Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> > >
> > > > Torres, Tikal
> > >
> > > You think these compare well?
> > > To me they are completely different categories of games...
>
Rick Jones
>
> I've read this comment before concerning games: "If you have game X in
> your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
> gaming experience and game X is better" ... or "now that we have game X
> we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put together
> a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
> opinions on this subject. Union Pacific and Acquire have been compared
> this way in reviews, so have Tikal and Torres, Grand Canyon and Wizard,
> etc.
>
Iron Dragon over Empire Builder over Railway Rivals
Formula De over Daytona 500
Modern Naval Battles over Wooden Ships & Iron Men
I:NWO over M:TG
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
"And now, from beautiful downtown Burbank, it's Rowan & Martin's
Laugh-In!"
-Gary Owens
Robert Rossney
news:3A2F1464...@extra.lanset.com...
> > I've read this comment before concerning games: "If you have game X in
> > your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
> > gaming experience and game X is better" ...
> Modern Naval Battles over Wooden Ships & Iron Men
In what way does Modern Naval Battles offer an experience that is even
remotely comparable to WS&IM?
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Jim Bolland
If you like Torres, you just might like Java. I have a feeling it's closer to
Torres than Tikal in spite of having hexagonal tiles.
Jim
Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Dec 2000, Jim Bolland wrote:
>
> > Maybe he meant Java and Tikal or Torres and Java?
> >
> > > Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> > >
> > > > Torres, Tikal
> > >
> > > You think these compare well?
> > > To me they are completely different categories of games...
>
> No, I meant Torres, Tikal. Meaning Torres and Tikal are by the same
> designers and share certain mechanisms, and heretic that I am, I think the
> former is a lot better than the latter. I haven't played Java, so I don't
> know how it stacks up.
>
Richard Heli
<dange...@mediaone.net> wrote:
> I agree,
Good to hear, Mark. I guess we should be grateful that no one has yet
made a proposal like Giganten should be discarded in favor of McMulti
because both are oil drilling games, which even though the two have
completely different sets of mechanisms, I've seen seriously suggested
somewhere or other.
Rick Jones
Hmmm, maybe I got my games mixed up. What's the sailing ship era game
that uses a mechanic nearly identical to MNB?
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
IBM - Invented By Morons
Rick Jones
>
> >Modern Naval Battles over Wooden Ships & Iron Men
>
> about:
>
> Modern Navel Battles over Naval War
OK, maybe that's the game I was thinking of. It's been too many years
since I played it. It was a sailing ship era game with a nearly
identical system to MNB.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
What if the light at the end of the tunnel is a flame-thrower?
Dave Boyd
<3A2F1464...@extra.lanset.com>:
>Iron Dragon over Empire Builder over Railway Rivals
Agreed...
>Formula De over Daytona 500
But only for more than 6 players,,,
>Modern Naval Battles over Wooden Ships & Iron Men
??? The only thing these two have in common is "boats vs. boats". How
about:
Close Action over WS&IM
Modern Navel Battles over Naval War
>I:NWO over M:TG
Agreed. But NetRunner over INWO.
--
Dave Boyd
Cosmic Encounter: the best game ever
Geenius at Wrok
> If you like Torres, you just might like Java.
But I was already told that if I have Torres, I don't need Java. :-)
The Doctor
>
> >I:NWO over M:TG
>
> Agreed. But NetRunner over INWO.
And Jyhad over any of them.
Jim Bolland
>
> But I was already told that if I have Torres, I don't need Java. :-)
Hmm...Does that mean if I already have Java, I don't need Torres? :-) (I
really must try Torres so that I know what I'm talking about!)
Jim
Mark J. Edwards
Richard Heli <he...@nospamplease.best.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Dec 2000 18:18:01 GMT, shoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
in
> >your collection you don't need game Y, because they provide a similar
X
> >we just don't play game Y anymore." I'm trying my best to put
together
> >a complete game collection, so I'd really be interested in people's
> >opinions on this subject. Union Pacific and Acquire have been
compared
> >this way in reviews, so have Tikal and Torres, Grand Canyon and
Wizard,
> >etc.
>
> something we want to see. How about saying "if you like X, you will
> also like Y?" instead?
>
I agree, some of these games are certainly derived from one another
and belong in the same "family". But it'd be a serious mistake to favor
only one at the expense of all the others.
The easiest example of this is Union Pacific and Acquire (although
Tikal and Torres fit also). While they are similar, essentially stock
races at heart, the game play is dissimilar enough that the game
experience is _drastically_ different.
In short, of the three examples you site you'd be doing yourself a
disservice in favoring only one and not at least trying the others.
Mark
Robert Rossney
> Dave Boyd wrote:
> >
> > >Modern Naval Battles over Wooden Ships & Iron Men
> >
> > ??? The only thing these two have in common is "boats vs. boats". How
> > about:
> >
>
> since I played it. It was a sailing ship era game with a nearly
> identical system to MNB.
You're thinking of Enemy in Sight.
Bob Rossney
r...@well.com
Dave Boyd
>The Doctor wrote:
>>
>> Dave Boyd wrote:
>> >
>> > >I:NWO over M:TG
>> >
>> > Agreed. But NetRunner over INWO.
>>
>> And Jyhad over any of them.
>
>Jyhad over Netrunner?
>You jest, surely!
Well, for three of more players, yeah, Jyhad over Netrunner. But for two
players, Netrunner! And because I hate vampires, Doomtown or Bab5 over
Jyhad!
Dave Boyd
> Hmmm, maybe I got my games mixed up. What's the sailing ship era game
>that uses a mechanic nearly identical to MNB?
Enemy in Sight?
Trevor Hyde
> Vinci, Civilization (*ducks incoming rocks and garbage*)
Advanced Civilization, all other games.
Hunter Johnson
shoo...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Please list games in this way with comments if appropriate:
> Game X, GameY (where game X is in your opinion, the better game).
Advanced Squad Leader, Squad Leader
Age of Renaissance, Civilization
Settlers of Catan, Air Baron
Apples to Apples, TriBond
Arch Rival, Tilt 'N Tumble, Jenga
Up Front, Attack Sub
Samurai Swords, Axis & Allies
Battle Line, Schotten-Totten
Button Men, Dragon Dice
Roadkill, Car Wars the Card Game
Claim to Fame, Guesstures, Pictionary, Taboo
Daytona 500, Detroit/Cleveland Grand Prix
King of the Elves, Elfenland
Fight City, Settlers of Catan Card Game
Galaxy: The Dark Ages, Titan: The Arena
Give Me the Brain, UNO
Groo, Ninja Wars
History of the World, Risk
Honor of the Samurai, Quests of the Round Table
Lord of the Fries, Mystery Rummy 1
The 3 Stooges, Lunch Money
Mah Jongg, Mhing
Modern Art, Masterpiece
Mille Bornes, Grass, Himalaya
Modern Naval Battles, Naval War
The Very Clever Pipe Game, Pipeline, Water Works
Renfield, Spades, Hearts
Stop Thief, Clue
Wizards, Talisman
Wizard Kings, Victory
--
Hunter Johnson <jhun...@donet.com> http://www.donet.com/~jhunterj/
Demo Monkey in Black/Software Engineer Dayton, Ohio <><
Games for sale/trade: http://www.donet.com/~jhunterj/gamesale.txt
Rick Jones
>
> rick...@extra.lanset.com (Rick Jones) wrote in
> <3A304D43...@extra.lanset.com>:
>
> > Hmmm, maybe I got my games mixed up. What's the sailing ship era game
> >that uses a mechanic nearly identical to MNB?
>
> Enemy in Sight?
That might be it. Sorry, my memory is just too poor. I was thinking
Wooden Ships & Iron Men was the game similar to MNB.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Political Correctness - The current version of McCarthyism
bruno faidutti
Burp / Civilization
--
Bruno Faidutti
Games and Unicorns
9 bis rue Alphonse Daudet
30133 LES ANGLES - FRANCE
http://faidutti.free.fr
faid...@free.fr
The Doctor
>
> > And Jyhad over any of them.
>
> You jest, surely!
Nope.
//Doc.
PS Not V:tES, JYHAD! Only the original cards.
The Doctor
>
> Well, for three of more players, yeah, Jyhad over Netrunner. But for two
> players, Netrunner! And because I hate vampires, Doomtown or Bab5 over
> Jyhad!
For less then 4 players I would NOT recommend Jyhad at all.
3 works, but isn't as much fun. 2 simply sucks.
But there weren't any of those restrictions in the original question.
Bab5 is nice too.
Dave Boyd
<3A3660BC...@coventry.ac.uk>:
<snip HTML of why simultaneous movement rules are better>
OK, where are these rules that the designer wrote? I'd like to try playing
by them...
Scott J Di Bartolo
The Doctor wrote:
> Geenius at Wrok wrote:
> >
> > Torres, Tikal
>
> You think these compare well?
> To me they are completely different categories of games...
>
> //Doc.
El Grande/Tikal, Torres (though don't NOT play this one!)
I have to agree with you Doc. To me Torres and Tikal and very different. The
only real similarity I see is the action points. To me, Tikal has always
seemed more like El Grande (territorial) but you have action points instead
of card stacks (which are predetermined actions). Having said that, I also
have to say that I like, no make that love, all three games. If I was really
pressed to rank them, I'd put El Grande ahead of Tikal (ever so slightly),
and Torres would be a very close 3rd.
I introduced Tikal to some friends last weekend, and both the husband and
wife loved it. She commented that as the game went on, she felt like "the
level of tension and excitement kept building as we got nearer the end." She
felt like every point she spent was very important and kept wishing for JUST
ONE MORE each turn. I was very pleased they enjoyed the game as much as they
did.
As for Java, I can't wait to get my copy - it seems like it's going to be a
sure hit if it is like these others.
Scott Di Bartolo
--
Stop by and check out our Man O War Community at YAHOO!.com - a place for
all
MOW admirals to gather and discuss GW's best game. Now over 75 Members
strong!
We have new ships and rules for you to try out, and plenty of links and
Photos too.
We are at:
http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/theseaofclaws
We have moved from our site at DEJA.com, please stop in to see what's new.
Rick Jones
>
> This one has been bugging me so I had to stick my oar in.
>
> Rick Jones wrote:
>
> > Iron Dragon over Empire Builder over Railway Rivals
>
> is a far better game than both. I could not believe Rick's placing
> until I realised that he was almost certainly thinking of it being
> played with sequential movement (as per the rules provided in most
> boxed versions). The designer produced a far superior set of rules, in
> which RR is played using simultaneous movement.
Actually my preference for EB over RR (and the preference is really
just a small one) is for the cargo hauling aspects of the EB games
versus the "races" used by RR. OTOH, I prefer RR's track building rules
(all track builds onto the end of existing track) and think that EB's
allowing players to build from opposite cities and meet in the middle is
a flaw in the mechanics.
Just may own opinions and preferences. YMMV.
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
"Damn you Buckaroo Banzai!"
-John Lithgow, "The Adventures Of Buckaroo Banzai Across The Eighth
Dimension"
Michael/Schneider
<rick...@extra.lanset.com> wrote:
> Bob Gingell wrote:
> >
> > This one has been bugging me so I had to stick my oar in.
> >
> > Rick Jones wrote:
> >
> > > Iron Dragon over Empire Builder over Railway Rivals
> >
> > No complaint about Iron Dragon over Empire Builder, but Railway Rivals
> > is a far better game than both. I could not believe Rick's placing
> > until I realised that he was almost certainly thinking of it being
> > played with sequential movement (as per the rules provided in most
> > boxed versions). The designer produced a far superior set of rules, in
> > which RR is played using simultaneous movement.
>
> Actually my preference for EB over RR (and the preference is really
> just a small one) is for the cargo hauling aspects of the EB games
> versus the "races" used by RR. OTOH, I prefer RR's track building rules
> (all track builds onto the end of existing track) and think that EB's
> allowing players to build from opposite cities and meet in the middle is
> a flaw in the mechanics.
It's a common crayonrail variant that a player must start in one major
city, and all his track from then on must be built off that.
Mike Schneider, VRWC Sentinel Outpost. "Autoguns, on-line!" +--+--+--+
Reply to mike1@@@winternet.com sans two @@, or your reply won't reach me.
bob.g
Watts (the designer) primarily for postal play. In these rules the game is
divided into 6 building rounds and 6 operating rounds. Orders have to be
written down for each Round using the hex numbering system on the maps and
the names of the towns.
In each Building Round all players use the same 3 die rolls (normally the
best 3 out of 4 rolls on D6, ignoring rolls of 1 [I count these as '4'] and
optionally more than one roll of 2 [I count any additional 2 as a '5']).
Builds are written down and cannot be altered to take account of other
players' builds during that Round. Track is then built point by point
simultaneously, with payment from accounts to other players for parallel
builds halved if the earlier track was built during the same Building Round
(i.e. pay 1 per half-hex instead of the usual 2, plus the normal 1 point per
hex for joining or crossing another player's line). If Player A should pay
over 15 units to Player B for parallel builds in one Round, the payment is
deducted in full from Player A but a maximum of 15 is credited to Player B.
The bonus for reaching a town is split between players reaching the town at
exactly the same time, rounding up any fractions.
The Operating Rounds are divided into two groups of 3, with each destination
appearing once in each group. Most maps have either 36/42 destinations
(using dice), or 52 destinations (using playing cards). Each Round will thus
have 6/7 races of which each player can enter only 4, or 9 races (8 in
Rounds 9 and 12) of which players can only enter 5. Races that are
impossible or not run are held over from earlier Rounds, and may increase
the entry limits (i.e. if there are 8 or 9 races in a Round players can
enter 5, if there are 10 or 11 races players can enter 6). Players decide
which races to enter at the beginning of each Round, and cannot change their
choices in the light of other players' entries. An average die is rolled
separately for each player to determine train movement. At the end of each
Operating Round players may pay from their accounts to build further track,
usually to a maximum of 12 points after Round 7 then decreasing by 2 points
for each subsequent round (i.e. 12-10-8-6-4). Since 1991 the rule has been
that payments to other players are extra to this maximum build allowance.
In other respects the "standard" rules apply. There are some variations to
the rules above for particular maps and between different groups of players.
There are also optional rules for 'leapfrog' (where players when building
can jump up to 3 hexes of each opponent's track twice per game - useful for
very mountainous maps) and different scoring (where the 20+10 points for
first and second can be divided between everyone that enters a race, e.g. 3
players would divide 16-9-5, 4 players 13-8-5-4, 5 players 11-7-5-4-3, while
1 player would get all 30!).
I hope this helps - enjoy the game. Anyone interested in PBM or PBEM games
is welcome to contact me and hopefully I can put you in touch with GMs
starting new games.
Bob
"Dave Boyd" <boy...@amsworld.com> wrote in message
news:900886D97boyd...@209.155.56.81...
Rick Jones
>
> > Actually my preference for EB over RR (and the preference is really
> > just a small one) is for the cargo hauling aspects of the EB games
> > versus the "races" used by RR. OTOH, I prefer RR's track building rules
> > (all track builds onto the end of existing track) and think that EB's
> > allowing players to build from opposite cities and meet in the middle is
> > a flaw in the mechanics.
>
> It's a common crayonrail variant that a player must start in one major
> city, and all his track from then on must be built off that.
Yeah, but it's never used in the tournaments at Strategicon. They
always use the normal rules. Here at home, if/when I can ever find
opponents to come over, it can be played that way. Maybe this Friday for
Big Game Night...
--
Rick Jones
Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me
Heave ho - what happens when you get seasick and you've eaten too much
ho.