If you could have only two of these...
2many...@my-deja.com
christmas check from the parents. (yes, they still give me money!) I
need at least one new one that works well for just two, but some new
material for my game group of 4-6 is important too. On a scale of 1-10,
I need a high fun factor (6-8), a strategy factor of about 5-7, luck
can be about 5, and good replay value. I'm asking for guidance in
buying what may be my only new games until summer... What are your
picks, and why? Thanks!
~2manygames (so little time)
Lord of the Rings
Taj Mahal
Carcassonne
La Citta
Alladin's Dragons
Doge
Java (own Tikal already)
El Grande
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
2many...@my-deja.com
christmas check from the parents. (yes, they still give me money!) I
need at least one new one that works well for just two, but some new
material for my game group of 4-6 is important too. On a scale of 1-10,
I need a high fun factor (6-8), a strategy factor of about 5-7, luck
can be about 5, and good replay value. I'm asking for guidance in
buying what may be my only new games until summer... What are your
picks, and why? Thanks!
~2manygames (so little time)
Lord of the Rings-Been hyperventilating for months about this one.
Taj Mahal-Some say it's Dr. K's best... I just want a good game.
Carcassonne-Like the theme, mechanism and aesthetics; how's it play?
La Citta-Ditto the above. I know it's complex, but it looks so goood.
Alladin's Dragons-Mixed reviews on this one, not sure how I feel.
Doge-Know next to nothing, but looks quick and perhaps satisfying.
Java-I do own Tikal already--is the difference worth the price tag?
El Grande-Been putting this one off for so long, I guess 'cause it's a
sure winner...there's some dopey logic for you.
Derk Solko
> Lord of the Rings-Been hyperventilating for months about this one.
Blah. Talisman, only everyone's on the same team. It think this
one'll fade really fast...
> Taj Mahal-Some say it's Dr. K's best... I just want a good game.
Not awful, but very dependent on your fellow gamers' behavior or lack
there of. I didn't much care for it.
> Carcassonne-Like the theme, mechanism and aesthetics; how's it play?
I watched a couple games of this the other day, and it looks not bad,
but fairly luck intensive. The best comparison I can come up with is
Metro with a little more thinking, because you're performance is mostly
based on how much your fellow gamers think you're winning. Still, I'd
like to get a couple more games in before passing final judgement.
> La Citta-Ditto the above. I know it's complex, but it looks so goood.
It's wonderful. One of my favorites for the year, right up there with
Fürsten von Florenz..
> Alladin's Dragons-Mixed reviews on this one, not sure how I feel.
If you like blind bidding (ala Raj) then you'll probably like it. I
think it's a little too luck dependent for my tastes.
> Doge-Know next to nothing, but looks quick and perhaps satisfying.
I haven't played it yet, but the initial reports are marginal, at best.
> Java-I do own Tikal already--is the difference worth the price tag?
Again, I haven't played it. But if it shares that much with Tikal,
then it won't find too much table time 'round these parts. I've played
Tikal maybe three or four times because it's just not fun enough to
counteract the overly long and drawn out playing...
> El Grande-Been putting this one off for so long, I guess 'cause it's a
> sure winner...there's some dopey logic for you.
I dunno. It's a decent game, to be sure. But it's so finicky with
player numbers. Five players only, if you want to see how the game
really behaves. And then there's a considerable metagame aspect to the
thing too, which some find a little taxing from time to time.
derk.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>I need at least one new one that works well for just two, but some new
>material for my game group of 4-6 is important too. On a scale of 1-10,
>I need a high fun factor (6-8), a strategy factor of about 5-7, luck
>can be about 5, and good replay value.
Let me start with the easy ones for me:
I haven't yet played:
>La Citta
>Doge
So I have no comment on them.
I would then rule out:
>Java (own Tikal already)
based on the parenthetical comment, since you can only buy two.
(My taste, of course, but I prefer Tikal to Java to Torres.)
That leaves five from your list, though there are others not on your
list I'd rate more highly ... wait for San Marco to come out and be
sure to get that, though it only plays 3-4 players.
>Lord of the Rings
>Taj Mahal
>Carcassonne
>Alladin's Dragons
>El Grande
Alladin's Dragons seems to be a love it or hate it game. Be careful.
I'm in the love it camp, and have a review on my website, URL below.
Plays well with 3-5 players.
El Grande is a classic, a game I consider a must have, so that would
rate highly from me. Again, review on my web site. Plays best with
exactly five players, okay with four.
Taj Mahal ... hmmm. Definitely a good game, but I haven't played
enough to know to the replay value. Somehow it doesn't get pulled
out very much, so I suspect I have some unconsicious, unidentified
problem with the game. It may be the repetition, which is a real
factor. Intellectually I consider it an excellent game, but
emotionally I'm just not that drawn to it. Plays with 3-5 players,
I think. I preferred the three-player to the five-player version - I
haven't tried any other number yet.
Carcassonne I've only played once. I was very impressed, but
already decided to remove the monastaries as unnecessary and
luck-heavy elements. I ordered a copy based on the strength of
the one play. Plays 2-5, but I have no idea yet of the ideal
number.
Lord of the Rings: I've played only once. I was expecting to
dislike it: I'm not a fan of cooperative games in general, and it's
my opinion that Knizia is usually very weak implementing themes,
so I was very dubious about this game. To my surprise, I liked it
enough to order it on the strength of one playing. It was a
knuckle-biter the whole way, and the cooperative aspect wasn't
off-putting at all. I don't know how the replay will hold up - it
may pale after a while, I admit. I think it would play well 1-5
players, but have only played once, so am not sure of the optimum
number.
So of your list, I either already own or have currently on order:
El Grande
Aladdin's Dragons
Carcassonne
Lord of the Rings
Taj Mahal
and so far am only a bit dubious about the last one. Hmmm - you
might be able to buy my copy at a reduced rate, saving enough money
to get two of the others, since I'm lukewarm about it - or trade,
if you have anything I might be interested in. Let me know. But
I'm keeping the other four, at least for a few years.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "It is folly to expect men to do all that
s...@panix.co | they may reasonably be expected to do."
Plymouth, NH, USA | -Archbishop Whately of Dublin
www.io.com/~sos | (1864)
Bob Scherer-Hoock
> Hey everyone. I can buy maybe two of any of these games below with a
> christmas check from the parents. (yes, they still give me money!) I
> need at least one new one that works well for just two, but some new
> material for my game group of 4-6 is important too. On a scale of 1-10,
> I need a high fun factor (6-8), a strategy factor of about 5-7, luck
> can be about 5, and good replay value. I'm asking for guidance in
> buying what may be my only new games until summer... What are your
> picks, and why? Thanks!
> ~2manygames (so little time)
>
> Lord of the Rings
> Taj Mahal
> Carcassonne
> La Citta
> Alladin's Dragons
> Doge
> Java (own Tikal already)
> El Grande
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
My two cents, but for you free: The only ones on your list that work with
two are Carcassone, La Citta, and Java (I have not played Doge and am
excluding that from all discussion). Of those three, Carcassone is easily
the shortest, and is probably more strategic and less random (and there is
considerable randomness in the tile draw - not that there's anything wrong
with that) with fewer players. La Citta and Java both scale well to more
players, La Citta to five and Java to four. Both are longish and can drag
between turns if people sweat their decisions.
Taj Mahal, Aladdin's Dragons, and El Grande are all 3-5. El Grande is
definitely better with five than 3. Most people think Taj Mahal is that way
too, although I've seen it work well with three. Aladdin's Dragons is
purposely scaled for 3, 4, or 5 as it has separate card decks for each
number of players. I think it works well with each number, but is probably
best with 5 as there is more competition.
All six of these games are going to take somewhat longer to play as the
player count increases.
In terms plain old fun, I'd rank them Aladdin's Dragons (unless you just
don't accept blind bidding as a valid game mechanic - personally I think it
makes for a lot of fun as players bluff and play with each other's minds),
Carcassone, Taj Mahal, El Grande, La Citta, and Java. The order also
reflects descending player interaction (that being necessary in my mind for
plain old fun) and increasing brain-burner material.
For strategy I'd rank them El Grande, La Citta, Java, Taj Mahal, Aladdin's
Dragons, and Carcassone. Although none are really lacking in strategy, the
strategy is more controlled in the first four. I guess that's pretty much
their inverse luck order too.
Lord of the Rings is a special case altogether. Depends how you feel about
the books, as the theme is heavy, and cooperative play, as it's a
cooperative game. I forget how many can play it component-wise (I think
2-5, but I'm probably wrong). In my mind it would work best strategically
as a solitaire game.
If I had to get two, I'd get Carcassone for the light side, and El Grande
for the gamers, although leaving out Aladdin's Dragons from either side is
real tough.
Bob Scherer-Hoock
Doug Cooley
>
> 2many...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Lord of the Rings-Been hyperventilating for months about this one.
>
> Blah. Talisman, only everyone's on the same team. It think this
> one'll fade really fast...
Unfair! You can finish LotR in 90 minutes or less! ;-)
Actually, I like it quite a bit (after one two-player game with my
wife). The interaction between events and the activity trails is (IMHO)
well implemented. It uses the role-playing aspect to create a lot of
tension at the end. Who will live? Who will die? Who will take one for
the Gipper? Good stuff, and *nothing* like Talisman.
> > Carcassonne-Like the theme, mechanism and aesthetics; how's it play?
>
> I watched a couple games of this the other day, and it looks not bad,
> but fairly luck intensive. The best comparison I can come up with is
> Metro with a little more thinking, because you're performance is mostly
> based on how much your fellow gamers think you're winning. Still, I'd
> like to get a couple more games in before passing final judgement.
It is luck-intensive. I lost a game when I couldn't draw the right tile
after seven draws to give me a tie for farmers in the big area.
Nonetheless, it's a fun light game that has a good amount of tension and
plays well with two.
> > Alladin's Dragons-Mixed reviews on this one, not sure how I feel.
>
> If you like blind bidding (ala Raj) then you'll probably like it. I
> think it's a little too luck dependent for my tastes.
If you like "psychological" games, where guessing what your opponents
will do is a big part of play, you'll like this (and Taj Mahal). Other
examples are Adel Verpflichtet and Ohne Furcht und Adel.
Not to contradict Derk, but I did want to respond to the LotR slam.
Doug
--
Doug Cooley
Mentor Graphics Knowledge Products
Wilsonville, OR (503)685-1394
doug_...@mentor.com
*********************************************
A satirist is a man who discovers unpleasant
things about himself and then says them about
other people.
- Peter McArthur
*********************************************
Laurent Rochette
>
> Hey everyone. I can buy maybe two of any of these games below with a
> christmas check from the parents. (yes, they still give me money!) I
> need at least one new one that works well for just two, but some new
> material for my game group of 4-6 is important too. On a scale of 1-10,
> I need a high fun factor (6-8), a strategy factor of about 5-7, luck
> can be about 5, and good replay value. I'm asking for guidance in
> buying what may be my only new games until summer... What are your
> picks, and why? Thanks!
> ~2manygames (so little time)
>
> Lord of the Rings
I should play my first game tomorrow I hope, but hey, if you're a
Tolkien fan, I think you should not miss this one.
> Taj Mahal
> Carcassonne
It's fun pipe game which plays fast, about 30 minutes, and fun with 2
players (can play up to 5 but I did not test yet).
Check this link for more information:
http://faidutti.free.fr/jeux/articles/carcassonne/carcassonne.html
> La Citta
> Alladin's Dragons
I've played once. Not one of my favorite.
> Doge
> Java (own Tikal already)
> El Grande
my 2 cents
--
@ * Laurent Rochette
|_O_/ Software Engineer - RLS team
| (503) 685-1146 Fax: (503) 685-1461
/ \ laurent_...@mentor.com
L L http://www.mentor.com
MENTOR GRAPHICS
8005 SW Boeckman Road -- Wilsonville, OR 97070-7777
Laurent Rochette
> Carcassonne I've only played once. I was very impressed, but
> already decided to remove the monastaries as unnecessary and
> luck-heavy elements. I ordered a copy based on the strength of
> the one play. Plays 2-5, but I have no idea yet of the ideal
> number.
How so ? Do you think they are to easy to score ?
I think to remove part of the luck factor, an idea would be to have X
tiles (about 3 to 5) face up and the player could choose a face up or
face down.
A face up would be replaced if chosen.
Laurent
David Vander Ark
Carcassonne and El Grande. Here's my reasoning, following your
criteria. YMMV:
Works for two:
Carcassonne is very good with 2 players. I've played with up to 4 and
it works well with more players also.
El Grande: Doesn't work well with 2. Works great with 5. Works well
with 4. The day I got it my wife and I played 3 games in a row with
just the 2 of us and ejnoyed it immensely, so it isn't a total write off
with just two. But there are _much_ better 2 player games out there.
Fun Factor:
Carcassone is light and has what I consider to be enough luck to keep it
from becoming simply a dry, abstract intellectual contest. My
Subjective Fun Rating would be 8 or 9.
El Grande moves quickly enough that you find yourself becoming engrossed
in the game's subtelties and strategies...in a fun way. My Subjective
Fun Rating would be 6 or 7.
Strategy Factor:
Carcassone involves maximizing the placement of your Meeple, there are
simple strategies that pay off differently in different games. Light,
but there's enough there to sink your teeth into. Rating would be 6.
El Grande is a strategic orgy. Many different ways to advance your
cause and impede your opponents. Not overwhelming, in my opinion.
Rating would be 9 or 10.
Luck Factor:
Carcassone: A little high, but acceptable in this type of game. Rating
would be 7
El Grande: Very little luck. You make your bed, you lie in it. Rating
would be ? (Low, like 2 or 3?)
Replay Value:
Carcassonne: Fast game, begs to be replayed, is fun even when you lose
because it's close and you'll want to try a different strategy.
El Grande: Takes longer, but has a replay attraction as well. In my
group the hasn't "burned people out on games" for the night, although I
couldn't imagine playing it twice in one night with a big group.
David
2many...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
>
> Lord of the Rings
> Taj Mahal
> Carcassonne
> La Citta
> Alladin's Dragons
> Doge
> Java (own Tikal already)
> El Grande
>
>
David Vander Ark
prompts. Ignore what I said in that post, since it probably won't make
any sense. ('specially since I couldn't spell "enjoy" properly in that
post)
:-)
David
2many...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Durn! I accidentally sent this one before I was done with the text. If
> you are planning to leave a response for me, please do so on the other
> post with the same title. I added some remarks regarding each game that
> will help you see where I'm coming from and specific things I'd like to
> know. Thanks a lot!
> ~2many
dave
> tiles (about 3 to 5) face up and the player could choose a face up or
> face down.
I don't think so. You'll get the Union Pacific effect, wherein, after
a few rounds, the selection gets clogged with crap, and it comes down
to the luck of the draw again.
Melanie and I tried our first match tonight (I've soloed a couple of
3P games before). Had elements of Entdecker and Very Clever Pipe Game,
two of our very favorite games, without being quite as satisfactory
as either. Very light, but dry, and the design isn't all that
elegant (witness the cloisters). However, it plays quick (and very well
for 2P), so it will come out more often than it deserves.
- d
Steffan O'Sullivan
>Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
>
>> Carcassonne I've only played once. I was very impressed, but
>> already decided to remove the monastaries as unnecessary and
>> luck-heavy elements. I ordered a copy based on the strength of
>> the one play. Plays 2-5, but I have no idea yet of the ideal
>> number.
>
>How so ? Do you think they are to easy to score ?
I think there is almost no skill involved in monastaries. You draw
one, you play it, you put a monk on it. Unless it's near the end
of the game you should get ~8 points for it. You draw two more,
you're talking ~24 points for hardly any skill - just making sure
you put tiles around them, and you've got it. I don't draw any,
I don't get those points - not much I can do to avoid that.
As I said - I've only played once. But one player got three
monastaries, two other players got one each, two players got none.
The monk player won by 14 points, with about 24 points in monastaries
... it just seemed to nullify everyone else's hard work to establish
farms, cities and even roads.
No, I think playing with just Thieves, Knights, and Farmers is
where the game is at. There is at least some chance that skillful
play can influence all of those. I think there are only five
monastaries, so removing them hardly changes the game much.
>I think to remove part of the luck factor, an idea would be to have X
>tiles (about 3 to 5) face up and the player could choose a face up or
>face down.
>A face up would be replaced if chosen.
I'll have to play at least half a dozen games with the tiles facedown
first to see if I like the sound of that. I might, though!
Thorbjörn Engdahl
> Lord of the Rings
> Taj Mahal
> El Grande
Out of these, I would buy Lord of the Rings and El Grande.
LotR:
2-5 players, plays excellent with 2-5 players. Some doubt its replayability.
So do I, but I have so far played it 12 times - a lot more than some of my
games, for sure - and I still am not tired of it. I want to beat Sauron
starting on 10! Exciting and different.
Taj Mahal:
Probably best with 4 players. Very good game - I'd give it a strong 7.
Replayability - about 7.
La Citta:
2-5 players. More players give longer games. Down time. I'm not sure about
this one. I need to play it more to be able to give a fair rating. I have
the feeling that if you get behind, you will have a very hard time coming
back. Not very much interaction. Right now I'd say it is somewhere between
4-7 for me.
El Grande:
Probably best played with 5 players. I've never tried it with less than 4,
which was ok. I love this game. Lots of interaction. Everyone jockeys for
positions keeping a watchful eye on the opponents. It takes a while to play,
but there is so much fun going on. Luck - 3, Strategy - 8, Fun - 8. High
replayability as every game turns out differently. New tactics evolve with
experienced players. I give the game a strong 8. Major complaints: best with
(4 &) 5 players and maybe a bit long game.
Off the list
I'd like to recommend Ohne Furcht und Adel: 2-7 players. Not so good with 4
players, but swell with 2, 3, 5 and 6 players (and probably 7 - haven't
tried it yet). Excellent mix of luck, strategy, trying to outthink your
opponents and best of all - backstabbing.
Also good is Knizia's Through the Desert - the Camel game. Great fun and
frustation for 2-5 players.
Good luck. Let us know what you buy.
/Thorbjörn Engdahl
2many...@my-deja.com
Arne Hoffmann
> I think there is almost no skill involved in monastaries. You draw
> one, you play it, you put a monk on it. Unless it's near the end
> of the game you should get ~8 points for it. You draw two more,
> you're talking ~24 points for hardly any skill - just making sure
> you put tiles around them, and you've got it. I don't draw any,
> I don't get those points - not much I can do to avoid that.
Hello Steffan!
After only playing once I would have agreed with you about the
monestaries. I think differently about them now that I have played
Carcassonne a half dozen times at least. There is skill involved with
them. First of all it depends on the time when you draw them. In our
last game I drew four of the five monestaries but could not place a monk
in them since of all my playing pieces were already on the board.
Second, when drawing a monastery it might look like an easy 7up points
when placing a monk there but you might be better off with placing the
monastery as to join different grasslands so that your farmers are in
good scoring position. That might easily give you more than 8 points.
And the monestary is a powerful piece for joining grasslands. Further,
once a player has placed a monestary you might be able to block him off
completion of the 3x3 square by placing some nasty pieces around the
square.
Out of all the times we played Carcassonne so far only twice did the
person who drew the most monestaries win. I do not think they should be
removed from the game - they give it extra spice.
Cheers!
- Arne -
Jim Bolland
Java and Tikal look alike because the boards have hexagons. Both can have
a problem with "analysis paralysis".
The way Java plays is more often compared to Torres. (I haven't played
Torres. This is just what I keep hearing from people who *have* played
Torres.)
Jim
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>After only playing once I would have agreed with you about the
>monestaries. I think differently about them now that I have played
>Carcassonne a half dozen times at least.
>Out of all the times we played Carcassonne so far only twice did the
>person who drew the most monestaries win. I do not think they should be
>removed from the game - they give it extra spice.
Okay, thanks, Arne - I'll probably try them again. Remember I've
only played the game once, which is exactly how many grains of salt
you should take my opinion with.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "It's bad to kill, but it's not bad
s...@panix.com | to die."
Plymouth, NH, USA | -Hogarth Hughes
www.io.com/~sos | (_The Iron Giant_ movie)
Richard Dewsbery
much downtime between turns. La Citta can suffer this way, but usually
doesn't.
El Grande never really grabbed me - don't know why. Carcassonne is fun, but
stuck on a desert island with only two games I'd want something with more
meat. LOTR is fantastic, but I wonder how I'll view it in a year's time -
there's only so many times I can see myself wanting to kill Sauron, and
haven't failed since hitting on the "sacrifice Frodo, let Merry carry the
ring through Mordor" plan. Doge is interestingbut like games like Web of
Power it doesn't fully engage some people. Taj Mahal _is_ great - but a lot
of people weeren't impressed. And Aladdin's Dragons has this face-down
counter thing (oh, and no-one can beat me at it - which gets dull after a
while).
If you're allowed two Knizias, I'd have LOTR and Taj Mahal. Otherwise LOTR
and La Citta for something meaty. If it's lighter fayre, LOTR and
Carcassonne.
Richard
spell...@my-deja.com
> Lord of the Rings-Been hyperventilating for months about this one.
Knizia and theme usually don't go well together, but with LotR, he did
an outstanding job.
> Carcassonne-Like the theme, mechanism and aesthetics; how's it play?
It's likeable, but too luck-dependent. I'd go for El Caballero, which is
also excellent with two.
> La Citta-Ditto the above. I know it's complex, but it looks so goood.
I don't really like La Citta a lot. It lasts too long, and you can
easily get in a situation where there's no hope of winning, even early
in the game. If you then have to play for another two hours it will get
very boring. I haven't seen anyone else notice this, but I think there's
a major luck-factor with the political cards. Some of them rock (like
the Architect or the cheap buildings with two arches), and some of them
are so lame, they'll never be chosen (Good Harvest and Polling the
People come to mind). Many people like it, though.
> Alladin's Dragons-Mixed reviews on this one, not sure how I feel.
Played it only once, it was nice enough. Not the best, not the worst.
> El Grande-Been putting this one off for so long, I guess 'cause it's a
> sure winner...there's some dopey logic for you.
Now THIS is a good game. It's good with 3,4 or 5 players and plays
differently every time. The winner is determined at the very end, and
there are some very agonizing choises to be made.
Of the games you mentioned, LotR and Carcassonne are the best with two.
Of the more involved games, I'd recommend El Grande. You might know them
already, but also check out Fürsten von Florenz (another Kramer/Ulrich
masterpiece), Ohne Furcht und Adel, Löwenherz and Torres.
Pitt Crandlemire
>
>I think there is almost no skill involved in monastaries. You draw
>one, you play it, you put a monk on it.
Agreed.
>Unless it's near the end
>of the game you should get ~8 points for it.
Conditionally agreed. The condition is: the other players shouldn't help you
(either by filling in around it or leaving a spot already filled around where
you can drop it) if you already have another Monastery.
That way, you have to do all the work to get the points for the Monastery and,
as a result, you're not able to do much to gain points from other sources.
This nicely balances out the occassional game where one player draws too many
Monasteries.
>As I said - I've only played once.
Please do give it another few tries, Steffan. The distribution of Monasteries
you experienced in your first game is unusual and, as I indicated above,
experienced players can deal with it anyway. I find Carcassonne to be an
enjoyable filler that rewards skillful play.
-Pitt
Dave Bernazzani
> I need at least one new one that works well for just two,
> but some new material for my game group of 4-6 is important
> too. On a scale of 1-10, I need a high fun factor (6-8), a
> and good replay value.
> Lord of the Rings
A fine game but I'm a little concerned about the replay value. I'm about 8
games into it and still enjoy it, but it might prove to wear a little thin
over time. But an exceptionally beautiful game and it really feels
different enough to warrant a purchase. Plays fine with 2 through 5
players. But you've got some other good games on the list so read on...
> Taj Mahal
Was one of my favs but has diminished a bit of late. Does not play with 2
and I find it a bit too chaotic with 5 players. But with 3 or 4 it's very
good. Replay value seems to be good.
> Carcassonne
Ahh... a fine new game and one that scales well from 2-5 players. A light,
quick and fun game with a good blend of strategy and luck (although probably
more luck than you indicate - but it's great trying to work the best you can
with the tiles you draw). Plus those little wooden Meeples are so cute! I
think this is a good choice considering the price. Good replay value.
> La Citta
A fine game - but it gets way too long with 4 or 5 players. I've enjoyed it
with 2 and with 3 players and would not opt to sit a 4 player version of it
anytime soon. Plenty of strategy - and a modicum of luck in the cards.
> Aladdin's Dragons
I wasn't too fond of this at first - but I think it's grown on me. I think
the more players the better with this one - and the replay value seems high.
Beautiful components to boot!
> Doge
Have not played.
> Java (own Tikal already)
I really like Java but its got some serious downtime between turns. As a 4
player game, I'd pass on it. As a 2 player and an occasional 3 player game,
it's got plenty going for it. It definitely feels a bit like Tikal and
Torres, but is sufficiently different enough to warrant consideration. Very
little luck - just in the festival cards. It can be a brainburner. I'd say
this might not be as good a fit as some of the others you are considering
given your criteria.
> El Grande
Fantastic game with the luck factor very low (just in the action cards) but
it really needs 5 players. 4 players is OK and less than that it falls off
very rapidly. Can have some downtime so the "fun" factor is somewhat
reduced but you really walk away feeling you were in an awesome battle for
control on the board.
To sum up - given your criteria I'd opt for Carcassonne (for 2 - 5 players)
and El Grande (for 4 or 5). Aladdin's Dragons sounds like it might also be
a good fit to your criteria - and has a little more room for scaling the
number of players than, say, El Grande (which is best with exactly 5).
--
Dave Bernazzani
db...@gis.net
http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
The Doctor
> buying what may be my only new games until summer... What are your
> picks, and why? Thanks!
> ~2manygames (so little time)
>
> Taj Mahal
> La Citta
> Alladin's Dragons
> Doge
> Java (own Tikal already)
> El Grande
I'd go with El Grande.
La Citta is promising, but as I've only given it one or 2 plays, I wouldn't
dare recommend its replay value yet. El Grande is always fun.
The rest just doesn't cut it, or I dunno them (yet).
//Doc.
--
"Wees jezelf, er zijn al zoveel anderen" - Loesje
Voor goede tips over quoten en Netiquette: http://leerquoten.nijntje.net
The Doctor
You can stop now, I'm betting people will get bored with it very soon.
It will be hyped again around the movie, but in two years it'll just be a
dust-collector.
2many...@my-deja.com
> > Carcassonne-Like the theme, mechanism and aesthetics; how's it play?
> It's likeable, but too luck-dependent. I'd go for El Caballero, which
is
> also excellent with two.
>
I do own Caballero, and enjoy it if played infrequently. It is taxing
to the synapses, which at the end of a long day, my wife and I are
rarely ready for. Lost Cities, Samarkand, C&C or 2-player WoP are more
often played. El Cab and Samurai we reserve for evenings of mental
fencing. Thanks for the reccommendation, though.
You might know them already, but also check out Fürsten von Florenz
(another Kramer/Ulrich masterpiece), Ohne Furcht und Adel, Löwenherz
and Torres.
>
> You know, I -almost- put Lowehnhertz on this list--another one that
I've been putting off for years as newer games kept rolling out. I
still don't have Settlers either, but don't tell anyone!
The Doctor
>
> Knizia and theme usually don't go well together, but with LotR, he did
> an outstanding job.
I've played the game and had absolutely no sense of theme. I felt like
playing an advanced version of 'ganzebord' (I have no clue what the english
equivalent of ganzebord would be).
I can imagine people playing it very much in-character, since all the
possibilities are there, and all descriptions fit in the theme and such. But
I didn't feel like Gandalf flew in for the rescue, it was just some special
card I had to use to prevent loss.
It does have better possibilities to play it in-character, compared to other
Knizia-games, but it doesn't bring you into the theme on it's own.
But then again, are there many games which do?
Filthy Rich does it to me, as does risk, and especially Blood Bowl, but do
any games really use their theme well? (probably, but can't think of em
right now)
> are so lame, they'll never be chosen (Good Harvest and Polling the
> People come to mind). Many people like it, though.
Funny, those were the most popular in the two games I played.
Don't quite understand about the Good Harvest, but polling the people is
very nice.
> > El Grande-Been putting this one off for so long, I guess 'cause it's a
> > sure winner...there's some dopey logic for you.
> Now THIS is a good game. It's good with 3,4 or 5 players and plays
> differently every time. The winner is determined at the very end, and
> there are some very agonizing choises to be made.
AGree here. Hmm, do I put them in the tower or do i play it opnely, and for
choosing whre the cabalerros fromthe tower go is very hard sometimes...
> Of the more involved games, I'd recommend El Grande. You might know them
> already, but also check out Fürsten von Florenz (another Kramer/Ulrich
> masterpiece), Ohne Furcht und Adel, Löwenherz and Torres.
I love Ohne Furcht und Adel. Torres I am indifferent about, but I've only
played once. Didn't quite see the fun yet.
The Doctor
>
> To sum up - given your criteria I'd opt for Carcassonne (for 2 - 5 players)
> and El Grande (for 4 or 5). Aladdin's Dragons sounds like it might also be
> a good fit to your criteria - and has a little more room for scaling the
> number of players than, say, El Grande (which is best with exactly 5).
To contrast this I'd recommend El Grande too, but for 3 or 4 players, with 5
it tends to have too much downtime, thought it's still a great game. I've
liked it better with 4, compared to 5. 2 player games are sortof silly (we
tried once, with some modifications I believe), but 3 works fine.
Dave Bernazzani
The Doctor wrote:
> Dave Bernazzani wrote:
> >
> > To sum up - given your criteria I'd opt for Carcassonne
(for 2 - 5 players)
> > and El Grande (for 4 or 5). Aladdin's Dragons sounds
like it might also be
> > a good fit to your criteria - and has a little more room
for scaling the
> > number of players than, say, El Grande (which is best
with exactly 5).
>
> To contrast this I'd recommend El Grande too, but for 3 or
4 players, with 5
> it tends to have too much downtime, thought it's still a
great game. I've
> liked it better with 4, compared to 5. 2 player games are
sortof silly (we
> tried once, with some modifications I believe), but 3
works fine.
Good comments! However, with less than 5, not all the
actions cards are used. When all the actions cards must be
taken and used, it becomes _very_ tense at times. Some of
those cards are downright nasty - and are often avoided by
players when playing with less than 5. Knowing that they
will all get used sometimes forced you to take a card that
would be devastating to you so that it doesn't get used
against you. I find with 3 players this tension is
partially missing and there is often not enough interaction
on the board in some areas. But different players have
different tastes so I'm glad it works well for you guys as a
3 player game!
Kevin O'Hare
2many...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Lord of the Rings-Been hyperventilating for months about this one.
I'd pass on this one... I guess I expected something more in the play
and what I got was too many random events with no clear idea on
how to stop the downward spiral...
>
> Taj Mahal-Some say it's Dr. K's best... I just want a good game.
A great game that's certainly worthy of consideration. I like the bid
approach to conflict resolution.
>
> Carcassonne-Like the theme, mechanism and aesthetics; how's it play?
Price performance wise, you can't go wrong here. Easy to play, lots of
ways to go for a win. Would like the Elfenland mechanism of having
a few face up tiles to choose from, instead of only the face down tiles,
but it's a minor quibble.
>
> La Citta-Ditto the above. I know it's complex, but it looks so goood.
Strong and thought provoking play. Personally I can't seem to play it
with any degree of success, but I keep trying, so it appeals to me.
>
> Alladin's Dragons-Mixed reviews on this one, not sure how I feel.
I like Aladdin's Dragons, but there are better games on your list...
>
> Doge-Know next to nothing, but looks quick and perhaps satisfying.
If you like hidden bidding games, then I think this would be an excellent
game to get. What I find interesting, is that a part of the bid process
remains hidden during the initial bidding, a double bidding if you will.
>
> Java-I do own Tikal already--is the difference worth the price tag?
Java only looks like Tikal, but the game is played in a much different
fashion.
The Torres connection while strong, only matches a couple of the
mechanisms.
Having Tikal would not affect getting this game, but owning Torres might.
>
> El Grande-Been putting this one off for so long, I guess 'cause it's a
> sure winner...there's some dopey logic for you.
I'm extremely fond of El Grande. It is to me one of the best games that
can be played. There is one caveat, and that is, El Grande should only
be played with five players. It's a decent game with four players, but
shines with five.
Choose a game that has a style of play that you like, whether it
be tile laying, bidding, influence or use of actions. In the end, you're
going to be the final judge of which ones meet your expectations.
Dave Eggleston
> Would like the Elfenland mechanism of having
> a few face up tiles to choose from, instead of only the face down tiles,
> but it's a minor quibble.
You are not the first to mention this. I envision the selection eventually
getting clogged up with useless road + field markers (the Union Pacific
effect). I think the Ta Yu-inspired method of maintaining a hand of one
might work, though.
Has anyone tried a Tikal-inspired method of auctioning off n-tiles for
n-players? :-)
Magagnosc Family
dave wrote:
> > I think to remove part of the luck factor, an idea would be to have X
> > tiles (about 3 to 5) face up and the player could choose a face up or
> > face down.
>
> I don't think so. You'll get the Union Pacific effect, wherein, after
> a few rounds, the selection gets clogged with crap, and it comes down
> to the luck of the draw again.
I don't know -- it seems to me that what's crap one turn is creme brulee
the next. OK, I suppose that some of the road-only tiles may never appear
very attractive, but even so, what about when you need to fence off that
farm?
>
> Melanie and I tried our first match tonight (I've soloed a couple of
> 3P games before). Had elements of Entdecker and Very Clever Pipe Game,
> two of our very favorite games, without being quite as satisfactory
> as either. Very light, but dry, and the design isn't all that
> elegant (witness the cloisters). However, it plays quick (and very well
> for 2P), so it will come out more often than it deserves.
>
> - d
I haven't seen this idea proposed: how about a Tikal-style auction? Each
round, turn over (number of players) tiles and bid on them victory points.
David Magagnosc
David desJardins
> La Citta
> I haven't seen anyone else notice this, but I think there's a major
> luck-factor with the political cards. Some of them rock (like the
> Architect or the cheap buildings with two arches), and some of them
> People come to mind).
I would agree with this.
A problem with "Polling the People" is that it's really only useful if
you do it on an early round (if you do it late in the round, then
there's not much chance for you to use the information). But, that may
mean you give up the chance to take advantage of a good card that is
turned up later in the round---and you of course don't know whether this
will be the case when you do the polling.
And "Good Harvest" just puts off the inevitable: you're going to need
even more farms next turn, so why not bite the bullet and build some
now?
Either the cards should be better balanced, or there should be a
mechanism that keeps the board from getting permanently clogged with the
lousy cards. Or both. So many games have this problem (a fixed number
of face-up cards, all of which spots get filled up with loser cards), I
hope that designers will start to think carefully before using this
mechanism.
David desJardins
Brian Bankler
>
> spell...@my-deja.com writes:
> > La Citta
> > I haven't seen anyone else notice this, but I think there's a major
> > luck-factor with the political cards. Some of them rock (like the
> > Architect or the cheap buildings with two arches), and some of them
> > are so lame, they'll never be chosen (Good Harvest and Polling the
> > People come to mind).
>
> I would agree with this.
>
> A problem with "Polling the People" is that it's really only useful if
> you do it on an early round (if you do it late in the round, then
> there's not much chance for you to use the information). But, that may
> mean you give up the chance to take advantage of a good card that is
> turned up later in the round---and you of course don't know whether this
> will be the case when you do the polling.
However, polling the people in that situation can be *so* useful.
I have basically won a game when PtP revealed that the face up blue
card was not going to win on turn 3 or 4 (when blue had not yet won)
and that white, (which had already won) was going to take it. The
problem
is that it is random. It can be very good, or very bad.
> And "Good Harvest" just puts off the inevitable: you're going to need
> even more farms next turn, so why not bite the bullet and build some
> now?
The problem is that buildings are limited to 3/turn (+ cards
that cost gold). This isn't a great card, I admit. If it was something
like double a farm *OR* +1 food permenantly (or something similiar).
But the real reason I answered this is not to argue it but
to comment on ...
> Either the cards should be better balanced, or there should be a
> mechanism that keeps the board from getting permanently clogged with the
> lousy cards. Or both. So many games have this problem (a fixed number
> of face-up cards, all of which spots get filled up with loser cards), I
> hope that designers will start to think carefully before using this
> mechanism.
>
> David desJardins
Alan Moon (who, if he didn't invent it, sure as hell popularized
it) did in fact add a rule to Union Pacific. If all of the cards match,
the board is flushed (which may easily trigger a scoring). This is a
rare event, (union pacific only has 4 slots, though). But the basic idea
seems sound.
Brian
David desJardins
>> Either the cards should be better balanced, or there should be a
>> mechanism that keeps the board from getting permanently clogged with the
>> lousy cards. Or both.
>
> did in fact add a rule to Union Pacific. If all of the cards match,
> the board is flushed (which may easily trigger a scoring). This is a
> rare event, (union pacific only has 4 slots, though). But the basic
> idea seems sound.
In my limited experience with UP, this is totally inadequate. There can
easily be two or three junky railroads that no one wants to play on, and
the board can fill up with those multiple colors. (Usually, there's
only one that's *completely* worthless, and *eventually* someone will
take one of the other cards. But it can take a long time, especially
since the disincentive for taking any face-up card is that the next
player gets a chance to see a new card.)
There are many other mechanisms that come to mind. A system like Vinci,
where each card that's not chosen gets a token each turn it's not
chosen, that makes it worth more, so that eventually someone will want
it. A system where a card that has been face up for N rounds without
being chosen is discarded. A system where a player always takes exactly
two of the face-up cards: one of the player's choice, along with the
oldest face-up card. A system where, when a player chooses a card which
is not the oldest face-up card, then the oldest face-up card is
discarded. A system where new cards are turned face-up at a constant
rate, rather than one-for-one with cards taken. Etc. etc. etc.
It's just not hard to come up with other ways of doing this, that don't
have the same problem. Some of them might have other problems, but it
might be fun to at least have some new problems rather than the same old
problem. And some of them might work very well for particular games.
I don't think it's unreasonable to expect game designers to be a bit
more inventive.
David desJardins