Ra vrs. Modern Art
Dave S
have told me it is 'better'n Ra'. So if you have played both, how are
they similar and hoe do they differ?
Thanks
Shane McDaniel
They both have a "bidding" system. I don't see any other similarities.
-shane
Mark Edwards
It's definitely a matter of taste. Both are excellent, and very
different, auction games. Ra feels lighter to me as I think Modern Art is
a bit more computationally intensive (huh?). Both have a luck factor
(some folks mitigate MA double auction card distribution with variants),
but I think Ra has a bit more of it involved. Interaction in Ra is lower
key than in MA, but tapping into the wavelength of your opponents is
prevalent in both.
I highly recommend both games. And if you're a fan of auction/bidding
games I'd recommend grabbing as many of Knizia's as you can (High Society,
Medici, Traumfabrik, Money, Taj Mahal (?), etc.)
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?"
W. Nitsche
> Dave S wrote:
> > I have played Ra. I have never played Modern Art but several people
> > have told me it is 'better'n Ra'. So if you have played both, how are
> > they similar and hoe do they differ?
>
> They both have a "bidding" system. I don't see any other similarities.
> -shane
Just to confuse the issue, right now my game group prefers Medici over
Modern Art in "bidding" games. I find there are better strategy
possibilities in Medici, while Modern Art is more 'tactical' in feel
(you're reacting to the current situation rather than planning your
moves).
Unfortunately, I have not played Ra yet, so cannot give you a comparison.
--Billiam
Peter Clinch
> It's definitely a matter of taste. Both are excellent, and very
> different, auction games. Ra feels lighter to me as I think Modern Art is
> a bit more computationally intensive (huh?).
I'd say the computation is again a case of "very different", but there's
still plenty to do (at least if you want to be right on top of what's
going on). Ra has 100% intelligence of what resources people have while
MA doesn't is, I think, one of the main differences.
If thematic cohesion bothers you then MA isn't bad and Ra is laughable.
The only thing it's got to do with ancient Egypt is an excuse for some
nice graphics (but it doesn't bother many, me included, and they're
*very* nice graphics!).
> I highly recommend both games.
Yup! If you get Ra then the player aids on Boardgame Geek make scoring
and keeping track of things a lot easier. Nice graphics on those too...
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch University of Dundee
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Medical Physics, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.c...@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
Mike K
bet. In my one playing of Ra (*), I recall expending a lot of energy
trying to remember what all the various chits meant. Having too much
going on can be bewildering for casual gamers. In Modern Art,
first-time players are typically not sure how to value the cards, but
at least the mechanics and scoring system are much more
straightforward. MA passes the "teach the rules in less than 5
minutes" test.
I would also echo another poster's comments, some of Knizia's
small-box auction games (e.g. Katzenjammer Blues and Money) are quite
fun and easier to teach to casual gamers.
Mike K
(*) I would definitely play Ra again, I just haven't had the
opportunity yet.
Peter Clinch
>
> If you're playing with casual gamers, Modern Art may be the better
> bet. In my one playing of Ra (*), I recall expending a lot of energy
> trying to remember what all the various chits meant.
The player aid mats from Boardgame Geek help a lot with that, but even
so I'd say MA has a more intuitive set of mechanics/values to grasp
(money is money, more is better!).
I've had my family (all adults, I'm the baby) playing MA quite happily
although none aside from me would be considered "gamers".
David Brain
Clinch) wrote:
> If thematic cohesion bothers you then MA isn't bad and Ra is laughable.
> The only thing it's got to do with ancient Egypt is an excuse for some
> nice graphics (but it doesn't bother many, me included, and they're
> *very* nice graphics!).
I don't know why people keep saying this. The "Nile Flooding", "Culture"
and "Pharoah" mechanics are not abstract (the Nile one in particular) and
work very well with the theme of the game. Even the Monuments are in
keeping.
(Challenge: a different theme that could be painted straight on top without
looking silly.)
Now if you want a theme-free game, try Taj Mahal - I understand the theme
for that one may not even have come from Knizia... And Medici doesn't
really stretch the boundaries. But Ra seems to me to be very tightly themed
indeed.
--
David Brain
London, UK
Eric Gorr
You've gotten some good comments already from others. You can also read
some reviews at funagain.com for both games.
I just wanted to add something.
Modern Art is a great game, however, it suffers a bit from the fact that
one really needs to be playing with people who know what they are doing.
Otherwise, the persons sitting next to the one who doesn't know what
they are doing will have a huge advantage or disadvantage in the game.
Of course, repeated play of Modern Art by the game group of people will
eventually eliminate the problem.
Ra doesn't suffer from this to anywhere near the extent of Modern Art.
--
== Eric Gorr ===== http://home.cox.rr.com/ericgorr ===== ICQ:9293199 ===
"Therefore the considerations of the intelligent always include both
benefit and harm." - Sun Tzu
== Insults, like violence, are the last refuge of the incompetent... ===
Nick
From: Eric Gorr
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hello Eric,
> Modern Art is a great game, however, it suffers a bit from the fact that
> one really needs to be playing with people who know what they are doing.
> Otherwise, the persons sitting next to the one who doesn't know what
> they are doing will have a huge advantage or disadvantage in the game.
> Of course, repeated play of Modern Art by the game group of people will
> eventually eliminate the problem.
> Ra doesn't suffer from this to anywhere near the extent of Modern Art.
I see this a lot (not just about MA) and I'm not sure if this a
something that should be considered a "knock" against a game. Is it
really a problem of the game, or more of our gaming habits - play a
game once, shelve it, play the next batch of new games, then maybe
bring the old game out for another play. Most any game a new player is
going to be at a disadvantage, does it matter whether his playing
hurts/helps the guy to his left or anywhere else around the table?
Odds are his play will affect the game somehow.
I guess it's handy info to have about a game in case you're planning
on playing with new people all the time, but it still just hits me as
an odd comment to say about a game. Even in Ra a bad/new player may
let someone get away with an easy tile purchase.
Didn't mean to single out your post Eric, just happened to be the one
I read about this and had a few minutes to spare to open my trap about
it! ;-)
--
òžó Nick
Danger
________________________________________________________________________
Delivered using the Free Personal Edition of Mailtraq (www.mailtraq.com)
Eric Gorr
> Most any game a new player is
> going to be at a disadvantage, does it matter whether his playing
> hurts/helps the guy to his left or anywhere else around the table?
> Odds are his play will affect the game somehow.
For me, it does, at least to some extent.
It's largely a matter of how much an effect it will likely have on the
outcome of the game. For some games, this effect will be far weaker then
is others.
I just happen to believe the effect is stronger in Modern Art then in
many others. It is for this reason that I don't play it as often as I
would like to.
A game where the effect is rather weak, imho, would be Advanced
Civilization. Mostly because each player on the board will have an
opportunity to take advantage of his newbieness (is that a new word?
:-). It is for this reason why I rather enjoy introducing new players to
the game and playing with them.
David Allsopp
<er...@cox.rr.com> writes
>Modern Art is a great game, however, it suffers a bit from the fact that
>one really needs to be playing with people who know what they are doing.
>Otherwise, the persons sitting next to the one who doesn't know what
>they are doing will have a huge advantage or disadvantage in the game.
Ah, well, you have a problem right there -- I've played Modern Art
dozens of times and I *still* have no idea what I'm doing :-(. At
least, not in the sense of having a "how to win or do well" strategy[1].
Of course, this could be me, but it seems to be a common reaction.
BTW, this isn't an attack on the game, which I own and consider a
classic. It's worth the price for the bits alone[2].
[1] Well, not above "Buy cheap, sell dear". It's being able to *do*
that's tricky...
[2] Hans Im Gluck version. I haven't seen the Mayfair(?) one.
--
David Allsopp Houston, this is Tranquillity Base.
Remove SPAM to email me The Eagle has landed.
Peter Clinch
[comedy theming of Ra]
> I don't know why people keep saying this. The "Nile Flooding", "Culture"
> and "Pharoah" mechanics are not abstract (the Nile one in particular) and
> work very well with the theme of the game. Even the Monuments are in
> keeping.
In keeping with ancient Egypt, yes. However, the means by which one
acquires these things (which is of course the most important thing in
the whole design), a bidding process using God given wealth for random
collections of stuff, doesn't AFAICT have any relation to anything to do
with ancient Egypt, how monuments got built, civilization developed, the
Nile used and so on.
The players are (notionally) trying to accumulate fame over the course
of 3 periods of Egyptian history. Righty ho, just what does a player
represent in that case? Not a God, not a Pharaoh, not people... and if
you do think of someone/thing who do the other players represent? When
was there a monument building competition internal to Egypt?
> (Challenge: a different theme that could be painted straight on top without
> looking silly.)
Pick any theme that you like where you can come up with a few different
thematic sets, so for example a music "theme" may have you collecting
different types of instruments (strings, brass, percussion), possibly
with extra points for different things within a group (a bit like the
monuments/civ tiles), or freely interchangeable stuff like the God tiles
could be something like a note or clef tile, conductors for pharaohs and
so on. Because the collection/acquisition mechanism is nothing to do
with Egypt/music whatsoever it wouldn't be out of place, and it would
just be the quality of presentation that made the theme.
> Now if you want a theme-free game, try Taj Mahal - I understand the theme
> for that one may not even have come from Knizia... And Medici doesn't
> really stretch the boundaries. But Ra seems to me to be very tightly themed
> indeed.
No, just very nicely decorated.
As it is neither of us appear to have a problem with that, but if
someone's after a game which adds something to their interest in a
subject, I really can't see Ra doing it for budding Egyptologists the
way, say, ASL lends insight to people iterested in WW2 small scale
infantry actions. Or even how MA gives a feeling of being an art
collector/seller.
Eric Gorr
> In article <1fadirr.mahs6e1868c8N%er...@cox.rr.com>, Eric Gorr
> <er...@cox.rr.com> writes
> >Modern Art is a great game, however, it suffers a bit from the fact that
> >one really needs to be playing with people who know what they are doing.
> >Otherwise, the persons sitting next to the one who doesn't know what
> >they are doing will have a huge advantage or disadvantage in the game.
>
> Ah, well, you have a problem right there -- I've played Modern Art
> dozens of times and I *still* have no idea what I'm doing :-(. At
> least, not in the sense of having a "how to win or do well" strategy[1].
> Of course, this could be me, but it seems to be a common reaction.
I guess MA is just my kind of game. :-)
However, don't ask me to explain how I decide what I believe needs to be
done.
Jim Bolland
>>dozens of times and I *still* have no idea what I'm doing :-(. At
>>least, not in the sense of having a "how to win or do well" strategy[1].
>>Of course, this could be me, but it seems to be a common reaction.
>
> I guess MA is just my kind of game. :-)
>
> However, don't ask me to explain how I decide what I believe needs to be
> done.
I've found that this is true of a lot of my favorite bidding games. I often
can't say exactly why something is worth what it is at the time. I just know it
is. There's a strong intuitive element to playing the game. The bids really
depend on who's playing and on the prices for which things have already sold.
In other words, what something is worth can change instantly.
I love this aspect of games like Modern Art and Medici. Ra, I think, has much
less of this. You can more or less calculate the value of a lot for each
player. The gamble is whether or not some lot in the future might be even better.
Which bidding game do I like best? Probably Medici. I haven't played Modern
Art enough yet to decide between it and Ra. Eventually, I expect to like Modern
Art a little more than Ra, but since the games are very different, I'll get to
play both without feeling like I'm playing the same game in a different box!
Jim
Alan Kwan
wrote:
>Ra. You can more or less calculate the value of a lot for each
>player.
Really? What is the value of a civilization tile at the beginning of
an epoch? What is the value of three different monument tiles as the
first set in the game?
I used to think that one can, but after some games recently and deeper
thought, I see that it's a very complex matter. The value of a
civilization tile at the beginning of an epoch, for exapmle, depends
not only on the tile mix ratio (civ's and Ra's) in the bag, but also
on the exact ranks of the suns you and your opponents are holding, and
the other tiles you and your opponents have collected. These affect
the desire and ability of the players to go for further civilization
tiles which come up later in the epoch.
"Live life with Heart." - Alan Kwan / ta...@notmenetvigator.com
http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot (hard-core video game reviews)
Tarot Games Hong Kong: http://home.netvigator.com/~tarot/com
(please remove anti-spam section "notme" from mailing address)
Jim Bolland
>>player.
>>
>
> Really? What is the value of a civilization tile at the beginning of
> an epoch? What is the value of three different monument tiles as the
> first set in the game?
>
> I used to think that one can, but after some games recently and deeper
> thought, I see that it's a very complex matter. The value of a
> civilization tile at the beginning of an epoch, for exapmle, depends
> not only on the tile mix ratio (civ's and Ra's) in the bag, but also
> on the exact ranks of the suns you and your opponents are holding, and
> the other tiles you and your opponents have collected. These affect
> the desire and ability of the players to go for further civilization
> tiles which come up later in the epoch.
The "future" value of a lot does depend on all those things. I meant the
"current" value - what is that lot worth to each player right now? From there,
yes, you have to go much further and decide what effect that lot will have on
each player's future lots too. *That* is not at all easy to calculate.
I was also trying to describe how with different groups of players the selling
price for a lot in Medici or Modern Art can be very different. In Ra, because
you're bidding with the suns, there is more similarity between groups of
players. You don't have to decide how much to bid, just whether you want to bid
higher than the previous bid or not and whether it's worth it to you to give up
the chance to use that bid later in the game. You don't have to worry about
bidding so high that you don't get to bid again. You will have just as much
chance to use your other suns as every other player.
Jim
Michael Becker
had tremendous success introducing all age groups and players to these
games. It is my opinion that they are all excellent games created by a
modern day master.
My wife likes Medici the best out of the three. I personally like Ra the
best. I find that many non-gamers need a steady stream of advice when
playing Modern Art or they will often overpay on a painting. If people pay
60 dollars when the most it will pay out is $40 it leaves a sour taste in my
mouth (especially when they still pay the $60 after everyone tells them not
to...).
This being said, I think Modern Art is the deepest strategically (ie gamer's
game) of the three. I seem to have more fun with Medici and Ra because
they are a bit lighter. They are also usually the first auction games I
introduce to non-game players. I like the theming associated with Ra and
thoroughly enjoy the tension the Ra track creates as tiles get drawn. Once
the non-gamers have played Medici and Ra a few times I introduce them to
Modern Art and other increasingly complex games. Eventually most people
become hooked and soon after we are playing El Grande and Euphrates and
Tigris.
Michael
"Eric Gorr" <er...@cox.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1fadzy4.1vtlef31rfj2rtN%er...@cox.rr.com...
Alan Kwan
Basically, in Ra you have more control, while in Modern Art there is
more interaction. The value of tiles in Ra is more predictable, while
in Modern Art the value of a painter is highly subject to manipulation
by your opponents.
If you are very keen in judging tile values and calling Ra and making
good bids in Ra, your opponents basically have to do the same better
(or have much better luck) in order to beat you. In Modern Art, your
opponents can try to gang up on you and make your paintings worthless.