![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
viktor_haagThis weekend at the regular Sunday afternoon boardgame event, we had six people and split into two tables. One table played Le Havre and San Juan; the other table (mine) played Brass. Then we all joined together and played Railroad Tycoon.
Brass
I enjoy Brass a great deal, and I think it plays equally well with three or four players. However, as some have noted, it really is a game that was developed by injecting a large number of eccentric and baroque exceptions: generally the game works this way, except for this particular spot where that rule doesn't apply and it works that way. I suspect this is a sign of a game that's not tremendously well developed. Sometimes this does not bother me, and in the case of Brass, I find the eccentricities interesting to look at, especially as I endeavour not to have them spin around suddenly and smack me in the forehead. Others are not so keen. The table seemed generally of the opinion that the game was "alright", but clearly not a great game (I think I like it better than the other folks). The game was incredibly tight, with quite possible the closest finish in a game I have ever experienced (final scores 174, 173, 173). I would gladly play it again, and hope to relatively soon: games with eccentricities work best if you play them enough to have those bumps held in your head rather than rule book fumbling and "Oh yes!" statements half-way through the game.
Railroad Tycoon
Railroad Tycoon I'm becoming less and less enchanted with. Some of the bits are annoying (plastic trains which are too big for everything they're meant to do, plastic water tower figures which have only a single purpose not demanding of big plasticness and must have been expensive components to include, a map which is a bit too enormous), and increasingly some of the gameplay seems just a bit off-kilter (the "sitting to the right of the turn auction winner means I get what I want for free!" moments, and the seemingly unbalanced secret goals: "only five points for building a largely useless Western Link?"). The RTG scorned Railroad Tycoon, claiming that it was really just Age Of Steam with some inferior rule-changes ostensibly (but not successfully) done to make the game seem more "approachable": in reality, he claims, it's really no less deadly than AoS, but it merely seems like it, and most of the "softening" rule changes are just poorly done.
I have hopes for Wallace's new Steam, that it will be the best of the bunch from the point of view of generally getting folks to play. I have managed to get my family groups to play Age of Steam a few times, but I think in generally, they're not as interested in it as they have been in RRT.
One of the most mystifying things of RRT is that everyone seems to say that the Europe map is much superior, I think I agree with them, I own it, and yet we never seem to play it for one reason or another.
This time around the reason was "we had six players", and we discovered to our discomfort that RRT is really not a six player game, although it claims to be. For me, and a few other players, the game was a complete and total disaster: (a) I pursued a strategy that was completely anti-thetical to my sekret goal, from turn one; (b) I pursued what was obviously the wrong strategy, leaving the correct one to player number 3 who went on to win (or tie for the win, I can't remember), and (c) I got embroiled in the North East as the starting player, with two other players who decided to make a go of it. Disaster. The winning players were largely untouched for the entire game, one in the northern mid-west, and one in the south. Bah.
Lessons learned:
• Pay very, very, very careful attention to the opening card selection; the game often is won or lost on turns number one and two.
• The game is not nicey nicey, and everyone should understand this; part of the game's "balance" depends upon everyone at the table knowing that (a) you will not win if there's more than two people in the NE, and you are one of them, and (b) someone, most likely you, will have to prevent other players from gathering too many service bounties unopposed -- service bounties must be shared around; if they're not, then the players are not doing their jobs and the game becomes a hugely unbalanced contest.
• That said, stealing someone else's 4-link cube so you can deliver it over 1 link is just not cricket and must be considered bad form. Stealing it so you can do a 3, 4, or 5 link deliver is perfectly fine.
• Decide at turn one whether you're going to want your sekret goal or not. If not, then you must avoid collecting shares, as collecting a lot of real negative points through shares, and a lot of virtual negative shares by ignoring your goal is doubly bad.
Brass
I enjoy Brass a great deal, and I think it plays equally well with three or four players. However, as some have noted, it really is a game that was developed by injecting a large number of eccentric and baroque exceptions: generally the game works this way, except for this particular spot where that rule doesn't apply and it works that way. I suspect this is a sign of a game that's not tremendously well developed. Sometimes this does not bother me, and in the case of Brass, I find the eccentricities interesting to look at, especially as I endeavour not to have them spin around suddenly and smack me in the forehead. Others are not so keen. The table seemed generally of the opinion that the game was "alright", but clearly not a great game (I think I like it better than the other folks). The game was incredibly tight, with quite possible the closest finish in a game I have ever experienced (final scores 174, 173, 173). I would gladly play it again, and hope to relatively soon: games with eccentricities work best if you play them enough to have those bumps held in your head rather than rule book fumbling and "Oh yes!" statements half-way through the game.
Railroad Tycoon
Railroad Tycoon I'm becoming less and less enchanted with. Some of the bits are annoying (plastic trains which are too big for everything they're meant to do, plastic water tower figures which have only a single purpose not demanding of big plasticness and must have been expensive components to include, a map which is a bit too enormous), and increasingly some of the gameplay seems just a bit off-kilter (the "sitting to the right of the turn auction winner means I get what I want for free!" moments, and the seemingly unbalanced secret goals: "only five points for building a largely useless Western Link?"). The RTG scorned Railroad Tycoon, claiming that it was really just Age Of Steam with some inferior rule-changes ostensibly (but not successfully) done to make the game seem more "approachable": in reality, he claims, it's really no less deadly than AoS, but it merely seems like it, and most of the "softening" rule changes are just poorly done.
I have hopes for Wallace's new Steam, that it will be the best of the bunch from the point of view of generally getting folks to play. I have managed to get my family groups to play Age of Steam a few times, but I think in generally, they're not as interested in it as they have been in RRT.
One of the most mystifying things of RRT is that everyone seems to say that the Europe map is much superior, I think I agree with them, I own it, and yet we never seem to play it for one reason or another.
This time around the reason was "we had six players", and we discovered to our discomfort that RRT is really not a six player game, although it claims to be. For me, and a few other players, the game was a complete and total disaster: (a) I pursued a strategy that was completely anti-thetical to my sekret goal, from turn one; (b) I pursued what was obviously the wrong strategy, leaving the correct one to player number 3 who went on to win (or tie for the win, I can't remember), and (c) I got embroiled in the North East as the starting player, with two other players who decided to make a go of it. Disaster. The winning players were largely untouched for the entire game, one in the northern mid-west, and one in the south. Bah.
Lessons learned:
• Pay very, very, very careful attention to the opening card selection; the game often is won or lost on turns number one and two.
• The game is not nicey nicey, and everyone should understand this; part of the game's "balance" depends upon everyone at the table knowing that (a) you will not win if there's more than two people in the NE, and you are one of them, and (b) someone, most likely you, will have to prevent other players from gathering too many service bounties unopposed -- service bounties must be shared around; if they're not, then the players are not doing their jobs and the game becomes a hugely unbalanced contest.
• That said, stealing someone else's 4-link cube so you can deliver it over 1 link is just not cricket and must be considered bad form. Stealing it so you can do a 3, 4, or 5 link deliver is perfectly fine.
• Decide at turn one whether you're going to want your sekret goal or not. If not, then you must avoid collecting shares, as collecting a lot of real negative points through shares, and a lot of virtual negative shares by ignoring your goal is doubly bad.
