![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
viktor_haagThis weekend, thanks to a raft of last-minute cancellations, was a two-player weekend. Accordingly, we pulled out 1960 - The Making of the President, San Juan (the card game based on Puerto Rico), and Martin Wallace's Byzantium.
1960
Another big win for the Tricky Dickster. This is still a fun game, but it's the second time in a row that I've absolutely pasted this opponent (with Nixon), so I hope the cards fall his way on the next go round. On both plays, my strategy was to ignore the west, and dive into the East as quickly as I could and pound support into New York, Pennsylvania, secure media cubes in the East, and get as many issues on my side as I could. That may sound like a lot of separate goals, but the cards often let you accomplish two things at once, or let you have nice side effects (i.e. secure an issue, play an event to put out support cubes). I still like the game, and the length feels good enough to mitigate the luck, but it's certainly the case that the card draw timing can be nasty (especially since you really only go through the deck once). I wonder if a "shuffle the discards" power card or two would be a good idea?
This game is already ranked 20th on the Geek, while only being out for a few months, and that's a good indication of how popular it is and how well it has been received.
Both I and my partner agree that this seems like a more enjoyable and better game than Twilight Struggle, upon which it is based. Partly, it has to be said, this is thanks to the quality of the components; this game's graphic design and components are absolutely top notch. But partly it also has to do with the rules being a bit streamlined, the game shortened a bit, and the theme being (I think) slightly more accessible -- whether you would prefer the politics theme, rather than the cold war theme, the real accessibility lies in the fact that as a player you "assume the role" of one of the candidates.
Continued play will tell just how good this game is over the long haul, but it has all the ear-marks of a classic so far.
San Juan
Sure, this quick and fun card game is based on Puerto Rico, but really, it's a different game that borrows some general mechanisms from its bigger, longer cousin. (In other words, it's rather like the relationship between the previous two games mentioned.) I think this game plays best with three, although the immediate "you take two actions in a row, I take two actions in a row" back and forth is interesting with two players1. With four, you have not much in the way of control because it just takes too long to come round to your turn again.
This is a filler game, and should be played quickly. Success is highly dependent upon card draws, but there are several strategies that seem to meet with really good success. It's important to get your card draw efficiency up, and so some initial development cards are worth proportionally much more to you to build early in the game (Market Hall, Library, Gold Mine). Someone who gets down a Market Hall and a Library in the first say five builds is probably going to cruise to a win, all things being equal (i.e. without getting hosed in bad card draws). Also of good use is the Prefecture(?), which lets you keep more cards when someone chooses the "draw X, choose 1" action. This card is also a killer in combination with the Library.
Cards which seem like they ought to be worth lots, but which aren't, are the Chapel and the Quarry. The Chapel seems attractive (I can seed a card every round for a point?); the problem is that it's only worthwhile if can seed many times under it, which means either the game must go long, or you must build it very early. The latter is far more likely, but if you build it early, it's almost always better to save your cards for building your infrastructure. So, really, the Chapel is only worthwhile if you build it early and after you've already built a machine to get you regular card draws. The Quarry gives you a one-point break on the cost of other violet buildings; however, it costs four to build. Ergo, it really benefits you only if you build four other buildings after it (although, probably slightly better than that because the Quarry lets you build things without having to spend cards you may not want to spend at the time). The problem here (in my opinion) is that, at the point you should be building the Quarry, there are probably better ways to spend your cards if you can (Library, Market Hall, Prefecture). Quarry is a good mid-game build if you already have two of the three mentioned previously, and you have one or two six-point buildings in your hand, and you don't have a Tower or a regular way of filling your hand with cards. Otherwise, it's a slightly less than good mid-game build.
My standard tactic is to build one of Market Hall, Library, Gold Mine as early as I can, and then shoot for the bonus building that gives you points based on having Violet cards built. The chances of getting an early Market Hall or Library are reasonably good, actually, and your first few rounds could probably best be spent trying to filter as many cards through your hand as possible. Thus prospecting is good, as is the action that lets you "draw X, keep 1" (Counsellor?). Gold Mine is incredibly useful if chosen early as it lets you potentially slurp extra cards whenever someone prospects, and it also encourages card churn.
Library is incredibly powerful (take your privilege twice), but it's a bit pricey to get off the ground. However, if you can safely build it early, it's very beneficial. Market Hall is slightly less expensive, but its price bonus on traded goods means you can safely ignore the "produce more/sell more" cards, not waste money on production buildings (which are not really cost effective for points) and load up on violet buildings.
I think "San Juan" is a fun filler game (plays in about a half an hour if you play quickly), but it's really not much more than that. Tom Lehman's new Race for the Galaxy is a cousin of San Juan, and looks to have more crunch, so it might prove to have more long-term legs than San Juan and elevate it above the filler category. I have picked up "Race for the Galaxy", but have not yet played it.
Byzantium
I remembered that Wallace's "Byzantium" could be played with two players, and I have wanted to re-try it for a long time, so we decided to give that a go. The result was sadly mixed, but very luckily it took hardly any time at all to play. The good news was that it took much less time for the second game, with two players, than our first game (with four), even though we played it years ago (when it first came out).
I think this game might be playable with two, but both players would certainly need to know what they are doing, for two reasons.
Firstly, the pass mechanic lets the first person who passes to immediately cut the round short. Secondly, the quick Arab win strategy is much more easily done in a two-player game, especially if the opponent is not careful to start his Byzantine army out in a place that can hope to reach Constantinople if it needs to. In our game, my opponent, took two or three actions, and then dumped all his remaining free cubes into tax, and then passed. Wow. I took the opportunity to claim another of the unclaimed Arab cities and thus got a small boost in points and income rather than all the tax money he received.
In the second turn, I took steps to use the Bulgars to take over a northern city, and took the points to my Arab track. Unfortunately, my opponent than decided to start his Byzantine army far in the south. This let me quickly end the game by smacking Constantinople with the Bulgars again, getting more points on the Arab track, and winning the game.
What was listed as a two-to-three hour game took us about half an hour to forty-five minutes, and felt very fast, and also a bit of an uneven apple cart.
We discussed the situation afterwards, and it seemed that there might be ways to prevent the quick Bulgar win strategy, but still, this would demand that both players really be aware of the game in order to make the two-player form enjoyable.
Also, the pass mechanic, as others have also pointed out, is a bit broken in a two player game. The first person to pass gets the initiative in the next phase, and limits their opponent to only one more action. This can be deadly if a person has even a small lead on both victory tracks because it means that one player can pass into phase two, and then immediately pass into phase three, and then pass to end the game. Their opponent, in this case, has the opportunity to take only two actions: it's possible for them not to be able to get enough points in those two actions to win.
(The pass mechanic says that "when only one person has not passed, that person gets only one more action, and then the phase ends"; in three and four player games, this means the phase can last for a significant time after the first pass; in two player games, it means that the first person to pass is really holding a sharp knife to the throat of the opponent.)
What before seemed like a somewhat drawn out and think-ey game turned into a frenetic knife fight, and because of the dice used to resolve combat, I'm not sure that this game will really be all that enjoyable with two. Still, I'm curious to play it again, as written, to see how it goes with two.
Not for the faint of heart, and I don't at all think that this game is one of Wallace's more accessible or more enjoyable. Stick with Liberté, Age Of Steam, Railroad Tycoon, Tempus, Princes of the Renaissance, or Struggle of Empires unless you're a fan of all those and a completist to boot.
1 - to clarify, we were playing that Governer chooses first action, and Governer changes hands after both players have had a turn, so that our turn structure went [AB][BA][AB] and so forth. Apparently, the right way to play would have been [ABA][BAB][ABA] and so on. This would have had two implications: players can never take two actions in a row, and an action can come up at most every three turns (instead of every two). This would have provided the game a different feel, certainly, but I'm not sure that the way we played was particularly broken.
1960
Another big win for the Tricky Dickster. This is still a fun game, but it's the second time in a row that I've absolutely pasted this opponent (with Nixon), so I hope the cards fall his way on the next go round. On both plays, my strategy was to ignore the west, and dive into the East as quickly as I could and pound support into New York, Pennsylvania, secure media cubes in the East, and get as many issues on my side as I could. That may sound like a lot of separate goals, but the cards often let you accomplish two things at once, or let you have nice side effects (i.e. secure an issue, play an event to put out support cubes). I still like the game, and the length feels good enough to mitigate the luck, but it's certainly the case that the card draw timing can be nasty (especially since you really only go through the deck once). I wonder if a "shuffle the discards" power card or two would be a good idea?
This game is already ranked 20th on the Geek, while only being out for a few months, and that's a good indication of how popular it is and how well it has been received.
Both I and my partner agree that this seems like a more enjoyable and better game than Twilight Struggle, upon which it is based. Partly, it has to be said, this is thanks to the quality of the components; this game's graphic design and components are absolutely top notch. But partly it also has to do with the rules being a bit streamlined, the game shortened a bit, and the theme being (I think) slightly more accessible -- whether you would prefer the politics theme, rather than the cold war theme, the real accessibility lies in the fact that as a player you "assume the role" of one of the candidates.
Continued play will tell just how good this game is over the long haul, but it has all the ear-marks of a classic so far.
San Juan
Sure, this quick and fun card game is based on Puerto Rico, but really, it's a different game that borrows some general mechanisms from its bigger, longer cousin. (In other words, it's rather like the relationship between the previous two games mentioned.) I think this game plays best with three, although the immediate "you take two actions in a row, I take two actions in a row" back and forth is interesting with two players1. With four, you have not much in the way of control because it just takes too long to come round to your turn again.
This is a filler game, and should be played quickly. Success is highly dependent upon card draws, but there are several strategies that seem to meet with really good success. It's important to get your card draw efficiency up, and so some initial development cards are worth proportionally much more to you to build early in the game (Market Hall, Library, Gold Mine). Someone who gets down a Market Hall and a Library in the first say five builds is probably going to cruise to a win, all things being equal (i.e. without getting hosed in bad card draws). Also of good use is the Prefecture(?), which lets you keep more cards when someone chooses the "draw X, choose 1" action. This card is also a killer in combination with the Library.
Cards which seem like they ought to be worth lots, but which aren't, are the Chapel and the Quarry. The Chapel seems attractive (I can seed a card every round for a point?); the problem is that it's only worthwhile if can seed many times under it, which means either the game must go long, or you must build it very early. The latter is far more likely, but if you build it early, it's almost always better to save your cards for building your infrastructure. So, really, the Chapel is only worthwhile if you build it early and after you've already built a machine to get you regular card draws. The Quarry gives you a one-point break on the cost of other violet buildings; however, it costs four to build. Ergo, it really benefits you only if you build four other buildings after it (although, probably slightly better than that because the Quarry lets you build things without having to spend cards you may not want to spend at the time). The problem here (in my opinion) is that, at the point you should be building the Quarry, there are probably better ways to spend your cards if you can (Library, Market Hall, Prefecture). Quarry is a good mid-game build if you already have two of the three mentioned previously, and you have one or two six-point buildings in your hand, and you don't have a Tower or a regular way of filling your hand with cards. Otherwise, it's a slightly less than good mid-game build.
My standard tactic is to build one of Market Hall, Library, Gold Mine as early as I can, and then shoot for the bonus building that gives you points based on having Violet cards built. The chances of getting an early Market Hall or Library are reasonably good, actually, and your first few rounds could probably best be spent trying to filter as many cards through your hand as possible. Thus prospecting is good, as is the action that lets you "draw X, keep 1" (Counsellor?). Gold Mine is incredibly useful if chosen early as it lets you potentially slurp extra cards whenever someone prospects, and it also encourages card churn.
Library is incredibly powerful (take your privilege twice), but it's a bit pricey to get off the ground. However, if you can safely build it early, it's very beneficial. Market Hall is slightly less expensive, but its price bonus on traded goods means you can safely ignore the "produce more/sell more" cards, not waste money on production buildings (which are not really cost effective for points) and load up on violet buildings.
I think "San Juan" is a fun filler game (plays in about a half an hour if you play quickly), but it's really not much more than that. Tom Lehman's new Race for the Galaxy is a cousin of San Juan, and looks to have more crunch, so it might prove to have more long-term legs than San Juan and elevate it above the filler category. I have picked up "Race for the Galaxy", but have not yet played it.
Byzantium
I remembered that Wallace's "Byzantium" could be played with two players, and I have wanted to re-try it for a long time, so we decided to give that a go. The result was sadly mixed, but very luckily it took hardly any time at all to play. The good news was that it took much less time for the second game, with two players, than our first game (with four), even though we played it years ago (when it first came out).
I think this game might be playable with two, but both players would certainly need to know what they are doing, for two reasons.
Firstly, the pass mechanic lets the first person who passes to immediately cut the round short. Secondly, the quick Arab win strategy is much more easily done in a two-player game, especially if the opponent is not careful to start his Byzantine army out in a place that can hope to reach Constantinople if it needs to. In our game, my opponent, took two or three actions, and then dumped all his remaining free cubes into tax, and then passed. Wow. I took the opportunity to claim another of the unclaimed Arab cities and thus got a small boost in points and income rather than all the tax money he received.
In the second turn, I took steps to use the Bulgars to take over a northern city, and took the points to my Arab track. Unfortunately, my opponent than decided to start his Byzantine army far in the south. This let me quickly end the game by smacking Constantinople with the Bulgars again, getting more points on the Arab track, and winning the game.
What was listed as a two-to-three hour game took us about half an hour to forty-five minutes, and felt very fast, and also a bit of an uneven apple cart.
We discussed the situation afterwards, and it seemed that there might be ways to prevent the quick Bulgar win strategy, but still, this would demand that both players really be aware of the game in order to make the two-player form enjoyable.
Also, the pass mechanic, as others have also pointed out, is a bit broken in a two player game. The first person to pass gets the initiative in the next phase, and limits their opponent to only one more action. This can be deadly if a person has even a small lead on both victory tracks because it means that one player can pass into phase two, and then immediately pass into phase three, and then pass to end the game. Their opponent, in this case, has the opportunity to take only two actions: it's possible for them not to be able to get enough points in those two actions to win.
(The pass mechanic says that "when only one person has not passed, that person gets only one more action, and then the phase ends"; in three and four player games, this means the phase can last for a significant time after the first pass; in two player games, it means that the first person to pass is really holding a sharp knife to the throat of the opponent.)
What before seemed like a somewhat drawn out and think-ey game turned into a frenetic knife fight, and because of the dice used to resolve combat, I'm not sure that this game will really be all that enjoyable with two. Still, I'm curious to play it again, as written, to see how it goes with two.
Not for the faint of heart, and I don't at all think that this game is one of Wallace's more accessible or more enjoyable. Stick with Liberté, Age Of Steam, Railroad Tycoon, Tempus, Princes of the Renaissance, or Struggle of Empires unless you're a fan of all those and a completist to boot.
1 - to clarify, we were playing that Governer chooses first action, and Governer changes hands after both players have had a turn, so that our turn structure went [AB][BA][AB] and so forth. Apparently, the right way to play would have been [ABA][BAB][ABA] and so on. This would have had two implications: players can never take two actions in a row, and an action can come up at most every three turns (instead of every two). This would have provided the game a different feel, certainly, but I'm not sure that the way we played was particularly broken.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 01:00 (UTC)Nobody takes two actions in a row in 2-player San Juan -- player A takes action 1, player B action 2, and player A takes action 3, then you reset and player B takes action 1 on the next turn.
Did you mis-type?
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 01:53 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 02:46 (UTC)As for San Juan, Josh is right about the rules alternating ABA then switch. It's fun a filler, and is playable with two persons when a full game of Puerto Rico is impossible to arrange.
::B::
no subject
Date: 2007-11-27 13:58 (UTC)I'll have to try the game ABA,BAB..., but I rather liked the swinging unevenness of AB,BA,AB... it makes for a different game, but I don't think it makes for a broken game, with one possible exception: it might make it easier for one of the two players to "rush to a finish" by getting two build actions in a row when the opponent is card-starved. Best to ensure that doesn't happen... 8)