O Ursuppe, I once liked ya!
Mar. 6th, 2006 09:28![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
viktor_haagOur regular bi-weekly boardgaming group, chez our local purveyor of games, met this past week-end. With six of us, we muttered about what to play and narrowed down to Princes of the Renaissance, when some bright light said, "Hey! We haven't played Ursuppe in a while, why don't we play that?"
This was met with general enthusiasm; all of us who had played before were eager to play it again. Unfortunately, none of us who had played it before had ever played with more than four players at the table.
So, we sat down to an unremitting grind of four hours: pushing our little amoebas around on the board, pooping out resource cubes. Feh. No doubt I would have felt different, had I not come in second-last, but it was still one of the most unsatisfying boardgame experiences I've had in a long, long time. So: what went wrong? Why did I remember this game so fondly and what's gone wrong?
Well, first off, the game is much too long for what it offers. With three or four players, you're looking at 120 to 150 minutes. I suspect that that is probably too long, as well -- when I originally played a spate of Ursuppe games, it was probably game number 5 or 6 in my collection: not a lot to compare against. Years have passed, and the number of games-in-the-german-style I've played has grown. In context, it's easy to see that this game just occupies too much time.
Secondly, there seem to be some gene combinations which are dead ends. It didn't help that we mistakenly played with only one Movement II advanced gene. By the end of the midgame, I was firmly convinced that the game was heavily stacked in favour of those players that were able to purchase Movement and/or Speed. My suspicions were bolstered by the fact that we ended the game pretty much in the order in which we started the game. Ray Protection and advanced genes are very, very powerful; it seemed to me that, if you didn't purchase Ray Protection, or a gene that got you on the track to an advanced gene, you were pretty much sunk. The eventual winner of the game, however, ended up purchasing neither; but he did manage to soak up two basic genes that would lead to advanced genes, and a powerful "escaping" gene combo that made it very difficult for others to prey on him. (And, of course, by not buying an advanced gene, he kept the basic entry genes from others, and effectively cut off others' ability to get into that stream.)
My strategy of "fast, cheap, and out of control" was a complete bust: I mused that it would benefit me to be able to put new guys on the board anywhere I wanted (Spores), be able to eat more efficiently (Frugality and Substitution), and make it cheaper to put new guys on the board (the cost break on cell division). I was mistaken.
It seems to me there's only two real paths to victory here: you either conserve your guys (and thus points) by being able to move out of harm's way; or you get into advanced genes which let you be much more efficient about the genes you can keep and max out on gene points. It was perhaps instructive that the winner never lost an amoeba (or perhaps only once), and never had to dump a gene. The second place finisher lost at least three amoebas throughout the course of the game, but never had to dump a gene until the last round.
I shudder to think about my replacement costs which were too high, despite doing everything I could to lower them. In one turn near the end of the midgame, I lost four amoebas, which was an insurmountable setback.
I have a strong suspicion that there are only three or four exceedingly strong gene combos; the two top finishers in our game were Speed/Movement/Escape and Armour/StruggleForSurvival. This would seem to indicate that if you don't buy a movement or defense related gene as your first gene buy, you're starting at a disadvantage. It also means that games with four players are going to be much more satisfying for all involved than games with five or six (with three or four players, every player has a chance to pursue a strong gene combo strategy; with five or six players, one or two are going to be forced to play genetic also-rans). In our game, it became very clear by the start of the midgame that one or two of the players were not going to do well; by the end of the midgame, it was crystal clear that three of the players were not going to do well. This left two of us playing, for three hours, for the dubious honour of avoiding the slip into last place. Feh and double-feh.
I would never play this game again with six players, but I would certainly put it on the table with three or four. But only if I was in the mood for a longer game, and perhaps one that was long-ish for what it offered.
This was met with general enthusiasm; all of us who had played before were eager to play it again. Unfortunately, none of us who had played it before had ever played with more than four players at the table.
So, we sat down to an unremitting grind of four hours: pushing our little amoebas around on the board, pooping out resource cubes. Feh. No doubt I would have felt different, had I not come in second-last, but it was still one of the most unsatisfying boardgame experiences I've had in a long, long time. So: what went wrong? Why did I remember this game so fondly and what's gone wrong?
Well, first off, the game is much too long for what it offers. With three or four players, you're looking at 120 to 150 minutes. I suspect that that is probably too long, as well -- when I originally played a spate of Ursuppe games, it was probably game number 5 or 6 in my collection: not a lot to compare against. Years have passed, and the number of games-in-the-german-style I've played has grown. In context, it's easy to see that this game just occupies too much time.
Secondly, there seem to be some gene combinations which are dead ends. It didn't help that we mistakenly played with only one Movement II advanced gene. By the end of the midgame, I was firmly convinced that the game was heavily stacked in favour of those players that were able to purchase Movement and/or Speed. My suspicions were bolstered by the fact that we ended the game pretty much in the order in which we started the game. Ray Protection and advanced genes are very, very powerful; it seemed to me that, if you didn't purchase Ray Protection, or a gene that got you on the track to an advanced gene, you were pretty much sunk. The eventual winner of the game, however, ended up purchasing neither; but he did manage to soak up two basic genes that would lead to advanced genes, and a powerful "escaping" gene combo that made it very difficult for others to prey on him. (And, of course, by not buying an advanced gene, he kept the basic entry genes from others, and effectively cut off others' ability to get into that stream.)
My strategy of "fast, cheap, and out of control" was a complete bust: I mused that it would benefit me to be able to put new guys on the board anywhere I wanted (Spores), be able to eat more efficiently (Frugality and Substitution), and make it cheaper to put new guys on the board (the cost break on cell division). I was mistaken.
It seems to me there's only two real paths to victory here: you either conserve your guys (and thus points) by being able to move out of harm's way; or you get into advanced genes which let you be much more efficient about the genes you can keep and max out on gene points. It was perhaps instructive that the winner never lost an amoeba (or perhaps only once), and never had to dump a gene. The second place finisher lost at least three amoebas throughout the course of the game, but never had to dump a gene until the last round.
I shudder to think about my replacement costs which were too high, despite doing everything I could to lower them. In one turn near the end of the midgame, I lost four amoebas, which was an insurmountable setback.
I have a strong suspicion that there are only three or four exceedingly strong gene combos; the two top finishers in our game were Speed/Movement/Escape and Armour/StruggleForSurvival. This would seem to indicate that if you don't buy a movement or defense related gene as your first gene buy, you're starting at a disadvantage. It also means that games with four players are going to be much more satisfying for all involved than games with five or six (with three or four players, every player has a chance to pursue a strong gene combo strategy; with five or six players, one or two are going to be forced to play genetic also-rans). In our game, it became very clear by the start of the midgame that one or two of the players were not going to do well; by the end of the midgame, it was crystal clear that three of the players were not going to do well. This left two of us playing, for three hours, for the dubious honour of avoiding the slip into last place. Feh and double-feh.
I would never play this game again with six players, but I would certainly put it on the table with three or four. But only if I was in the mood for a longer game, and perhaps one that was long-ish for what it offered.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 16:41 (UTC)tee hee hee.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-06 17:34 (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 13:37 (UTC)Then I realized (after following the BGG link) that it was!
::B::
P.S. Have you seen the trailers kicking about for the upcoming computer game 'Spore'?
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 13:46 (UTC)Yep, that's right -- my favourite computer games are simulations of card games.
(Of all actual computer games, my favourite would probably have to be Diablo and maybe Myth -- although, I suck at Myth. I played Doom, Doom II, and Quake, and got through all of them to the end, but in retrospect, didn't enjoy them all that much, and they probably put me off computer gaming.)
no subject
Date: 2006-03-07 15:01 (UTC)Yep, that's right -- my favourite computer games are simulations of card games.
Well, I'm partial to playing those tile-removal versions of 'Mahjong' as a change from solitaire...
(Of all actual computer games, my favourite would probably have to be Diablo and maybe Myth -- although, I suck at Myth. I played Doom, Doom II, and Quake, and got through all of them to the end, but in retrospect, didn't enjoy them all that much, and they probably put me off computer gaming.)
I liked the FPS's myself (Doom 1 & 2, less so 3; Quake, Duke Nukem, etc) in the past, and now especially on game consoles like the X-box things like Halo, Red Dead Revolver (although I'm playing Half Life on my PC now, having been blown away by the sequel on my home console).
I have so little time to study the rules for the more complex military and flight simulators to climb up a steep learning curve, that I've given them all a pass. Ditto even the RPGs like 'Neverwinter NIghts', and certainly not a MMORG like WoW. Playing for maybe half an hour every week or so meant re-learning every little step of the way, and this was simply too frustrating.
::B::