Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
35142 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20819 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7405 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3967 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3495 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
2075 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2583 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2252 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2495 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
3014 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1971 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3692 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2619 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2461 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2289 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2505 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk about the latest and greatest AT, and the Classics.

John Company

More
05 May 2021 17:03 #322893 by Not Sure
Replied by Not Sure on topic John Company
I dip in now and again, and have been seeing the same thing. However, my casual reading is that Cole is doing his own thing and treating this as data points at best. Not too worried.

I would like to take it for a spin now that it's stabilizing a bit. We managed to step on a few rakes in the last 1e game, and I think the "zombie company" aspect that you can slot into in the 10-turn scenario isn't as present in 2e.
The following user(s) said Thank You: sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 May 2021 17:42 - 05 May 2021 17:45 #322895 by sornars
Replied by sornars on topic John Company

Not Sure wrote: However, my casual reading is that Cole is doing his own thing and treating this as data points at best.


I recently listened to the Ludology episode linked on the first page of this thread where Cole and co. discussed their approaches to playtesting. The conversation was in the context of Root but your summary above kind of aligned with how I felt Cole approaches playtesting. He seems to work on identifying the problem and then extracting the signal from the noise (conversation on playtesting starts around the 27th minute).
Last edit: 05 May 2021 17:45 by sornars.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
05 May 2021 20:29 #322900 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic John Company
I<asked Cole in a BGG thread about how the new edition would change deregulation/private companies. While fine in concept, we found in game play the game sort of came to a standstill a bit then got funky; he seemed to agree so I’m confident he’ll smooth it out. I stay away from “crowd sourcing” development threads, whether the designer pays attention to them or not.
The following user(s) said Thank You: mezike

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Sep 2021 05:59 - 13 Sep 2021 06:12 #326464 by mezike
Replied by mezike on topic John Company
I figured we should move the discussion on 2e over here so that we don't overtalk others posting in what have you played. Please excuse the quote snips meant for relevance!

Not Sure wrote:

mezike wrote: ...I don't think [secret scoring] belongs in a game like this...


I'm of mixed opinions about all of that. I mean, isn't the machiavellian plotting somewhat richer with some hidden threats to fuzz up the info? I think some sand in the gears helps there, if only to keep point-counting from bogging things down.
...
The real odd part is that "secret" info is less than secret based on spending order, which set up this whole situation.


You make good points, although I still find it jarring. For me the manipulation in JoCo is a product of both physically seeding your intent into the Company with family member placements, sometimes a couple of turns ahead so that they are well placed for when they will be needed, and the negotiation element leading to faction forming and dissolution. This is why I find it a harsh angle to have a 'secret plot' introduced that literally boils down to collecting something to score VPs - this will sound terribly pompous but there is no artifice to it. Maybe it is just that one card that sounds like a good idea but is a bit weird in practice. The other thing that I will point out is that the chaos and unreliability in action resolution never made 1e feel like it was devolving into bean counting despite the lack of secret scoring.

edit: just thought about it a bit more and I feel like it would have made more sense if those secret cards were granting Power rather than VPs, but I also recognise that I know nothing about how all of this has evolved through playtesting so that's just a knee-jerk reaction. There were a couple of funky cards in 1e that we always used to toss out of the deck before setup so that promises card might just end up suffering a similar fate.

As to the other point you made,

Not Sure wrote: edit: And of course, we haven't even seen the 2e private firms yet, which were my favorite part of the 1e game...


I totally agree! I think that we will play quicker now that we are familiar with the flow of 2e so I am super keen to try this out. Family firms changed the context of so much of 1e so I'm looking forward to finding out what kind of impact it has now.
Last edit: 13 Sep 2021 06:12 by mezike.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Jackwraith, Not Sure, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Sep 2021 06:39 - 13 Sep 2021 06:46 #326465 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic John Company
I think hidden agendas are rough any time they are something that doesnt naturally accrue in significant numbers to many players. Unfortunately John Company is a bad game for this since most stuff you have to use one of your 5-10 family actions on it which... maybe. With more players maybe there would be more overlap is the best I could say for it. The trick is that you get to look at them before you grab them so I guess that's supposed to make up for it but it's awkward on first glance.

A game I'd compare it to is Argent. To the extent the "most of X" scoring works it's because everyone gets a good amount of most of the things you score for intrinsic reasons, so you can compete for a good and the other players can block you, even inadvertently. It also makes looking at face down objective cards a resource a little like JC but even moreso.
Last edit: 13 Sep 2021 06:46 by Gary Sax.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackwraith, Not Sure, mezike

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
13 Sep 2021 12:13 - 13 Sep 2021 12:18 #326476 by Not Sure
Replied by Not Sure on topic John Company
I spent a little time grubbing through the Secret Prestige (and other decks) in TTS yesterday. Basically every category has a "most of" card in Secret Prestige. Most are VP awards (2 or 3), although a few are Power (like "most prizes", which is VP to start with...). There's only two Blackmail cards, the rest are set collections of some sort.

Seeing a lot of Secret Prestige out should activate the Argent (what are they collecting?) senses for sure. Another quirk in our deck was that none of the voting-related Prestige cards (Rotten Borough, Newspapers) ever appeared at all, which I think nerfed the PM fight a bit. We were very heavy on Secret Prestige, with something like 6/10 appearing in our top half of the deck.

For the appeal (or lack of) of Secret Prestige and "aha" scoring moments, I definitely see Mezike's points as well. I tend to like a little bit of muddled motivation, but I really don't know how important that is in this game.

I think there's a lot of variability, and more than ever I'm wary of judging anything on one relatively short-handed play.
Last edit: 13 Sep 2021 12:18 by Not Sure.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, mezike, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
09 Oct 2021 19:27 - 09 Oct 2021 19:29 #327085 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic John Company
Just for any peanut gallery people wondering about their JoCo 2nd ed kickstarter... we played again with three players.

This is a great game. I think I like it better than 1st ed but I'm not sure. It does have a distinct flavor from the original with much, much heavier considerations at home. It's a different thing. I think a lot of the rougher edges of the original are now handled better---the domestic politics House of Commons stuff is incredibly interesting and influential now. The Company positions have more meaningful powers. The Company is harder to tip over against the will of the majority of other players because the other players can buy up the debt of the company while simultaneously buying shares which shores up the Company. I am finally on board with the promise deeds instead of the promise cubes, their powers are distinct and interesting; my game probably hinged on my lack of killer instinct in taking the prime ministership and forcing sornars to vote against a bill.

Anyway, so it's good. I think 3p is still a little wonky, this game was made for more players ideally I think. I think the lack of writers in the game is a legitimate design problem at 3p and on a personal level I do not really like the secret scoring cards with that number of players either, I think they are worth too many VP too tbh.
Last edit: 09 Oct 2021 19:29 by Gary Sax.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Dr. Mabuse, Msample, Jackwraith, sornars, charlest

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Oct 2021 10:53 - 10 Oct 2021 15:40 #327088 by sornars
Replied by sornars on topic John Company
This was my first play of 2e and I think it's a really good game. As a game this is easily much better than 1e but I have some hot takes on my experience:

The political side of the game is fantastic - both the India events and Domestic events are hugely impactful. The India events make India feel like an organic living thing with agency that is independent of the company. From a gameplay perspective this is fantastic as the depth of potential outcomes is deep. The Pandemic style Shuffle chip is also great as places that have seen lots of activity will continue to show up time and again.

In 1e I felt like the India event deck was mechanical and abstract in what it did to India but while bad from a game perspective, it really solidified the perspective of the player as a British person who was only interested in politics in India as an abstract and mechanical problem. In that sense, this new living and breathing India softens the critique of 1e in which you were clearly a selfish person trying to achieve status. This perspective shift is reinforced by the event card layout as in 1e the most important part of the card was the headline which focused on British problems whereas the crisis in India was just a corner of the card. By separating the two decks it feels implied that both things are of equal importance (which in game terms they are). I'm aware of the component constraints Cole was working under in 1e but I believe that this is a case where constraints forced the author to ruthlessly prioritize what's important to the game and thus strengthen the argument being made.

On the domestic side - In 1e there were a lot of times where a player didn't care about the law being passed and that holds true in 2e but the round robin structure of voting means that even if you don't care about the law being passed you have a lot of leverage over the people that do care. It's especially great because the PM can keep things going so you can extract concessions that end up being worthless in very short order; it's vicious and cruel and I love it even if it felt a little gamey. Not Sure and I ended up wasting ~15 credits fighting each other for votes and that put us very behind Gary Sax for a few turns. I'm not sure how I feel about the power track in the upper right. I love that it's dynamic but it's dynamism is constrained by whatever pops up out of the law deck. I had no interest in luxuries but it was almost impossible to get it from the top to the bottom in the span of the 1710 game, without getting lucky, despite being PM for most of the game.

On setup cards - I absolutely love these. They provide an asymmetric starting position which you can easily pivot away from if need be with such a low component and rules overhead.

On secret goals - I got handed one from the start and I think that that is extremely powerful (over picking from the London Season), especially since it happened to mildly synergise with my other starting assets. The reason I think that this is powerful is to get a Secret Card that no one else has seen mid game you need to outspend your opponents in retirements that phase. The costs to do that are highly variable but assuming someone else is retiring in the same phase as you, that would probably cost at least £2-4. I think my setup card with a Secret Prestige Card was paired with £3 making that setup card worth about £5-£7.

I appreciate that if someone has Secret Cards you need to look at what they're collecting but in 3p the opportunity to compete on whatever that is is so limited as you almost naturally specialise so it's not often worth the opportunity cost of not doubling down on your specialty. I think the real issue in our game is that we saw a ton of Spouses and those seem wildly overcosted in relation to other options from the Season. The restrictions they add are extremely onerous and the VPs don't seem worth it unless it's near the end of the game. Maybe you should be allowed to do a blind pull from the deck if you don't like any of the three things on display (maybe only available to the person who spent the most?).

I've written a lot of words and shared a lot of thoughts but I recognise that this was only my first game of a game who's rules I'm still a bit shaky on. The feeling I got while playing was electric, but not quite as electric as my first time playing 1e which I think will remain the more interesting critique while this is almost guaranteed to be the better game. I can't wait to play again (hopefully at 4p)!
Last edit: 10 Oct 2021 15:40 by sornars.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Gary Sax, Jackwraith, mezike, mc

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Oct 2021 11:42 #327089 by Msample
Replied by Msample on topic John Company
I really haven't read up on the new rules . I do like the idea of promise cubes being replaced by cards; I never used promise cubes because I hated being "stuck" until I was able to get them back.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Oct 2021 13:03 #327090 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic John Company
The usual one is just the 2 dollar debt one which we have exchanged a lot, but the other ones are very intriguing. The voting one is very powerful and I could really see that this game. I wished by turn 3 I had just sold mine for something decent because I decided I was going to lose the power game by then so I wouldn't have much leverage there anyway.

Workshop two votes and one auto dollar is a very strong power, I might consider it next game to backstop myself.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Msample, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
10 Oct 2021 21:00 #327096 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic John Company
I uh did not expect our game report to get a serious development discussion and exploratory beta branch.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Not Sure, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Oct 2021 01:15 #327101 by Jackwraith
Replied by Jackwraith on topic John Company

Gary Sax wrote: I uh did not expect our game report to get a serious development discussion and exploratory beta branch.


I have no idea what this means.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Oct 2021 05:33 - 11 Oct 2021 07:00 #327102 by sornars
Replied by sornars on topic John Company
Gary Sax posted about the problems observed during our game in the Werhlegig playtesting Discord and Cole agreed with the diagnosis and immediately proposed some rule changes and updated the secret prestige card effects which will likely filter down to the next playtest release.

He also mentioned that there was only a few more weeks of development time available on the (already delayed) production timeline.
Last edit: 11 Oct 2021 07:00 by sornars.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackwraith

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Oct 2021 12:07 #327112 by Not Sure
Replied by Not Sure on topic John Company
His wording (to me) seemed that our report was confirming some things he'd been seeing. Coming from outside the Pareto chamber of the 2-3 people making 80% of the comments there might have helped it stand out as well.

Interested to see what comes of it. I'd really like to see if we can get it scheduled some more.

The thing I felt somewhat keenly this time is that the 1710 short scenario is too short. This might sound stupid given that it took us almost 3 hours to play, but we're still in the cross-checking rules a lot stage. The actual number of turns is so tiny that pursuing the wrong path early can really sideline you (like military becoming a non-factor after I'd invested 40% of my family actions into it).

If the playtime starts to come down when the mechanics get internalized, I really feel like 5 turns is going to feel over almost before it begins.
The following user(s) said Thank You: JoelCFC25, Gary Sax, sornars

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
11 Oct 2021 12:19 #327113 by Gary Sax
Replied by Gary Sax on topic John Company
No absolutely, I was being slightly self aggrandizing about our game's importance.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.233 seconds