All of my desire to play Kingsburg

Sucked out an airlock thanks to this thread from one of the designers

boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/46618

some choice quotes

The first idea about Kingsburg mechanics come to me when I realized that I wanted "Settlers, done right". No trades between players to make it unfair, and a more regular distribution of resources.

Once the main mechanic was born, I needed a theme. I was not that concerned about it at the time, so I decided "let's go for a generic fantasy setting". At the point that the name of the King itself, Tritus, it's a self-mocking about the repetitiveness of the generic fantasy setting. Contrary to my expectations, it never changed up to the game release.

Kingsburg is not a cooperative game. But the winter battle has somehow the feeling that all players are, after all, on the same side. With different agendas, yes, but all of them working for the good of the realm.

The indirect interaction, where you can steal "placements" to other players, but not attack them directly, it's the same level of interaction I appreciate in Caylus.

It reads like a damn parody blog someone on this board would write!

Indeed. You're best out of it as well - Kingsburg is a poor game. Don't let the presence of dice deceive you.

If you go hunting on TOS I actually gave vent to my disappointment in a review.

If you want a Euro-dice game either stick with Settlers, the original and best, or try Yspahan. It's not Settlers, but it is much quicker to play and is easily the second best of the euro-dice genre.

It makes me cry. Really. Instead of providing a game which you want to win, you build one where no-one minds losing. Or no-one cares to play. It shows to what depths eurogame designers have sunk. And considering from the positive reactions, the depths many eurogamers have sunk too.

That is the ultimate definition of a 'brown & biege box' game. It just screams 'why the hell did you bother and why the hell do players bother - stick to watching paint dry'.

But it doesn't surprise me at all.

Southernman wrote:

That is the ultimate definition of a 'brown & biege box' game.

Except for the fact that it's pretty colorful, actually. I almost bought this game on looks alone (and the fact if has a lot of dice), but decided to skip it. I guess I made the right choice.

Jur wrote:

It shows to what depths eurogame designers have sunk.

Well, it depends on your point of view. From a send-the-kids-to-college perspective he stepped up to the plate and hit a triple. If what he says is to be believed, he knew exactly how to do it. He built a game to appeal to the masses and damn near named it Tritus.

I had a string of conversation with this guy back in the Spring in a thread entitled "Early Battles Meaningless?" where a guy was asking if the battles at the end of each season are pushovers. I've only played once, but in my opinion they are, to the point where they have little or no impact on the play of the game. Considering they're a press-your-luck mechanic that could exert some real economic pressure on the remainder of each turn's play they could be a really cool feature. But they're not, largely because they were neutered prior to release. The battles just aren't much of a threat at all.

Here's the amazing part -- apparently they weren't neutered enough because the expansion makes them even less potent. You now have chits to play to guarantee a win with little or no effort, and virtually no element of risk. If you peek at the card risk is removed entirely, and that's now an optimal path strategy.

I butted in on the conversation and explained my discontent, and this designer guy (Andrea Chiarvesio) handled himself very professionally and in my opinion indicated that they had considered a lot of things for the combat phase, but bowed to popular opinion. They ultimately decided on where they ended up by catering to their target market. They let sales drive design - they built a nonfat half-caff latte because that's what sells well in the suburbs. They're also also very brown . . . coincidence?

I had one guy tell me to go make my own game. That was amusing as hell.

Kingsburg is a game that could be better, and I think they walked up to the edge then stepped back. Had there been a tighter coupling between the building phases and the combat phase they could have really had a pressure-cooker of a game. Based upon what I heard someone say at WBC (someone who's opinion I generally respect by the way) I think they made the correct financial decision. "No, let's play with the expansion, I don't want a die roll deciding my fate." This is a man that needs to consider other hobbies.

Sag.

raviv wrote:

Southernman wrote:

That is the ultimate definition of a 'brown & biege box' game.

Except for the fact that it's pretty colorful, actually. I almost boought this game on looks alone (and the fact if has a lot of dice), but decided to skip it. I guess I made the right choice.

I've never seen the game ... or the box.

When someone starts his Idea of an Eurogame (not an Ameritrash game) with the sentence: "I want to make it like settlers but than done right" they should be shot in the face. Trading makes it unfair the pansies. It's the trading that makes the interaction in this game. Bartering your trades while others are discouraging to trade and encourages the smack talk throughout the game. Sure there will be hurt feelings (I forgot that is prolly why it's flawed, people might not make the optimal trade cos they don't want YOU to win)

I think the euro crowd has no idea what Settlers has done for the boardgame hobby at large. Being the one boardgame most adults of my age (20 something) play without frowning or classifying it as a kids game. To this date I think Settlers is the best Eurogame I have played. Sure the basic game gets boring after a while but with seafarers and cities and knights it gets the much needed meat that makes this game a classic to me.

I had no interest at ALL in Kingsburg and this Geeklist just shows all that is wrong with Eurogame design philosophy. Sure why not paste a generic fantasy theme on it, then some deluted kids looking for D&D might actually buy it in the hope that it's cool? *barf*

LilRed wrote:

When someone starts his Idea of an Eurogame (not an Ameritrash game) with the sentence: "I want to make it like settlers but than done right" they should be shot in the face. Trading makes it unfair the pansies. It's the trading that makes the interaction in this game. Bartering your trades while others are discouraging to trade and encourages the smack talk throughout the game. Sure there will be hurt feelings (I forgot that is prolly why it's flawed, people might not make the optimal trade cos they don't want YOU to win)

I think the euro crowd has no idea what Settlers has done for the boardgame hobby at large. Being the one boardgame most adults of my age (20 something) play without frowning or classifying it as a kids game. To this date I think Settlers is the best Eurogame I have played. Sure the basic game gets boring after a while but with seafarers and cities and knights it gets the much needed meat that makes this game a classic to me.

Well said. What the hell is wrong with people? CATAN is a huge franchise that has sold millions of units worldwide in more languages than are actually spoken by anyone. It's pretty clear to me that CATAN is exactly the kind of game that people want. Idiots that try to fix it by removing the dice or the trading are trying to impose their dumbass preconceptions of what makes for a good game onto millions of people that already know better.

Matt: though I respect your opinion, I have to say that YSPAHAN is a terrible game. It has dice, but uses them for evil, not good. Dice games should involve some element of risk-taking -- and the suspense that goes with it -- or at least some opportunity to reason about odds. YSPAHAN only uses the dice to determine which resources will be available to be drafted by the players each round. It bears more resemblance to SAINT PETERSBURG than any real dice game. There's no push-your-luck. No chance that a big roll will provide some big payoff to any single player. No jeopardy of crapping out and losing everything.

I don't understand the hate towards Settlers sometimes. (Not from here but from other places). It's a nice tight mechanic and the dice make it interesting. The trading and the thief provide for more or less direct interaction. The cards foster that a little more (especially the soldier). I don't understand how you can make this game better by removing all interaction.

mikoyan wrote:

I don't understand the hate towards Settlers sometimes. (Not from here but from other places). It's a nice tight mechanic and the dice make it interesting. The trading and the thief provide for more or less direct interaction. The cards foster that a little more (especially the soldier). I don't understand how you can make this game better by removing all interaction.

Settlers doesn't interest me, because I already spend 40+ hours a week working with financial issues at work. When I sit down to play a game, I want some simulated dude-killing.

mikoyan wrote:

I don't understand the hate towards Settlers sometimes. (Not from here but from other places). It's a nice tight mechanic and the dice make it interesting. The trading and the thief provide for more or less direct interaction. The cards foster that a little more (especially the soldier). I don't understand how you can make this game better by removing all interaction.

Some people don't like wheeling and dealing, I guess. Purely mechanical play is where it's at!

Did any of you actually read the WHOLE list?!?

You guys are making out like the Kingsburg designers shit all over your baby! If you just look at his first comment under the first box you are all losing your mind over, you will see he says everything you are saying here. Great game that is indeed a classic. All he is really getting at with the "done right" comment (which IS a poor phrasing...but also take into account his is not english as a first language) is that HE wanted for his game a use of the resource dice that was not as capricious (and as a long time Settlers player I have endured MUCH TOO MUCH whining about the dice rolls) and allowed something for everyone on each roll.

Simple.

Are we really going to accuse HIM of far reaching madness in his comments with such considered gems as, "This is EVERYTHING that is wrong with Euro game design!!!" Fuck off. As far as I can tell exactly 2 of you have played the game....and one of those was "once".

Kingsburg is fine for what it is. I would never expect it to light up the likes of the hard core F:ATtie, and am surprised you even bother to discuss it here. It has NOTHING to align it with your love of game... but to wince and whine and make face smashing decrees about something you have NO EXPERIENCE with is rather lazy.

The expansion has added some fun new ideas...not just the "neutered battle chits" (and even there you are missing some vital facts about game impact...but as you all will never play it is of no use to explain it here)

Kingsburg is a well produced bit of fun that I am quite happy to have around the house for those gatherings that need just such a game.

Hate on all you will...but the very fact FFG picked up the publish should tell you something.

NeonPeon wrote:

mikoyan wrote:

I don't understand the hate towards Settlers sometimes. (Not from here but from other places). It's a nice tight mechanic and the dice make it interesting. The trading and the thief provide for more or less direct interaction. The cards foster that a little more (especially the soldier). I don't understand how you can make this game better by removing all interaction.

Some people don't like wheeling and dealing, I guess. Purely mechanical play is where it's at!

If you want purely mechanical play...Play Chess...

ozjesting wrote:

Hate on all you will...but the very fact FFG picked up the publish should tell you something.

That they are not too proud to make money of eurogames? And that this game sells? Backstreet Boys also sells. But it's still crap and goes against all I believe in.