What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

Ah_Pook wrote: Played Fields of Arle for the first time today, having previously played half a solo game to learn the rules. It's Uwe Rosenberg's massive 2p only farming worker placement game, and man it is a lot. Took us 3hrs as two first time players, and it made my head spin. The array of available actions is dizzying (there are different actions available every other round, but one person can take an off season action each round at the cost of sacrificing first player next round, so there's always approximately 40 actions at your disposal at any given time), and trying to figure out what you might want to be doing at any given time is a real head scratcher. There's all kinds of weird timing issues to work around, with things needing to be upgraded but taking a round to upgrade etc. There's just tons of stuff to do, and all of it scores you points but only if you do it right and well. So yea... I enjoyed it but woof it was a lot. I'm looking forward to playing it again but I think it's definitely an every once in a while kind of game.

I think this game is quietly in the running for the best Rosenberg game, excited to hear how you feel as you play more. I get the 3hr time right now but we have it down to a very short game... maybe an hour or closer to an hour and a half?

Played Root for the first time last night. Two of us newbies, one guy with one long-distant play and the teacher. Kind of frustrating. I could definitely see the potential in the game, but I don't think I can enjoy that potential for another three or four plays with the same guys, and I'm not getting those in anytime soon. The next play or two would just be getting a better sense of my Eyrie and the next few after that would be to feel out the others. I can respect that it's a game that withholds, doesn't give you everything all at once, but it just doesn't fit my gaming time right now, unfortunately.

It's a good thing to know about the game. Fumbling with the rules of 4 different factions if you're just going to have to teach three new players again is not a great experience.

ubarose wrote: Regular challenges aren't very effective and tokens are precious. I think that not only focuses play on the other ways to make points, but also prevents the game from just turning into "characters meet in the middle and the rest of the game is just slugging it out."

Sounds like you enjoyed it overall. I hope you did. It's all I'm playing right now.

That's true about the "slugfest in the middle" situation. Even when we had a cluster going on, it was with the knowledge that regular punches were probably secondary to other actions (moving out to get a scoring/letter token, getting closer to the opponent's flag), so I think it's partially scenario-driven, too. And I can see why knockdowns should be a little more challenging, because you don't want people to be stuck standing up for half the game, because it's boring and would get old quickly. I just hope that they stay aware of that tight balance between "useless" and "ominous."

I did like it. It's a pretty slick design, just like Villainous, and I'm interested to see how well they can incorporate new character within the same confines; again, just like Villainous.

Having played Aeons End 8 times since getting it, I can safely say that I really enjoy Aeons End. We lost a pretty brutal 4p game vs Gate Witch last night. The minion that unleashed every turn came out early and we failed to handle it, the Gate Witch got some extra turns, and things just continually went sideways from there. We almost turned the corner, but instead we all died on the last lvl 2 Nemesis card. One player dropped out, we did a 3p salty runback, and we crushed it. The Wild turn order card in 3p seems wildly good. We had the mage who collects trophies and the mage who takes other players trash into their own deck. The cleaner got the wild turn early and streamlined the trophy guys deck, who ended up with 5 trophies and enough free charges to activate every round for 10 free damage. After he got that set up he got the wild turn, and we closed it out quickly. Finding the broken stuff in any given market/mage combo is consistently really fun.

Got out last night for a 4P game of DETECTIVE: CITY OF ANGELS (my first time). Apparently there is a way to play it in coop mode, but thankfully we didn't do that, it was every detective for himself. It had a lot of cool stuff going on--a limited number of days and actions to move around 1940s-ish Los Angeles, options to uncover new pieces of evidence, question suspects about that evidence, opportunities to be the sole detective to get an early glimpse or ownership of evidence...but also ways to offer bribes to get at the information anyway. The game manager (or "Chisel") has some capacity to give misleading answers which can be challenged--but if the detective fails in that challenge the Chisel gains leverage over you. If you gather enough clues to establish the perpetrator, weapon, and motive you get one attempt to win the game early, but can still be in contention to win at the end.

The cases in the base game are split into 3 tiers of difficulty and we were in the middle tier. Sounds like there is already a pack of add-on cases and yet more on the way. I think this was nominated for some game art prize somewhere, and whoever did this knocked it out of the park. I would definitely play it again, and being a detective is a wholly different experience than being the Chisel. I'd recommend giving it a shot if you get the chance.

Yeah that's a neat game. I've played it three or so times and enjoyed it, but I have several large criticisms which keep me from loving it. I've been waffling on just selling it for awhile now.

Been a spell since I checked into this thread, but I’ve played some cool stuff lately.

Empires of the Void II is a game that feels fresh and unique to me even if it is just two different genres being bolted together. Thankfully, that bolting together is done with a skilled hand, the lines between 4X and pick up and deliver being rather seamless. I may have been the one most impressed with it at the table, but I get the feeling that this is the kind of game you enjoy much more once your expectations are set at a level more in line with what it really is and not what you thought it was going to be. I’m completely fascinated by it.

Karuba is a German-style family game that would fit right in alongside the all-time classics. It takes only a couple of minutes to teach but had much more going on once you’re playing around with it. Tile-laying is underrated and this game is one of the best around.

In the Hall of the Mountain King reminds me of Clank or Tyrants of the Underdark, though not at all in terms of how they play. No, what I mean is that this feels like the next evolutionary step in the polyominoes genre that’s been growing over the last few years, this being the first I’ve seen (aside from A Feast For Odin, perhaps) where the polyominoes isn’t the entire game. It’s another one that is really easy to teach, seems pretty straightforward, but has quite a bit to consider once you’re in it. It’s pretty low on interaction but it does have a ton of things to race for, which is exactly how low interaction games should be done. It also has the most satisfying mechanics for resource collection I’ve ever seen. It just feels good and luckily so does everything else surrounding it.

What kind of time does it take to play Empires of the Void? Good player count?

We played with 3 and it took 90 minutes. We’re a sharp group who doesn’t like to waste time, so I guess it could be 2 hours with slower players. I do think that player count matters less than other 4X games with this one because it’s really more about pick up and deliver.

There are nuances I’m sure I’m still ignorant to about it, but I do think there’s no way to really block players and defending planets it tough.

TRIUMPH AND TRAGEDY

Me, New Jersey ex pat James Terry, and Mike Johnson broke this out this past Sunday. They had played before, I had not but had read the rules. So I volunteered to take the Russians so as not have to worry about naval stuff .

We all started jacking up industry as well as the usual jockeying for minors. The latter really seems like a crap shoot depending on what cards you get. James got really close to bringing the US into the fray quite early, but twice I played yellow cards to bring the influence there back down. They ended up coming in in 1941. Its interesting , I was worried about the Germans invading and debated letting the US come in early, but decided to see what would happen. For my part I got an early Tito of sorts in turning Yugoslavia to the Commies.

Mikes Germans lured Romania over to the dark side and was courting Latin America with its rich resource base ( here we veer into pseudo Axis and Allies levels of fantasy IMO ). Soon however he decided the only way forward was the way of the gun and invaded Denmark and Czechoslovakia. Unfortunately he had Pete Stein ghost rolling his dice; I think he lost about 9 steps to kill the three minor steps in those two countries. Between the step losses and the multiple rounds it took, he fell behind the clock so to speak. Furthermore, he had zero techs developed. I had 3 ( Heavy Tanks, Rocket Infantry, and Air Defence Radar ) and James had Jets.

All that said, by about 1942 the Germans were close to winning on VP, so first James as the West then I attacked the next season. Seeing as France hadn't fallen nor Russia been invaded, the Germans didn't have much room to defend . What they did have was enough subs to Blockade some of James resources ; he had not built enough naval to counter . So he was a bit hamstrung. He took the Ruhr and was almost able to bag Rome for the second sub capital auto win. However his Italian invaders were cut off and eventually snuffed out.

Meanwhile I had gobbled up all of Eastern Europe and got adjacent to Berlin. I attacked it, knowing I couldn't take it right away but needing to beat the West to the punch. Indeed by this time I had lost what few planes I had but the sheer number of ground units made it impossible for the Germans to repel me despite all their planes. It took several turns, but I managed to take Berlin then turned on the West to take Ruhr to secure victory by taking both capital spaces in Germany.

Overall I was a bit leery coming in but I liked it - and not because I won, LOL. It fills the same space as CATACLYSM in that it is a single sitting ( took us around 5.5 hours and the game went the distance ) WWII sandbox game. Unlike CATACLYSM, it only covers the ETO - I think a PTO version is in the works. This game is def easier to learn - if you played a block game you know about combat/order of firing . Diplomacy is pretty much pure card play . While CATACLYSM has some more unique design concepts and covers the entirety of WWII , I think this game is more accessible. Right now I'd probably give the edge to CATACLYSM, with the caveat that it has a steeper learning curve and out of the box is more likely to go off the rails vs history. On the flip side I think T/T is more likely to turn into a two horse race if the Germans don't get off to a good start. Both scratch a similar itch, just in different ways.

Josh Look wrote: Empires of the Void II is a game that feels fresh and unique to me even if it is just two different genres being bolted together. Thankfully, that bolting together is done with a skilled hand, the lines between 4X and pick up and deliver being rather seamless. I may have been the one most impressed with it at the table, but I get the feeling that this is the kind of game you enjoy much more once your expectations are set at a level more in line with what it really is and not what you thought it was going to be. I’m completely fascinated by it.

I've played it a few times, and I think you're exactly right. Based on its appearance, it looks like a conflict-driven space battle game. But I found combat difficult to pull off. There's no real penalty for losing (your units simply retreat to your nearest planet), but even so, the limited movement options (move one "stack" of units per turn) means it can take a while to get your guys where you want them. And the whole time you're doing that, you're effectively telegraphing your intentions to whatever hapless planet you're surrounding.

I was in the same boat as you, where I seemed to be the guy who enjoyed the game the most. I'd love to play it more often, but that's proven to be a tough sell. There are some really neat ideas in there. And the game is astonishingly beautiful to look at (as you'd expect from a Ryan Laukat design).

Played a 5-player Villainous with Cruella de Vil, Hades, Yzma, Prince John, and Pete (me.) Three of the 5 were new players, so it took them a little while to get acclimated, as usual. But, once they got the hang of it, they started to roll. At the end of the game, I was one goal away (Win Big: Gain 4 or more Power with Play a Game at this location), Yzma knew where Kuzco was and had Kronk in the right location, Cruella had 77 puppies and had another 22 token in her realm, and Hades had 1 Titan in Olympus and 2 more one space away. But Prince John had stacked up 21 Power and couldn't be stopped by Yzma's last-ditch effort. Victory for the base game villain.

Prospero Hall continues to impress me with their additions to this game. Not only do they keep adding unique methods of play, while still keeping it with the confines of the overall game, but their art direction is still brilliant every time. Cruella's glaring red menace and Pete's graywashed, Zip-a-tone look to their whole sets, plus the still innovative wireframe designs on the backs of each card are really well done. All of the new players walked away wanting to try again.

Tonight I played Clash of Cultures with the Civilization expansion. It was my first game of it in several years, and I was relieved to see that it still has a lot of appeal for me.

• What struck me most is how tight the action economy is. There are such a limited number of actions you will get, and the order for them is absolutely vital. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it does make the game a little more taxing than I remember. It also makes the beginning of the game feel really slow. But once your cities start getting large it becomes possible to put together some pretty big plans. It's fascinating how slow the whole thing begins.


• Always, always, always use the variable endgame.


• It's a pretty complex game strategically, but it is an intuitive design as well. I think this is what I appreciate the most about it. It manages to feel epic without requiring a good 30-minute explanation. Everything leads back into a few well-executed systems, and I think that's as it should be.


• The low unit density goes a long way toward keeping the game manageable, because it prevents extended slugfests that go on forever. Instead it's just a few units duking it out in a single combat, and then it's done. Some of the narrative surrounding the game lately makes it seem really conflict-heavy, but I'm not so sure. I mean, it's clearly a game for people who like conflict, because each objective can be achieved that way. But I do think you can also play totally peaceful and make it work. You of course have to have units for defense, build some fortresses to make it happen. And your geography matters a ton, depending on your access to the sea and what features are around you. But I feel like it's possible. I'm not sure you could play a game without military, but you could definitely use deterrence as your main approach.


• Our game was with two players, and it was very low conflict. I think part of this came from where we were positioned on the map. Being at opposite sides of the board meant that we were battling against barbarians a lot more than anything else. We didn't mind, but I think other people would have found that tedious.


• The Advance board is just such a great piece of work. I know it's a bit overwhelming to see at the outset, but it provides so many different ways to play and paths to pursue. This was the first time I ever really went hard on military (I was Japan), so I went with Autocracy and was building a lot more units than normal. I also like how there are some Advances you really want, and others that are super useful but not necessary. I know that it's probably not that desirable from a design standpoint, but I don't think it's a big issue for a couple reasons. First of all, everyone has access to the same Advances, less the civ-specific ones. Secondly, you have a lot of flexibility in which ones you will pursue first. You will almost certainly want both Sanitation and Fishing, but the order in which you pursue them makes a big difference. I feel like the Advance board allows the player to respond to the game as it plays out, and I really appreciate that flexibility.


• So let's talk about the expansion. It's a very good one, and I think it feels of a piece with the rest of the game in a way I find really admirable. But it does take the game in a somewhat more ordinary direction. The lack of unit differentiation in the original game really felt appropriate with the level of abstraction we got, and giving the players specific leaders and real civilizations does funnel them toward specific playstyles, rather than letting the map and their choices be the only determination. I don't think those are problems at all, and I feel like it makes for a richer experience. The other weird effect is that in any given game there is now a lot of content that doesn't get used every time. Not every game will have elephants or cavalry, and the new buildings mean that cities all have more unique make-ups.

I confess, going in I was a little worried about how I had held on to it for so long without playing. It's a big box to lug across the world, and when I didn't play for ages it was a reminder that big conflict games are not generally my scene. But it was a great reminder of how well-executed it is, and me and my opponent both want to play again soon.