What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

I've played a ton of Cthulhu Wars but we still use the base map 9 times out of 10 and I'd never play it with just three players.

That won't necessarily change your mind, but you should never throw a new player into a new map or make them figure out faction dynamics from expansion options until they've played the base game at least a few times.

Nusfjord - I finally played a game again. Wanted something for during breaks in spring-cleaning and I knew this had a 3 short game campaign. Just a single-shot to learn and then a campaign where I scored 87 with the Herring deck. No rules referencing needed during the campaign as there's only 3 resources (wood, gold, fish) and I've played worker placement before. Lots of different cards but only twice I looked up an effect in the appendix to make sure I understood it right and I did both times. It's a good game but at no point did I feel like I was building anything. Sometimes I build a little village or civ in a game and feel an attachment to how cool it turned out. Here I didn't even look at the building names and just made the best choice I could each round for maximum benefit. Never bothered with a final lookover before dismantling. For a short, simple, high-score game I did like it and will play again.

Played a nice 3-player game of Airlines Europe with the family tonight. My son thinks the board needs more abstraction but I actually prefer the scattered hunt for the right investment bump and the chaotic aesthetics of miniature multi-colored planes all over a map. At 3 players, this becomes a bit more of a mind game to figure out who to draft investments off of, and to refrain from telegraphing a clear majority in a stock too early. Many of the airlines were in similar value tiers around the end with the exception of a single straggler (just luck of the draw, since the color never came up until the end), and my own desperate investments in my pet airlines (a conceptual mistake when playing this game). I lost by over a dozen points.

Just to jump on Cthulhu Wars, I made the mistake of having players try new factions or maps or mercs and, in the end, what really works is just playing the same faction a bunch of times so you understand it and the game.

I think the more experience you have playing, the more you are able to evaluate what a faction can do, you also learn how to take advantage of your strengths and others’ weaknesses.

The game rewards a lot of minding your own business and leaves the players to decide to interfere with each other.

Definitely a “Root problem” and not a game for everyone.

Certainly an expensive game that I love but also sometimes regret buying so much for because it will see very little play.

Three tends to be an unsuitable number of players for a multi-player conflict game with direct interaction, especially any DOAM game. Either everybody turtles down and the game drags on, or two players get into it and the third player coasts to victory. However, three is often a very good number for co-op games.

I like 3 in Nexus Ops since it's such a small area and conflict is so encouraged.

Everybody telling me not to play Cthulhu Wars with three should take it up with the people who flaked and the designer who advertises it as an option. I could also use less "advice" about not playing the advanced faction as a beginner when it was the most experienced player choosing those factions. I also want to point out that the factions are also not labeled as "beginner" or "advanced" factions as far as I know, so all this condescension should be directed towards the designers.

Honestly, this is the most exhausting part of board game discourse. I wrote about my experience with the game and in comes a slew of people telling me I'm "wrong" (not in those words) for not playing the game optimally. In my original post, I specifically argued that if the game is fragile enough in its asymmetry, player counts, and board setups, it needs scenarios to guide this experience. Since it doesn't have those, I'm reliant on my limited experience, the experience of those who wanted to play it to begin with, and the the compatibilities of the design.

We know three isn't ideal. My friend owns all the kickstarter stuff and desperately wanted to play it, so I agreed to do so despite knowing it wasn't ideal. I haven't had a great time at three or five. In fact, five might have been even worse, since it was so much slower.

This isn't any implied criticism, Orlok. What would *you* like your post on Cthullu Wars to provoke discussion of about the game? Or did you just want to communicate your feelings in the board game thread which, to be clear, is also pretty normal?

Gary Sax wrote: This isn't any implied criticism, Orlok. What would *you* like your post on Cthullu Wars to provoke discussion of about the game? Or did you just want to communicate your feelings in the board game thread which, to be clear, is also pretty normal?

Ideally, both. But I would specifically like to [point out that we are in fact aware that we've played the game] in an unoptimal way.

[Edit: I'm probably being unnecessarily defensive. Sorry, everyone.]

No need to apologize. It's hard for everyone to communicate tone in forum format.

I think your post raises this much bigger point about games that expect you to know your faction. Specifically, I like these sorts of games a lot, but they're really a game type that plays best with specific game groups over repeated plays. That's a big ask and if it fizzles before everyone knows what's up that's a problem! I feel like it *is* a salient issue with these games, not the players, if they favor this situation too much.

I also feel like your post really raises something that people earlier in the thread were getting at that isn't a criticism of your group, but rather the design of releases. When you live through the release of progressive expansions and buy them along with their release, you probably have played the earlier factions a lot and gotten to know the game so the future more out there expansions work better. This is a beef I have with Root, actually---I got into the game with the Riverfolk and the Otters already in the mix. I think those two factions are weird enough, and both somewhat depend on knowledgable table meta, that it is natural but quite bad for newcomers to not play a bunch of games with the base four or base four and the Duchy. It's quite alienating to latecoming players... and nowadays they do multiple expert expansions bundled into like the first kickstarter and that's even worse.

I still can't get enough of this style of game, though.

Sorry if you feel like you were being dogpiled Orlok.

You mentioned the game is not great and is not fun. That's totally fine if that's your opinion and it's valid.

But as a fan of the game I thought it was worth reiterating the commonly made point of player count and suggesting you ignore the part that's giving you a big headache - the expansion bloat.

I think those of us pointing this out were ultimately trying to help and provide some information you could use if you were to play it again.

I imagined you going to play it again, perhaps unwillingly, and at least being able to state something like - "I'd really prefer to just play on the base map with the base factions."

I suppose we could just discuss that yeah, some of the expansions are not great and it's difficult coming to the game late in the development cycle, but I didn't see that as actually a useful suggestion for you. If you weren't looking for advice, that's fine of course.

I just wanted to share my own experience with the game and how that could translate into positive or negative outcomes in enjoyment.

Gary Sax wrote: I also feel like your post really raises something that people earlier in the thread were getting at that isn't a criticism of your group, but rather the design of releases. When you live through the release of progressive expansions and buy them along with their release, you probably have played the earlier factions a lot and gotten to know the game so the future more out there expansions work better. This is a beef I have with Root, actually---I got into the game with the Riverfolk and the Otters already in the mix. I think those two factions are weird enough, and both somewhat depend on knowledgable table meta, that it is natural but quite bad for newcomers to not play a bunch of games with the base four or base four and the Duchy. It's quite alienating to latecoming players... and nowadays they do multiple expert expansions bundled into like the first kickstarter and that's even worse.

Yeah, that's over and above the "Root problem". Like Orlok said, his friend wanted to play the expansion stuff, so sometimes you just go along with it, even though the game would be better for new players with just the base stuff. I frequently have that issue with, in fact, Root, where I'd love to play the other maps or use the E&P deck, but I'm constantly teaching the game or playing with people who've only played once or twice and it's just not a good idea. The base game (like CW) is still cool, but I'd also like to use the other cardboard that's in the boxes. As a caveat, I'd say that if Orlok's friend wanted to use that stuff, I'd at least suggest handing the newer players one of the older factions, rather than something like the Ancients but, for all I know, his friend insisted on everyone playing the new stuff so there it is.

The only game of that type that I've really had success with in terms of both using expansions and teaching newer players is Cyclades, where using the Monuments (and Ancient Ruins) is almost the default setting and isn't that complicated. Plus, if you know you have a more wargame-inclined group, you just switch to Titans. That way, the only thing you're really not using is the Hades stuff, which I like, but I know most around here don't. (You're all wrong.)