Short Cut to Remote Gaming Forum (29 Aug 2020)
Since remote gaming has now become a significant part of how we play board games, we have added a short cut to this forum in the menu on the left.
Q.E. Board Game Review
"...crisis on Wall Street as Lehman totters towards..." - "...worries could wreak havoc on markets..." - "...banking giants rush to raise capital..." - "...markets in disarray as lending locks up..." - "...sweeping plan to fight crisis..." - "...vast bailout..." - I switched off the television. The news wasn't good and it was clear what we had to do to stop the world markets from collapse. It was time for some Q.E. by BoardGameTables.com.
I've never played the game, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. Dunno if opinions around this coalesced or not.
There's a "bad actor" issue with this and other titles as well that makes those games fragile. They can be played, but certain players simply aren't going to be able to stay within the lines of polite play.
My oldest son is one of them, so I don't mean to imply that these people are simply dicks that are to be shunned. But if he sees a best practice that breaks a game he won't lay off it, and if I press him to he'll simply choose to sit the game out. The idea that there's a way to win within the rules that he's not allowed to use makes the game pointless to him, frustrating to play. He's such an engineer.
My issue with the QE name is that this isn't really what Quantitative Easing is about. They could have as easily named it Stock Market and it would have been equally descriptive, and equally wrong. I haven't played personally, but the descriptions seem to resemble more of a bank bailout kind of paint job than the self-purchasing of one's own bond offers.
It's my opinion that the game would be much tighter if there was a need to be within a certain delta percentage of the lowest total bidding player, even if that percentage were extreme. That would put every player at the table in a much more powerful position, would make for a much tighter binding on the play. I'd love to hear the results of plays where you need to be within, say, 100,000% of the lowest bidder's total bids to be eligible to win.