|
|
UPDATE: 2008-08-20
Just finished my 2nd game of Agricola with 4 people. This game was better and way more intense then my 1st. We used 5 cards from the 'I' deck and 5 from the 'E' deck. Each player got to choose 7 of the 10. We also got to choose 7 of 10 minor improvement cards.
For whatever reason there seemed to be more interaction this game at the worker placement locations. This may just be because I played more aggressively and took more risks, or that I got some decent cards I could play. The 'I' cards did spice up the interaction a little bit.
Even though I faired much better in this game (2nd place with 27, 1st=42, 3rd=22, and 4th=21), I'm now pretty convinced that the player with the best cards will win the game. Both the players in this game and my 1st that won had great cards.
In the 1st game I came in last with 17 points. There was a 2 way tie for 2nd with 34, and 1st had 51 points.
For now I will leave my rating as is (8.6). This is a good solid game that forces you to be constantly thinking about your available optimal choices and strategies, and readjusting them constantly as your preferred choices are snatched up by other players.
However, I do feel that given equally skilled players the one with the better cards will win. Unless the card distribution is evenly weighted amongst the players. And I can say that in the only 2 games I have played, this has not been the case.
I am still interested in playing this game, and will revise my review and rating if anything changes with further game plays.
I have to say that of all the games I've played in the past 4 years (well over 100, such as Caylus, Power Grid, El Grande, Goa, Imperial, Wallenstein, Shogun, AoE3), this particular games session was by far the heaviest and most complex. Yes, even more so than Caylus.
With 4 players the game took a solid 3 hours, after the game setup and rule explanations. There was NO down time. Pretty much constant strategizing. It was brutal.
Agricola and Caylus are at my MAX complexity and heavy strategy level. I don't mind playing them with my gamer friends, but would definitely not purchase these games, as I don't see anyway of introducing these games to NGFs ever.
I guess with Agricola you could always play it lightheartedly with NGFs, and just have fun trying to build up the best farm. But that's not going to be the case if you're trying to score some decent points and keep your family fed. Brutal I tell you, just brutal.
|
|
|
If you think the cards make that much difference, you have some choices:
(1) Choose a subset of cards that you yourself think is balanced, or
(2) Draft the cards at the start of the game (I like this!)
(3) Some combination of the above.
|
|
|
To use a game you mention, I have played 100s of games of Caylus at BSW. Even after the first couple hundred, I noticed that I continued to improve in my ability.. not game to game, but over tens of games. Agricola is bound to be similar in its very lengthy learning curve. I am more tempted to think that the cards make a greater difference in your first 10-20 games than they will in each successive 10-20. While the discussions around the various 'over-powered' and 'under-powered' cards have been interessting, almost all of them seem to draw a fair amount of disagreement during the detailed analysis of just how killer/wimpy they are (perhaps with one or two exceptions).
As people who really enjoy the game accumulate plays, my guess is that, like Caylus, players will naturally learn how best to use even the weaker cards as well as how to counteract cards/strategies their opponents are employing.
I would also guess that a 2-player game will bring out the "worst" in any card advantage since there is only the one opponent to 'block' a particular seemingly powerful card. In Caylus 2 player, the better player wins every time and my guess it is not quite as 100% in Agricola, but better play will offset a better cardset. Also like Caylus, 3+ players leave more people to 'gang up' on a perceived runaway player and thus more ability to counteract a perceived powerful set of cards.
Overall, my sense is that newer players and 2 player games will tend to exacerbate the perception of card imbalance, and that skill matters a lot more in any event.
Enjoy
|
|
|
I would agree it takes several games to get your feet wet via Agricola and after around 15 I still don't feel that confident when playing the game with the cards. I think that is the what the Uwe wanted, a game that is challenging.
|
|
|
I'm guessing that the luck of the draw may account for a couple of point difference in scores among skilled players, but your games have a *much* bigger spread than that. I don't think it's caused by the cards.
|
|
|
habermanm wrote: I'm guessing that the luck of the draw may account for a couple of point difference in scores among skilled players, but your games have a *much* bigger spread than that. I don't think it's caused by the cards. This was my thought as well - there is a clear difference in the skill of those playing, not just the cards. 15 and 17 point victories are not based on having a few "better" cards, though that might have some effect. As has been stated, I've found that a person's ability to play Agricola improves over many game plays. I've seen my scores increase gradually over time but I also feel like I am playing better. After many of my early games, I could look back on some specific decisions that I made that really slowed me down. This still happens sometimes, but not as much. I am able to better tell which actions to take at a certian point in the game. Just my thoughts. I'd recommend playing a few solo games if you get a chance - I know you don't own the game, but this really has helped my understanding of how to play Agricola develop. Still, the solo game is played much differently than multiplayer games.
|
|
|
Thanks for the feedback. I am hopeful that more game plays will iron out my perceived card imbalances as our game group gets better at this game. On the flip side, your comments just gave a great ego boost to the winners of the 2 games, and made me feel like a loser. Not to worry though, I have something to shoot for and they need to watch their back 
|
|
|
Have you considered a draft format for the card selection? Each player gets 7 occupation cards, takes one then passes the rest to the left (receiving 6 from the right). Continue until everyone has their 7 occupations. Repeat for Minor Improvements.
It takes a bit longer, but balances things a bit better. It also makes for a kind of sub-game in itself where you look for cards which fit well together.
|
|
|
I played my first game of Agricola yesterday and had in my hand:
a stone house upgrade minor improvement
a mason (gives you free room if you have 4)
a guy who gives you a free room if you have 5
one occupation and one minor improvement that each gave +1 per room in my stone house
and a mushroom picker so i could get food while i was building my mansion
I think it was hard for my competitors (who had all played before) to compete with that. I won with 54 points vs. 34 and 27, and don't have any real reason to think I outplayed them.
So I think the game has a significant risk of one player having such a synergistic hand that it's simply too good to be overcome. I don't know if that's a 5% chance or a 25% chance each game, and given that the game actually manages to come in around 2 hours it may not be a huge deal, but if it's a number at the high end of that range I think it's a problem.
Fun game, though.
|
|
|
Posted Thu Aug 21,2008 02:23 pm
