geek
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
50
26 Posts
1 , 2  Next »   | 
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Brian Martin
flag
The Traders of Genoa » Forums » Reviews
Top 10 reasons why Traders of Genoa is in my top 10 games
1. Constant player interaction
Just because you don't control the tower, doesn't mean that there's nothing to do. This is one of those few turn based games that has almost no downtime what so ever. Some complain that the amount and character of the interaction and negotiation can be harsh, and leave negative feelings. I have yet to experience this personally, and in my opinion it can only become negative for you like this if you let it. Don't be afraid to end negotiations (tower player or not), and remember that you can take any offer you want. It's only a game (although a very good one).

2. Great looking, quality components
The wood pieces, board, and dice are all of great quality. The only place I feel the game is lacking are the ducats. These pieces of paper are just too thin, and I'm always afraid that I'll miscount by missing one accidentally if they stick together. I bought a set of high quality poker chips to replace the paper money, which has made the game even more enjoyable to play.

3. Ability to trade anything
This rule really opens up this game, and allows players to be very creative and flexible with strategy. That start any space card may not be useful to you, but it may be very valuable to another player who's trying to get to a villa to trade in a large order. And knowing this can be very valuable indeed.

4. Mostly simple, elegant rules
Roll the dice, negotiate for good offers, take the action on a building, and make money. For the most part, it doesn't get much more complex than this, although there are lots of important decisions to make. Knowing what things are actually worth in the game is where things can get pretty complex. The only place where the game gets fiddly is with the owner markers and their dependents, the 1 building actions cards. I was confused by the 1 building action cards my first play, and I've seen most other players be confused by them as well.

5. Reading the players is just as important as reading game position
A part of this game is the bluff, and although it isn't as important as it is to the game of poker, it's still significant. It can be very advantageous to bid up the price on something you're not actually interested in. However, then there's the danger the other player 'calling your bluff,' and letting you pay a large sum of money for an action you didn't want in the first place. A good poker face, and the ability to read subtle body cues can be a great asset.

6. It's often not clear who has won until the game is over
Because the money is hidden, and because money changes hands so frequently, it would be extremely difficult to keep count of how much money each player has. By my observations, players often come to a conclusion about who is winning, but this assumption is often wrong when the money is finally counted, suggesting the difficulty in even estimating how much a player has earned in the game after the first couple of rounds. This uncertainty helps keep everyone actively involved in the game until the end.

7. Many ways to get money
six to be exact: large orders, small orders, messages, owner markers, privileges, and of course, trade. This translates into multiple and varied paths to victory. Always a good thing to keep a game fresh.

8. Just enough randomness to create variety without luck controlling the game
The luck of what you get on the dice and cards forces you to have some dependence on other players, and your ability to persuade those players to help you achieve your goals. However, the dependence isn't so great that it is impossible to meet your goals without the help of others, it only takes more time.

9. Well matched theme
Mechanically, the game fits well to theme. I can imagine a bunch of traders/businessmen, riding around in the same cart trying to make as much money as possible, but because only one of the traders can drive at a time, they spend a lot of their time bribing and trying to convince the driver to go where they want. The theme gets a little fuzzy on the special cards. I'm not exactly sure why a park would give me an extra action, or why a restaurant would allow me to trade one good for another good.

10. Appropriate game length
For a game of this depth, one to three hours is right on the mark. When the game ends, I feel like I'm ready for the game to end, without feeling like it had drug on too long. I pack up the game feeling satisfied, even if I was nowhere close to winning.

Last edited on 2008-10-17 21:59:23 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Linda Baldwin
flag
Avatar
040809
I've gotten to play this exactly once, and I've been dying to play again ever since. I'm not usually big on negotiation games (Settlers is about my limit), but this one just hit me perfectly. The key for me is #3 -- ANYTHING is tradable. Normally that would scare the #@#$@# out of me, but in this game, it just WORKS.

OK, that does it, I gotta find a copy of this before the next game day.
Joe Grundy
flag
Avatar
0708
brdmartin wrote:
10. Appropriate game length
For a game of this depth, one to two hours is right on the mark. When the game ends, I feel like I'm ready for the game to end, without feeling like it had drug on too long. I pack up the game feeling satisfied, even if I was nowhere close to winning.
Traders' game length is VERY variable, and extremely dependant on the players.

We routinely hit three hours in Traders, and sometimes four.
Massimiliano Santuari
flag
Avatar
We had some 4-5 hours games with 5 players, due to the lenght of the trade proposal, but it was 4-5 hours of great fun. It is possible to play the game faster, anyway. This is a game I absolutely love.
Last edited on 2008-10-14 02:35:55 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Ben .
flag
Avatar
We find that 5p games would go quicker than 4p games because there is actually less competition for actions. We only play 4p now because of this - it makes the trading for actions a lot more interesting.

4 hours is not unheard of with our group either.
Ask Me About the Global Geek Photo Album Project (Erik Warnes)
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
06070809
We go 2-3 hours on Traders, maybe just a bit longer. It's so good though, I don't care. I could do 4-hour sessions of this back to back.
Mihai R
flag
On average it takes us less than two hours - never more. We played it in three, four and five players.

I agree that it's a brilliant game. The only warning is that it's very low luck, so don't play it with somebody who takes everything as a proof of his intelligence. (In fact, you shouldn't play anything with that kind of people).
J C Lawrence
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
0405060708
mihair wrote:
On average it takes us less than two hours - never more. We played it in three, four and five players.


I've played with groups who consistently finish games of Traders of Genoa in less than an hour. I've also played with groups who never finish games of Traders of Genoa in less than 3 hours. I far prefer the latter longer games and have little to no interest in the short and well optimised games. The one change we make is that we sell the entire route up front rather than step by step. If find this makes the game and the negotiations more interesting.
Ask Me About the Global Geek Photo Album Project (Erik Warnes)
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
06070809
clearclaw wrote:
mihair wrote:
On average it takes us less than two hours - never more. We played it in three, four and five players.


I've played with groups who consistently finish games of Traders of Genoa in less than an hour. I've also played with groups who never finish games of Traders of Genoa in less than 3 hours. I far prefer the latter longer games and have little to no interest in the short and well optimised games. The one change we make is that we sell the entire route up front rather than step by step. If find this makes the game and the negotiations more interesting.


That route-at-once stuff sounds intriguing. How do you go about it?
J C Lawrence
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
0405060708
unixrevolution wrote:
That route-at-once stuff sounds intriguing. How do you go about it?


A typical move will go something like: I'm starting here and I will be passing through the Post Office! Who wants to go where? or I'll be playing a Start Anywhere card and I want to get to XYZ, who wants to go where? And then the negotiations start. I'll give you $25 for the Guild Hall! But then I can't get to...Okay, I'll give you $20 and two pinks! I'll give you choice of cube from the spice market plus $10! If you're going to go to the Harbour I'll give you QRS to also go to... etc etc etc Sometimes the moving player never does get to where they wanted to go, sometimes they do. It all depends on what the other offers are. Slowly, or rapidly however a path starts to emerge that optimises some combination of the active player's preferences and the other players offers. The active player then states the entire list of offers he's accepting for the entire movement path of the tower and does the rest of his turn on autopilot with all the money, cubes, tiles etc changing hands as agreed.
Ender Wiggins
Avatar
I love negotiation games, but the complexity and long play time frequently mentioned by other BGG users has scared me off this one. The negotiation and trading aspects sounds fantastic, but more than one person has said that ideally you need to make people commit to playing two games to try it: the first will be rough, but they'll only be be hooked after the second. Most also seem to agree that it's too long for what it is, and needs just the right people to work. Anyone care to comment on those reflections, and to what extent they are accurate?

Would Chinatown be a good alternative, for a quicker play time and more accessible game, with some of the similar appealing elements?

As far as negotiation games for families go, Dragon's Gold has been a big hit here, and the quick play time and simple rules of Quo Vadis? also make it a good choice (although it has the downside of requiring a full complement of five players for best results).
Ask Me About the Global Geek Photo Album Project (Erik Warnes)
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
06070809
EndersGame wrote:
I love negotiation games, but the complexity and long play time frequently mentioned by other BGG users has scared me off this one. The negotiation and trading aspects sounds fantastic, but more than one person has said that ideally you need to make people commit to playing two games to try it: the first will be rough, but they'll only be be hooked after the second. Most also seem to agree that it's too long for what it is, and needs just the right people to work. Anyone care to comment on those reflections, and to what extent they are accurate?

Would Chinatown be a good alternative, for a quicker play time and more accessible game, with some of the similar appealing elements?

As far as negotiation games for families go, Dragon's Gold has been a big hit here, and the quick play time and simple rules of Quo Vadis? also make it a good choice (although it has the downside of requiring a full complement of five players for best results).


Lies, damn lies and statistics. I was hooked after the first play. In fact, I almost wanted to buy a second copy...because having 2 has to be better than having one. It's totally worth the play time, and never feels like it's taken as long as it has.

Quo Vadis is also a hit, but I will tell you; I haven't played it since I started playing Traders.
Ask Me About the Global Geek Photo Album Project (Erik Warnes)
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
06070809
clearclaw wrote:
unixrevolution wrote:
That route-at-once stuff sounds intriguing. How do you go about it?


A typical move will go something like: I'm starting here and I will be passing through the Post Office! Who wants to go where? or I'll be playing a Start Anywhere card and I want to get to XYZ, who wants to go where? And then the negotiations start. I'll give you $25 for the Guild Hall! But then I can't get to...Okay, I'll give you $20 and two pinks! I'll give you choice of cube from the spice market plus $10! If you're going to go to the Harbour I'll give you QRS to also go to... etc etc etc Sometimes the moving player never does get to where they wanted to go, sometimes they do. It all depends on what the other offers are. Slowly, or rapidly however a path starts to emerge that optimises some combination of the active player's preferences and the other players offers. The active player then states the entire list of offers he's accepting for the entire movement path of the tower and does the rest of his turn on autopilot with all the money, cubes, tiles etc changing hands as agreed.


I will have to give that a try sometime.
Seth Jaffee
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
05060708
clearclaw wrote:
mihair wrote:
On average it takes us less than two hours - never more. We played it in three, four and five players.


I've played with groups who consistently finish games of Traders of Genoa in less than an hour. I've also played with groups who never finish games of Traders of Genoa in less than 3 hours. I far prefer the latter longer games and have little to no interest in the short and well optimised games. The one change we make is that we sell the entire route up front rather than step by step. If find this makes the game and the negotiations more interesting.

We do negotiations much like you do, though not as organized maybe. It's largely the same thing - we just don't want to commit to one path without seeing what would happen if we did.

We note that it's technically possible to reneg on a deal after making it (per rules) - but it's also a terrible idea to do so or you could be blackballed for the remainder of the game, and potentially future games (i.e. people will not deal with you until it's technically binding). If I'm worried when you say "I'll give you $20 for Spices" and I'm more than 1 step away, I might say "give me $15 to move here (adjacent to spices) then I'll sell you spices for $5.

Like I said, largely the same thing since noone every renegs in our group.

Quote:
I far prefer the latter longer games and have little to no interest in the short and well optimised games.

Not sure why you think the shorter games are in any way "optimised"...
Steve Wagner
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
05
EndersGame wrote:
I love negotiation games, but the complexity and long play time frequently mentioned by other BGG users has scared me off this one. The negotiation and trading aspects sounds fantastic, but more than one person has said that ideally you need to make people commit to playing two games to try it: the first will be rough, but they'll only be be hooked after the second. Most also seem to agree that it's too long for what it is, and needs just the right people to work. Anyone care to comment on those reflections, and to what extent they are accurate?

Would Chinatown be a good alternative, for a quicker play time and more accessible game, with some of the similar appealing elements?

As far as negotiation games for families go, Dragon's Gold has been a big hit here, and the quick play time and simple rules of Quo Vadis? also make it a good choice (although it has the downside of requiring a full complement of five players for best results).


If you want a good simple negotiating game, I'm the Boss is the best I've played. It also clocks in around an hour, so it doesn't take too much time.

However, Traders gives you a negotiation feel that is unmatched. The fact that everything is tradable and each player going different directions makes the game very interesting. However, my average time is around 3 hours for this, so you have to be prepared for it. Most of the game you are kept busy; however, our games seem to be lacking in the end, as most people have nothing left to trade, or do not wish to use their turn to help anyone besides themselves.
Togu Oppusunggu
flag
Avatar
>>We note that it's technically possible to reneg on a deal after making it (per rules)

I think as far as the regular rules are concerned, you have to handshake to finalize a deal about the next space you move to, and there is no reneging on that. Future promises about future spaces are not binding though.
Ben .
flag
Avatar
sedjtroll wrote:
We note that it's technically possible to reneg on a deal after making it (per rules) - but it's also a terrible idea to do so or you could be blackballed for the remainder of the game, and potentially future games (i.e. people will not deal with you until it's technically binding). If I'm worried when you say "I'll give you $20 for Spices" and I'm more than 1 step away, I might say "give me $15 to move here (adjacent to spices) then I'll sell you spices for $5.

Like I said, largely the same thing since noone every renegs in our group.



LoL - our group tend to have all the up front discussions too, but then fully expect to reneg on the deals! It's all part of the game! :D
Matt Musselman
flag
Avatar
0809
mihair wrote:
On average it takes us less than two hours - never more. We played it in three, four and five players.

I agree that it's a brilliant game. The only warning is that it's very low luck, so don't play it with somebody who takes everything as a proof of his intelligence. (In fact, you shouldn't play anything with that kind of people).


I've played once, and it was a 4 hour marathon of a game, which left me with a bit of a bad taste.

It had been a game I'd looked forward to trying for a long time, and I'm wondering if a 90 minute - 2 hour play would be a lot more enjoyable for me.

I honestly wish I had liked this game more, as it includes a lot of the elements I like in my favourite games.
Lacey's Grandpa
flag
Avatar
05060708
If you value your time, and I do, it is absolutely critical that the active player moves things along. "I've been offered 20 ducats for Villa Zasteri...going once, going twice, Villa Zasteri!" If you haven't had an action during a turn, you must be totally engaged in the process. There is no good reason for this game to take more than 2 hours.

Gg
Joe Grundy
flag
Avatar
0708
Gamegrunt wrote:
If you value your time, and I do, it is absolutely critical that the active player moves things along. "I've been offered 20 ducats for Villa Zasteri...going once, going twice, Villa Zasteri!" If you haven't had an action during a turn, you must be totally engaged in the process. There is no good reason for this game to take more than 2 hours.

Gg
Hmph.

If you value your time, and I value mine, it is absolutely critical that you savour the experiences you enjoy the most and immerse yourself in them to their fullest enjoyment.

There is no good reason for this game to take less than three hours.

:p
J C Lawrence
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
0405060708
Gamegrunt wrote:
If you value your time, and I do, it is absolutely critical that the active player moves things along. "I've been offered 20 ducats for Villa Zasteri...going once, going twice, Villa Zasteri!" If you haven't had an action during a turn, you must be totally engaged in the process.


I make the entire route for every move one big auction. Typically four or five completely different paths are being discussed, wagered, and bid on in parallel with the active player only choosing among them at the last minute.

Quote:
There is no good reason for this game to take more than 2 hours.


I like Traders of Genoa as a 3+ game, ideally around 3.5-4 hours. At 2 hours there's just not enough haggling going on and the players are not getting inventive enough in their offers. At roughly 3.5 hours it starts to shine.

Oh, and open money of course.
Seth Jaffee
flag
Game Designer
Avatar
05060708
clearclaw wrote:
At 2 hours there's just not enough haggling going on and the players are not getting inventive enough in their offers.

Maybe your group just isn't efficient enough in your creativity ;)

Quote:
Oh, and open money of course.

Bah!
Brian Martin
flag
Quote:
unixrevolution wrote:
That route-at-once stuff sounds intriguing. How do you go about it?


A typical move will go something like: I'm starting here and I will be passing through the Post Office! Who wants to go where? or I'll be playing a Start Anywhere card and I want to get to XYZ, who wants to go where? And then the negotiations start. I'll give you $25 for the Guild Hall! But then I can't get to...Okay, I'll give you $20 and two pinks! I'll give you choice of cube from the spice market plus $10! If you're going to go to the Harbour I'll give you QRS to also go to... etc etc etc Sometimes the moving player never does get to where they wanted to go, sometimes they do. It all depends on what the other offers are. Slowly, or rapidly however a path starts to emerge that optimises some combination of the active player's preferences and the other players offers. The active player then states the entire list of offers he's accepting for the entire movement path of the tower and does the rest of his turn on autopilot with all the money, cubes, tiles etc changing hands as agreed.


You know, I've never thought about it in this way before, but I would say that we do this about half the time when we are playing. Interesting observation. The other half, negotiation begins again after each action.
Brian Martin
flag
EndersGame wrote:
I love negotiation games, but the complexity and long play time frequently mentioned by other BGG users has scared me off this one. The negotiation and trading aspects sounds fantastic, but more than one person has said that ideally you need to make people commit to playing two games to try it: the first will be rough, but they'll only be be hooked after the second. Most also seem to agree that it's too long for what it is, and needs just the right people to work. Anyone care to comment on those reflections, and to what extent they are accurate?

Would Chinatown be a good alternative, for a quicker play time and more accessible game, with some of the similar appealing elements?

As far as negotiation games for families go, Dragon's Gold has been a big hit here, and the quick play time and simple rules of Quo Vadis? also make it a good choice (although it has the downside of requiring a full complement of five players for best results).


As far as the complexity, just like I said in my review, I really don't think that this game is all that complex, although it usually takes a game to figure out how to use all the options available to make money efficiently, with a coherent approach. Each building has a symbol on it that tells you more or less what you get for the action.

The personality make up of all the players has a much bigger effect on how this game plays than any other game I can think of. I would not suggest that you play this game with a bunch of strong type A personalities... the game would likely take 10 hours, and would not be fun. Strong type B personalities can drag down the fun of the game if they are too passive. The game could almost have come with the warning: Recommended only for play with mature, well balanced people. Play time will increase with type A's, and decrease with type B's.

From what I've read, Chinatown is a more approachable negotiation game, but I've yet to play it. If you can find anyone with a copy of Genoa, then give it a shot to see what you think.
Last edited on 2008-10-17 23:10:38 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Jason Quintal
flag
Avatar
Just acquired two shrink-wrapped new in box from Ebay for...a pretty penny.

Why? I have no idea.

THE TEMPTATION TO OPEN THEM IS OVERBEARING.
1 , 2  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.