1 , 2 Next »
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Last week at our Tuesday Meetup gaming group, we played 1812: The Invasion of Canada. This is another new game from Academy Games. It is interesting in many ways. First and foremost, it is a wargame that is playable by 2-5 players.
The game has two sides, the U.S. (made up by the American Regulars and the American Militia) and the Canadian side (made up by the British Regulars, the Canadian Militia, and the 6 Nations Native Americans). This is how 5 can play the game, one faction being played by each. Its also possible for players to control multiple factions on the same side. It seems to me that the best case scenarios would be 2 or 5 players, but I've only played with 5.
The game has a nice quality board, as one would expect from Academy Games. There is a 12-card deck for each of the 5 factions. The cards are of good quality and have nice artwork depicting the card's function on the top half with symbols at the bottom giving you the specific details.
Players muster troops at the beginning of their turn and then play a movement card to get them where they are needed. There are four special cards in each deck that can also be played and have various effects on movement and battles.
Battles occur when an army (group of troop cubes) moves into an area with enemies. Players roll dice depending on what troops are present (and how many). These are special d6's that vary from faction to faction, indicative of that faction's strengths and weaknesses. Combat is simple and quick, but still exciting.
Endgame is triggered when either side has played all of its "truce" cards. Each faction has a movement card that is also a truce card. Once each faction's card is played by either side, THAT is the last turn of the game. This is a very interesting mechanic, because turn order is random each turn. In fact, you don't know who will go after you, until the second to last player has gone (because at that point, only one player is left). At game's end whichever side has more captured enemy "objectives" wins.
In our game, I commanded the American Regulars. Early on we seized the initiative and pressed into Canada, forcing our opponents to react to our advances. It was a 3 pronged attack launching northward out of Plattsburg, swooping around through Detroit, and punching up the middle into Ft. Erie out of Buffalo.
We made a tactical error when we took Ft. Erie, we left Buffalo unprotected, which enabled the 6 Nations units to use a special ability to move out of battle into our land. Our opponents took full advantage of this and pressed onward over the next few turns, eventually capturing four objectives.
I played my "truce" card early in the game, as it was a very powerful movement card. We needed it then. Now here we were down 4 to 1 and my partner's only movement card was HIS "truce" card. Cue the dramatic music...
We couldn't let them know that we HAD to end the game this turn, so we put on our poker faces and reached into the bag and drew...one of their colors. They had the first turn. They moved a few troops here and there, confident in their holdings. Next cube...one of theirs. Again they mustered and moved up close to the lines, but no attacks. Third cube...theirs! They discussed whether or not to press further South, but decided to put it off til next turn, massing their forces. Whew!
We revealed our "truce" card, indicating this would be the final turn. As they studied the board they were heard saying "They could win this." The American Militia player went first and moved four armies, but did not battle, he stacked our lines, because we knew we had to win all four battles to ensure a victory. On my turn, I pressed into each held territory with overwhelming forces. But, again, I made a tactical error, failing to leave any troops behind the one battle that involved the 6 Nations. We won the other three battles and then focused our attention on this last one. If we failed to kill them, and they rolled a single "command decision" they would snatch victory from us. We held our breath as they rolled a single die...
Well, those Injuns got a good look at us Yanks and decided to run back North. It was a very close match, coming down to the final die roll. Aren't those the best?
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
I've played Strike of the Eagle a couple of times in the last month and I'm having a lot of fun with it.
Strike of the Eagle (SoE) is a diceless, block game by Academy Games (makers of the Conflict of Heroes games and 1812:Invasion of Canada). It is the first in their line of Fog of War games. The block system keeps you guessing throughout the game, which really adds to the experience.
The components are amazing. If you haven't seen the board, go check out one of the video reviews. Its a thing of beauty...and huge. Its a bit overwhelming at first, but once you get into the game you notice how manageable it is...and the work that must have gone into its creation. The cardboard pieces are all of very good quality as well. The blocks themselves require a bit of work, to apply all the stickers. But its a one-time thing and then you can put it behind you.
The rulebook is organized clearly and like other Academy Games products, it includes plenty of historical notes to help with one's understanding of the battles that are to be fought. They include an introductory scenario to help ease one into the system.
I've fought through two of the battles, playing the Polish both in both cases. The most recent game was a 4-player endeavor with 2 players per side, one running the Northern Front and the other the Southern Front. The rules handle this well. Last night's game had me looking at massive Soviet forces poised to overrun our lines and march their way to Warsaw. It looked like it would be too much at first. Studying the map, I realized that there was relatively little connectivity at my line. So, rather than stand there and face the hammer, I fell back to more defensible positions.
The Soviets wisely advanced at the most Northern point, sweeping past our line to begin their march to Warsaw. Warsaw is a big deal in this scenario, if the Poles can keep the Soviets out of it by the end of each round, they get 5 victory points.
I placed 4 divisions on a train and began to head back to defend Warsaw. Before the railway redeployment ended, I noticed that we were in striking distance of Kaunas, a key Lithuanian supply-point. We gambled, hopping off the train and force-marching North to defeat Kaunas' garrison. This placed the now over-extended Soviets in a dire situation. Being out of supply damages the infantry and cavalry as well as limits their command options. They made a last ditch effort to capture Vilinius, but its fortifications managed to hold, pressing back the Soviet cavalry.
At this point things went from bad to worse for the Soviets. Bad weather brought further advances to a near standstill. In addition, the Soviets' war in Crimea and depleted vital resources bringing Tukhachevshy's Offensive to a halt.
I cannot wait to try this scenario as the Soviets and see if I can reach Warsaw.
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
It has been quite a while since I blogged, but this past week I attended my 3rd BGG CON and I figured I would run through the games I played while there.
Tuesday Night:
Urban Sprawl - I brought this one. We've been playing it with three players at home and having a blast. This time I played with four and it dragged a bit. It might have been that there were 2 new players. There was also a really long run of events that seemed sort of odd.
7 Wonders - Played with seven players. Five of whom I did not know. It was a lot of fun.
Saboteur - Hooked up with six people about to play this and my friend and I were invited to join in. This was a great group of people and the game was a blast.
Wednesday, first day of the con:
Dungeons & Dragons: Wrath of Ashardalon Board Game - A friend wanted to play this. The two of us were stomped just as we reached the boss room. We recruited a third player for a second try. This time we pulled it off. It was fun, didn't seem all that different than Dungeons & Dragons: Castle Ravenloft Board Game.
Confusion: Espionage and Deception in the Cold War - Stronghold games made a nice new version of this code-cracking sort of chess-like game. The pieces are amazing, but the cost was a bit on the high side.
Panic Station - I had high expectations for this game that was billed as a 45 minute version of Battlestar Galactica. I was underwhelmed with its play. It was rather fiddly and there was an odd desire to become infected and join the winning side.
The Road to Canterbury - I had never heard of this new game. Apparently it was kickstarted. I'm glad I tried it out. You take on the role of an unscrupulous seller of indulgences to pilgrims on the road to Canterbury. It works well with 2 or 3 players. It was simple rules-wise, but still very strategic. It will be great for my wife and I.
Tournay - This is a card game that has some similarities to Troyes. I enjoyed it. There is a lot of iconography but once you have that down, its a good one.
Sid Meier's Civilization: The Board Game - I played the US and got a tech win. I've played this game twice now and got a tech win both times.
Cartagena II - After a full day, we closed with this Always fun.
Thursday:
Dungeon Run - This was another one I had high hopes for It wound up seeming a bit lengthy for what it was. I heard later that we had used more tiles than were meant to be used. I suspect the game demonstrators had not encountered a more distrustful bunch as us. Fun, but a bit too lengthy.
Strike of the Eagle - New, from Academy Games. I played through the introductory scenario. I own this block-game and cannot wait to get some more plays in.
Nefarious - A quick card game where you are a mad scientist vying for world domination This game is highly replayable. I wound up playing it three times throughout the con. Designed by Donald X. Vaccarino (Dominion and Kingdom Builder), this is on my Want To Buy list.
Liberté - I own this Martin Wallace game and have been wanting to play it. It was a fun one. I'd like to get more plays in (crosses fingers).
Lancaster - This game from Queen Games was one of my favorites from the con. Its a Euro with a lot of ways to mess with your opponents. Funagain games sold out of it there. I played it twice at the con and look forward to more plays.
Pergamemnon - Card game. Lame. Avoid, avoid, avoid.
Friday:
Quarriors! - This is a dice version of a deck-building game. Its very much a game of chance, but still fun. Several of my friends at the con picked it up, thinking it would be good for the whole family.
Dungeons & Dragons: The Legend of Drizzt Board Game - We played this with a guy who brought his copy. He had painted the figures and black-lined the tiles. This game had of those classic cinematic endings where we were about to lose and my halfling thief pops out of the shadows to stab the big boss for the win. It seemed like the characters in this iteration were more powerful than in the others. Maybe it was my imagination.
Can't Stop - This was an updated version of game from the 80's. Not exactly my cup of tea, but its nice to try different things. Dice rolling, press your luck.
Twilight Imperium (third edition) - We finally got to play this. I think once was enough for me. A lot going on and a lot to have to manage. People often describe these games as very cinematic and memorable. For me...not so much, oh well.
Long Shot - We needed something light at this point. This fit the bill and was a fun think-break.
Dixit - Played with 5, 3 had never played before. Always fun. Was good late at night like this.
Saturday:
Dark Minions - This was a fun little dice-rolling, set collection game where you get to be a evil overlord laying waste to cities and towers. I'd play again, but probably not purchase it.
Kingdom Builder - I entered the tournament thinking I'd get a chance to play it before the tournament began. This was not the case. I learned it from the guy who translated the rules to English about 20 minutes before the first round began. I managed to make it to the second round, but wound up coming in second place in that game. The game is a lot of fun. I look forward to more plays now that I own it (but will have to pay my OWN way to Essen).
Alien Frontiers - Dice rolling game of area control. Uses a sort of a twist on worker placement, as you place your dice. I'd certainly play this one again. Many interesting decisions to make.
Upon a Salty Ocean - Euro economic engine game involving salt and fish. It was much more fun than that previous sentence. We consumed a lot of beer during this one and I think people thought we were playing a party game.
Fiasco - This had to be the highlight gaming experience of the con for me. This is an RPG without a Gamemaster. In essece, you create and play out a Cohen Brothers movie. Much hilarity. My character, a professor of rainforest pharmacology wound up butchering a Saudi Prince and paying the price by having his head used as a soccer ball. I'm leaving out may details, you can learn them when you see the film.
Sunday:
Stalag 17 - A set collection card-game, where you try to escape a WWII POW camp. It was quick and fun. A good filler.
I'm sure I forgot something, but that is all I recall.
whew!
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Letters from Whitechapel
This week at our gaming Meetup I brought along a new game that I had not yet played, "Letters from Whitechapel". I had read over the rules a couple of times and everything seemed very clear. I was excited to get this one to the table, as I had never played a deductive game like this. I'd read about Scotland Yard and Fury of Dracula, which I often see compared to "Letters from Whitechapel" but never managed to ever play them.
The game centers around the murders of Jack the Ripper. The board is large and very detailed, depicting the Whitechapel district of London. One player is Jack and the rest play policemen or detectives trying to track him down. The game can be played by 2-6 players, with 2 or 6 probalbly being optimal. With other numbers the police are divided up unevenly between the players.
There are some interesting mechanisms employed in this game. Intially a number of tokens are placed upon the board by Jack. These represent potenial locations of potential victims. One of the investigators then places a number of tokens on the board, some of which will wind up representing police, and others are simply there to fool Jack. There are mechanisms for Jack to try to figure our which are fake, but this allows the police to move the potential victims, bringing them closer together...which will make their work easier.
At some point Jack will strike and the scene of the crime is revealed. At this point the investigators know exactly where Jack is (except on the 3rd night, when he kills twice) but Jack will move before them. The investigators then get to move and try to sort out where Jack went by looking for clues (or making arrests if they feel particularly confident).
Jack's movements are all recorded in secret. Each turn when the invstigators search for clues, Jack consults his secret record and tells them if they found a clue ot not.
Jack also has at his disposal a dwindling number of "special movement" tokens. These allow Jack to move twice in one turn (the coach) or to pass through city blocks (alleyway). These are invauable for Jack and can make capturing him, daunting.
We played once and the game lasted roughly an hour or so. I played as Jack and it was a bit stressful at times to plot my escape with so many people thrying to thwart me. It was loads of fun to sit back after making my move and watch the other players discuss their theories as to where I went. I had to struggle to hold back a grin when they overlooked a possibile route.
They wound up capturing me on the 3rd night (out of four), the double-murder night. It was very close and if I had gotten one more move, I'd have slipped past them and been home in my lair (twists imaginary moustache).
This game, while dark in theme, was a blast. The board is amazing to look at. There are so many possible routes from A to B, they did a great job with is. I cannot wait to play it again. Playing Jack was fun, but I think the role of investigator will pose interesting challenges as well.
Wed Apr 20, 2011 10:33 pm
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Tribune: Primus Inter Pares
At this week's game-night I managed to get four different games in. A couple of them were light games I had brought. I also managed to learn two new (to me) games. Among them...Tribune: Primus Inter Pares.
This game, designed by Karl-Heinz Schmiel, is produced by Fantasy Flight Games. It is a 3-5 player game, estimated at lasting around one hour.
I purchased this game last December when Fantasy Flight Games had their big annual sale. I believe I got it for fifteen dollars and the expansion for ten. As this was around x-mas and shortly after BGG CON, I had a plethora of new games to learn and play. Consequently "Tribune" wound up getting placed on the back burner. I was curious about it and had heard good things about the game, but had simply not managed to get it to the table (or even open it)
I was pleasantly surprised by the game. It was fairly easy to learn. We played with four and two of us had not played it before. The components are the typical good quality that one expects from FFG. There are many carboard chits to represent money, laurels, legions, and favor with the various factions in the game. It even includes a cool little cardboard chariot.
The game utilizes a variety of mechanisms to allow players to portray various patrician families vying for power in ancient Rome. There's auction mechanics, worker placement, set collection and even a bit of card drafting involved.
Despite employing all these varying mechanics, the games flows fairly smoothtly, The theme comes through as well during play. I'd been listening to some historical podcasts recently on the decline and fall of the Roman republic (Dan Carlin's "Hardcore History'), and the game had me thinking back to the details of those stories.
The game may be a bit too complex to bring out for my family, but I'd like to try it with some of my gamer friends that don't enjoy Euros.
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Citadels
I've always thought of Bruno Faidutti's "Citadels" as a nice filler game for around five people. For those of you not familiar with this game, its a card game for three to seven players that takes about an hour to play. The game involves city building and secret role selection.
Last week, after Automobile, there were seven people looking for something to play and there was only an hour left. Looking over what had been brought, we decided on Citadels.
Three or four of the players had played it before, so teachng went fairly quick. The game is not very complicated and there were nice player-aids that someone had printed up that included all you really needed to know.
I have a few friends that do not enjoy this game, and I've never really been able to understand their aversion to it. But with this evening's play, I might have come around.
Certain roles in the game wind up doing nasty things to other players. First of all there is the Assassin. Simple enough, he kills another character...each turn. The Assassin doesn't really gain anything by doing so and the assassinated character misses their turn.
Next up is the Thief. The Thief robs someone. At least with this action, he stands to gain something. The downside is that he must select a character, not a player. Roles are selected in secret, so its tough to really target someone with this action. But whoever you wind up robbing will certainly become your enemy from then on out.
The Magician can trade hands with another player. Bye-bye cards I spent several turns collecting.
The Warlord gets to destroy other player's buildings...ouch!
The game typically results in players developing grudges against those that harmed them and seeking revenge. While the players that prosper are the quiet ones that don't get involved in the feuds. In this, the game rewards non-participation.
If you play with a group where feelings are likely to get hurt, this is probably not a good choice. On the other hand, if your group favors "screw your neighbor" types of games, then this MIGHT seem like a good choice, but ultimately, those that embrace that apsect of the game are probably doomed to lose.
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Stone Age
My wife and I have enjoyed playing Stone Age for a while. While I've played it with my gaming group a number of times, always with four players, she's only ever played it with me (two-player). Today we taught our 10 and 13 year-old daughters to play.
"Stone Age" came out in 2008. We have the most recent Rio Grande edition. The components are of nice quality, although one of our green meeples is microcephallic. The board is simply gorgeous, one of my favorites. Everyone in the family is a fan of the nice leather dice cup. There's something very satisfying about rolling with that cup, and as rolling comes up a fair amount in this game, the cup really add to the tactile experience.
I took time explaining the rules to my kids and they seemed to grasp it pretty quickly. This was their first experience with a worker-placement game. It was helpful that my wife already understood the game and could help point things out another way a couple of times. There was a tendancy for my youngest to want to put a single tribesman in 5 different locations, but a couple of failed rolls soon extinguished that behavior.
Early on in the game, I had to point out the value in selecting the scarcer spaces on the board when they were available, as my kids were rather quick to settle on hunting, fearful that their tribe would go hungry.
My turn two or three they caught onto the value of the "field" as it helped on the feeding-front, As the first few buidings were built and the scores starting tracking, the building cards became a popular choice with them...further emphasizing the value of the various resources.
The Civilization cards which rewarded all players became popular with them, maybe more than they SHOULD have, but by the games end I noticed them trying to convince each other to take those cards (so they would benefit as well).
My 13 year old wound up with the biggest tribe, having gone to the breeding hut twice (I think I'm going to have to keep a close eye on that one). At game's end she was a very close second place. They seemed to enjoy the game quite a bit and I suspect will be eager to play again.
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Russia 1941-1942
Uwe Eickert's "Conflict of Heroes" games, produced by Academy Games appeal to me on many levels. The game mechanics are elegant and far from fiddly. The components are great in form and function. But most of all the firefights play out in a very cinematic way coming down to that very last moment where things can swing either way.
The rules for Conflict of Heroes underwent a revision after the first game in the series (Awakening the Bear! Russia 1941-1942) came out. I never played the game with the original rules but reading over the rules, I think they made a good decision. The updated rules are available on the Academy Games website or in the follow up games (Storm of Steel or Price of Honor).
"Conflict of Heroes" is a squad-level tactical wargame system. The current rules are well organized and easy to understand. They are peppered with many examples to help clarify points and designer notes that explain why certain descions were made, usually giving historical information to support the rules.
The chits used in this hex-game and large and easy to read. This is important because all the information is located on the chits. There is no need to have to look up tables and charts to figure out a particular unit or tank's information. The maps are also very stunning. The mounted boards are modular and feature very nice art. My only quibble with them is that the hex numbering is a bit counter intuitive and could be a bit darker...but then they would probably distract from the art.
Each and every game of Conflict of Heroes that I have played has been exciting and tense, often coming down to the very end of the last turn before a winner emerges. I believe that this game has been well-tested and the victory point system seems to be implemented perfectly.
This past week I had a friend over to play a firefight. My ideal goal with this game is to utilize the structured firefights to teach my opponent and I the ins and outs of this game. Unfortunately that has not been logistically possible. So this week I decided to jump to firefight number four "The Bunker".
This firefight is the first to feature vehicles and a bunker, so it was a learning experience. We both read up ahead of time so things would go smoothly, which they did for the most part. I played the Germans and activated first. Many of the Soviet units were allowed to set up hidden. It wasn't long before I drove my unarmored trucks right up into a trap. A Soviet tank hidden in the woods was revealed and showed my trucks why it is a bad idea to drive up ahead of your tank support. By the end of turn two things were going very poorly for the Germans.
I managed to divert my forces to the south after a lucky shot destroyed the second Soviet tank which was blocking my way. Prudent use of cover and my "speedy" tanks, allowed me to avoid the dreaded anti-tank gun in the bunker. Flanking the bunker enabled me to destroy it and claim the hex.
At this point all I had to do was survive the last turn, still controlling this objective and victory would be mine. The Soviets had but one tank across the valley on the top of the hill and one rifle squad that could JUST manage to reach the bunker. He would have to fire upon and destroy my tank and then use all his CAP's to get his rifle squad to claim the hex...
Well, amazingly enough the Soviets pulled it off. It was a great cinematic ending to this game.
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Automobile
This week's Tuesday Night Strategic Boardgaming meetup presented me with the opportunity to play Martin Wallace's 2009 release "Automobile". The game can be played with up to five players (we played with four). The game claims it is a two-hour game, and this is probably accurate for those who have played before. It took us close to three hours, and two of us had not played the game (it was the second time for the other two).
The game offers each player a very limited number of actions. This is a mixed blessing. It requires you to be efficient. There's not a lot of room for changing your strategy during the game. But the limited number of actions also allows you to realistically plot your moves and plan out where you plan to be at the end.
The game puts each player against the others trying to build and sell cars in the 1890's and moving forward. Players have 3 actions per turn and only 4 turns in the game, but each turn a player selects a character that will give them a sort of special ability which might enable them to gain an action, of sorts.
Demand is determined each turn somewhat randomly. Players will be able to roughly estimate what the demand will be, and they then struggle to meet, but not exceed this demand. The profit margin is narrow and there is constant economic pressure. There is also a system to push each player into moving the technology forward, abandoning old technologies as they become outdated. Failure to do so, accrues the player the dreaded BLACK CUBES (similar to London). These cost you money each turn, and money determines the winner at the end.
I was excited one turn when I managed to select the character Ford and press forward unexpectedly to produce the Model T (two factories AND a parts factory). I like it when things work out like that in a game.
Ultimately I did not win, but came in second by just over a hundred dollars (very close). The third place player was not too far behind me.
This was the newer version of the game, not the limited edition, so we were lacking the wooden cars. The cardboard chits that this game used instead were still of good quality and the board was very nice looking.
The game involves are fair amount of addition and subtraction each turn. I recommend keeping a calculator nearby. I would play this game again and recommend wholeheartedly.
-
Kevin Marshall
United States
Newbury Park
California
We Are DEVO!
-
Friedrich
This past weekend I learned, played and lost Histogame's 2004 release, "Friedrich". The game can be played with three or four players and the estimated playing time is 3 1/2 hours. We played with three and the game took us close to to five hours. Our next play will certainly go much faster, as this was the first play for all of us.
The setting is Europe 1756. Fredrick the Great of Prussia has just invaded Saxony and the the leaders of Europe are uniting against him. The seven years war has just begun and Prussia must hold out against Russia, Austria, France, Sweeden, and the Imperial Army (Holy Roman Empire).
One player plays Prussia and wins if the other factions fail to meet their objective by the time that the games ends (triggered by card draw). This was my role. The Prussian player (Fredrick) also controls Hanover. Another player plays Russia, and also has Sweeden at his disposal. Both Russia and Sweeden have separate objectives. Another player controls Austria and the Imperial Army. Again these both have separate obectives. France is controlled by either a fourth player or by Russia's controller in a three-player game.
The game utilizes several decks of cards consisting of 2-13 of each of the four suits. Battles are resolved by players comparing the numbers of armies involved on either side and then alternating playing cards from your hands. The value of the card adds to the total. Location is important because a player can only play cards of a suit that matches the suit corresponding to his general's location on the map.
The game was a lot of fun and posed a lot of intriguing dilemnas. Faced with playing Prussia was at first a bit overwhelming, as everyone is against you. Prussia has a nice card advantage early on, drawing more cards than the other players each turn. So while faced with fighting multiple fronts, I found that Fredrick could defeat his enemies fairly easily early on. Later on the mutltiple fronts wear him down and losses begin to occur.
Once you reach turn six, a card is drawn at the end of each turn. These have some amusing flavor/fluff and sometimes have game effects. The effects can vary from causing one particular general to move slower that turn to having a country drop out of the game. Russia dropped out on turn nine in our game. This doesn't eliminate the player, however as he will still have Sweeden (which actually recieves eased vistory conditions as a result of this).
On turn ten or eleven France managed to capture all their objectives and win. The game components were nice. The board was gorgeous with really exceptional artwork. The only problem was that for some reason they chose blue for Prussia, making it look like a body of water. I enjoyed this game a lot and would certainly play again. I'm also curious about their follow-up game "Maria".
1 , 2 Next »
|
|
