Second in Nova's Ace of Aces series of WWI air combat games, this one is a bit more difficult to play due to the fact that these planes were faster and less manoeuvrable. Still great fun though.

Basically if someone knew the game and could teach me I might give this one a go, but there are some questionable rules and I feel some house rules would be worth thinking about to balance the game. Basically this game is based around a deck of regular playing cards with 5 suits of bats, balls, stumps, pads and gloves. Like QUICKSingle this is a Whist-type game but this game is more complicated than QUICKSingle and more abstract, and there is really no fielding strategy involved.

How anyone can rate this game lower than 7 is beyond me. Sure, chess has more variation in terms of moves and strategy, but draughts is just as challenging. Anyone who claims otherwise is either playing the game incorrectly or just thinks that simplicity equates to unchallenging.

7.1 out of ten - for chess?? Some folks here must be rating based on arrogant chess PLAYERS they've run into. Surely we shouldn't blame the game for that.

Yet another skill-free game, the playing of which seems pointless to me. If I wanted to watch a game of cricket that was decided completely randomly I'd watch Twenty/20 on TV.

I used to love this game, but I find that too many Diplomacy players take it waaaay too seriously. If you can find a group of people who don't think the fate of Europe (or their own worth as human beings) really hangs on the results of the game it can be a whole lot of fun.

Another classic game woefully underestimated by gamers. If you'd seen my grandad play in tournaments you wouldn't dare rate it below a 7.

In my view one of the best collectible card games ever made. Innovative and intuitive game mechanics and a very atmospheric and challenging game.

Seemed too vague to me - not so much a game system - more like a half-fleshed-out idea for a game system. At least that's the impression I got from it.

Sadly, the rules and charts are enormous for this game and it seems to me that in the final analysis it's just a die-rolling game. I realise that's the point of replay games, and as a simulation of cricket it may be very realistic, but as a game it seems lacking in terms of the player's interaction with the game system. There is little or no player skill involved and the events of the game are mainly decided by the printed skill values of the paper players. I can understand its desirability for those who want a cricket simulator, but I need games to challenge my skills. To me this isn't even a game: you can't 'play' it, you're just running a simulation.

A wonderful game of backstabbing and political machinations. Even the dated graphics don't pull this one down from its spot as one of my top-rated games.

I just can't see what there is about Lost Cities that makes people choose such a mediocre game as a favourite. I mean surely there have to be a bunch of better games than this. Lost Cities lacks any sense that the theme is meaningful - this could just as easily be a game about cooking pizza, washing dishes or cycle touring. It lacks depth, and I don't feel it does much more than what a traditional card game like Patience does - all it does is present what amounts to a traditional card game in a nice flashy graphics package - but underneath the make-up it's still basically a variant of Patience.

This game has been around for donkey's years. It's a very simple dice game - all luck and no skill at all. Also it's extremely lacking as a simulation as the results generated don't look like any cricket game I've ever seen. May be fun for the youngsters, but certainly not a serious game for adults unless it's for nostalgic reasons.

A guilty pleasure for me. I feel like Homer Simpson while playing this: "Hee hee, look at the little pink piggies land on their snouts and on their backs. Aaah ha ha ha". Does it really matter if the game is skill-free and meaningless? They're little pigs that you use as dice. What's not to like?

In my view the best cricket game available. A nice quick and intuitive rules system and with a few house rules it can be made into a decent simulation of both limited overs or test cricket. Unlike some other cricket games this one has a lot of tactical play: the bowler can set his field to take advantage of his bowling style and hopefully force the batsman into making an error; the batsman has to decide whether to go for runs or play safe, and if he's in a tight spot he can risk a quick single to put the other batsman into bat. Although it needs a few house rules in order to get it to being a perfect simulation of cricket in card game form, I still think this is deserving of a 10 rating as its simple rules make it a game I can pick up and play at a moment's notice. This is the game I play most.

My all-time favourite solitaire game. The only reason I don't rate it a 10 is because the rules are a bit cumbersome.

Finally a WWI air combat game that doesn't try to force the three dimensions of flight onto a two-dimensional playing surface. In making the pilot's advantage or disadvantage (rather than relative position of the planes) the basis of the game this amateur developer has succeeded where 30 years of professional game development failed.

I've never played it but I certainly would never turn down a game. I've long considered building an aerial flyer model but haven't got around to it yet.

A great Gettysburg game with innovative command rules and just a fun game to play. Plays well solitaire too. A bit heavy in terms of rules, which is the only thing that stops it being a perfect wargame.

I've yet to play but judging by the rules this promises to be an excellent game.

In my view the perfect board wargame. With easy-to-learn rules and a fast pace, this game does it all right. Accessible to both seasoned wargamers and non-wargamers alike. This is the perfect balance - I wish all boardgames were designed this well.

Simple rules but an awful lot of luck make this a game that I don't find interesting as a game, even though it has its charm in terms of neat player models and the spinners and knick-knacks of the games of my youth. It might be a great introduction to cricket for young kids, but for adults it's a little lacking in terms of skill. However, the simplicity of the rules might be inducement enough to give it a go. I advise players looking for a more skillful cricket game to look into QuickSingle (if they can find a copy of the game). Note that on this site (and some others) QuickSingle is called 'Quick Single'.