Game: Entdecker: Exploring New Horizons

Image

matejbatic — 2008-11-14T10:49:54+00:00

Slovenian edition box from side

Image

matejbatic — 2008-11-14T10:31:09+00:00

Slovenian edition box (back)

Image

matejbatic — 2008-11-13T23:51:38+00:00

Slovenian edition box front

Thread: Re: Defined spaces and starting costs

edo333 — 2008-11-04T19:35:12+00:00

I have often wrestled with the issue of starting costs. It is the one element in the game that to me takes a potentially 8 or 9 out of ten game and makes it a 5.
There are just too many ways around paying starting costs. We have tried some house rules to half the number of starting spots which helped, but still felt a little forced, then we tried making it so the journey would have to continue from where the last player left off, but then the starting costs being payed for settlements and forest sky rocketed and made the game to lopsided in terms of economy.
I like the idea of the rule of having to pay other players starting costs, but we have always been able to figure out a starting position that was cheaper, or cost the same but resulted in paying the bank instead of another player.
The economy in this game is definitely it weakness, or I am totally missing some element of the rules that prevents players from simply choosing a route that traces back to a free port and bypasses the forts and settlements in play.
Any help or other variant suggestions would be appreciated.
Other than that
Happy gaming.

Thread: Re: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

serf — 2008-10-11T14:28:41+00:00

Hello again,
In the Big Rulebook, pg 5, section 7, "C. Move the Ship", in the example diagram, can the ship use the tile it's on as a starting space? Thanks!

Thread: Re: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

serf — 2008-10-08T18:55:53+00:00

Yep, my bad. I shall never doubt The Booklet!

Thread: Re: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

GSReis — 2008-10-08T17:28:45+00:00

Well, you were the one reading the booklet... I just trusted your words and took a quick look at the example.

Thread: Re: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

serf — 2008-10-08T12:10:51+00:00

Oops, the booklet is correct. The diagram is showing the player's first tile being played; therefore there is no legal placement for the 2nd tile (the tile with the X on it).

Thread: Re: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

serf — 2008-10-06T20:25:33+00:00

Thanks for the reply! Sorry about that, I didn't have the booklet on hand.

Thread: Re: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

GSReis — 2008-10-06T20:00:33+00:00

If you refer to the example on page 11 (it would really have helped if you mentioned the page), it surely is a mistake. In fact, any tile would fit in that space, since there is only one adjacent tile.

Thread: Q. about rule in sample game booklet

serf — 2008-10-06T18:20:15+00:00

Hello,
In the booklet with the sample game, there is a section where a tile with 2 land edges and 2 sea edges is ruled as having no legal place to play. But it looks to me to fit in the same area where the next chosen tile legally fits. Could someone explain why it would be illegal to place that there?
Thanks!

Thread: Re: Defined spaces and starting costs

the majestic moose — 2008-08-05T11:36:49+00:00

ed95005 wrote:

(1) Can anyone clarify further the meaning of "defined space"? The rules say, "A defined space is an undiscovered space surrounded on all four sides by cards or Starting Track circles." Yet the example given shows two undiscovered spaces surrounded by cards. Is that a special case because the two spaces are impossible to explore by ship? If one those of spaces were reachable by ship, would it no longer qualify as a defined space?

Yes, it's a special case because the two spaces are forever impossible to explore by ship. Any region surrounded completely by land edges gets filled in with all-land tiles for precisely this reason.

Gamegrunt wrote:

(1) When the type of tile that would be placed in a single (or more spaces!) is no longer ambiguous, then "exploration" is no longer necessary as its nature or properties are known. Only a single type of tile is possible to be placed in that position(s). This can occur on the perimeter or interior of the board. Even if it is reachable by water (from along the edge) it is still a discovered space since it can have only one solution if you will.

This answer is wrong. The number of "solutions" for an unexplored region is two to the power of (number of interior edges). Therefore any unexplored region with more than one square will have more than one "solution". The two-square example Ed mentions, for instance, could be solid land with two small lakes, or it could have a fair-sized inland sea. There's no way to get the ship in to check, so the game rules decree the first one so the island can be finished.

Thread: Re: Cool theme + Lots of decisions = fun!

Gamegrunt — 2008-05-13T22:35:37+00:00

Entdecker (I have the new one as well) is a wonderful game for two, but it does take up a few hours, at least when my wife and I play. But with little down time and absorbing decisions to make, this is a game that I will never (willingly) part with.

Gg

Thread: Re: Cool theme + Lots of decisions = fun!

denverarch — 2008-05-13T18:40:35+00:00

Besides the cool theme, great artwork, and numerous decisions there's really not a lot to it

Thread: Re: Cool theme + Lots of decisions = fun!

adamw — 2008-05-13T18:35:32+00:00

Thanks for the review! Just the right length and explanation.

Thread: Cool theme + Lots of decisions = fun!

Jim K — 2008-05-13T17:15:00+00:00

I was surprised to see how few reviews there were on this game. Before I bought it a few months back, I absorbed every word I could on the existing reviews here on the Geek. In the end, it was sort of foregone conclusion for me to get it, because I love nautical/exploration themes, and the game looked gorgeous. I was just really hoping I would like it as much as I thought I would.

Most of my games are played 2-player between my wife and I. My kids are still young, and on occasion we'll get in multiplayer sessions with friends or family. So between her and I, it's usually me who gets most of the initial enjoyment from new games. That's because it's me who usually spends the time reviewing them, reading up and studying them, reading the rules, etc. Some games I spend more time doing this on than others; these are my most highly anticipated ones, since I have so much time invested in them before they already come. Entdecker was one of those games. I combed through all the reviews, read the instructions online, and watched the tutorial on Mayfair's "Professor Easy" site. The latter influenced my decision immensely, as I could watch how the game was played, see the components in action, and get an overall feel. Of course, now I had to buy it. And not only did it not disappoint me, but I was pleasantly surprised by my wife's opinion. I'd say 75% of our games take her a couple plays to get into them, find out what she's up against, and start enjoying them. But, she loved this one right after our first play.

And it's easy to understand why. As long as you're not a die hard "no luck" gamer, you should enjoy Entdecker. It does have luck involved, which we'll get to later, but you have to consider it as part of the theme. You are exploring the high seas; no one before you has been here, and it could be anything beyond these waters. You may come across pirates, storms, or gold mines, but you never know just where.

Not having played the original, I had nothing to compare it to. A lot of the reviews I read of "Exploring New Horizons" (the newer version)were negative when comparing them to the original, since the new version added some things and changed some others. After playing the newer version, I personally can't imagine that the changes are a big deal if you're used to the original. You could even play without some of the changes.

On each turn, players will choose a tile from either the face down stacks or the face up stacks. Each costs money, but the face up tiles cost more. The tile must be played off your starting position. If you cannot legally play it, it gets thrown out and you are down the money you paid for it. If it fits, your ship marker advances into it, and you can place your next tile off this new one, if you paid for a second one.
There are 7 different land/sea configurations on the tiles. Some have land on each side, some have land on 3 sides and sea on 1 side, etc. It's amazing to see the game unfold, and how all the tiles fit with each other.

Once land is explored, you can leave a scout there for 1 gold, build a fort for 3 gold, or a settlement for 6 gold. Once an entire island is discovered, players tally up all the types of exploration units they have on that island. The player with the most valuable unit will get all the points for the island, the person in second will get half that, etc. The total number of points an island yields will be equal to the number of tiles make up the island, plus any additional "Waterfall"
tiles are part of the island (which yield an additional 5 or 10 points).
Once an island is complete, everyone's scout are placed on a "jungle path" on the side of the board. Each path is connected to a "hut" which houses an indiginous crop (corn, etc.) Each crop offers a point value from 5 to 15. Whoever has the most scouts on a path at the end of the game will get those points.

Additionally, there are tiles with a "?" on their backs as part of the face down pool. These can be good or bad; they are storms, pirates, gold mines, or friendly natives. (won't get into what all these are here).

Let's talk about the components of the game. The box is a little thin and flimsy, but not nearly as bad as Age of Empires III. The board is absolutely beautiful and perfect. It's a large, 6-fold board, nice and solid, with a great sketch of a clipper ship. No complaints here.
The tiles themselves were disappointing. I was hoping for tiles made of the same stock as Carcassonne. Instead, these are noticably thinner and flimsier, and if you're not careful, you'll rip the paper off the facing when you punch them out from their sheets. On the other hand, the artwork on them is great.
The coins used are also thin cardboard, but this isn't a big deal. They do the job fine.
The ship, dice, and exploration units are all nicely done in wood. The player colors are white, red, yellow, and purple, kind of a strange mix. Uunfortunately, you won't be able to decide which color you want; for two players you will be stuck with white and red, with three you add the purple set, and the 4th player gets yellow.
The box insert is nice and provides enough compartments for everything. The rule book is great, includes plenty of color pictures and examples, and the game even comes with a decent-sized tutorial booklet to get you going. I HIGHLY recommend watching the Professor Easy tutorial online, though.

So, let's review all the potential luck factors of the game:

--Amount of points awarded for each island (you will never know how big an island is until it's completed, hence, the resources you allocate to an island may be wasted). On the other hand, players have an opportunity to attempt to control the size of the island by where they place the tiles, and which type of tile is placed.

--The "?" tiles could yield a good or bad effect. You're taking a gamble when you draw one of these tiles, as there are 2 possible good and bad effects each.

--The income each player receives at the beginning of the turn is determined by a dice roll.

--The tile you buy is turned up from a face down stack. You have to announce how many you plan on buying before you start. Depending on where you are, tiles may not fit and your turn will be over.

--The point value on the crop you draw to place in a hut is pulled blindly from a bag. Points could be 5 to 15.

The above luck factors don't negatively impact my opinion of the game at all, but I know they do for some. Like I said, I consider it part of the exploration theme. Also, you may be interested in playing with some of the variants people have posted here on BGG. Theoretically, you could play the game without the huts/jungle paths altogether. I feel they open a new part of the theme though, and give the scouts and additional role.

So, it's a great game that scales well from 2 to 4 players, and plays well with each. Once you get the initial rules of placing tiles down (which will seem fiddly at first), the game is a breeze, yet offers a lot of decisionns -- where should my expedition start? how much money am I going to use on exploring, so I can have some left over for settling? which tile do I want to create this island with? Can I block an opponent's progress by limiting the size of their island?
and so on. A game will usually last at least 60 minutes, and go anywhere up to 90 with more people. But, there is a lot to do, a lot to think about and to decide on.

Thread: Re: Money Variant

GaryP — 2008-03-04T17:01:48+00:00

Very interesting idea. Unlike a lot of folks, I am fine with the original rules, as we usually see players who are ahead in money willingly lose that position to buy known tiles to secure a route to a big island.

Still, I think I might try your idea next time. The VP cost makes it a bit riskier to splurge on the known tiles, but it prevents you from staying behind in income because of it. Sounds very worthwhile, indeed!

Thread: Money Variant

sabaki — 2008-03-02T22:30:13+00:00

I tried this game with a variant where instead of the person rolling the die losing 1 coin, they instead gain 1 coin and lose a point. We started everybody off with 10 points, so they would have some room to go down (but if you managed to hit zero you wouldn't lose more). I think it worked really well, it made sure that it wasn't always the same person rolling the die.

Thread: Re: Where are the Spuds?

amacleod — 2008-01-30T19:52:04+00:00

I love Entdecker (and Oceania, too, but in a totally different way), and this is regardless of whether it's two, three or four players. HOWEVER, if you're going to be playing with only two players, it is EXTREMELY ADVISABLE to use the variant suggested by a wise gamer whose name I've forgotten (please forgive me!), which helps make the die rolling less catastrophic for the poor (literally) die roller. In this variant, the other player only gets the one extra doubloon if the number rolled is a 4, 5 or 6. If it's a 2 or 3, both players get equal amounts of money. And, of course, one way to avoid perpetually financing your opponent(s)is to simply avoid overspending: avoid dropping below four doubloons, and when you inevitably do, make sure your making your journeys very, very short. In time, you'll bounce back: I always do.

Thread: Where are the Spuds?

ccarlet1 — 2008-01-30T03:19:26+00:00

One of the first games my wife and I bought when we first got into gaming was Oceania. We have played that game many times since and enjoy it a lot, so this Christmas I was lucky enough to get Entdecker: Exploring New Horizons for Christmas. We finally got to try out Oceania's big brother.

The board is huge, and you lay out tiles on it as you discover ocean and islands. You do have the option of choosing a face up tile, but they are expensive, so we just took our chances with the hidden tiles.

I rolled the money dice first, and then for the entire game! The way it works is that if you have less than four gold, you roll the dice to get more, but your opponent gets one more than your roll. With two players, we usually find that one person rolls for the first half, and the other one for the last half, but not this time. Penny was piling up lots of gold but even when a pirate ship took half of her eight gold, it was not enough to roll the bones.

Anyway, there was a nice big island shaping up in the lower right hand corner, so I explored there and started putting scouts on it. It's a good idea to get your scouts on smaller islands too, which I tried to do on the other side of the board. I also placed a fortress on what looked like a good route (anyone using a route that your fortress is on has to pay you a fee), but it was soon avoidable.

When an island is complete, it's scored: whoever has the most scouts/fortresses/settlements gets one point per tile, and whoever else has a presence on the island gets half that amount. I managed to score a small island early, and place a scout, so I got to draw a product to put in a hut.

I put my scout on the first space in front of the hut and drew beans (15 points) and hid it in the hut. It is sometimes hard to remember what you've put where, so I always try to put products in huts at opposite ends to help me remember.

Meanwhile, the island in the lower right hand corner was becoming huge, while I invested in a smaller island on the other side of the board again.

Some of the hidden tiles have question marks on them and you can end up with a storm, pirates, a gold mine, or friendly natives. I managed to get tree firendly natives in a row (these allow you to place a scout on the path in front of the hut without having to score an island), so I was in first position on five of the seven huts: meaning I knew what was in five of the seven huts. I burned into my memory where the beans and corn were (both highest value at 15 points) and remembered where the lowly pineapple was (only worth 5 points). The others were worth 10. Despite all the scout placement, the score was low:

Me: 5
Penny: 4

Then Penny completed a medium sized island that I got the full score on, increasing my lead to 13-8.

The large island in the lower right hand corner was gargantuan: 23 tiles. It contained a +5 bonus, so I scored 28 points, increasing my lead again to 41-22.

Thirteen scouts were placed as a result of scoring that island: seven by Penny and six from me. I deliberately did not place any of them in front of the hut with the corn or the beans, and did put one in front of the lowly pineapple just to bluff Penny. It worked pretty well.

In the top left hand corner, Penny built a settlement to claim that larger island for herself, which she did, shaving my lead to 51-42.

By this time, we each only had three scouts left.

One of the big differences between Entdecker and Oceania is that in Entdecker all of the islands get completed and you needn't worry about wasting your scouts on an island that cannot be scored.

There was one big island left to complete at this time, and I had no chance of being the primary scorer as Penny was ahead of me on money for the entire game. So I concentrated on scoring some smaller islands to extend my lead. I pulled ahead a little more at 56-42.

That also meant that I had placed all but one of my scouts before the last big island was scored.

There was lots of exotic produce in those huts, but you have to have more scouts in front of them than your opponent, or if you are tied, have your scout further down the path, to claim their points. It was a very tight race and my bluff had been successful on the corn and beans, but Penny had the advantage on me in placing her scouts last.

I wasn't sure if there was the other 15 pointer out there: potatos. If you place a scout on the third or fourth space, you can look in the hut, but I had used those spaces to prevent Penny from looking in the huts I knew.

In the end, she left me with the corn and beans, and claimed everything else herself, potatos, tobacco, even the lowly pineapple.

On island scoring alone, I lead 73-66.

After scoring the produce, Penny won 123-96.

If only I could have found those potatos.

Image

matthewoods — 2007-12-16T19:07:36+00:00

Bonus island tile grants more point on completing.

Image

matthewoods — 2007-12-16T13:34:56+00:00

Components: ship, settlement, base and scout

Image

matthewoods — 2007-12-16T13:27:40+00:00

Full map at the end of the game

Image

zefquaavius — 2007-12-09T05:26:00+00:00

Better scan of the German box back.

Image

zefquaavius — 2007-12-09T05:25:07+00:00

Better scan of the German box front. (with a Mayfair import label, of course)

Thread: Re: ENTDECKER - Or, how my explorers didn't

a2greg — 2007-11-12T21:37:50+00:00

I agree with your assessment Lisa. The game is by no means horrible but it just seems dry to me. I guess I was expecting more of an "exploration" game but instead got a tile procurement and placement game. Mechanically, it works. But I don't think that it evokes the discovery theme very well. Maybe it's my American bias but some Euros (like this one) just don't pay close enough attention to the theme but make great game/puzzles to solve.

Image

Harkonnen13 — 2007-09-18T23:55:07+00:00

With a ship like that no wonder she always wins

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

Gamegrunt — 2007-06-16T21:25:40+00:00

amacleod wrote:
Bear in mind, though, that the place you can place a unit is the last DISCOVERED tile, NOT the last discovered LAND tile! That is, if the last tile you successfully discovered was all sea and no land, then you're outta luck: you wouldn't be allowed to place a unit on the land tile that you had discovered BEFORE you hit the open sea one. Thus, not placing a unit when you discover land is a bit of a risk: there may be nothing but water in the next tile you've already invested money in, and all your scout can do is swim.

Very true - an important distinction.

Gg

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

amacleod — 2007-06-16T17:42:06+00:00

Bear in mind, though, that the place you can place a unit is the last DISCOVERED tile, NOT the last discovered LAND tile! That is, if the last tile you successfully discovered was all sea and no land, then you're outta luck: you wouldn't be allowed to place a unit on the land tile that you had discovered BEFORE you hit the open sea one. Thus, not placing a unit when you discover land is a bit of a risk: there may be nothing but water in the next tile you've already invested money in, and all your scout can do is swim.

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

ed95005 — 2007-06-12T15:54:40+00:00

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

Gamegrunt — 2007-06-12T14:00:32+00:00

ed95005 wrote:
Two questions:

(1) Let's say I declare two tiles and the first tile I draw can't be placed. Am I allowed to draw my second tile?

(2) Let's say I declare two tiles. I draw my first tile, place it, and move the ship to the new tile. I draw my second tile, and it can't be placed. Am I allowed to place a unit on the tile where the ship currently stands?

The answer to both questions is...

Yes!

(1) The first tile is removed from the game and you then draw your second tile. The only time you aren't allowed to play the 2nd tile is if you draw a Storm tile, or when you opt to place a scout, fort or settlement on the first tile you've "explored."

(2) If you cannot move from your current location (unplayable tile) then you may end your turn by purchasing a scout, fort or settlement on the last tile you explored.

May you long enjoy this excellent game!

Gg

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

Great Dane — 2007-06-12T13:08:01+00:00

mattwran wrote:
Which version of the game do you have? Did the rules change? I have the German version and according to it the answer to both questions is yes.

I have the original first edition German version, and yes, there are significant changes in the new second edition, which is discussed here. Unfortunately would my answers still be mostly wrong even in the old version. Don't know happened to me...

My apology to Ed for confusing the issue!

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

baalrukh — 2007-06-12T11:50:54+00:00

I have the English rules and I think that the answer is yes to both questions.

For the 1st question I suggest look at:
http://www.profeasy.com/Entdecker_Eng/html/entdecker16.html

For the 2nd question I sugest:
http://www.profeasy.com/Entdecker_Eng/html/entdecker18.html
Where she states, where the ship end’s, so the last tile placed.

Quite nice this site, I bought this game because this demo and I’m not regret it.

Thread: Re: Drawing tiles

mattwran — 2007-06-12T10:41:45+00:00

Great Dane wrote:
(1) No, you are not allowed to draw a second tile.
Your turn ends immediately if you cannot place a tile.

(2) No. Your turn ends immediately if you cannot place a tile.
A unit must be placed immediately after a tile is revealed. Once you have drawn a new tile is it too late to reverse your action!

Which version of the game do you have? Did the rules change? I have the German version and according to it the answer to both questions is yes. You can place a unit on the last discovered tile (zuletzt entdeckten Feld) and a discovered tile is defined as one that was placed onto the board. The strategy section even advises buying up to three tiles when looking to fill in a specific spot on the board, but for which you are unwilling to play the full 4 to buy an open tile.

Thread: Drawing tiles

ed95005 — 2007-06-12T08:47:03+00:00

Two questions:

(1) Let's say I declare two tiles and the first tile I draw can't be placed. Am I allowed to draw my second tile?

(2) Let's say I declare two tiles. I draw my first tile, place it, and move the ship to the new tile. I draw my second tile, and it can't be placed. Am I allowed to place a unit on the tile where the ship currently stands?

Thread: Re: Defined spaces and starting costs

Gamegrunt — 2007-05-28T11:58:24+00:00

ed95005 wrote:
I have two questions:

(1) Can anyone clarify further the meaning of "defined space"? The rules say, "A defined space is an undiscovered space surrounded on all four sides by cards or Starting Track circles." Yet the example given shows two undiscovered spaces surrounded by cards. Is that a special case because the two spaces are impossible to explore by ship? If one those of spaces were reachable by ship, would it no longer qualify as a defined space?

(2) If a player selects a card as a beginning location and the card connects to more than one starting circle, what is the starting cost? The sum of the circles? The highest circle? The lowest circle?

(1) When the type of tile that would be placed in a single (or more spaces!) is no longer ambiguous, then "exploration" is no longer necessary as its nature or properties are known. Only a single type of tile is possible to be placed in that position(s). This can occur on the perimeter or interior of the board. Even if it is reachable by water (from along the edge) it is still a discovered space since it can have only one solution if you will.

(2) The player selects his entry into the board from along the edge (all starting positions must trace back to the board's edge) so it would be seemly for a player to select the starting circle of the lowest cost.

I hope this helps to enhance your enjoyment of an excellent game!

Gg

Thread: Defined spaces and starting costs

ed95005 — 2007-05-28T05:30:12+00:00

I have two questions:

(1) Can anyone clarify further the meaning of "defined space"? The rules say, "A defined space is an undiscovered space surrounded on all four sides by cards or Starting Track circles." Yet the example given shows two undiscovered spaces surrounded by cards. Is that a special case because the two spaces are impossible to explore by ship? If one those of spaces were reachable by ship, would it no longer qualify as a defined space?

(2) If a player selects a card as a beginning location and the card connects to more than one starting circle, what is the starting cost? The sum of the circles? The highest circle? The lowest circle?

Thread: Re: Optimal number of players?

Gamegrunt — 2007-05-13T00:14:37+00:00

I am of the opinion that this game scales equally well regardless of player number. With 3 or 4 players it is critical that an energetic pace be maintained, otherwise Entdecker can become insufferably long.

I have enjoyed several 2 player games with my wife, and there are not that many games that she truly enjoys playing.

Gg

Thread: Optimal number of players?

ed95005 — 2007-05-12T23:49:13+00:00

What do you consider the optimal number of players for this?

Image

GeoMan — 2007-04-22T22:38:00+00:00

Thread: Re: Income variant ideas

kennyb — 2006-12-31T21:58:19+00:00

I have only played it twice , and the current income rolling rules bugs me.

Another idea would be to collect income for every turn that you have a settlement or a for on board ( 2 for a settlement, 1 for a fort for example)

one could also collect income for every new piece of land you discover on your turn

Thread: Re: Entdecker suitable as next step after gateway games?

Hoplosternum — 2006-11-30T14:23:08+00:00

Hmmm.

I am not sure this would be an especially good pick for none gamers/new gamers. There are plenty of calculated risks which might lead to a bit of analysis paralysis and should definitely benefit a 'gamer' over a none-gamer.

So while the game has plenty of luck in it, its also a bit of a gamers game in my view. It will be quickly clear to any 'gamers' that if two people are really competing hard over an island the likely benificiaries are likely to be the other player(s). Likewise squabbling over huts.

I think this is more suitable for some hardened gamers who want something a bit lighter and more random - but still with a range of viable short and long term tactics and strategies, rather than an especially good gateway game.

It's also a little on the long side - especially when learning - for what it is.

This game has low player interaction, although you certainly can set up opponents for nice plays if you are not careful. Another reason that this IMHO is a light game for 'gamers' rather than a game light enough for none gamers / new gamers.

Bonhanza would be my choice, although some might consider it lighter than settlers. If they can handle the trading in Settlers this should go down well. Plenty of strategy but quick and humourous. Works well with 4 and has stacks of interaction.

Evo, Ticket to Ride and Trias are all reasonably light (like settlers) games with plenty of interaction and are quickish. They all play well with four.

If you want more complexity something like Primordial Soup or Puerto Rico would be better follow up games. PR is only really a problem if you play with a split of expert PR players and inexperienced PR players. Its actually a very good game when people don't know all the optimal strategies and builds

Thread: Re: Entdecker suitable as next step after gateway games?

slowcorner — 2006-11-30T13:01:23+00:00

Well, seeing as Entdecker and Settlers were originally part of the same game (I think I remember hearing that somewhere), I'd say the depth is quite similar. It just adds a few new mechanics that noobs might not have encountered. I'd move them on to Power Grid, however.

Thread: Entdecker suitable as next step after gateway games?

EndersGame — 2006-10-25T04:26:47+00:00

I'm making a reference list for BGGers about this question: What games are suitable for people who enjoy Settlers of Catan (the social aspects of the trading, the negotiation, interaction, and the civilization building and resource management), and are looking for something similar or for the next step? The criteria: * Good with 4 players * Plays in 1-2 hours * Not too much heavier than Settlers of Catan, but nothing lighter * A fun interactive experience * Not too dry/abstract.
Entdecker is one of the 25 games I've selected for the list.
Do you think Entdecker would appeal to players coming from Settlers of Catan, and why or why not? To what extent would it be a good choice for this purpose?

Here's the information I currently have on the list for Entdecker, which I submit for the comment and correction of people who have played the game.

-------------BEGIN LIST COMMENT-------------
BGG Weight: 2.36; Rating: 6.77; Rank:#268
Designer: Klaus Teuber
Players: 2-4 Just with two: Yes, excellent.
Cost: $39.95 Duration: 90 minutes
Complexity: Low-Medium
Mechanics: Tile laying
Description: Naval exploration game
Tutorial: http://www.profeasy.com/Entdecker_Eng/index.html
Review: http://bgg.cc/thread/37073
Theme:
Luck: Low-Medium
Confrontation (Vicious factor):
Tension:
Interaction: Low-medium
Social:
Components: Medium
Comparisons: Like an advanced form of Carcassonne

]]> ]]>

We don’t want something light like Carcassonne, is Entdecker truly better? Will a tile laying game like this have enough going on for us?
-------------END LIST COMMENT-------------

Entdecker is #2 on the list, I would ask that you please add any comments on its suitability there (although any corrections to the above information can be placed here), since that's where they'll get the highest visibility and be most beneficial to others. Hopefully the list will prove useful as a point of reference to others in the future as well, so feel free to comment on any of the other suggested possibilities on the list as well.

The Ultimate Next Step List: What should you choose after Settlers of Catan?
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/17146
#2 Entdecker

Thread: Re: TVB - 3p - Island skirmishes...and what about that hut?

Windopaene — 2006-09-23T07:40:36+00:00

Yep, the huts suck. The original works so well, why mess with it in this way? The money rules may be improved, but the huts ruin the neuen game...

Thread: TVB - 3p - Island skirmishes...and what about that hut?

daw65 — 2006-09-22T04:23:32+00:00

While the Scots were getting Hammered, Lawrence, Ben and I went to the other table to set up "Entdecker: Expanding New Horizons" This game is a redevelopment of the game "Entdecker", which was published only in Germany. For reference, we played the original back on March 5, 2004 ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/18631 ), and the later version appeared here at TVB on April 6, 2005 ( http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/61804 ). For further reference, I played in the first session, but not the second. All three of us had gone through the Professor Easy introduction ( http://www.profeasy.com/Entdecker_Eng/index.html ), so we were able to just set up and get started.

We used the recommended setup for new players, which seeded the board with water and three bonus land tiles, two worth +5 points and one worth +10. Dave won the roll-off to start, and started just offset from one of the +5 tiles, founding a piece of island early. Ben tried to get to that first +5 tile, but only found open water, so couldn't place his second tile. Lawrence, though, found it, and immediately placed his fort. This set off the first battle of the game (there'd be one for each bonus tile), as all three quickly placed a fort to try to take control of this island. Scouts were gradually added to the island. Eventually Lawrence tried to land onto the second +5 island, and after one misfire when his drawn tile took him in a different direction, finally made land and built his second fort. Dave next tried to land onto the +10 bonus tile, but he, too, got derailed by his tile draw, and he ended up just further scouting the first +5 island. But the island's fate was determined by Ben. He drew the first event tile, and landed the mine. That earned him an easy 3 gold pieces, which let him built his settlement on that island and effectively clinch first place.

At this point we all started getting a little event happy. Ben's next event was the Friendly Natives tile, which let him add a scout to one of the huts. Soon after, he drew another one. Lawrence paid for two tiles and the second one was another event, a storm, which ended his turn. But, his first tile did result in empty board space completely surrounded by land tiles. That forced the island to complete, with 15 tiles and the +5 bonus giving 20 points to Ben. Dave and Lawrence had equal presence on the island, so they each earned 10 points.

Dave continued to pursue that +10 island, and after another false start where none of his purchased tiles fit, he finally paid for an open tile that would guarantee his connection, and plopped down a fort to try to claim the island. It didn't work. Immediately Ben came with his moneybags and did the same thing, buying an open tile and building a fort. Ben was benefiting from the fact that at first Lawrence, and then Dave, found themselves rolling the income die way too often. As a result, Ben always got just a little more gold than one or the other. Dave and Ben sparred a bit on the +10 island, with scouts there and there, but when Ben built his second fort there, Dave decided to look elsewhere. At first he pursued his own little islands. But then he decided that Lawrence was having it too good on that other +5 island all alone, and tried to build his way in with his second fort. That was enough to lure Ben to the second +5 island, where he built his settlement to try to claim it for his own. But Lawrence wouldn't have that, and he built his settlement in response. Dave, for his part, decided that the price was too rich for him, but saw the opportunity to return to the +10 island. He did so, and built his settlement there. Since the others' settlements were already occupied, this guaranteed him the +10 island, unless the other island could close first, which would free those other settlements to be rebuilt.

And so the race was on. Lawrence and Ben tried to close the +5 island, while Dave tried to close the +10 island. Dave finished first, closing a 13 tile island, with the +10 bonus, earning 23 points for Dave, 12 for Ben, and 6 for Lawrence. From here, Ben and Lawrence were still trying to close the +5 island, but wanted to do so in such a way to benefit themselves and hurt the other. Dave stayed out of it, and instead tried to collect a few small islands for himself. He also tried some more event tiles, hoping for a little extra boost. Instead, he found two pirates and a storm, which killed his opportunity for scouting an island in the lower left corner of the board.

Lawrence and Ben continued to work on the +5 island, primarily by buying open tiles. Lawrence was able to close a number of smaller islands in the process, for 3 pts, and 2 pts, and 3 pts, while still maintaining a reasonable presence on the bigger island. Ben finally closed it, but Lawrence still had the strongest presence. The 14 tiles and the +5 bonus gave 19 to Lawrence, 10 to Ben, and 5 to Dave. Bizarrely, these scores created a three-way tie. All three players had 46 points.

The focus now shifted to the two corners of the board. For starters, Dave and Lawrence had to address the islands in the lower left, where Dave had placed his very first tile. Lawrence found the tile to close the area, giving Dave a single island for 2 points, and then creating a five tile islandon which Lawrence led Dave. Next, everyone turned to the lower right corner of the board. Ben had a scout there, and Lawrence and Dave both sail in and place scouts. Lawrence had the opportunity to connect a couple of land masses and join his island to Dave's, with the added bonus of having two scouts to Dave's one. In a desperation attempt, Dave spent one gold to draw one tile, hoping to find just the right piece to close the island and build a fort with his last three gold. He drew just that piece, getting six points, to Lawrence's three, which just restored the tie between the two of them. Ben was next, and he bought two tiles that let him fill in that entire corner. It completed three islands in the process, which were all his: 3 pts, 2 pts, and 4 pts. The last spot was in the upper right, just above the now-completed +10 island. Lawrence had no scouts left, but did have a fort, and 4 gold. So he spent one gold, hoping to find a tile that would let him play and create another island that he could build his fort on for an additional two points. But he chose an event tile, and that tile was more pirates! He lost two of his three gold, and lost the opportunity to build that fort.

And with that the game ended, with Lawrence and Dave both at 57 points and Ben at 55. To finish the scoring, we looked at the huts. During the game, the initial claims were pretty even: Lawrence and Ben claimed two huts, and Dave claimed three. As the game progressed, there was for the most part only reinforcement of our initial claims. In only one case did a hut change hands, when Lawrence took over one of Ben's huts. So Ben had one hut, but it was worth 15 points. Dave had three, worth 10, 10, and 5 points, for a total of 25, and Lawrence had three, for 5, 10, and 15 points, for a total of 30. That stolen hut was only worth 5 points, but it proved to be the difference, as Lawrence came away with the win, 87 to 82 (Dave) to 70 (Ben).

So now I've played the original once, as mentioned above, and I've played this one. I felt that the huts added something to the game that didn't quite mesh. They felt like an afterthought, especially considering that six of the seven initial hut claims went unbroken. And though the one that did change hands essential provided the margin of victory, it wasn't what I considered a very interesting part of the game. Still, I do like the exploration and discovery part of the game, so next time I'll explore (sorry 'bout the pun) some kind of amalgam that will play more like the old version using my copy of the new one.

Thread: ENTDECKER - Or, how my explorers didn't

Bookworm — 2006-07-08T15:46:41+00:00

I played Entdecker for the 2nd time last night. Admittedly there was several years between plays, so last nights game was almost like a first.

This is almost like 2 games in one. You have the main game where you pay (or not, depending on your chosen starting space) to move the ship along sea paths and explore new territory. You must declare how many spaces you are exploring before you begin drawing territory tiles. If your drawn tile does not play, it is taken out of the game. Once you buy a tile...

Your choice of territory tiles is interesting. There are 2 sets of regular tiles that have either a solid background or a question mark. These are shuffled together and divided into 7 piles. You can place one of them for 1 gold each. The question mark tiles are special, some are gold mines or friendly natives, others are pirates or storms. Additionally, for 4 extra gold, you can chose a tile from one of 5 face up stacks. If the tile contains a land mass, you may choose to place either a scout, fort, or settlement upon it. These are used to determine controlling player for scoring purposes when the land mass is complete.

Earning gold in this game is an interesting mechanic, which personally I feel is not a good one. If, at the start of your turn, you have less than 4 gold, you roll a die. This die is marked 2 - 6 and a ships wheel. The # that comes up is the amount of gold you receive... HOWEVER, your opponents all receive that amount PLUS one extra gold. If you roll the ships wheel, you determine how much gold you receive, and again your opponents receive 1 more gold than you. This mechanic can really create a trap that one person has to roll for gold on repeated turns. You must explore at least 1 tile on your turn, and you must pay for at least that one tile... even if there are no other costs (additonal starting space cost, passing another players forts or settlements). If a player continuously rolls low, he gets stuck having to be the one to roll for money EVERY turn. There is a distinct disadvantage to being the one to roll for money, as your oppnonents are continuously receiving more than you... yes, it's only 1 gold, but even that 1 gold can make a difference.

The 2nd aspect of this game occurs when land masses are completed. Along one end of the board is 7 scout paths. There are 9 fruit tiles, with scores 5, 10, & 15. 7 fruit are chosen and placed into special cardboard huts, one each on the end of the scout paths. When a land mass is completed, any scouts that are on can now be placed onto one of the scout paths. This is done in round robin style, starting with the person who completed the land mass. Along the scout paths are eyes which allow you to look at the fruit. At the end of the game the player with the most scouts on each path earns the points hidden in the hut.

Points are accumulated by controlling land masses which get completed and by the scout paths. It is distincly possible to be over 30 points behind at the end of the game, yet win with the points from the fruit on the scout paths.

As a fan of both Settlers (Teuber) and Carcassonne (this game has been compared to it), I thought I would enjoy Entdecker. It's not horrid, and I will probably play it again if anyone in the group wants to play. But I'm not sure I will be going out of my way to see it hit the table.

Thread: Re: Question about face up stacks

skelebone — 2006-07-06T15:10:20+00:00

Since all of the tiles in each face-up stack are of the same type, the only reason that you would go through the stack to select a tile would be for aesthetics.

Thread: Re: Question on when you pay the toll

Gamegrunt — 2006-05-29T12:48:52+00:00

Yes.

Gg

Thread: Re: Question about face up stacks

Gamegrunt — 2006-05-29T12:42:55+00:00

The stacks that have face-up tiles are arranged by type and all tiles in a certain stack would be of the same type.

They consist of...

1 - sea on four sides
2 - sea on three sides
3 - sea on two opposite sides
4 - sea on two adjacent sides
5 - sea on one side only
6 - land on all four sides

You pay 4 gold to obtain a specific tile (usually) in order to complete an island.

There is no need therefore to pick any tile other than the one on the top of the stack.

Gg

Thread: Re: Question about face up stacks

ssmooth — 2006-05-29T05:04:40+00:00

Any tile from the face-up stacks, not just from the tops of the stacks.

Thread: Re: Question about face up stacks

bobm174 — 2006-05-29T04:57:55+00:00

Any face up tile or just a face up tile at the top of each stack?
(Just wondering if you are allowed to go through the stacks and pick any face up tile you want)

Bob

Thread: Re: Question about face up stacks

ssmooth — 2006-05-29T04:46:28+00:00

If you pay to draw a tile from the face-up stacks, that means that you are paying to take the tile of your choice.

Thread: Question about face up stacks

bobm174 — 2006-05-29T04:26:30+00:00

The rules state that if you purchase 4 gold you draw from the
face up stacks. However, do the rules allow you to
pick up the stacks and look at all of them or is your selection
limited to what is at the top of the pile?

Also, when a tile is completely surrounded and you must draw
one that fits it would seem clear to me that you would definitely
be allowed to look at face up tiles that may not be at the top of the stack if need be but I was wondering if this applies to the above
mentioned example as well?

Bob

Thread: Question on when you pay the toll

bobm174 — 2006-05-29T04:21:37+00:00

The rules are clear that you pay 2 gold for each fort or settlement belonging to another player or players. However, if you start your
boat next to another players settlement or fort do you pay 2 gold
for that fort or settlement as well as any others you pass as you
trace your path?

Bob

Thread: Re: Is the placement like Carcassonne?

Gamegrunt — 2006-05-29T01:42:53+00:00

The essence of DNE is the need to seize control of islands through El Grandesque majority control. Of course more than one scout, fort or settlement can occupy the same island. Where the ship finds itself at the end of a turn is an opportunity to exert influence, provided the player has the gold to make it happen.

Gg

Thread: Re: Is the placement like Carcassonne?

Windopaene — 2006-05-28T19:56:06+00:00

It is not like Carcassonne. You can totally place on other people's stuff, (or your own).

Thread: Is the placement like Carcassonne?

bobm174 — 2006-05-28T17:36:48+00:00

Bought this game and am enjoying it but I have a question:

Are you allowed to place more then one scout, fort or settlement
on islands pieces that are already joined or is it like
Carcassonne where you are only allowed to place meeples
on different roads, buildings and farms and later on can link
them up?

Thanks for any replies.

Bob

Thread: Re: Which one to buy?

bobm174 — 2006-05-24T15:30:16+00:00

Thanks Andrew for your opinion. Boy, I have never seen such
a split between us geeks in the pro and anti hut camps.

The only thing I am hoping is to hear about now is anyone who has tried
Steffan O'Sullivan's suggested tweak to make the new version like
the old if you want. (I really want to experience both without having
to buy both)

I even emailed Steffan and asked him how well in his opinion this
tweaking worked and he said he never tried it!

Bob

Thread: Re: Which one to buy?

amacleod — 2006-05-24T15:16:13+00:00

On the contrary, I find the huts feature to be a delightful sub-game that adds strategy to a game that is certainly not a brain burner. The huts also increase the amount of decision-making required when contemplating what unit to place on an island: am I placing this for point placement on the island, or so I can finally secure that 15 VP potato crop?. Overall, in fact, the new Entdecker increases the strategic elements of the game, and diminishes (to a degree!) the luck involved.
Bob, please get the new Entdecker! But don't take my word for it: simply look at the ratings given to the two Entdeckers by your fellow geeks. The newer version is the one that (from day one, I believe) has always been more highly rated. On top of that, did the old Entdecker win any awards?