Game: Volldampf

Thread: Volldampf - Session Report

gschloesser — 2008-05-20T14:01:41+00:00

I remember my excitement when I first played Volldampf when it was first released. I had previously played Lancashire Rails, an ancestor of Volldampf, and it just didn’t grab me. Volldampf, however, totally captivated me. I thoroughly enjoyed how well the various mechanisms blended together, and the challenge of acquiring and building routes that would be well traveled was fascinating. I still tremendously enjoy the game, and especially appreciate how well it plays with a full contingent of six people.

With the departure of Elena and Gail, we were at six gamers, which can sometimes pose a problem in selecting an appropriate game when considering complexity and duration. None of my fellow gamers had previously played Volldampf, but I figured the assembled group would enjoy it. For the most part, my assumption was correct.

Through most of the game, I led the way, followed closely by Bo and Mark. I managed to keep my stock certificates to a minimum, and my routes were being used regularly. As the game approached an end, Mark and Bo made-up ground by transporting goods across several of their own links. I spent a bit too much on the final turn, and this ultimately cost me the game. Bo and I tied for the victory with 29 points, but Bo won the tie breaker by having $33 compared to my $31. Arrghh!

Finals: Bo 29 ($33), Greg 29 ($31), Mark 28, Sheila 22, Scott 21, Ryan 13

Ratings: Greg 8.5, Bo 8, Sheila 8, Scott 8, Mark 7, Ryan 6.5

Image

Rokkr — 2008-05-05T19:13:06+00:00

rule book cover - German edition

Image

Rokkr — 2008-05-05T19:09:18+00:00

sequence cards

Thread: Re: Bidding 0?

chadm — 2008-01-03T03:22:12+00:00

I don't think that is allowed.
You may either 'pass' or 'bid'.

I agree. I think any game that allows a 0 bid will state that explicitly in the rules.

Thread: Re: Bidding 0?

Great Dane — 2008-01-02T17:00:43+00:00

I don't think that is allowed.
You may either 'pass' or 'bid'.

If you 'bid' you must place the amount bid on the table in front of you
- and since it isn't possible to place 'nothing' on the table, it would be against the rules:

"Der Startspieler beginnt, indem er einen beliebigen Betrag bietet und der entsprechende Summe vor sich auslegt."

Thread: Bidding 0?

cparrott — 2008-01-02T16:31:17+00:00

Is a bid of 0 a valid bid? The rule for bidding says that a player may bid any amount of money and each successive bid must be more than the previous amount or a pass. So can the first player bid 0 as a starting bid rather than pass?

Thread: Re: If I already have (and enjoy) Age of Steam...

rayzg — 2007-11-03T07:56:54+00:00

Volldampf and Age of Steam are almost opposites! Volldampf is a game that you could (IMHO, should) substitute for Ticket to Ride, while Age of Steam is a meaty gamer's game.

Volldampf is an excellent six player game. However, I think the game suffers as the number of players goes down; it's not a very good two player game, despite what the box says. (In contrast, I think Age of Steam is a wonderful two player game; I like the half board variants posted on BGG).

You could finish a six player game under an hour; I don't think you could say the same for Age of Steam.

Volldampf has a catch-up mechanism in the form of special action cards, some of which are very powerful. However, I don't think someone way back in last place can ever win by amassing special power cards.

As for my gaming group, most of them prefer Volldampf over Age of Steam. Age of Steam typically leaves a bad taste in the mouths of newbies since they start the game overwhelmed, then midway through the game, realize how much they screwed up. Get Volldampf so that you could scratch your Age of Steam itch with non-gamers.

Thread: Re: Volldampf + ? Tracks to Telluride

Table Tactics — 2007-06-09T21:15:27+00:00

Will Winsome rerelease Tracks to Telluride? Their are a lot of new people into gaming and they missed this early Winsome classic.
With the standard of living on the slide here in the good old USA most of us can only afford to have friends over and play a good game.
Hope to see a fancy packaged Tracks to Telluride soon.

Thread: Correct English language rules are available

John Bohrer — 2007-04-07T14:56:38+00:00

Correct English language rules and color coded english language Player's mats are available from Winsome Games. Email winsome@fyi.net for details.

The rules are a sentence by sentence translation of the published rules. The Player's mats have translations of the cards.

John
Pittsburgh

Thread: Re: Volldampf

John Bohrer — 2007-02-19T18:52:13+00:00

JasonRubino wrote:
It is listed on a winsome reference list but I have yet to find the actual Winsome website.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/publisher/65

http://www.fyi.net/~winsome

John
Pittsburgh

Thread: Re: Volldampf

JasonRubino — 2007-01-24T05:40:17+00:00

First of all, Mrs Vikies is right. I don't want to mass produce this game, I would just like to try it. As far as I can tell it is out of print. None of the sites that I buy games at carry it any more. It is listed on a winsome reference list but I have yet to find the actual Winsome website. And before I went through the hassle of tracking it down and shelling out 60 bucks, I would like to try it to see if I enjoy the game first. You people are acting like I am some kind of criminal. I buy 1 to 2 games a months and at 40 to 50 dollars a game that adds up. So is there anything wrong with wanting to spend my money carefully?

Second, you people are also acting like it is a crime to post more then one thread. Yes, I posted the same question yesterday. However, I posted it in the game designers forum. After thinking about it, I thought that my request didn't really fit that category and so I posted again in the general gaming section. I can't see wat the big deal is.

Thread: Re: Volldampf

rootbeer — 2007-01-24T01:13:28+00:00

Here's the problem: This dude posted an identical thread earlier today.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1291997#1291997

Thread: Re: Volldampf

ibn_ul_khattab — 2007-01-24T00:29:20+00:00

another victory for the new thumbs system. Instead of people taking the time to explain the problem they just give it a thumbs down, out of sight out of mind. Good on you Isaac for explaining the problem.

Thread: Re: Volldampf

Verkisto — 2007-01-24T00:24:02+00:00

Certainly, everyone has the means to do this sort of thing, IF they have the right information to do it. Announcing publicly that you plan to do this on a game that's still available (Winsome Games' homepage shows some available for sale) is a bit ... well, weird.

Plus, I see that Jason's already asked for this already. Yesterday, in fact. He didn't get much of a response then, either.

Thread: Re: Volldampf

flowercita — 2007-01-24T00:20:39+00:00

Isn't this a long gone OOP game though?

I don't think he is planning to mass distribute it but merely wants a copy for himself, is this now taboo too?

Thread: Re: Volldampf

Verkisto — 2007-01-24T00:10:47+00:00

I see that you're receiving thumbs down on this thread, but that no one's bothering to explain why....

What you're doing is copyright infringement. As such, I doubt anyone will supply you with the necessary files, nor will they approve of what you're doing.

Image

flowercita — 2007-01-23T23:47:36+00:00

The board and all the components including english printed cards

Thread: Volldampf

JasonRubino — 2007-01-23T23:20:53+00:00

I am trying to make my own version of the board for Volldampf however I am running into a problem. I can't find a picture that has all the values and colors of the all the routes. I also cannot find a breakdown of the the 18 Merchandise cards. Does anyone have a good pic of the board without any track piece on it and clearly legible track values? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T16:24:04+00:00

components overview

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T16:23:51+00:00

inside the box

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T15:31:52+00:00

components: city cards. They are drawn at random (number depending on #players), and decide in which cities new (random) goods appear

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T15:27:36+00:00

components: track cards. Necessary to build track in the corresponding areas. Each player gets a set of 2-3 cards each round.

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T15:26:31+00:00

components: action cards (2 each of 7 different types). They serve as a catch-up mechanism

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T15:17:59+00:00

components: bag, and goods (wooden tokens, 10 each in 4 colors, randomly drawn from the bag)

Image

Werbaer — 2006-09-12T15:13:12+00:00

components: track ownership markers (track chits), and point/income markers (train chits), for each player color

Thread: Re: If I already have (and enjoy) Age of Steam...

Eric Brosius — 2006-09-09T01:48:44+00:00

jtakagi wrote:
If I already like to play Age of Steam, can anyone convince me of the benefits of tracking down Volldampf? It seems like the play time may be a little shorter, and that the game is a little more forgiving. But I have seen several comments saying that Age of Steam has made Volldampf obsolete. Is this true?

They are two different (though related) games. There is a significant luck component in Volldampf (in the draw of the cards,) whereas the luck is much smaller in Age of Steam. Also, it seems to me that you're almost always sharing routes with opponents in Volldampf, whereas in Age of Steam it's usually a sign of distress when you move a cube on an opponent's link.

When I play Volldampf, I'm thinking much more about psychology (what is my opponent likely to do,) whereas in Age of Steam I'm thinking much more about the board position and the game mechanics. This creates an entirely different "feel."

Thread: Re: If I already have (and enjoy) Age of Steam...

tool — 2006-09-08T23:11:45+00:00

The game I would buy instead of Volldampf is Australian Railways - it's shorter than Age of Steam, and I prefer the gameplay as well.

Thread: Re: If I already have (and enjoy) Age of Steam...

BeyondMonopoly — 2006-09-08T21:50:30+00:00

jtakagi wrote:
If I already like to play Age of Steam, can anyone convince me of the benefits of tracking down Volldampf? It seems like the play time may be a little shorter, and that the game is a little more forgiving. But I have seen several comments saying that Age of Steam has made Volldampf obsolete. Is this true?

The game is much shorter and much more forgiving, and there are a lot more instances where you have to move goods on other people's lines, and a player who forces all his opponents to move on his lines will do very well, usually, BUT

I prefer the greater control over where to build that is present in AoS. I think Volldampf is good, but I always feel very reactive, with no set plan, just hoping the right building cards come out.

Thread: If I already have (and enjoy) Age of Steam...

jtakagi — 2006-09-08T20:49:41+00:00

If I already like to play Age of Steam, can anyone convince me of the benefits of tracking down Volldampf? It seems like the play time may be a little shorter, and that the game is a little more forgiving. But I have seen several comments saying that Age of Steam has made Volldampf obsolete. Is this true?

Thread: Volldampf - Session Report

gschloesser — 2006-08-23T20:23:56+00:00

With the arrival of Richard, we had six players. After a bit of discussion, we opted to construct rails across Deutschland and deliver commodities to their destinations. With the exception of me, everyone was new to the game. Fortunately, this is a very astute group, so it didn’t take long for everyone to grasp the strategies.

The first round was a bit uneventful, as the first tracks were constructed, but not yet fully joined. This caused a severe money shortage, which ultimately cost Greg Lull the most as he went heavily into debt. Gail and Richard developed the best routes, and shot out to a sizeable lead. Elena’s routes came together late, and she scored impressively in the final round. It wasn’t enough to catch Gail, however, who held onto her lead to secure the victory.

Finals: Gail 29, Elena 23, Richard 23, Chris 22, Greg 20, Greg Lull 13

Ratings: Greg 8, Gail 7.5, Elena 7.5, Chris 7, Greg L. 7, Richard 7

Thread: Re: Paying Back Bonds

Eddy Bee — 2005-12-08T23:39:58+00:00

Thanks for the response, Mike. The paragraph you quote is indeed in my copy of the rules, but I guess what the rules describe didn't seem like "paying back" a bond to me.

Reducing income by the printed value on a bond is merely deducting the dividend value of the bond. The bond itself is worth 6 times the printed dividend value.

My interpretation of "paying back" a bond would be to pay it back in full to eliminate the dividend debt entirely. The ability to do this would provide a strategic use for a player's excess money.

I'm sure your interpretation is the correct one, since my method would have required additional rules, but still, it seems like such a natural fit to me.

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Paying Back Bonds

Mike Mayer — 2005-12-08T22:29:39+00:00

Eddy Bee wrote:
There is one brief sentence in the rules that says bonds can be paid off at the end of the game, but no further details are provided in the rules for the end game.

I believe both sets of rules here on the geek describe paying back bonds for the End Game. Maybe you got a bum set of rules. In any case, you don't pay off bonds by paying money, but instead by subtracting income on the track. As per rules:

"The printed value of the bonds is subtracted from the current income (on the scoring track). Whoever stands farthest ahead on the scoring track after this has won. Money is counted only in case of a tie; then the person with the most money wins. Otherwise the money counts nothing."

And it's my understanding that you can't pay back bonds until the end of the game.

Hope that helps.

-Mike

Thread: Paying Back Bonds

Eddy Bee — 2005-12-08T21:22:20+00:00

There is one brief sentence in the rules that says bonds can be paid off at the end of the game, but no further details are provided in the rules for the end game.

I just want to confirm my understanding:

1. At the end of the game you can pay off your bonds at 6 Marks each, using any cash you still have in hand. Correct?

2. Can bonds be paid off at any other time in the game?

Many thanks,
-Eddy Bee

"Once a gamer, always a gamer!"

Thread: Re: Special action cards

John Bohrer — 2005-10-28T23:54:42+00:00

a2greg wrote:
tool wrote:
You are only partially correct. The first version of the translation (Word file) has this rule. The second version (PDF file) does not, apparently because of an editing mistake.

Oops. Sorry about that guys. Dan's absolutely correct. I'm uploading a 3.0 translation that will correct that mistake.

Right. The 3.0 still has errors! Correct translation available from Winsome Games. (See the big red W on the back of the box?)

Thread: Re: Special action cards

a2greg — 2005-08-31T20:14:30+00:00

tool wrote:
You are only partially correct. The first version of the translation (Word file) has this rule. The second version (PDF file) does not, apparently because of an editing mistake.

Oops. Sorry about that guys. Dan's absolutely correct. I'm uploading a 3.0 translation that will correct that mistake.

Thread: Re: Special action cards

tool — 2005-07-06T18:04:13+00:00

You are only partially correct. The first version of the translation (Word file) has this rule. The second version (PDF file) does not, apparently because of an editing mistake.

Thread: Re: Special action cards

joelee — 2005-07-06T15:53:43+00:00

The translated rules I have say that the person or persons farthest behind on the scoring track get a card.

I also have some erata that says that the above rule is not in effect in the first round.

Joe

Thread: Special action cards

stayman — 2005-07-06T14:56:57+00:00

Am I correct when I assume that the translations found here on BGG omit the fact that the last place player(s) recieve an action card EVERY ROUND?

Thread: General hints

Sternenfahrer-MUC — 2005-06-15T08:34:42+00:00

In a 6-Player Game, there will be just 4 rounds.
As a bond comes with 6 times the printed value, one could argue, there's a netto win of 2$. But don't forget the fact that the pay back will not be in Money, but in Victory Points!

A good strategy would be lending some 4 to 6 bonds in first, as the first auctions tend to be very expensive.

When considering where to build your tracks, don't lay to much attention on short wins of one or two points. In round 3 and 4, when (almost) all tracks have been laid, it's very common to carry the cubes the maximum distance of 6 tracks, generating enough points to compensate much of the headstart other players had, IF you place your tracks in a way that other players will use it.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2004-11-08T17:25:19+00:00

Not wanting to end the evening on such a sour note, I insisted on one more game. We still had six players remaining, so our choices did narrow a bit. After some perusing of the shelves, we settled on Martin Wallace’s Volldampf, an excellent choice.

Ashton, Darren, Matt, Spouey, Jim and I staked-out our claims, constructed track, and proceeded to transport goods to the cities that demanded them. Spouey was an early leader, but the gap closed considerably in later rounds. Ashton became the beneficiary of well-placed routes which were utilized by numerous players, propelling him to a narrow victory over Matt.

Scores:

Round 2: Steve 11, Matt 11, Greg 10, Ashton 10, Darren 8, Jim 5
Round 3: Ashton 18, Greg 17, Matt 16, Jim 15, Spouey 14, Darren 10
Finals: Ashton 27, Matt 25, Spouey 24, Greg 21, Jim 20, Darren 17

Ratings: Greg 8, Ashton 7.5, Matt 7.5, Jim 7, Spouey 7, Darren 4

Thread: Session Report

DangerMouse — 2004-09-17T13:46:41+00:00

Volldampf: James, Brendan, Mike and Mark

My new favorite game of late (it's no Ra mind you). Mucho thanks to James for introducing it to me. This is the first time I've played with fewer than 5 players. It played a little differently in that you needed to issue more bonds (shares?) since you built 3 tracks a turn instead of 2. I managed to pull into the lead at about the halfway point and never looked back. Somehow my tracks were in the right places.

Unless I know there's going to be a big payoff I tend to duck out of the bidding for tile choice/turn order pretty early. In our game there was one round where Brendan and Mike went sky high in their bids and I think it hurt them. I did bid up on the last turn as I wanted to move cubes first and luckily for me James couldn't top my bid. I also like to build as much track as I can. It just seems like you never quite know when it'll come in handy down the road. This "get a piece of the action" strategy seemed to work fairly well, at least in this session. The last time I played it only netted me third place when Matt came from behind using some key action card play. It almost feels like you should skip those piddly 1 shipments early on just to get an action card or two. They can be very powerful.

Thread: Session Report

100%Blade — 2004-09-09T16:28:48+00:00

With only two players, acquisition of bonds and bidding for turn order is done blind and simultaneously which adds a bit of tension to proceedings and, although competition for the most valuable routes is still quite fierce, the opportunity to establish longer routes purely for yourself is greater than when we played it with six. Steve bought the most bonds initially and got an early lead but I went ahead at the midgame buying 5 bonds on one turn which set me up for some longer routes. However, the killer move came on turn 4 when I failed to spot a combination that gave Steve some long routes which I couldn't replicate and he was able to hold out at the end for victory. Volldampf is the 'father' of Age of Steam and the derivatives are obvious. With this in mind, it's probably not surprising that I like it. The pre-determined routes means that it is not quite as complex but it is shorter, money is just as tight in the early stages and your decisions on when to invest (and what in) are just as crucial. My initial thoughts are that some of the event cards are quite a bit stronger than others but this may just be down to the particular game situation at the time. I had toyed with sending this to the loft on the basis that it was too similar to AoS but this has renewed my interest particularly for times when you want a meatier game but maybe not quite as long as AoS.
Final Scores Steve - 29, Michael -26

Thread: Re:Rules question about cards

gschloesser — 2004-08-28T16:17:28+00:00

curtc (#51338),

The player in last place receives an action card.

Thread: Rules question about cards

curtc — 2004-08-27T23:15:57+00:00

So at the end of section 7 (Income gained and interest paid) the latest tranlation on BGG says, "To conclude the round, action cards are distributed to one or more players (see below)."

Huh???

Nothing under "Action cards" says anything about getting cards at the end of a turn. I understand that you get a card if you don't ship a good, but that's BEFORE income and interest, and furthermore in that section it specifically states that "Each action card is rewarded at the moment of declining to move." So what's this about getting cards at the end of the turn?

Thread: Session Report

100%Blade — 2004-08-26T20:32:12+00:00

Steve and Grant set the pace by developing each others routes in the north east. I settled for a longer terms strategy developing on my own in the south. The game doesn't drag as even with 3 players there are only 5 turns in total and you need to get things going reasonably quickly. By the mid-late game, Steve had pulled ahead of Grant who had also bought a few more bonds than the rest of us. I was a bit further behind but this meant that I had picked up a few cards along the way. Had I used these cards better, then I would have managed to creep past Steve. Instead, I chose to move the wrong goods marker and although I ended up with the same points, Steve had a bit more money than me to clinch yet another close victory.
Final scores Steve - 34 (plus 46 cash), Michael - 34 (plus 41 cash), Grant - 31 (I think)

I've played this three times now. On both the other occasions (with 6 players and 2 players), money was extremely tight particularly at the start. This time however, we seemed to make a profit pretty much straight away and money flowed a lot more freely. I don't know whether this was to do with the number of players or the way the goods were distributed at the start. I prefer Age of Steam but this also represents an interesting challenge and plays quicker.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2004-03-14T14:28:26+00:00

Since the release of Age of Steam back in 2002, its predecessor, Volldampf, has been gathering dust on the shelf. A shame, since it is a wonderful game in its own right, and a bit more forgiving. So, with six players, we opted to return to Wallace’s track-building roots. The rail barons were Angelo, Spouey, Michael, John, Darren and a partnership of Keith and I.

Angelo was hammered in the first round and was unable to transport any commodities. Thus, he collected three cards, which he later put to very good use. He rushed from last place following the first round to first place following the third round.

The game was very competitive, with all of us within striking distance throughout. All of us except Michael, who got hammered in the second round and played catch-up from then on. John was also near the back of the pack, but was steadily constructing a route in the center of Germany. This paid handsome dividends in the final round, as he was able to move two commodities across his tracks for eight points, while several of his opponents were also forced to transport commodities across his rails as well. This was enough to slip him past Angelo for the victory.

Round-by-round scores:

Round 2: Darren 15, Spouey 14, Keith/Greg 12, Angelo 11, John 10, Michael 5
Round 3: Angelo 24, Darren 23, Spouey 21, Keith/Greg 20, John 20, Michael 16

Finals: John 34 – 5 = 29; Angelo 32 – 5 = 27; Darren 31 – 4 = 27; Keith/Greg 28 – 5 = 23; Spouey 28 – 5 = 23; Michael 25 – 5 = 20

Ratings: Greg 8, Angelo 8, Keith 7.5, Spouey 7, Michael 7, John 7, Darren 7

Thread: Session Report

CaptainCaveman — 2003-09-25T13:33:19+00:00

After playing this game a while back at Kevin's, I purchased my own copy and did a paste-up job on the cards with the English translation available at the 'geek. Ken and I both enjoy Age of Steam (that was my birthday gift for him last spring), so I thought he would enjoy this predecessor. Jacob (8), Brandon (11), and Matthew (7)joined us for a five-player game.

There are some key differences in the 5 player version relative to the 4 player version. One is that only 2 track cards per group are drawn each turn. For some reason I didn't like this - I enjoyed having to find the best set of 3 cards in the 4 player version, and the choices in this game seemed too obvious. Of course if it really were obvious (or simple), I wouldn't have scored so poorly.

Back to the game - I try and coach Matthew on some strategies for acquiring track sections, explaining how goods will be shipped, and overall feeling pretty smug about my own understanding of the game. This is of course my second playing, and I won my first game largely because of some very fortunate merchandise card drawings. We start laying track, and I get a few good sections and jump out to the front early on. Matthew doesn't manage to get much on his first turn, and Ken is stuck with some poor choices (he finished 5th in the auction) and was unable to break even and suffers a small setback on the income track.

One cool thing about these train games is the ability for a player to require others to use his track sections to ship goods, sharing in the produced income. In the second turn, Matthew started to collect a dividend from just about everybody. Through luck or sheer brilliance, his track happens to be placed in 2 or 3 of the most strategic junctions, encouraging most of us to use him. The pattern went like this - I want to score 3 of my own sections on this shipment, but I'll have to use one of Matthew's - sounds like a good deal! So 3 out of 4 of us do this, plus Matthew ships his own goods, and next thing you know Matthew is racing into the lead. Ken also made some good use of action cards gained from his poor early turns and was neck and neck with Matthew.

The endgame wasn't very satisfying - there were some serious kingmaking opportunities for anyone that wanted to take some time to do a bit of calculation. In the end Matthew won the game in a tiebreaker (over Jacob I think), with Ken very close behind.

See: http://www.chrisbrooks.org/PermaLink.aspx?guid=730eba0d-b8eb...

Thread: Session Report

antkam — 2003-08-06T14:53:32+00:00

VOLLDAMPF
Antkam, Edmond, Henry, Ching, Sunny

This is the 2nd play for most of us, and my low opinion of this game continued. Both times I played with 5 players, though, so I wonder if that's a suboptimal number. What do the Volldampf-fans think?

My main gripe is that the game is very long -- we needed 2 hours! -- and also very fiddly in terms of little bits and chits and cards and cubes and such that we have to keep track of. I was the "banker" and felt that I was spending more time dealing out cards and cubes than playing the game. Also, for a 2-hour-long game, it has a big luck component. I alone built near the northwest in round 1 and when more permits of that region didnt come out in round 2, I was totally screwed. The others were clumped together in other parts of the map and enjoyed the game more, as their links are all mixed up and they played "I scratch your back, you scratch mine" to keep the game closer. With 5 players and 4 rounds (8 tracks per player), I felt the game didnt really support long term strategy.

What do Volldampf fans think? What is the optimal number of players, and how long does it usually take you to play?

Rating: based on my 2 plays this would rate a 3-4, but I would like to try again (maybe with different number of players) to see why others like it so much.

Thread: Session Report

Jim_P — 2003-03-09T05:13:34+00:00

Jim's rule: "Whoever owns the game can't win." was broken for the first time in a few months with Mark winning a game of Volldampf.

After playing last weekend at our 'Games Day' with only three players, we decided that we should try it with a full complimnent of six.

Trent, Jim, and Mike M. surged into a quick lead before the first round was done. A double blue purchase gave Mike a good chance of taking the lead in the next round if the right cards came up.

Everyone had a lot of bonds purchased early (6-10) and only Mark had left himself without any. And left himself in last place.

The second round saw a lot of bidding for cards. The first choice went for $14! Nick decided that Mike and Trent (who were ahead) should have to pay a lot for their next placements and took one set of cards that would have given either player a commanding lead. Jim held back and took 6th place.

The scores evened out this round, but Mark took a two point lead and by not shipping, took a couple of cards too.

Round three saw Mark extend his lead by seven points, as no one had the cards to stop him from purchasing a double route for shipment. Mark, however, took out an additional 7 bonds this turn and had to pay extra cash for interest.

The last round was very cutthroat! Mike B. was so far behind that he decided that he would try to play spoiler... even after telling everyone to go after the leader (Mark). It worked to some extent. The score between high and low (except for Mike) was five points! We tried, but just could not take Mark on in the last round!... he had too many good cards.

The final scores:

Mark 28
Jim 27
Trent 26
Nick 24
Mike M 23
Mike B 15

The game plays different with six players... however, I still think that 4 or 5 players make the best game. We attempted to go after the leader, but it was one turn too late.

I tend to agree with some critics of the game that there should be one more turn... just when the game is getting interesting... it's over! Another 18 cards in the mix would be just enough.

Thread: Session Report

Michael Becker — 2003-03-05T14:52:50+00:00

Mark purchased this game almost a year ago (when he won our monthly draw). Every game night we encourage members to put one dollar into a draw. This is optional. Once we have sixty dollars in the pool we make a draw and the winner must purchase a game with the money. This ensures that we have a constant supply and variety of games to choose from. I carried this idea from my previous club in Alberta and have found it to work very well.

Quite a while ago, I read a number of reviews about Volldampf and they all seemed pretty positive so I was really looking forward to trying this game out.

We decided to play a six player game with Mark, Jim, Mike M., Nic, Trent, and myself. After a brief explanation of the rules we began. This was the first playing for Mike M., Nic, and I. Mark was bound and determined to win this game as he had played quite a few times and placed rather dismally every time…

Trent began the game with a lot of cash as he decided to sell 5 shares. Everyone but Mike M. took additional funds before starting the first round.

The card spread was pretty even and unfortunately I overbid on the turn order coming in second. I therefore had to pay the full price for mediocre cards. Trent built three segments in close proximity. I built my three track segments in separate locations. Mark also managed to build a small chain by the second turn and this was a very wise decision. This small chain was in constant use throughout the game and enabled him to take a lead in VP's from the very beginning.

Sometimes I get a little worried regarding the play of certain members in our club. I have a very good win record in El Grande. I usually use a strategy of choosing actions which score locations and therefore I often take a large lead early in the game. Typically this is not a good thing to do against most players as your opponents will make you a target. In short time your large lead quickly deteriorates into a last place finish. In our group, however, my opponents seem to avoid creating mini coalitions to hose the early leader. Therefore, my early lead is seldom challenged and I have managed to win some games by a very, very large margin.

By the end of the second round Mark had a pretty substantial lead. I made a very deliberate comment stating if my opponents continued to ship using his network he would win the game. In my opinion, it makes more sense to spread out the wealth or give a few points to last place instead of continually feeding the leader and thus increasing his/her lead. Unfortunately, my comment was readily dismissed by two opponents (they will remain nameless, but they know who they are :-)). Mark just looked at me with a cool almost smirky confidence...

During the last two rounds I found myself short on money and therefore was not able to create the necessary track segments required for two massive vp pay offs. In essence, I was one segment short. Otherwise, I would of been in a position to ship two goods using my line exclusively for an additional 12 vp's.

Moving into the final round Mike M. and myself were quite a few vp's off the pace. Mike M. had only sold two shares (or bonds, I can't remember) and I had sold six. Mike M. had been storing up the special action cards and used these to good effect in the last round. It was going to be close for everyone except me. I was definitely out of the game.

In the end Mark won followed closely by Trent, Jim, Nic and then Mike M.

After the game it was time to go home to bed. Instead of going to sleep, however, I decided to re-read a review of Volldampf in The Game Report. The review stated that it was a good idea to create synergy with the leader in order to do well in 5 or 6 player game. I couldn't agree more. If I had placed a few segments closer to Mark or Trent I would have done much better. Also, building at least one chain seems to be very beneficial. Hopefully, your chain will guarantee a few crucial vp's every turn. I didn't really form a chain until the end of the fourth round. And by then the game was over. Despite my dismal play I really enjoyed the game. You really need to react and build off of your opponents to do well. Also, you need to budget your cash flow very efficiently.

As such, I have chalked this first game as a loss due to inexperience and look forward to another play. Next time things will be much different. Since the release of Volldampf another game called Age of Steam has appeared. I also know the newer game built its roots against its predecessor. Can anyone tell me which game they like better as I would be interested in purchasing one of these two games?

Thread: Session Report

Jim_P — 2003-02-27T21:53:32+00:00

Mark arrived while we were playing Royal Turf and had brought his copy of Volldampf with him. Trent had never played before and Sean and I had only ever played once, so we felt that this was a good start to the afternoon.

Track placement can be a real game winner, but the key to success in this game is money management. Each player grabbed an additional $30 in the first round to supplement their income. Bidding for first position was over quick because the build cards for the first round were unimpressive.

Trent built a couple of northern tracks for a quick shipment, Mark bought three cheap sections near the centre of the board, and Sean and I managed to compliment each other by building south-central.

Round two saw a triple pink show up in the build selection, which Sean had to bid up to $15 to get. (in hindsight, I probably should have bid him higher) With three triangle builds, Sean built a sequence of track across the middle of the board such that nearly all shipments that round made him money. Very little track had been placed in the north or south, so in order to collect anything in the round, Sean got a piece of the action.

Mark and I collected cards in round two, which I used to some advantage in the third round. I had managed to successfully bid for first and got a nice set of cards in the south. With my 'build anywhere for $5' card I strung out a set of tracks that, when combined with Mark's, could shut Sean out of a few payouts. By the time the third round was over I had moved into second place.

Production was a disater for everyone but Sean in the final round. The only cubes left on the board, except for one, had to be delivered on one of Sean's tracks... the win was his. I had second place sewed up too... the big question was how Mark and Trent would place.

In the end, Trent and Mark tied for points... Mark taking third by having more money.

Scores:

Sean 28
Jim 21
Mark 17 (+)
Trent 17 (-)

After playing my second game it has become very apparent that everyone should build track as close to the leader as possible, that way if he ships you are going to share the spoils too. It appears to be a fine balance.

Another thing... only borrow as much money as you think you'll need for a round. Interest MUST be paid at the end of each round so the less you have to pay in the first two rounds can improve your cash flow. It should also be remembered that points are deducted from your score at the end of the game for every bond you hold.

Thread: Session Report

hinj — 2002-12-04T15:49:06+00:00

I love this game, bidding for turn order, moving merchandise. It was also the one game we were able to convince Steve to play with us. I took out huge loans in the first round to get the choice track cards. Then I completely boofed it up by purchasing the expensive 10 mark track, rather than the 4 mark track. I completely forgot that someone else might choose to build the cheaper track section. Luckily, I got my money's worth by the end of the game, but that little section of 4 mark track saw just as much (no, MORE) use. It was painful. Kyra caught on to this game very quickly, and beat Andy. That always makes us happy.

Results:
Kyra 15
Andy 12
Ed 4
Steve 5.5 (he won the tie breaker with Dave)
Dave 5
Angela 6 (I beat Steve!)

At the end of the game, the number of bonds you have out is deducted from your score; many of us took out too many lloans (we had enough money we didn't need them). Therein lies the fun of balancing this one. I'm really looking forward to trying Age of Steam, which I understand takes Volldampf to the next level. Love that Martin Wallace.

Thread: Session Report

hinj — 2002-10-04T23:40:38+00:00

Carl and I went to the gameroom to pick the first victim of the day. Our choice? VOLLDAMPF. I hadn’t played VOLLDAMPF with only 2, and Carl hadn’t played at all. It was interesting, but not exciting. Probably a good way to teach those new to the game. The scores are substantially lower than with more players as the number of track pieces available for use by either player is significantly decreased. I found that action card usage was waaaay up, though.

VOLLDAMPF results:
Carl: 14
Angela: 7

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-09-22T14:10:28+00:00

With Jeremy gone for the last six months, he has missed a lot of the great games we’ve been playing. Volldampf was one that he missed that he wanted to try. Sean was also a newbie, so I taught them both the game and we got underway.

I stormed ahead in the first few rounds, bidding high to be the start player, putting quite a bit of track on the west side of the board and transporting cubes over quite a bit of my track. Jy and Sean also did a fair amount of track building on the west side at the beginning of the game but before long their tracks expanded to other parts of the board.

After my big beginning, Jy and Sean began to catch up and towards the end of the game, Jy and I were trading the lead. The big factor in this game was a Sabotage card Sean played on the last turn. I was going to transport a cube that was going to be big points for me – the same cube would have been big points for Jy. I went first, but Sean played his Sabotage card on me, so I had to do something for less points and Jy got to transport the cube. This Sabotage took the game away and gave it to Jeremy – a kingmaker situation that I hadn’t experience before in Volldampf. Sean and I then tied for second place.

Score:

*Jy* – 27
Rick – 25
Sean – 25

Ratings:

Jy – 6
Rick – 8
Sean – 6

Jy and Sean blamed the lower ratings on the fact that they were tired. Even so, they both played very well for their first game. I still really liked the game, even with the kingmaking issue. Next time we’ll play it again when all of us are awake!

And that’s all, folks!

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2002-08-27T14:19:16+00:00

Volldampf is played on a board representing a map of Germany. Cities, each in one of four colours, are linked by lines. Each line is marked with a symbol and a cost. Players vie to build these lines and move goods from city to city. Each time a good is moved across a players line, that player earns a point.

The game consists of four or five rounds. Each round consists of a set of phases. Over the course of a round, a player typically performs the following actions.

First, they may raise income by issuing bonds.

Second, they bid for a set of track cards in an auction phase. In a three player game, each set consists of three cards. Each track card has a symbol, which identifies the area on the board where the track may be built.

Third, they take turns building track by playing a card whose symbol matches that on the track they wish to build and paying the associated cost. All cards "won" in the action this round must be either played or discarded.

Fourth, they take turns moving (delivering) goods cubes to a city whose colour matches the colour of the cube. A number of cubes are randomly distributed across cities at game start, and more will be added at the beginning of each round. Once a good has been delivered, it is removed from the board. Goods may only be moved across built sections of track, but they may be moved across track owned by any player. Points are scored by the owner of each track used, regardless of which player moves goods. Each player can move two goods cubes, or can give up a move to take an action card. Cards allow actions such as moving a goods cube to a new starting city, taking a third movement etc.

Fifth, they recieve income (cash) according to their current point score and pay income on any bonds they have issued.

This was my third play of this game, and the second for both Steve and Tel. It's the first time any of us had played the game with only three players. This was to be the downfall of two of us...

Money is very tight in this game. Starting capital is only 12 DM, and cash is needed both for the auction and track laying phases. Players thus typically have to issue bonds immediately to provide enough money for the first round. Myself and Tel both started off issuing two bonds. Steve obviously had a cunning plan up his sleeve which didn't involve wads of cash as he didn't bother to issue anything at all. In fact, his plan turned out to be not to bid anything and ...erm ... not to build very much track either. In fact, by the end of the third round he'd only managed to get two pieces of track onto the board. However, by some miracle, he was somehow in the lead. This was largely due to me only having three pieces of track as I couldn't find anywhere worth building, and Tel not being able to spot goods movements besides having a bigger network than me and Steve combined. Two seperate networks had developed, with me and Steve largely owning one and Tel having the majority in the other.

It was at this point that we realised the game had five turns and not four as we supposed. This was to lead to Steves downfall as he ran out of lucrative goods movement opportunities just as Tel put together a cross country link
between the two networks and started shipping goods long distance. The final turn was largely one of damage limitation, but even the use of action cards to sabotage Tels goods movements was not enough to save the day. The final score was suprisingly close, but Tel took the win by two points.

I like this game, but we all thought it suffered from only having three players. My previous games had been with 5 or 6 players, and proved much more entertaining. Options seemed far more limited in the three player game, though we certainly didn't help things by discarding so much track.

Scores - Tel 23, Paul 21, Steve 21
Rating (/10, for this session) Tel 6, Paul 7, Steve 7.

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-06-07T13:45:05+00:00

Volldampf

For our final game, we played another six player game – this time it was Volldampf (Hmmm, this almost could have been a train theme night). Keith hadn’t played before so we outlined the rules for his before we started laying our track.

In this game, I surged into the lead early and Keith kept on my heels most of the game. I had a good few routes where I could score well plus I picked up some more points on routes that other took that had my tracks.

Keith, Jeff, Corwin and William were able to put together a few good routes and made some good deliveries. Dan pursued his strategy of making almost no deliveries and acquiring 100 special cards in the process. Good strategy Dan!

Even though everyone did their best to prevent my win, I was able to keep my lead and win the game (and the universe, as it were, came back into alignment).

Score:

*Rick* - 27 (Full Steam Ahead)
Keith – 21
Jeff – 17
Corwin – 13
William – 13
Dan – 4 (Out of Steam)

Ratings:

Rick – 9
Keith – 6
Jeff – 6
Corwin – 5
William – 6
Dan – 7

I loved the game, but the others thought it was too chaotic with so many players. Corwin in particular really likes the game but thought he didn’t have enough control with so many players. Keith thought he’d like the game better with only four players.

And that’s all she wrote!

Thread: User Review

Aldie — 2002-04-29T03:59:42+00:00

Volldampf is a railroad/economic game that is an updated version of Lancashire Rails designed by the venerable Martin Wallace. I have never played Lancashire Rails, but I hear that most of the problems with that game have been fixed in Volldampf.

Greg Schloesser has summarized the mechanics of the game here so I won't go into them in much detail.

The game is beautifully produced with a smallish board representing modern Germany. The route lines are clearly marked on the board and they are coded by color as well as shape. The cubes are of the standard wooden German variety which represents the trade goods the players are transporting around the board. This might pose a problem for colorblind players, but they are of very different shades (orange, blue, yellow, and purple). The cards are the smallish kind, but you don't really have a hand of cards in the game, so it's not too hard to manage them. The money is your standard paper money in several denominations, and is color coded as well. It is double sided, which is preferable, since my compulsivity forces me to keep all money face up when collecting it :-) The loan markers are thick cardboard tiles in denominations of 1 and 5. The 5 marker is about twice as large as the 1 marker. Finally, the scoring maker and the railway tiles are small cardboard chits, but not too thin.

Volldampf combines auction, tile choosing and placement, action cards, and money management in a perfect way. When I play the game, I get a good feeling that my actions will determine my outcome in the game, and it's not one of those "enjoy the ride" games.

There is a fairly unforgiving and delicate balance of money in the game. You start out the game very cash poor, but you can (must) take loans in order to buy rail lines to deploy onto the board. Cash is also used in the auction to decide player order - which is very important in the game.

I've noticed that after the rail cards are unveiled, there is a deadly silence which persists for several minutes, and the brain melting begins. This part of the game is my favorite, as it is the point where you make your biggest decisions that will affect your turn. After the player order is determined, the track cards are picked, each player then builds rail lines on those track cards they previously chose, then the goods are transported, and finally income is taken.

The game has an excellent mechanic for helping out those players who are unable or unwilling to transport goods; instead they get an action card which may be used in the future. Herein lies my only gripe with the game - the action cards are unbalanced. In particular the one that lets you rearrange the track cards after they are revealed is fairly useless (so I've found). Regardless, the player that gets these action cards can perform some very powerful maneuvers in the game and score some big points. Also, the player in last place every round gets an action card to help make up some lost ground.

I have played the game with 3, 4,and 5 players and have found that the game scales well with the number of players. I prefer to play with more players because a little more interaction comes about when players share track lines. It's also slightly less luck dependent each turn when replacing trade goods in the cities.

Volldampf is an excellent game that I am looking forward to playing over and over. It has certainly become a mainstay in our gaming group.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2002-04-09T12:37:49+00:00

Before Gulf Games, Ty had informed me that there was a handful of games he was determined to play at GG. One of these was Volldampf. Since I am such a huge fan of the game, I was more than happy to help him scratch this one of his 'must play' list. We were joined by Charlie Davis, Ian, Larry Levy and Tim Watson.

I suffered a disastrous first turn as the location where I constructed my tracks was completely ignored by my opponents. All of the action was occurring in the Southwest, whereas I had built in the north central. Thus, after the first turn, I had acquired zero points. This did grant me an action card, but that was small consolation.

In the second round a fared a tad bit better, but not much. Larry and Tim, however, were competing for the lead and remained within one or two points of each other for the entire duration. As the game developed, my tracks began to see more and more use and I managed mega-points in the final two rounds. However, it wasn't enough to catch Larry or Tim, but I did manage a respectful third place finish after a horrendous beginning.

Finals: Larry 29, Tim 28, Greg 25, Ty 22, Ian 19, Charlie 15

Ratings: Greg 8.5, Tim 8, Ty 8, Larry 7.5, Charlie 7, Ian 6

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-03-31T21:43:05+00:00

Hi all, this is now Rick taking over the session report. While Dan, Corwin and William were busy with Attila, David, Ann, Diane, James and I sat down for a game of Volldampf.

David and I had played the game before, the rest were newbies. The difference between the veterans and the newbies really showed in this game – in Volldampf you really do need to get a game under your belt to get the hang of it, it’s not the easiest game to pick up right off the bat.

In this game, David and I traded the lead for most of the game. James acquired a huge number of Action Cards, having not made many trips during the game. Everyone else laid their track and made their trips. In the end, I was able to win with a fairly good combination of using a lot of my tracks for trips and also having other people use my tracks.

Score:

*Rick* - 16
David – 13
Ann – 10
Diane – 4
James – 3

Ratings:

Rick – 8
David – 8
Ann – 8
Diane – 5
James – 7

I enjoyed the game as did David and Ann. Diane thought it was “middle of the road” while James thought the game had a “high learning curve for a newbie”. I think next time we wouldn’t play as involved a game as Volldampf with so many newbies.

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-03-06T00:26:22+00:00

During our game of Fossil, David, Chester and Joe joined us. We split into two groups with Dan, Corwin, David and I playing Volldampf. Corwin is the only newcomer to the game.

In this game, we used the designer’s suggested variants. Firstly, no action cards are awarded in the first round for not making a delivery. Secondly, you must deliver a good to the first city of that color you come in contact with, you can’t pass through it to another city of the same color.

This game of Volldampf was very close. Interestingly enough, the tracks in thee pink and green areas were almost ignored – the rest of the tracks were heavily used. In the first two rounds, David and Dan pulled away from the pack and grabbed the lead. In the third round I used an action card to get three merchandise deliveries, getting me big points and giving me the lead. The last round was quite tense as we all jockeyed for points. In the end, Dan got the win - only one point ahead of David (who was only one point ahead of me).

Score:

*Dan* - 29
David – 28
Rick – 27
Corwin – 21

Ratings:

Dan – 9
David – 9
Rick – 9
Corwin – 8

A great game that we all enjoyed. This game was less chaotic with more deliberate play than our last game. The only possible criticism I can think of is that the game doesn’t last long enough!