Game: Unpublished Prototype

Image

gpruitt — 2008-10-10T20:34:48+00:00

My unpublished pirate game - "Brothers of the Coast"

Image

Jeremiah_Lee — 2008-09-03T05:57:29+00:00

Solo playtest of an upcoming print and play game called 'Monster Bits Trader'.

Image

Desiderata — 2008-08-10T05:57:55+00:00

My (non-gamer) wife decided that the best way to keep my son from disrupting my games in session was to design and create a game for him! This is what she came up with--and that is my son enjoying it!

Thread: Vor den Toren von Loyang - by Uwe Rosenberg

Ponton — 2008-07-27T01:07:54+00:00

On Saturday, July 26th, we playtested 'Vor den Toren von Loyang', a game designed by Uwe Rosenberg that is the predecessor of Agricola, but will be published hopefully in 2009. It can be played with 2-4 players. I'll explain the 4-player game and note the changes in a 3-player game at the end. A 2-player game is pretty much the same as a 4-player game.

This game is all about goods and money. Each player starts with 10 gold and one field that consists of 9 spaces - each space can take one good, which there are 6 types of in the game. Currently the goods have no real names, just that of the color their representative cubes have: blue, green, red, yellow, orange, purple.

Your first field is also the round counter - the game lasts exactly 9 rounds. In these you try to make money with your goods by fulfilling 'contracts' or 'orders' which I will talk about later. Also, in front of you there is a small player board in form of a capital letter 'T', where you can find your 'shop' on the left, and a victory point track starting in the crossing of the T and going to the round and across the vertical line of the T. It's numbered 1,3,4,...,20. I'll tell you later how to use it.

Your 'shop' has 3 spaces for a blue cube, and two for each of the other types of goods in the order given above. Blue costs 3 gold, green 4, red and yellow 5, orange and purple 6. They sell for 1 gold each, except orange and purple which sell for 2 gold. You may only buy a cube if it is still available in your shop and you may sell one so long as there is a free space of the appropriate color - so we have a supply and demand mechanism here.

At the start of the game you fill all of the spaces in your shop with cubes, except orange and purple which get just one cube. Then, starting with a random starting player, each player may select one blue, green or red cube from their shop to sow it. The so sown first field of each player will now be filled with cubes of the same color from the supply. Thus, each player starts with 9 cubes of a color. Note, only up to two players may take the same type of goods. After that, the game begins.

The first action of each player is to harvest exactly one cube from each field they have. At the beginning this will be just the first one. They put this cube in their 'storage'.

Then each player receives a new field. The sizes may vary from 3 to 6 spaces, and the smaller the field size the more types of goods can be sown on that field. You'll be able to sow purple, for instance, on 3-space fields only. To guarantee that each player will start with about the same fields, each player was dealt one field of all 4 sizes (3,4,5,6) and has shuffled that stack face-down, and now draws the top-most card of that stack. After 4 rounds, however, each player will get a new field from the general supply and this can be various field sizes.

After each player was dealt a new field, the starting player deals 4 special cards to each player. These show one of 5 things: a 'contract', an 'order' (both placed on the right side of your player board), a 'person', or a 'market' (both placed on the left side in seperate rows). The 5th type of cards is another field.

BUT, this is not that easy. Before the players can lay out these cards in their play area, a cool drafting mechanism is performed. Each player has to lay out one card from his hand and one from the 'common supply'. This common supply, however, is not the draw stack, but will be created by the players themselves by throwing cards from their hands to the middle. The starting player has no option, but to discard one of his 4 cards to the middle. This will be the first card of the common supply. After that each player, including the starting player, may either on his own throw in a card to the supply and therefore passing the turn to the next player. Or he takes one card from the supply, one from his hand and lays them out in his play area. The remaining cards in his hand will be put in the common supply. So, having many good cards in your hand is no good, as you have to first throw one of them in, to later take it yourself. But you risk that another player will take it before you. Even if you are the last player to have cards in your hand, you may not take two of them. You have to take one already laying in the supply. BTW, all the other cards not taken will be added to the stack and the stack will be reshuffled prior to dealing 4 cards to each player on the next turn.

So, what are the cards you were dealt and what can you do with them in order to win the game?

The MARKET is easy. It shows 3 pairs of spaces. A cube of the color mentioned on the space will be put on the right space of each pair. This is what you can get on the market. During your turn, you may place any cube on the left space of a pair to immediately get that cube on the right one. This way you can trade goods for much better values than through the shop (remember the buy price is much higher than the sell price). However, some markets show a double-left-space for orange and purple cubes. This means you have to spend two cubes of any color to get this one orange or purple cube.

The PERSON cards are also very easy. They have a text written on the card telling you what you can do once, after which you must discard the person. Some of them give you alternatives and you have to choose one of the available alternatives when playing the card. There are a lot of persons with a lot of different actions. Some allow you to trade goods on another player's market. Some allow you to harvest more than one good. And so on. Nearly every aspect of the game is also covered by one person giving you better outcome of a particular action.

An ORDER card shows three types of goods (may be the same, like red-red-purple) and a value. During your turn you may fulfill as many order you can pay buy discarding the goods demanded from your storage to the general supply. The value on the card (from 8-14) is the outcome in gold you get for the fulfillment. However, if you have too many orders, you get a 2 gold penalty; if you have very few orders, you even get a 2 gold bonus. This depends on how many contracts you have. If you have more contracts than orders, you get the bonus, if you have fewer contracts than orders, you get the penalty. Nothing special happens otherwise. However, there is a person card allowing you to ignore the penalty for an entire turn.

The CONTRACT cards are tricky. They show 4 pairs of spaces. Each pair has a value. The card itself mentions two colors (may be the same on some contracts). Contracts are the only actions you have to do in your turn. Each turn you must fulfill one (and not more) pair of cubes mentioned on the card. You start with the lowest value and after 4 rounds you have fulfilled the whole contract. However, if you cannot fulfill a row the first time, you get a glass bead marking an admonishment. The next time you cannot fulfill a row, you have to pay 2 gold as penalty for each contract you cannot fulfill and which has already a glass bead. So, try to fulfill the contracts. Of course, the best way to do it, is to get cubes in the colors needed each turn in the harvest phase.

Finally, you might get a FIELD card. This is an additional field to the one you already got. And as fields and sowing is so important in this game, this type of cards is the only one to cost 2 gold to play. Such a field might have up to 7 spaces.

So, you now know the cards you can get and the actions associated with these cards. Other actions during your turn are:

SOWING - take one cube out from your storage and put it on a free field. Take additional cubes from the supply to fill all the spaces of the field. However, if a field is empty after you harvest a good, you have to discard that field. So, you can only use newly gotten fields. This is the reason why a field card costs 2 gold if you get it with the special cards. In the first 6 of the 9 rounds you play, you will need a lot of fields to get a steady supply of cubes each turn. It's like in Agricola: one grain is just one grain, but sown it will be three. It needs its time to get those three, but you know they will be there.

Another action is to buy and sell to your shop. These and all of the above mentioned actions can be performed multiple times (except contracts, you must fulfill one row per contract only). The last available action is to buy new special cards. You take two cards from the stack and you pay as many gold as you have persons or markets - whichever number is greater. You may take both, one or no cards and lay them out in your play area. However, if you take both, you put on onto the other - so you have first to use/fulfill the upper card to get to use the card below.

At the end of your turn you may buy victory points. The first victory point you buy in a turn costs 1 gold. Each other victory point costs the listed price. Example: In round one, you have earned 11 gold. You may advance to the '4' space of the victory point track for 8 gold. The 1 costs 1 gold, then the 3 and 4 cost 7. The next turn, say you have 17 gold. You can now advance to the '7' space for 14 gold. The 5 costs one as it is the first victory point space purchased, the 6 and 7, however, cost 6+7=13. This way early money is more precious than money earned in later turns. Note, there is no '2' space on the victory point track, thus the 8 gold to pay to advance to the '4' in round 1. This is also a very clever mechanism of this game. Usually, in a good game you'll get to the 17 or 18 spot of the victory point track.

This was an entire turn of one player. As the actions may take some time, and to fasten the game, Uwe Rosenberg has invented another ingenious mechanism: instead of each of the 4 players to wait for each other, the starting player selects a partner among the remaining players. This pair and the remaining one play simultaneously. That is: the starting player performs his actions and his partner watches to check the correctness. Also, for the purpose of person cards, his partner is the only player he may interact with. And vice-versa. So if he has a person that allows to use another players market, he may only use one of the markets of his partner. After he finished his turn, his partner performs his actions in the same manner. Simultaneously the other pair does the same. The player of this pair sitting on the left-most side of the starting player begins.

This way the game lasts 9 rounds as mentioned before. After round 6 most of your options will be obvious, also it will not be so profitable to grow further crops, so the turns will be played much faster. All in all, you will play about 3 hours. But that's OK and it's a very enjoyable time.

Some last notes on small rules I did not mention above: Should you ever need money and have no money left or you are not willing to sell your precious goods to your shop, you may take a credit of 5 gold. You immediately receive those 5 gold, BUT at the end of the game, you need to go back one space on the victory point track for each credit you have. You cannot pay back the credit earlier. Effectively, the payback of a credit will cost you about 17 or 18 gold, depending how far you were on the track. So, take credits wisely. Uwe Rosenberg said, usually players taking at least one credit don't win. I won the game we played having that one credit. So, if you play wisely, you should manage to win. It's not easy, however. Honestly, I was tied with another player. If you are tied on the victory point track, the player among those tied who has the most money left, wins. But we both had 6 gold left.

A last note on the other player counts: as the 4p game is pretty much a 2x 2p game (except the drafting phase), the 2p will not be very much different from it. The 3p game, however, is a regular one-by-one game where you play sequentially.

So, that's 'Vor den Toren von Loyang' (in English: 'In front of the gates to Loyang'). This game is all about money and wise agriculture. It's a very hard game and you really have to plan wisely. I very much enjoyed it and am waiting until it will be published. And for all Americans, don't be afraid, Uwe very probably will release an English edition parallelly to a German one - he said, he won't do the mistake with Agricola again.

Hope this small review/rules overview helps to get a picture of how the game works. If you are able to meet Uwe and play this game, do it. It's really worth it.

Image

Cardboard Carnage — 2008-07-07T23:25:32+00:00

I can't give out many details yet, but a friend of mine let me playtest a game he is working on. He said I could post this photo of the prototype. This game used Axis & Allies minis, but the final will not, they were only used for this playtest.

Image

Yugblad — 2008-06-01T15:48:55+00:00

Prototype Hexagonal Geomorphs

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

jarinu — 2008-05-14T13:31:22+00:00

Hello Pete,
As a Spaniard, I found the topic game very nice and interesting indeed.
I also find like a good innovation the issue of Victory Point count is always hidden due to the variable points available for certain discovery markers and nobody knows until the end of the game... Sounds great, however could you explain a bit more how it works?
I did not understand well how battles with dice works.
good luck with the game.
Jose

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-04-19T06:16:58+00:00

A Designer's spare parts. He uses whatever is on hand. And then when he runs out, he goes out and buys more junk from Goodwill.

Image

Jeremiah_Lee — 2008-04-19T01:39:39+00:00

First playtest for 'Zombie Pile'. Using 'Zombies!!!' figures, orange juice caps, a shot glass, and some Icehouse pyramids.

Image

Howitzer_120mm — 2008-04-18T20:19:24+00:00

Some different designs for counters

Image

metalchorus — 2008-04-13T16:40:04+00:00

The Adventure - Game created by my son when he was around 7

Thread: Salvation: A three person experience

denverarch — 2008-04-09T15:07:16+00:00

Session report. Salvation, 4-5-08.

This is my second game of Salvation, an interesting game of world religions, enlightenment, and expansion. Salvation is not quite “like” anything I’ve played before. It is designed by a philosophy professor so it feel a little like an educational game, little like an old school game, and a lot of just “different”. The mechanics are very simple and incorporate the theme wonderfully. Players take control of a major world religion and attempt to convert “souls” with their missionaries. I played with the designer who has used the game to teach his students since 1995 or so. Lately he began sending the demo out for play testing and wanted to see how well his new module holds up. Players have unique special abilities related to their religions tenants, and they also receive special powers when they achieve certain goals or souls related to their development. You can’t but help learn about different faiths (or even your own) by playing Salvation.

We tried the three-player Crusaders scenario with Dan’s new demo map that he distributed. The first player to erect a seminary in the Holy Land wins. Islam must conquer adjacent strong territories to enter the Hold Land first, or have one of the other players enter the Holy Land: this turned out to be a pretty difficult feat!

I played the Muslims who, without the Camel (an ability) or the Way of Allah (another special ability), were stymied in their efforts to escape Arabia. Pete enjoyed the mechanics of the game as the Orthodox Player, and valiantly made his way south through the Caucuses, running into “acts of god” and revivals of unbelievers, which slowed him down. Dan got lucky (or smart) with Catholicism and managed to secure the Balkans early, eventually winning by advancing on the Spiritual enlightenment table and gaining valuable spiritual enrichment cards. The Acts of God came a little late to wipe out Dan’s hold in the SE Mediterranean and he flew into the Holy Land and erected a Seminary with a special card. I felt like I was still in the Bronze Age. The game lasted about 1 hour. Apparently Dan says the game is more interesting with four or more, as it becomes an epic struggle, whereas the three-player game is a race. Dan laid out some of the changes for me:

The imbalance in the three player demo game should lead to the
following changes in the three player game:

1.Islam will have all it's movement powers, and shall no longer need to
establish control of Mesopotamia and/or Egypt before entering the Holy
Land but may do so as soon as desired.

2. New 3 player game victory conditions:
Orthodoxy or Catholicism wins if first to build a seminary in the Holy
Land. Islam wins if builds a seminary in Istanbul (Turkey) before then.

With these changes this 3 player scenario should be much more interesting and the Islamic player should be less likely to get “stuck” in Arabia. Players awill be “pushing past” each other, which should create a unique tension.

Thread: Indiana Jones' Lost Adventures - Thematic session report

sedjtroll — 2008-04-07T04:42:39+00:00

This was posted to my game group's mail list, it's a session report from an Indiana Jones themed game by Jeff Warrender and Steve Sisk. There's a little info about it in this thread: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/224971

A deduction game of finding clues to the location of information and artifacts that will hopefully help lead your hero to the Lost Temple that holds the fabled Holy Grail before Nazi agents do. But danger lurks at every plot turn as our heroes face challenges from elements of the Nazi Army, Temple Traps and possibly even unscrupulous fellow heroes!

Our heroes started out following numerous leads for information regarding artifacts that would give them clues about the location of the Lost Temple and what they might face once it was found. A shield belonging to a Knight's Templar was located buried in the ruins of a lost shrine in Cairo and hurried to a museum in Venice for further study. Next, a Franciscan Manuscript was located in a hidden monastery near Delhi which lead to further clues about the location of the Grail and it was rushed to a museum in Istanbul. Our heroes redoubled their efforts when they heard information that the Nazi agents may be closing in on the location of the Lost Temple, when a tablet of stone containing information about the Grail was located in a remote shrine in the Himalayas of Nepal.

At this point it was nearing 8 PM and the game was called just as the Nazi agents located the Lost Temple and the game was about to move into the Temple phase of negotiating the temple traps and finding and testing the grail.

A very enjoyable and quite often, tense game!

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

Martin Ralya — 2008-04-06T04:02:17+00:00

I'm glad this went over well -- I wasn't sure how much mileage folks would get out of it, but I hoped it would be useful.

Thank you for the suggestions and feedback on playtesting, too. I've done one more playtest since I wrote this, and it was every bit as interesting of an experience. It also revealed just how much more work I have to do.

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

bucklen_uk — 2008-04-04T12:03:41+00:00

Playtest sessions are very different depending on what you as the designer are doing:

1. Playing - when you're playing it's similar to you teaching a new game, people expect you to help, give advice on strategy etc. It's quite useful to see what works and doesn't work and to get insight over things that trip people up. But mostly it's helpful for you to experience playing the game with others(rather than your head).

2. Watching/helping - standing back and letting others play is (I find) generally more useful, especially if you know the players - watching body language and seeing what everyone is doing is so much easier when you're not actually trying to play as well. This throws up issues like downtime etc, is someone getting bored, do the turns take too long, is the board to small etc. Of course sometimes you'll be teaching people the game and helping with advice too - but the less you do of that the better.

3. Not present - of course then you'll get feedback afterwards - this is really useful, and throws up issues with rule understanding that just don't factor when you are on hand. It also throws up unexpected situations and new strategies, as players don't have you to follow.

If you're just doing 1 & 2 there's no real need for a comprehensive rulebook at all, as long as you have a good memory! Just notes about how the game plays. 3 is a great test for the rules, especially if none of the playtesters has been taught the game by you personally.

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

Punko — 2008-04-03T20:50:45+00:00

The greatest gift your playtesters can give you is live feedback. Its amazing how some people can be hesitant to criticize, but the small group I have used have learned that the downside to not providing necessary feedback on a bad game is that they may end up playing it again.

The best stuff, for me, is the odd comment during gameplay like "oh, I like this" or "ok, that's cool" when something interesting happens. Even "oh crap, I'm screwed" is good although this implies that the impending doom wasn't forseen which may be a fault of the rules, the explanation, or the gameplay.

A fill-in-the-blank form at the end doesn't quite do it for me. Live play commentary during the game (a full game, don't just try to play a segment of play) is key.

Also, when writing up the rules ahead of time, make sure you've thought of setup, play, and resolution.

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

denverarch — 2008-04-03T19:56:17+00:00

Thanks. I'll try and chnage that ASAP. I used a very 'papyrus' type script for some of it.

Still the proper thing to do would be email me or leave a comment. Rating the game a 1 is pretty crappy

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

generalpf — 2008-04-03T18:48:37+00:00

denverarch wrote:
This was fun to read.

Just wait until you put yourself out there and get good feedback, and then get bad feedback, or downright mean feedback for no reason.

See comments under Old World, New World that I just discovered yesterday.

Thanks for posting, and just be careful not to get too down if you get bad feedback from somone who has drastically diffrent tastes in games.
I just had a look at the 1 rating you're talking about. It's possible that the rater had a problem with the font used in the rules. I cracked them open myself and it was giving me a headache too. Maybe you were using a font that's only on your PC?

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

denverarch — 2008-04-03T18:38:37+00:00

This was fun to read.

Just wait until you put yourself out there and get good feedback, and then get bad feedback, or downright mean feedback for no reason.

See comments under Old World, New World that I just discovered yesterday.

Thanks for posting, and just be careful not to get too down if you get bad feedback from somone who has drastically diffrent tastes in games.

Thread: Re: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

Hendal — 2008-04-03T18:26:08+00:00

Thanks for sharing, yea I am one who wants to make his own game also, so this has been helpful, I hopefully will be going through the same thing soon.

Thread: Notes from my first playtesting session: Bizarre and problematic, but somehow wonderful

Martin Ralya — 2008-04-03T17:22:18+00:00

This past week my friend Daniel and I played the first-ever session of a game that I designed, still in "unpublished prototype" form.

It's a two-player card game of space conquest that features lots of customization and no random elements. Joining BGG is what compelled me to finally write the rules and get in gear -- I've had most of the game in my head since 1995, when I first got the idea.

I learned a lot from this first playtesting session, and I thought it might interest fellow 'Geeks -- especially folks heading down this road themselves. I "designed" games as a kid, but I've never set out to create a game intended for publication before.

1. It was weird

For starters, it was weird to be sitting down and actually playing something that, up until the day before, had only existed in my head (and in a few half-baked earlier iterations of the rules).

I've had some of my freelance work published in the RPG industry, and this feeling was similar to the feeling I get when I see something of mine in print -- but not quite the same.

2. Man, did I approach the rules all wrong

I wrote the first draft of the rules as if I was writing them for publication: complete sentences, attention paid to grammar and style, flavor text included -- the whole nine yards. As it turned out, that was an interesting exercise, but not the best approach.

I expected to find a better way to order the rules after a game or two, and I definitely picked the wrong order the first time out; that wasn't a big surprise. What was surprising was that the long-form approach didn't dovetail well with actual playtesting.

What I needed was a bare-bones list of rules, arranged in an order that was easy to explain. The flavor and thematic stuff is all in my head anyway, and since I glossed over it in favor of explaining the mechanics, it was superfluous.

I filed the first version away to reference later, and rewrote the rules in simple list form with bullet points. Now they fit in four pages, and they should be much easier to explain.

3. Made sense in my head != made sense in play

I expected gaps, holes and ill-considered elements -- this is my first game design, after all. Even so, it was interesting to me to see how being close to my design had blinded me to problems that seem obvious now. There's no substitute for actual play.

4. Take notes

I took detailed notes while we played, which turned out to be very useful. I looked at the excellent playtest feedback form that's available in the files section here, but opted for a freeform approach instead.

Along with the date, Daniel's name and the actual notes, I put a little M or D (or both) next to whoever came up with each idea. This will let me consider suggestions in light of each playtester's gaming tastes, as well as give design credits above and beyond playtesting if needed.

5. Deciding what to change is tough!

After seeing what worked, what didn't work and what was still up in the air, it was tempting to change a lot of things -- but changing too much after one game seems like a bad idea. I went with my gut in most cases, erring on the side of leaving things alone if I didn't have a strong feeling about them.

I ended up making changes to streamline and speed up the game, which just one playtest was enough to reveal as the biggest problem areas. I also cast aside one of my original design constraints (from back in high school, when I first came up with this game): that it use only stuff you already have around the house, like ordinary playing cards.

I made some crude boards out of craft foam (which was actually a lot of fun -- craft foam rocks!) and implemented Daniel's biggest suggestion, and I think it will play a lot better now.

As for the game itself, it turned out not to be Daniel's cup of tea. Discussing it afterwards, while we have some overlapping gaming tastes (we play games together pretty regularly) we also have significant areas where we don't overlap. Even not liking the style, though, Daniel was able to give me some great feedback.

I can't wait to see how future playtesting sessions turn out!

Thread: Empires in the New World: The Conquistador Weeps

pete belli — 2008-02-02T16:06:00+00:00

Empires in the New World is the prototype for a strategy game of exploration, discovery, and conquest in the years 1500 to 1650. It is designed to be enjoyed by four players leading Spain, England, France, Portugal, or the Netherlands.

]]>

The Spanish player has drawn a “Conquistador” event card and sends an expedition to settle California. Instead of moving inland in an attempt to “discover” the Seven Cities of Cibola the Spaniard sails north. He wants to gain quick victory points for “discovering” the mythical Strait of Anian and exploring the Northwest Coast.

The map for Empires in the New World ends just north of Vancouver Island. Like Alexander the Great, the Spanish player laments the fact that he has nothing more to conquer.

The weeping has just begun.

]]>

France uses a lucky “Royal Intrigue” event card to gain an extra move outside the normal sequence of play. The French player lands an expedition in the Rio Grande area and quickly marches inland to search for the mythical cities of gold. France explores the Southwest and establishes a small settlement in the territory.

Spain had assumed that France would not move again this turn… always dangerous in a game where the initiative can shift at any moment.

To add insult to injury the hidden victory point value of the Strait of Anian discovered by Spain is only a fraction of the points scored by France for her discoveries in the Southwest.

Thread: Re: Empires in the New World: Conquistador vs. Portugal

penda — 2008-01-30T03:18:58+00:00

You're welcome! I actually came across it when I was GeekModding sessions (and added that comment as part of my "approve"), but BGG was acting sluggish and it had been "updating" for about 20 minutes or so, so I finally hit the refresh button and then it all disappeared....and I thought I had lost my chance! Wanting to know if the session had been approved or not, and if someone else had beat me to it, on a whim I went to the sessions section, found your session posted there, and since it had no comments yet.....I had a second shot at it!

I am a bit of a linguaphile, so that was an easy one for me....I wish all of them were that easy!

Thanks for the GG, and happy gaming!

Thread: Re: Empires in the New World: Conquistador vs. Portugal

pete belli — 2008-01-30T02:49:58+00:00

Correct!

Like the Pax Britannica before the outbreak of WWI.

Thanks for the quick comment.

Thread: Re: Empires in the New World: Conquistador vs. Portugal

penda — 2008-01-30T02:42:23+00:00

"Portuguese peace," right?

Thread: Empires in the New World: Conquistador vs. Portugal

pete belli — 2008-01-29T23:06:40+00:00

Empires in the New World is the prototype for a strategy game of exploration, discovery, and conquest in the years 1500 to 1650. It is designed to be enjoyed by four players leading Spain, England, France, Portugal, or the Netherlands.

This photograph illustrates the situation between 1580 and 1600; in game terms during the fourth turn.

]]>

The Spanish player is prohibited from settling in many areas of South America because of the famous Papal Decree that divided the New World between Portugal and Spain. Spain did explore the mouth of the Amazon early in the game but she has sent no expeditions to South America for a couple of turns.

The aggressive Portuguese player has taken advantage of this opportunity by establishing a number of small settlements on the coastline and some more vulnerable outposts in the interior. Portugal had chosen to concentrate on exploring and exploiting a large number of territories instead of conserving leadership points to build a couple of permanent (and possibly quite lucrative) colonies. Portugal also capitalized on a Royal Intrigue card by sending a Portuguese explorer through the Southern Straits and across the Pacific.

An uneventful era which might be described as a Pax Lusitania had begun to settle over Guyana, Brasil, and the Rio de la Plata.

That era ended suddenly.

France has been busy romping all over North America and exploring the Mississippi River. Spain has built a powerful empire in the Caribbean. England has been playing pirate (raiding Spanish treasure fleets) and stealthily building a settlement on the Isthmus of Darien.

Spain receives a “Conquistador” event card and attempts to subdue the yet unconquered Inca Empire. The Spanish player is making some progress when WHAM! the clever Portuguese player hits this lovely daughter of Castile and Leon with a “Native Revolt” card. The weakened Spanish expedition no longer has enough soldiers to conquer the Incas, so she builds a small settlement and waits for a better opportunity next turn.

England receives a “Royal Governor” event card - essentially a special move outside the normal sequence of play using a small expedition led by an average leader – and turns his attention to the Inca Empire. Using some funds from the Royal Treasury the English player expands his force and seizes the Inca god-emperor… and the Inca treasure!

Portugal may have denied the Inca gold to Spain, but England has used a lucky event card to capture the richest prize in the Andes.

Speaking of prizes, I will pay 5 GeekGold to the first person that can post a comment here explaining what Pax Lusitania means!

Image

BigSnake — 2008-01-23T16:48:39+00:00

Quad Battle - Blue is winning

Thread: Re: Sword of the Prophet: Ukrainian Nightmare

pete belli — 2008-01-11T21:37:14+00:00

Since these playtest pictures don't offer much detail I've added this photograph showing some of the components:

]]>

These plastic playing pieces are made by Table Tactics and they are of EXCELLENT quality. I highly recommend them to any wargame designer.

Sword of the Prophet uses fighter-bomber, mechanized infantry, armored (or tank), missile launcher, helicopter (or airborne), and futuristic hovercraft units. The 1:72 miniatures represent marines.

The markers are made from 3/4" Axis & Allies tokens. These counters are used to mark area control, to represent U.N. corruption, to show an industrial center has been damaged by missiles or bombs, to indicate growth in resource production, and other elements common to most wargames.

Thread: Sword of the Prophet: Ukrainian Nightmare

pete belli — 2008-01-11T16:14:02+00:00

Sword of the Prophet is a futuristic game of strategy and diplomacy. This medium complexity wargame is played on a large map of Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. It is designed to be enjoyed by four players who lead the Coalition Allies, the Islamic nations, the Communist countries, or Russia.

This series of photographs from a recent playtest illustrates an attempt by Russia to seize territory along her frontier in Eastern Europe… a fiasco that turned into a Ukrainian Nightmare.

]]>

The Russian player begins the game with strong forces along her western border. Ukraine is a member of the Coalition Allies. Already questioning the Allied player’s intestinal fortitude level, Russia is also counting on civil unrest in the European Union to divert the Allies attention.

]]>

Risking a confrontation with the Allies, Russia decides to “liberate” the Ukraine while crushing a revolt in the Baltic States. Ignoring the Islamic player’s vigorous protests, Russia also moves into the oil-rich Caspian Federation. The Islamic player wanted this region to serve as a buffer zone between the two powers. The aggressive Russian player, claiming that the oil of the Caspian region is needed to prevent Russian families from freezing next winter, conquers this area “for the children.” Russia also gets some good news from Western Europe… civil unrest has caused social collapse in France while both Germany and Italy have fallen under the control of ultra-nationalist groups.

]]>

The fickle goddess of battle fails to grace the Russian player with good fortune. The Russian offensive in the Baltic States sputters to a halt after the other players vote for an immediate U.N. cease fire. The heroic Ukrainians destroy both attacking Russian units at no loss to their own forces. Russia failed to support either onslaught with bombers; the Russian player sent all of her air units on a fruitless mission to bomb the Allied industrial center in Great Britain. As Russia builds new mechanized infantry units to defend her vulnerable border with the Ukrainians, the Allies launch bomber missions and missile attacks that damage both of the Russian player’s major industrial centers. The Islamic player is massing powerful forces in Iran as a prelude to driving Russia out of the Caspian Federation.

The Russian player should have watched that Seinfeld episode which depicted Kramer and Newman playing RISK… don’t mess with Ukraine!

Thread: Empires in the New World: de Soto discovers the 2 door coupe

pete belli — 2008-01-05T00:40:59+00:00

Empires in the New World is the prototype for a strategy game of exploration, discovery, and conquest in the years 1500 to 1650. It is designed to be enjoyed by four players leading Spain, England, France, Portugal, or the Netherlands.

This series of photographs illustrates the expedition of Spanish explorer Hernando de Soto:

]]>

Oooooops!!!! Sorry, wrong image. That was de Soto discovering the two door coupe.

]]>

De Soto lands on the coast of Florida in 1539. Since Ponce de Leon already “discovered” the Sunshine State many years earlier de Soto will get no extra victory points for this landfall.

]]>

Leaving his fleet in the Gulf of Mexico, de Soto moves northward into the Southeast region after the “Indians” of Florida dazzle the gullible Spaniards with tales of gold in the mountains. De Soto claims this area for Spain.

]]>

Following his battle at Mabila and his apocryphal dalliance with the queen of another local tribe de Soto moves west to reach the Mississippi River near Cahokia. He makes another Spanish land claim.

]]>

Not wishing to wander the Plains searching for the mythical kingdom of Quivira like his fellow conquistador Coronado, de Soto moves down the Mighty Mississippi toward the gulf. He claims this region for his monarch and receives credit for “discovering” The Father of Waters.

Every schoolboy (and schoolgirl) knows that de Soto remained in the area, caught a fever, and died. His body was supposedly placed in the Mississippi River to conceal his death from the local natives.

Empires in the New World offers the Spanish player several other options.

Any explorer that ends a turn in an area without a fleet or a settlement is considered to be lost in the wilderness. Lost explorers cost the player victory points at the end of the game so there are very few “kamikaze” expeditions.

The Spanish player (presumably Moscoso, if de Soto has actually died) retains enough leadership points to either march toward Mexico, establish a primitive settlement at the mouth of the river, or link up with the fleet in Florida.

Returning to Florida is a safe move but would gain no extra victory points. Establishing a small settlement could add two or more victory points to the Spanish total, but this is a very risky decision because the “Indians” might be hostile. Marching to Mexico along the gulf coast could provide a tiny one point victory point gain with a lower level of danger from the natives.

Thread: Empires in the New World: The last days of the Aztecs

pete belli — 2008-01-01T23:52:38+00:00

Empires in the New World is the prototype for a strategy game of exploration, discovery, and conquest in the years 1500 to 1650. It is designed to be enjoyed by four players leading Spain, England, France, Portugal, or the Netherlands.

This game offers a wide variety of strategic and diplomatic options to the players. There is no predictable set of actions that will be successful in every contest.

The game can, within the normal course of play and use of the various event cards, recreate the basic structure of historical events that occurred during the Age of Reconnaissance.

This example illustrates an attempt by the Spanish player to conquer the Aztecs:

]]>

The Spanish explorer (presumably Cortez) draws a Wealthy Patron event card. Using this card to obtain more soldiers and settlers, the Spanish player explores the coast of the Yucatan and makes a landing in Mexico. Spain builds a settlement (presumably Vera Cruz) and signs a treaty with the local natives to prevent these “Indians” from attacking his nascent colony.

]]>

Spain then moves inland to seize the God-Emperor and take control of the Aztec Empire. The Aztecs respond with a massive attack that destroys one unit of Spanish soldiers. Spain fails to destroy any of the attackers, so the Spanish player halts the campaign and the initiative passes to England.

That must be it for Spain in this turn, right?

Not in this game!

When playing Empires in the New World it is never “not your turn” at any time during the game. The event cards form each game turn into a unique mosaic; the game turns become an interwoven series of events in which there is little or no down time for any of the players.

England quietly builds a new settlement in Brasil during her turn and the initiative passes to France.

France draws an event card that gives the Spanish player a special turn-within-a-turn that Spain will take advantage of right away. These Royal Governor or Conquistador cards can provide a player with a new explorer, a new fleet, and new soldiers or settlers that appear in any area already colonized by the power indicated on the card.

]]>

Spain sends this fresh expedition (presumably Narvaez) to Mexico. The reinforced Spanish army immediately mounts another thrust against the Aztecs, wiping out two native “army” units at no loss to the Europeans. The next round of battle finishes the Aztecs and their God-Emperor is seized by the Spaniards. The native empire marker is turned over to reveal the previously hidden total of four treasure points, a very pleasant pile of booty.

]]>

Instead of sailing off to Florida -- and death -- like Narvaez, the new explorer remains in Mexico to help create a lucrative Spanish colony. By keeping the new Royal Governor in Mexico with the original explorer the Spanish player will also be able to exploit the treasure more effectively.

Thread: Re: Empires in the New World: the New Netherlands... in TEXAS!

pete belli — 2007-12-31T21:17:42+00:00

Steve:

Thank you for the kind words.

This is a really fun game with tons of player interaction... even if no major wars break out between the European powers.

I'll use a humorous example from the game I have illustrated:

In this particular contest direct military conflict between the European powers was limited to brutal raids by Pirates & Privateers. However, a few Native Revolt event cards were played in an attempt to weaken some of the empires. When the English player used a Native Revolt card to destroy Spain's tiny settlement in Cuba, the Spanish player was quite perturbed.

England's response? The English player claimed that she didn't destroy that Spanish outpost... the "Indians" did!!!!

Thread: Re: Empires in the New World: the New Netherlands... in TEXA

PinkPiggy — 2007-12-31T14:23:25+00:00

This looks fantastic.

Thread: Empires in the New World: the New Netherlands... in TEXAS!

pete belli — 2007-12-30T21:10:59+00:00

Empires in the New World is the prototype for a strategy game of exploration, discovery, and conquest in the years 1500 to 1650. It is designed to be enjoyed by two, three, or four players leading Spain, England, France, Portugal, or the Netherlands.

These photographs illustrate action during the sixth and final game turn:

]]>

France dominated the Atlantic coast for most of the game. The French player also used the Fur Trade event card earlier in the contest to enhance the value of the Hudson Bay region. France soon became distracted while launching raids against Spanish treasure fleets in the Caribbean, so the Portuguese player decided to build a large (and lucrative) colony in Hudson Bay. This colony suffered no attacks by any other players and survived intact to finish the game at full strength.

]]>

Spain has drawn a Silver & Gold event card. California was one of the few unexplored regions still open to the European powers, so the Spanish player dispatched an expedition from the Pacific coast of Mexico to settle the area and claim the gold for his monarch.

]]>

England seized control of the Isthmus of Darien at the beginning of the game and decided to conquer the Inca Empire a couple of turn later. However, the English player has failed to properly support and supply her settlement in the Andes; Spain has played a Native Revolt event card before England can remove all of the Inca treasure.

]]>

After spending a prodigious amount of energy on raids in the Caribbean, the French player made a bold move by pulling soldiers and settlers from an existing colony on Hispaniola and pushing north to establish new French settlements in Virginia and New England.

]]>

The Dutch have really shaken things up with their final turn. After establishing the New Netherlands settlement on the Texas coast (!!!) the Netherlands player sends a powerful expedition north into the Plains to seek Quivira. After building a settlement out in the middle of nowhere, the Dutch move east and establish another outpost on the Mississippi River.

The expensive and time-consuming “discovery” of Quivira by the Netherlands player does not derail the French victory point express; France has won the game!

Thread: Sword of the Prophet

pete belli — 2007-12-29T00:11:18+00:00

Sword of the Prophet is a futuristic game of strategy and diplomacy. This medium complexity wargame is played on a large map of Europe, Africa, Asia, and Australia. It is designed to be enjoyed by four players who lead the Coalition Allies, the Islamic nations, the Communist countries, or an aggressive Russia in the midst of revolution.

The game uses plastic playing pieces or colorful tokens to represent missile launchers, bombers, hovercraft, U.S. Marines, rebel insurgents, and other military units. Political and economic factors are portrayed by event cards. They include issues like oil production, a diplomatic crisis, a U.S. presidential election, U.N. funding, and the classic $87 billion military budget increase! However, these elements are secondary to the main theme of the game: cunning diplomacy followed by a military conflict incited by nationalism or religious fervor. Special rules cover topics like The United Nations Security Council, Civil Disorder, Regime Change, Weapons Of Mass Destruction, Muslim Clerics, and even Price Increases At Halliburton.

Example Of Play

These illustrations are from the first turn. With any game on a scale this large it would be difficult to show every player’s entire sequence of diplomatic, movement, and combat decisions. Therefore, one important scene has been depicted from each player’s leadership choices:

]]>

Russia covets the resources of Ukraine -- a member of the Coalition Allies -- but the Russian player is not ready to start a major conflict. Russia soothes the Allied player with some dulcet murmurings about Ukrainian sovereignty while smashing into the Baltic States… an area which is in revolt and open to attack.

]]>

A provocative “The New York Times Leaks Classified Information” event card is played: the card allows the Islamic player to take a free move and a tank unit is sent from Egypt to North Africa. This threatens the important resource area of West Africa so the Allied player lands a United States Marine Corps unit in that territory. An unlucky “Diplomatic Crisis” event card places the Sahel region under U.N. control, blocking any movement into that zone.

]]>

The Caspian Federation is blessed by an increased oil production event card. Ignoring blustering threats by the Islamic player, Russian tank and airborne infantry units quickly move into that region. The industrial center in Iran has already been attacked by Allied special ops forces, but the bold Islamic player launches an offensive against the Russian spearhead in spite of this setback. The Islamic player includes a Muslim Cleric, declaring jihad against the infidels.

]]>

The Coalition Allies have placed new units in Korea and Taiwan, warning the Communists against any aggressive moves. The Communist player, seeing that the Allies have become distracted in Africa, launches an attack on Taiwan with hovercraft, marine, and airborne units backed up by missiles and bombers.

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

pete belli — 2007-12-27T22:29:16+00:00

The Natives Are Restless: France Antarctique

Here is an illustration of play involving some dealings with the “Indians” during Game Turn 2:

The French player draws a highly coveted Silver & Gold event card. This card offers the player an opportunity to “discover” treasure in the first unexplored area the player enters this turn.

France has reached a diplomatic understanding with Portugal: these two empires will attempt to expand in relative peace while the French gain strength to launch future attacks against the powerful Spanish colonies in the Caribbean. The Portuguese player agrees to allow France to explore the coast of South America unhindered.

]]>

The French player sails south to Brasil and establishes a small settlement in Rio de la Plata. The treasure is immediately “discovered” and placed in the area. France uses all available leadership points for this gambit, leaving none left for diplomacy with the natives. This is an acceptable risk: historically the French had better relationships with the “Indians” than the other European powers and this element is reflected in the game. The natives are much less likely to be hostile when France builds a settlement.

However, the Spanish player uses a Native Revolt event card to incite an uprising against France Antarctique. These fierce cannibals -- who cooked and ate the Spanish explorer de Solis on the beach while his horrified crew was anchored offshore -- attack the French outpost.

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

pete belli — 2007-12-26T02:07:48+00:00

Ray:

Thanks for the comments!

This game takes about two hours to finish.

While the game works best with the diplomacy and intrigue of a four player contest, two players can have a reasonably good time facing each other in a head-to-head struggle for supremacy in the New World.

Warfare against the natives can occur in three situations:

1) When a European empire attempts to build a permanent colony in an area.

2) When the failure of a European empire to adequately support or supply a settlement leads to economic tension with the "Indians" followed by a native revolt.

3) When a European empire attempts to seize a native ruler in order to conquer a native empire.

In examples #1 and #2 the angry natives attack the Europeans. The native combat strength varies from region to region with the most advanced civilizations (like the Aztecs) having more powerful forces. The Europeans can gain a combat advantage if a leader and/or a fleet is in the area.

Combat is quite simple with the defender rolling first (giving an inherent advantage to the Europeans in these two cases) and surviving attackers rolling next.

Europeans attacking natives (or another European power) is a bit more difficult. Primitive logistics being what they were in the Age Of Exploration, a player must always have a settlement or colony established in an area to launch an attack. In addition, a player must have a leader and a fleet in the area to attack. Europeans defending a region against foreign interlopers gain an advantage if a leader and/or a fleet is in the area, but do not need a leader or a fleet to resist the enemy onslaught.

Each offensive battle (whether fought against natives or Europeans) requires leadership points and combat can continue for multiple rounds. However, wars are risky and expensive so unless a European enemy has a tenuous hold on a particularly valuable region the players usually come to a diplomatic agreement. The native empires offer the potential for huge piles of treasure markers as the spoils of war so the European powers naturally launch their main military efforts in that direction.

As one historical example I would offer the French attempt to push the Spanish out of Florida in 1565: The French leader (Ribault) sailed from his base of operations at the settlement of Fort Caroline (Jacksonville) to attack the Spanish at St. Augustine. Spain had a leader (Menendez) and a fleet in the area to aid in the defense of this brand-new Spanish settlement. Ribault was caught in a hurricane (the ultimate bad die roll?) and most of the French force -- along with France's colony in Florida -- was destroyed.

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

rdsmith — 2007-12-24T18:28:05+00:00

Best of luck with EitNW, Pete! It reminds me of an old SPI favorite, Conquistador, but much more user friendly. (Hopefully yours doesn't take eight hours to play either!)

How long does EitNW take to play? Does it work equally well with two players? How is combat against natives and other players handled?

Thanks for sharing your efforts.
Ray

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

pete belli — 2007-12-24T02:15:43+00:00

James:

Thanks!

Right now playtesters located in Florida would be at the top of my list... I'm just not ready for any long-distance testing.

I'd be happy to answer any specific questions you have about the game.

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

Rannous — 2007-12-24T02:09:59+00:00

Are you looking for more playtesters? Our group might be able to help you.

This sounds really interesting. I'd love to hear more about it.

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

pete belli — 2007-12-24T01:29:12+00:00

Thanks for those kind words.

This is a fun, fast moving game that has only six turns. The complexity level is low to moderate with a playing time of less than two hours. It is designed to appeal to the experienced wargame enthusiast looking for a change of pace as well as the more adventurous Euro player. It works best with four people.

The game system, while innovative, will be familiar to many wargame players. It is very smooth and works like this:

Players pick markers at random as each turn progresses to see who moves next.

That player draws a card which shows the ability of the explorer or leader available this turn.

Each card contains an event and many of the cards give another player a special "turn within a turn" to conduct additional moves. Most of the other cards also involve action by designated players with options like Pirates & Privateers or Native Revolts. In this game it is never "not your turn" so all of the players will stay attentive throughout the game.

Play often follows the historical pattern with Spain going wild in the early turns while the other empires build up slowly. However, the event cards offer a mix of options that can allow the players to chart their own course. The Spanish player also suffers certain penalties when a Royal Decree is issued by the capricious monarch... remember that Columbus was placed in chains and Balboa lost his head!

The actual Victory Point count is always hidden due to the variable points available for certain discovery markers (Example: How much is El Dorado worth? Could be anywhere from 2 points to 5 points and nobody knows until the end of the game...) so the players keep trying to jockey for position all the way to end.

Potential publishers? Mmmmmm. Still playtesting right now...

Thread: Re: Empires In The New World

gregd — 2007-12-24T00:49:59+00:00

Sounds great! Can you give us more info about the game? Potential publishers, etc.

Thread: Empires In The New World

pete belli — 2007-12-23T17:43:25+00:00

About The Game

Empires In The New World is a prototype strategy game of exploration, discovery, and conquest in the years 1500 to 1650. It is designed to be enjoyed by 2, 3, or 4 players leading Spain, England, France, Portugal, or the Netherlands.

Empires in the New World features a huge map that stretches from Hudson Bay to the Strait of Magellan. Special rules cover Pirates & Privateers, Royal Intrigue, the Fur Trade, Religious Turmoil, and much more! A set of Random Event cards adds an additional element of uncertainty to every game. There is also plenty of opportunity for diplomacy, treachery, and alliances with the other empires.

Play

This illustration of play covers the first game turn. Columbus is always the first explorer to land in the New World; all of the the other arrivals within a game turn are random. A player mave have up to five explorers available in a given turn, depending on the historical time period and some lucky random event cards. For clarity, only the ending positions for each player have been shown.

]]>

England and France make their effort in the north.

England draws a moderately talented explorer. The English player sails along the Atlantic coast, "discovers" the Grand Banks, and establishes a small settlement on Newfoundland. The natives on the island are not very warlike, so England chooses not to use any leadership points to sign a treaty with them. The money that would have been spent on cheap trade goods goes into the Royal Treasury instead.

France draws an average leader and challenges the English player by establishing a settlement in Canada. The French player also sends an expedition to the Great Lakes in search of the mythical Kingdom Of Saguenay.

]]>

Portugal is prevented from colonizing the Caribbean area by a Papal Decree... unless a sneaky Royal Intrigue event card is played! The Portuguese player decides to leave England and France to their own struggle in North America and chooses to settle in Brasil. Portugal has drawn a Wealthy Patron event card and gains an extra unit of soldiers and settlers. Portugal explores the coast and builds a settlement at the mouth of the Amazon River. Instead of using leadership points to explore the river, the Portuguese player signs a treaty with the natives. This prevents any native revolt during the upcoming event cycle.

]]>

The Spanish player follows the historical pattern by rushing to settle the Caribbean and conquer the Aztec Empire. Spain also tries to crush the Maya Empire and fails. The Mayans revolt and threaten to wipe out the Spanish settlement in the Yucatan.

Spain also has the misfortune to draw a Royal Governor event card that affects France. This card provides the French player with a special "turn within a turn" and France seizes the opportuntiy to settle Florida. French ships operating from Florida can (and almost certainly will) launch raids against the Spanish fleet bringing treasure from the Aztec Empire back to Europe.

Thread: Re: Playtest Report - Eliminate

Corbeau — 2007-07-11T14:59:36+00:00

Quick note: if anyone is interested, a rough rulebook is up on the blog.

Thread: Playtest Report - Eliminate

Corbeau — 2007-07-03T23:29:55+00:00

NOTE: this report is copied from my blog, which is for a game that I'm working on called Eliminate; more info can be found there, at http://tangletowngames.blogspot.com/ - I hope that I'm not breaking any rules on plugging my own games, since I'm not making any money off of this.

I arranged to meet a friend at the local game store (Gary’s Games and Hobbies), both to test Eliminate and do some general gaming (Magic: the Addiction and Legend of the Five Rings being “general gaming,” as it turned out). We got in one game of Eliminate using the store’s terrain table, which was larger than the terrain that I’d played on during my early testing. The test was quite successful.

The rules to Eliminate are straightforward in concept. On each of your turns, your characters move and take actions (such as attacking, setting up in overwatch, or issuing suppression fire), during which time enemy characters on overwatch may interrupt your characters. Then the turn passes to the other player who does the same. Rinse and repeat as necessary.

The equipment and available cover dictate tactics. Cover is fairly straightforward: it makes you harder to hit. Armor also makes you harder to hit (simulating attacks on weak points or unarmored parts of the body), so long as the weapon being fired won’t penetrate the armor. A weapon that’s very powerful might also penetrate cover, but there were no such weapons available in this playtest. Range is the only other factor determining how hard it is to hit a target.

The character skill system and damage system are closely linked, and the former is similar to Necromunda. Each character has a quality rating, which is how many D10s that character rolls when it needs to make a check (such as attacking). The key is that the dice aren’t added up – the character instead takes the best die (the advantage of trained characters is that they’re much more consistent). A character, when hit, takes one or more wounds depending on how accurate the shot was. Each wound decreases the character’s quality by one. A character that drops to zero quality is incapacitated and can no longer do anything (for all non-campaign situations, the character is eliminated).

That’s the core gameplay that we began the test with.

The terrain consisted on one large and tall central hill surrounded by smaller hills. Low walls sprinkled the area, and a graveyard and large rock formation sat at opposite ends of the battlefield. One side began behind the graveyard, the other behind the rocks on the opposite side of the table. I got the latter force. The objective was to capture and hold the main hill.

Each group consisted of a four-man fire team, all with 3 quality: 2 close assault troopers (light SMGs, flack armor), 1 Rifleman (assault rifle, flack vest), and 1 sniper (sniper rifle, flack vest). The notable piece of information is that the assault rifles and sniper rifles, but not the light SMGs, would punch through the flack protection. The net effect was that the assault troopers had a much shorter effective range, especially against each other (due to their more complete armor).

At first we just spent time moving up towards the hill. Things began to get interesting when I carelessly let my rifleman stray into the open, and he got tagged for two wounds by the enemy sniper. My deployment basically consisted of my sniper sitting off to the right begin a wall on a low hill, one assault trooper swinging to the left along the path of a low wall, and the wounded rifleman and an assault trooper crawling up the main hill to occupy it. My opponent occupied the raised graveyard with his sniper, and sent his three other men up the middle to occupy walls near the base of his side of the main hill.

During the mid-game, the snipers went through a duel that I eventually got the better of due to sheer luck, hitting his sniper for 2 wounds and seriously reducing his capabilities. As he occupied the base of the main hill, my sniper also picked off his rifleman. His assault troopers then swung off to his right, out of sight of my sniper, and began trying to dislodge my two men on the hill.

Unfortunately for my opponent, the assault trooper that I’d sent out to my left earlier was slowly outflanking his new position in a wide arc. He packed his two troopers close together in order to concentrate fire and succeeded in taking out my assault trooper that was prone on the hill. However, his second trooper was no longer available to overwatch the other side of the hill to prevent my wounded rifleman from acting. My rifleman rose up and sprayed the enemy position, hitting both of his troopers due to their proximity and lack of cover from that angle (clustering against automatic weapons can be a very bad thing). My flanking assault trooper finished one of them off with a follow up attack, and the rest of his men followed quickly on the next turn.

The game had taken 80 minutes to play to a conclusion.

So what does all that mean for Eliminate? The game flowed very well, even though I’d still like to cut down on the total time. I’m quite pleased with how cover, maneuvering to negate cover, and overwatching to prevent movement all combined to determine the outcome of the game. On the other hand, I’m unhappy with how much of a swing luck can make on shots at long range. Winning the sniper duel had absolutely nothing to do with tactics and might have significantly altered the course of the game.

I made one small amendment that should reduce the impact of luck on difficult shots. Since there’s no reason to fix what isn’t broken, next time I'll move on to testing rules that weren’t involved in this playtest, like explosives (speaking of things that could alter the course of a game...).

Thread: Re: Denego

PhilReed — 2007-06-05T23:23:22+00:00

I'll be bringing this to Origins.

Thread: Denego

PhilReed — 2007-05-26T15:43:53+00:00

I've recently been working on Denego, a tile placement game that uses a card deck to introduce a chance for unusual events. The hex tiles must be placed so that they do not touch another of the same color (there are three different colors). The cards allow you to stop an action by another player, play extra hex tiles on your turn, discard hex tiles, force a player to play a specific color of tile, etc.

When you play a tile you score a number of points equal to the total number of tiles of the same color already in play (including the tile you just placed). The score is modified by the colors on three points of the hex (if you place a tile so that the intersection forms a red circle the score for that tile is multiplied by three).

So far we've played the game a few times and it works well (but it's not quite ready for blind-testing).

]]>

The image shows the current prototype set, using wooden hexes that were cut with a laser tool. We painted the colors with paint markers and then used a spray varnish to finish. The cards are simply cardstock.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

cfarrell — 2007-03-20T00:37:21+00:00

I've written a few reviews, and I must say, I'm always surprised when one of these "how many times should you play a game before reviewing it?" debates comes up, when the answer is so obviously "it depends". If you hae any experience with reviewing, when you've played a game enough to review it, you'll know. If you're not sure, you need to play it again. There are games I could review on partial plays. There are games I reviewed after playing 10 times and still got it wrong.

The goal of the reviewer is far more than just helping a potential consumer decide whether or not they'll like a game. The reviewer also should give you the tools and understanding to like a game, if it's good. If the difference between liking a game and putting it back in the box forever is simply understanding how some of the game variable interact in interesting ways, or having a clever thematic element pointed out, then a review should elucidate these things so that people not only will know whether to buy a game or not, but can play it the first time with the best possible chance of success.

Oh yes, and a review should be entertaining to read, even if the game isn't entertaining to play.

Thread: Re: TK'd in a 2p WT

sedjtroll — 2007-02-27T17:41:46+00:00

hederj wrote:
After the game though, I felt violated at being trounced and beaten so heartily.
Anytime

Thread: TK'd in a 2p WT

hederj — 2007-02-27T07:08:50+00:00

Are there any more abbreviations I could get in that title?

That would translate into TK'd - (technical knockout) in a 2 player game of Wizard's Tower, MY prototype.

Sedjtroll and I just played a 2 player game of Wizard's tower with 24
Apprentices, just to check it on how the 2 player game would work.
We had tried it several months ago with an old map. I can't remember if
we used the tower powers that time, but we did tonight with all the
other bells and whistles that I've updated it with lately.

For those that are unaware of the game (almost everyone out there), it is a game where players roll 1d6 and 2 color cubes to determine where, on a board set up in five different regions, the players may take actions - the actions being placing Apprentices, moving Apprentices to an adjacent square, or swapping places with one of your Appentices with one of an opponents.

Apprentices all of one player, placed in a 2x2 square allow that player to build a tower, which is the point of the game and will gain the player certain advantages either during the play of the game or at the end for scoring. Players may also destroy others' towers.

Players score for towers built and destroyed, more points for building towers in adjacent spaces and then bonuses for having the most towers and/or apprentices in different regions, with a couple more bonuses for other things.

In this, my own game, my prototype, my baby, I totally and completely got steamed over!

Early in the game, there may have been one move I could have made
that MAY have made a difference, but I don't suppose I can say it would have or not. I could have created a tower on a yellow square to gain the "go again" power. But as in the last game I played, early built towers seemed to become targets for others to destroy them.

After that it was a tooth and nail fight that I just couldn't come out on top.

Seth scored more than twice my score. I only built 4 of my towers (players only have 6 to build), and Seth destroyed 3 of those. I destroyed 2 of his, but he was still able to build in 4 regions and also throw a couple of neutral towers together as well. He also ran away with most of the bonuses as well.

Whether or not that is a typical 2p occurance is something that we
will have to find out with more plays.

The game seemed to go as regular with much less cooperation. With
only one opponent there isn't any reason to cooperate with each other. In 3 and 4 player games there is usually much more cooperation.

But the reason we played was to test it for 2p with 24 Apprentices,
which seemed to be more than enough, and the new rules and with that in mind it seemed to be a very successful play test.

After the game though, I felt violated at being trounced and beaten so heartily.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

Great Dane — 2007-02-26T13:02:25+00:00

Smilinbrax wrote:
Conversely, much more credence is given to those reviews where the reviewer claims to have played the game 800 times in the last year (there may be some number inflation here).
Really?
I would have thought that such a person was overly biased towards the game to be suitable critical against it.
I prefer a reviewer who can me a fair view upon the pro's and con's - not a fanatic's view upon his favorite game.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

Lemur — 2007-02-26T02:05:31+00:00

My $.02

If I've played the game correctly (i.e., no rules screwups), and there was nothing 'odd' about the game itself (premature ending, etc.), I am contented to write a review after one play of a game.

For most readers of reviews -- if you see that there are mostly negative reviews, even if only one play -- you're probably not going to make a concerted effort to play that game.

Think about it...would you give a second chance to...

A restaurant that served you distasteful food?
A doctor that didn't serve your needs?
A contractor/plumber that didn't fix the problem you hired them to fix?

In each case, you're making decisions based on ONE time -- if your needs aren't met, there're plenty of other restaurants/doctors/plumbers out there. No one would ever say, "Well, it might've just been this one time -- maybe you need to try it again..."

That's been my take on reviews. That's not to say that I wouldn't play the game that I was critical of again; it just means that, after ONE play, I DO feel equipped to comment on the game, since, for most of my readers, that's all the chances THEY'RE going to give that same game...

Chris

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

CortexBomb — 2007-02-25T17:12:22+00:00

You know, reviews are a funny thing, everyone wants something different out of them. I have experimented with various ways of writing reviews, and it seems that each one of them appeals to a different demographic.

When I first started, I felt an in-depth review of the rules/mechanics was necessary, and then followed that up with lengthy analysis. People seemed to like that, particularly my Power Grid review.

Then, I decided to go minimalist, and just give a quick summary of the game, scale, suitability, and that sort of thing. Again, that went over well, particularly with the Princes of Florence one.

Then, I decided to start doing specialized reviews for expansions (for Age of Steam) which are clearly labeled as being only useful to people who already know the game. And those also seemed to go over well.

I've written reviews based on many plays, and I've written reviews based on fewer plays. I think any reviewer worth their salt can probably churn out something decent based on only a couple of plays, at least any reviewer who has played a few games and is decent at game analysis. There is certainly a vocal minority who dislikes reviews based on minimal play though, and I can respect that as well.

I think the real problem with reviews is that they can't be all things to all people, and many of the things that people want are mutually exclusive.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

latindog — 2007-02-25T13:25:06+00:00

As a reviewer, I will generally try to give a game a second shot before writing a strongly critical review. I will not typically explore a game I dislike more than that however. As unpaid reviewers here (and for the online magazine INDEPTH to which I also contribute), there is no incentive to continue playing games I personally dislike beyond that point.

I also write comments and give ratings to every game I play -- even if I only play it once. I have often revised games (both up and down) after further play.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

Smilinbrax — 2007-02-25T02:05:24+00:00

generalpf wrote:
I think the reviewer should also disclose if they owned the game when they first played it. There's a lot of ownership bias in ratings and reviews.

Yet another example of cognitive dissonance I mentioned in the review. I paid a lot of money for this and now I have to like it.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

jamesdavis — 2007-02-24T17:49:30+00:00

compman wrote:
One problem I've had with reviews here on BGG is the self selection process you discuss and the motivations behind writing a review. Here's what I mean:

Say we were discussing movies and you were Roger Ebert having to review hundreds of movies a year. Because you have to write a review, it's likely that you are going to be honest about it because it just isn't worth it to play the diplomat over and over and over again. It's draining. So, honesty comes through.

Here on BGG however, reviews are submitted when individual people feel like writing them. Thus, you either get really positive reviews because they just can't wait to tell other people about this "great game" or you get really negative reviews because they say to themselves "I have to let other people know that this game sucks". If someone only feels so-so about a game, it's unlikely that they will feel the motivation to write a review about it because no one's compelling them to do so. Thus, most of the reviews here are slanted towards the really positive or the really negative.

Thankfully, there are a few people who are willing to write reviews about games even when they are only lukewarm in their response.

This is what happens when you are just trying to contribute and your not getting paid for it!

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

generalpf — 2007-02-24T17:08:05+00:00

I think the reviewer should also disclose if they owned the game when they first played it. There's a lot of ownership bias in ratings and reviews.

Thread: Re: A Review of Reviewing

compman — 2007-02-24T16:20:09+00:00

One problem I've had with reviews here on BGG is the self selection process you discuss and the motivations behind writing a review. Here's what I mean:

Say we were discussing movies and you were Roger Ebert having to review hundreds of movies a year. Because you have to write a review, it's likely that you are going to be honest about it because it just isn't worth it to play the diplomat over and over and over again. It's draining. So, honesty comes through.

Here on BGG however, reviews are submitted when individual people feel like writing them. Thus, you either get really positive reviews because they just can't wait to tell other people about this "great game" or you get really negative reviews because they say to themselves "I have to let other people know that this game sucks". If someone only feels so-so about a game, it's unlikely that they will feel the motivation to write a review about it because no one's compelling them to do so. Thus, most of the reviews here are slanted towards the really positive or the really negative.

Thankfully, there are a few people who are willing to write reviews about games even when they are only lukewarm in their response.

Thread: A Review of Reviewing

Smilinbrax — 2007-02-24T13:56:06+00:00

I’ve recently seen some tough talk about reviews and what qualifies as a legitimate one. It’s argued that a review after a single session should be a session report or does not have legitimacy due to the reviewers lack of in-depth knowledge. Conversely, much more credence is given to those reviews where the reviewer claims to have played the game 800 times in the last year (there may be some number inflation here). While this may seem true, and many of you will probably think that it is quite obvious, I believe this is really an illusory correlation. Number of plays does not equate to a better quality review or in-depth discussion. In fact, I think you get a better picture of the game from reading reviews after one session or after several sessions than after 800 times. Most people will not have the time to read many reviews but can decide which type is the most important for them. The following are suggestions for how you can pick the review that will best fit your needs.

There are advantages and disadvantages to the unplayed or single session review. The major advantages are that you get a first impression of what the game is like, how it will play the first time, and any glaring faults/strengths that game has. It is a great review to read if you want to know how your gaming group or even non-gaming family might react to it. You will know if you need to read the rules carefully before playing, and it can even help you by highlighting important rules that the reviewer missed the first time. This type of review also gives you a relatively unbiased consideration of the game on an aesthetic and often practical level. This can be very important as no other type of review is likely to be this accurate. If the reviewer talks about needing a flow chart to figure out order of play, you will know the game is not family friendly. You will also quickly get an idea, based on strengths and weaknesses, whether it is a game that would appeal to you. In short, this is like your television sound bite which gives you enough information to decide if you want more.

Disadvantages include a possible lack of information on replayability, pre-bias, and lack of understanding of grand strategy/depth. First reviews often cannot give you an idea of how much you will enjoy playing a game over the long term. It’s like your are getting a snapshot of a running cheetah. If you were lucky, the reviewer caught the cheetah in full frame and was using fast film. If you are unlucky, they ended up with a blurry picture of empty savannah. Also, some people will dislike a game or decide they love it before opening the box. This pre-bias is the bane of first impressions. Like dating, with gaming you often don’t get a second chance to make a first impression. If I read a negative review after one play it could kill my desire to buy the game later. With more complicated and/or intricate games a reviewer may also be biased to dislike it because they don’t “get” the overall strategy. A game like Goa might turn off a one session reviewer as it can be difficult to get a grasp of good strategy from one play. Conversely a strategically simple game might get rave reviews because it is easy to understand the first time (and will likely suffer replayability problems later). One session reviews often see the forest but can miss the trees.

A quick note about reviews written without playing the game. These are not necessarily a bad idea. I wrote a review comparing Talisman and Prophecy (2 similar games) based only on my impressions of the bits and rules of the game. This may not seem useful but it can help you make an initial decision on what you like. As long as the reviewer makes it clear that he/she has not played the game yet, you can judge how much weight to give the information. You do need to be cautious as rules and game play are not the same thing. For example, in my follow up review, my opinions of the two games flopped.

Moving on to reviews after several games. You will get the most balance from reviews written after many plays. How many? I would say anywhere from 5-10 plays should give you a good idea of what the game is about. A review written after this time will reduce, if not eliminate, the flaws found in the one session review. Reviewers can address replayability and strategy issues. You will often get a greater sense of the overall strategy and even some strategy tips. The reviewer will also be able to address the type of person who would like this game and those who would not. You may see, “My friends loved it, but mother threatened to have disemboweled with a spaghetti fork if I ever made her play it again.” Pre-bias will be reduced as initial bad impressions will go away when the game catches on with the reviewer. The reviewer will also begin to see the flaws due to poor implementation of strategic options or problems with too much luck in the game. In a sense, you get a more mature picture of the game and, I think the most accurate reviews.

However, you also begin to see self-selection and other problems. If I don’t like a game, you are not likely to see me play it 10 times to make sure that it is bad. Thus, reviews of this nature are often positive or at worst lukewarm. The more time a person invests in something, the more likely they are to like it. Do a search on cognitive dissonance if you want to see some freaky examples of this. I may not like a game much but after being pressured by my friends to play 50 times I am likely to start saying it was worth it. As an aside, I think that Twilight Imperium 3 suffers from this. After playing 8 hours (with 8 player expansion) you can decide that your time was wasted or that it was a great game. And who wants to “waste” 8 hours on a game? Also, a reviewer will begin letting the flaws of the game slide more as the strengths come to the foreground. I can’t count the number of reviews and comment I have read talking about how a game is fiddly but excels in some way that makes up for that. You lose the objectivity that the one session reviewer had.

I think these problems are exponentially worse when you read a review from a “lifestyle” reviewer. In fact, I think the least useful information comes from a player reviewing a game that they have play several hundred times. It often ceases to be a review and became a gushing advertisement. This is not to say that these types of reviews have no value, but you need to understand going in that the person likes the game enough to devote large chunks of their time playing it. The advantages of this type of review come from the depth and intimate knowledge the reviewer has of the subject matter. You will usually get in depth analysis of game play, discussion of probability curves, advanced strategies, and sometimes interesting trivia about the game or designer. These reviews can often be very enjoyable if you have a particular interest in the subject matter of the game.

As I’ve already mentioned, one of the problems with these reviews is the amount of bias that you find in them. Reviewers will often vehemently defend all aspects of “their” game to the point of losing any objectivity about it. Anyone that challenges this world view is likely to be dismissed as someone who hasn’t played enough to truly grasp the beauty of the game. Look at posts and reviews done by many hardcore Age of Steam or Go fans to see what I’m talking about. Reviewers of this type can often easily slip into technical jargon about the game which may make the review impenetrable to casual readers. These reviews are often longer than the actual material warrants. Trivia may seem interesting to one of the converted, but you don’t need it if you just want to know how a game plays. The casual reader needs to be very careful with these “lifestyle reviews.”

In summary, you want to pick a review that matches the information you need. One session reviews or reviews of unplayed games are ideal if you want an idea of how your friends/family will feel about the game. Also, it gives you a rough idea of what you need to prepare for if you choose to buy it. These reviews are good if you like the theme or type of game play but aren’t 100% sure yet about the game. Also, if the game is relatively cheap or will primarily be filler, then this type of review is for you. If you want the most balanced review of a game (at least from a play stand point), then you want to read a review written after several plays. This will prepare you for the long haul of owning the game and what to expect after the newness wears off. It is also probably the best type of review to go by if you want to buy an expensive game or one that is hard to find. You only need to be careful of the bias inherent in this type of review. Lastly, you will want to read through reviews written by the “lifestyle” reviewer if you already have a strong interest in the subject matter or if you already own the game or a similar one. It can give you great information on the game that few other reviews can match. However, it is not the best review for someone who wants a basic analysis of the game.

I think that all reviewers should include the number of plays at the top of their review so readers can get a rough idea of what to expect, and I plan to do this from now on. Many people will say that I am making broad generalizations in this review of reviews, and I am. So always remember that “your actual mileage may vary.” Some “lifestyle” reviewers write great unbiased reviews. Some one-session reviewers write incredibly insightful reviews. This is only meant to be a guide to help you, the reader, find what you are looking for more easily and not get turned off (or on) by one type of review. I hope this is helpful and feel free to add any comments.

Thread: Re: Wizard's Tower - PART 2!!!

Weapon — 2007-01-25T03:09:12+00:00

hederj wrote:
[q="GaryP]My understanding is that a game must be published or otherwise publically attainable in order to be included in the database.

I would except this except I know of at least three exceptions - one is a game that a friend designed, developed and eventually published himself. He put it up with its own BGG spot a few months before he published it himself. The other two are games designed or developed by the same guy. One is currently being sent from place to place for play testing by different companies, and the other as far as I know only exists in the posession of my friend. Both of those are pre-published and a description can be accessed at this site and the number of plays can be recorded in the database.

But, as you said, these are published. If you submitted your game and made sure you showed intent to publish, it would go up. If you didn't publish, it would probably get denied, or taken down at a later date.