Game: Age of Steam Expansion - Reunion Island

Thread: Re: Questions of timing of track continuation

Ludo le gars — 2008-07-28T22:14:46+00:00

Sorry for the delay

It's really simple : you can see if a player has continued his link only in the end of his entire turn. So, if player A begins a link with his 2 first tracks, and doesn't continue them with his 2 other tracks, no problem. The same if he has built during the previous turn : you'll see if he loses them in the ned of his entire turn.

Hope it's clear,

Best

Image

skelebone — 2007-08-30T13:21:37+00:00

Thread: Re: Thoughts on instability and changes

sisteray — 2007-05-30T13:17:23+00:00

Suddenly I want to play this map again.

Thanks.

Thread: Questions of timing of track continuation

clearclaw — 2007-05-30T07:05:36+00:00

Player X builds an incompleat link with his first two tile lays. If PlayerX doesn't finish that link in his next two track tiles does he lose ownership of the partial link on that turn?

PlayerY builds an incompleat link on turn N. On the next turn PlayerY doesn't finish the link with his first two track tiles. Does PlayerY lose ownership of the partial link before he does his next two tile builds in the same turn?

Thread: Thoughts on instability and changes

clearclaw — 2007-05-30T06:56:34+00:00

Three plays in on the map so far. Early thoughts:

1) Locomotive remains too powerful. It is available a minimum of every other turn. That essentially guarantees that both players will be up to 6 Links by turn 6 and probably sooner. As 2-3 cities will be joined by track for each player per turn, Given ideal circumstances 6-Link deliveries could start as soon as turn 3. This leaves the game dictated by which player manages to secure more 6 Link deliveries in the 3-4 turn/6-8 delivery end-game.

2) The auction outside of the first turn is largely degenerate. The new Turn Order Pass rule is essentially blind bidding where the selecting player knows both the value and the (cash) resources of the bidder. When Turn Order pass isn't used the auction is merely a way of setting a minimum cost for actions: and most of the time it simply isn't that important as to who gets what action when. Track is more important and the players are rapidly far enough from each other to mostly not care about track competition.

3) The combination of having to lock away Locomotive every other turn against the tempting necessity to leave Locomotive available merely so as to leave Urbanisation also open is curiously unstable. This is perhaps the primary interesting part of the game.

4) The deny-action rules are interesting. I'm not sure they entirely work as via the values for Locomotive and Urbanisation they effectively dictate a two turn rhythm for the game which in turn feeds and supports runaway winners.

All of our games have had run-away winners, often with an income gap between the players of more than $20, for whichever player won the first turn auction. If they also managed to get Locomotive on the first turn, then they simply won by more.

I'm tempted to make the following changes:

1) Japanese-style Locomotive

2) Lose the special rules concerning the French sea routes. One can be built only after urbanisation, both may always be used

3) Reduce share value to $4 for players after they first break even or go profitable. Unprofitable players remain at $5 shares

4) Only 9 turns, not 10

I haven't tried this yet but it feels about right and works reasonably in spreadsheets. The expected result is that 6 Links will typically only be achieved around turn 7, sometimes turn 8, leaving only one or two turns of full capacity deliveries. Long deliveries will thus be less important, and securing and pacing mid-game deliveries will be commensurately more important, especially as regards the timing of double delivery runs in the mid-game. And finally, early leaders will be modestly curbed by the share price devaluation (call it lost government subsidy if you absolutely have to have a thematic reason).

Image

Verkisto — 2007-03-24T23:47:08+00:00

Custom-made lava tiles for use with Reunion Island.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

CortexBomb — 2006-12-22T02:44:41+00:00

I played this today, and the first port link was used to devastating effect on me by my opponent. It's possible to afford it quite early in the game, if you're willing to take out the extra share for it. Given the type of value that the red shipments can create, that extra share is probably worth it in most games, at least I would imagine that is the case.

The thing about this map is that skipping cities is almost requisite anyway, because of the odd colour configuration. Building mini-hubs out of towns seems necessary, and I know that I had many opportunities during the mid to late game to ship out sugar, as did my opponent.

To me, the lava flow on this map is both good and bad.

The bad is that if both players invest into separate sugar rich areas, and one of them ends up screwed, then it feels very random and out of place in the game.

The good is that it can limit the map to some degree, and I feel it forces players to make interesting choices. I don't think building the full route through the entire SE is ever a good choice, but players can easily afford to build up to the edge of the volcano zone, and then, when they can use some of the goods in the cities behind it, build their track in quickly, ship 2 of the goods out immediately. Given the income value of shipments from the back corner, even losing the track back there isn't that big of a deal in trade for the value of the goods, particularly because of the lower track cost on this map.

As I said, I do think in some situations the volcano could be a very random, and negative effect because of its ability to screw one person while letting the other cruise on to victory, but it seems to work decently, and I think both of the port links have potential value.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Zambo — 2006-09-29T14:15:49+00:00

sisteray wrote:
Boycat-OH wrote:
I bought both port links, and shipped a few (literally - 3) in the first 7 turns. After the port shift, michael was better positioned and shipped plenty of sugar from Ste Rose and St Philippe (he bypassed St Andre).

So would you say it is ever worth it to buy the first port link?

Played this for the first time last night, so I can answer this one: it was, for me. Turn 5 I built the first port link and was able to ship two sugars 5 links (my engine was at five), turn 6 I locomotived, then shipped two sugars 6 links. If I had built the port a turn earlier, I would've gotten another two 6 link shipments out of it, but then again, my wily opponent probably would've blocked me out of making a 6-link connection to France from those SE cities.

Thread: Questions

Tatsu — 2006-09-07T15:00:24+00:00

Are there any plans to re-print or re-publish this?

Can anyone post the rules or send me a copy of the rules? Reading the session reports, it looks like there are some sort of special rule for blocking an action that would make the two player game interesting.

Thread: Re: Age of Steam Reunion Island session report

Ludo le gars — 2006-07-03T09:37:27+00:00

Hi,

Thanks to Pierre for speaking about this expansion.

About lava, there is no problem if lava comes back to the volcano : it means in this case lava will only burn 2 hexes instead of 3.

For the desequilibrated sides of the board (lucrative and easy on the left, more risked on the right), just remember that you are 2 on the board and if you pay on the same side, it'll be difficult for the two. Maybe, one player can play on the left side, and the pther player not too far from him, but not really on the same side. Just think of it !

Pleased to read that you loved the 2-players system of bidding and blocking !

Have fun !

Thread: Re: Age of Steam Reunion Island session report

mlvanbie — 2006-07-02T22:22:21+00:00

dedefortin wrote:
In our next game, we'll probably allow a player to build over lava at a higher cost so he's not out of the game with a railway cut in two parts. We suppose that a turn may represent many years in real time and that we could reconnect two cities that were cut by lava many years ago.

It seems unlikely that a turn is several years given the size of the island:

Wikipedia wrote:
The island is 39 miles (63 kilometers) long, is 28 miles (45 kilometers) wide, and covers 970 square miles (2512 square kilometres).

Thread: Age of Steam Reunion Island session report

dedefortin — 2006-07-02T04:46:37+00:00

Since we were only 2 players this afternoon, we tried the AoS Reunion Island map. We had already tried the Moon expansion from Alban Viard and we really appreciated his map. We were anxious to try the Reunion Island map from Ludovic Gimet. Reading of the rules for this scenario went quite well even if there was many rules. The main new rules concerns the bidding system and action selection.

Pierre won the first build and choose locomotive since Martin blocked urbanization action. Martin selected first build and decided to build on the eastern part of the map, Pierre went on the western side and began a nice loop between many close towns and cities. Pierre was able to ship good at income 3 for first round. On second round Martin choose urbanization because locomotive wasn't available for this turn. He was able to build the maritime link to France and connect some interesting cities with red goods near the volcano. Pierre continued his nice loops and was able to ship at 4 income for this turn and Martin could only ship at 2 income since he had a linear network. On turn 3 Pierre knew that Martin really need the locomotive to ship red goods to France so he forced Martin pay high for locomotive. Pierre shipped 2 goods at high income and he had a considerable lead. Martin decided to give the win to Pierre on round 4.

Even with this kind of end we really appreciated the rules about betting and action selection with 2 players. They are quite simple and worked very well in our game. Right now, we're not quite sure about the possibility to ship red goods to France. These cities are very far from France and are only acessible if you skip one or two towns on your way to France. Secondly they are very near the volcano and they can be destroyed by the lava. We'll need more play on this map but I dont think it's really worth to build at high cost on this side of the map
and then having your railway network destroyed by an eruption. Western side seems more interesting since the building costs are low and it's easier to make loops. Why would you risk building on the eastern side when you can make about the same income on the western side ? In our next game, we'll probably allow a player to build over lava at a higher cost so he's not out of the game with a railway cut in two parts. We suppose that a turn may represent many years in real time and that we could reconnect two cities that were cut by lava many years ago. Last comment about the volcano was that the lava path could return back in the volcano, did this happen to other players in their games ?

I suppose we'll have to play more games on this map to fully see all the possibilities. We really want to replay this map and with some slights adjustments we think it could work well.

Final scoring:
Pierre: win by KO on round 4
Martin: lost by KO on round 4

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

darky — 2006-02-27T15:33:33+00:00

Ludo le gars wrote:
darky wrote:
aquabob79 wrote:
After a couple of emails to funagain, they wrote to me with this bit of sad news: "Hey Bob. We had then on order but they have been lost in transit on the oversee journey. We are not expecting any replacements.

It seems to be recurrent with this expansion!

For your information, you have to know that Funagain got the maps in Essen and they organized the transit to USa on their own.

Thanks for not insinuation and slandering

It's not insinuation or slandering, I'm just stating a fact (lost in transport).

Thanks to stay cool

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

Jeff — 2006-02-27T14:13:32+00:00

At one time, I was trying to find the Age of Steam expansion #1. Now that I know how many expansions there are, and that a few of them are so rare, I think I'll save my money and not try to collect all the expansions. I haven't played enough of the base game to justify purchasing them, anyway.

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

Ludo le gars — 2006-02-27T13:25:23+00:00

darky wrote:
aquabob79 wrote:
After a couple of emails to funagain, they wrote to me with this bit of sad news: "Hey Bob. We had then on order but they have been lost in transit on the oversee journey. We are not expecting any replacements.

It seems to be recurrent with this expansion!

For your information, you have to know that Funagain got the maps in Essen and they organized the transit to USa on their own.

Thanks for not insinuation and slandering

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

ixnay66 — 2006-02-25T19:00:59+00:00

$72? I think I'll pass.

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

woundwart — 2006-02-25T18:39:56+00:00

For an excellent list of AoS expansions see Cortex Bombs exhuastive list
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/5009

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

darky — 2006-02-25T15:41:48+00:00

aquabob79 wrote:
After a couple of emails to funagain, they wrote to me with this bit of sad news: "Hey Bob. We had then on order but they have been lost in transit on the oversee journey. We are not expecting any replacements.

It seems to be recurrent with this expansion!

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

aquabob79 — 2006-02-23T22:31:02+00:00

After a couple of emails to funagain, they wrote to me with this bit of sad news: "Hey Bob. We had then on order but they have been lost in transit on the oversee journey. We are not expecting any replacements. Sorry -Rachel Funagain Games." Doh! Can anyone help me find a copy of this? My wife asks me about this game all the time.

Thanks, Bob

Image

BigWoo — 2006-02-12T13:28:56+00:00

Age of Steam - Expansion Map Box (box cover)

Thread: Re: Reunion Island - Engineer vs First Build

boomtron — 2005-12-28T23:50:54+00:00

Ludo,

Thanks for answering, but Im not sure I understand still.
First you stated that B's choices were:
- AABBBBAA
- AABBAABB

Then, you said that they were:
AABBBBAA or AAAABBBB

Which is it? Or, is it all three?
AABBAABB
AAAABBBB
AABBBBAA

Thank you for responding.
Lucas

Thread: Re: Reunion Island - Engineer vs First Build

Ludo le gars — 2005-12-28T18:57:17+00:00

Lucas wrote:
Sorry, Im not sure I understand. A is first. What prevents B from choosing to build all 4 of his tracks after A, per the Engineer rules? Thanks!

Hi !
If A is first to build (because of the First build action), then even if B has chosen Engeener, he can't prevent A to build first. His two choices are : AABBBBAA or AAAABBBB.

Have fun !

Thread: Re: Reunion Island - Engineer vs First Build

boomtron — 2005-12-27T03:32:26+00:00

Sorry, Im not sure I understand. A is first. What prevents B from choosing to build all 4 of his tracks after A, per the Engineer rules? Thanks!

Thread: Re: Reunion Island - Engineer vs First Build

Ludo le gars — 2005-12-24T09:59:31+00:00

Lucas wrote:
So if the player A takes the First Build action and the player B takes the Engeener action, B has to say what he prefers :
- AABBBBAA
- AABBAABB

Couldn't B also choose AAAABBBB?

Impossible because A chose First Build.
Have fun !

Thread: Re: Reunion Island - Engineer vs First Build

boomtron — 2005-12-20T23:15:19+00:00

So if the player A takes the First Build action and the player B takes the Engeener action, B has to say what he prefers :
- AABBBBAA
- AABBAABB

Couldn't B also choose AAAABBBB?

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Boycat-OH — 2005-12-05T19:44:18+00:00

Yes, if there are red cubes on the map or the goods grid for cities close to the 1st port (St Denis, Ste Suzanne, St Paul, St Andre, St Gilles. If the possibility of shipping sugar in the early game is low then it is probably not worth it. The nice thing about owning the port link is that, even if you cannot ship red goods or they are scarce, your opponent is forced to either ship over your link, or forced to avoid red goods.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-12-05T01:36:50+00:00

Boycat-OH wrote:
I bought both port links, and shipped a few (literally - 3) in the first 7 turns. After the port shift, michael was better positioned and shipped plenty of sugar from Ste Rose and St Philippe (he bypassed St Andre).

So would you say it is ever worth it to buy the first port link?

Thread: Re: Is lava destruction permanent?

sisteray — 2005-12-05T01:32:09+00:00

I used the red player pieces to show where the lava had overtaken land. I then used a stack of two red pieces to show where the head of the lava remained.

Thread: Re: Is lava destruction permanent?

snoozefest — 2005-12-04T23:37:15+00:00

It's in the English rules, too - I found it just before we started playing ... must have just overlooked it. Thanks for responding so quickly!

And yes, it was fun. It was our first play, and M's first full game of AoS (my third, I think). Will have to try it with more experienced players. The lava never actually destroyed anything for us, although it did put a bit of a scare into us!

Thread: Re: Is lava destruction permanent?

Ludo le gars — 2005-12-04T21:13:54+00:00

colotibou wrote:
Hello, we play without building tracks where there's lava.
It is told in the french rules: lava destroy build hexas, no possibility to
build an hexa after the lava.
To see that an hexas is lava hexa, we use verso tile (black).

I can't say better It's exactly what you have to do.

Hope you'll like the game play.

Thread: Re: Is lava destruction permanent?

colotibou — 2005-12-04T20:23:09+00:00

Hello, we play without building tracks where there's lava.
It is told in the french rules: lava destroy build hexas, no possibility to
build an hexa after the lava.
To see that an hexas is lava hexa, we use verso tile (black).

Thread: Is lava destruction permanent?

snoozefest — 2005-12-04T19:22:21+00:00

Hello! My wife and I are about to (finally!) play this map/game. I'm just unclear on whether or not lava is permanent. Do you need to keep track of tiles where lava has flowed? If so, how? Do you just use a flipped tile, or an unused player marker? Can you build track onto (cooled) lava? If you can, what is the cost?

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Boycat-OH — 2005-11-30T00:00:58+00:00

In my 1 play of this game my opponent (michael) won by a difference of a few income. We both maxed out on shares, and i think i built 1 or 2 more hexes of track. We enjoyed the game a lot, the 2 player bidding system was great. There is also a lot of opportunity of screwage with the track building, which was a feature early (around the ports) and late (after we were breaking even) in the game. In the mid game we interfered less with each other as we established a northern route (micheal) and a southern route (me) towards the SE island. I bought both port links, and shipped a few (literally - 3) in the first 7 turns. After the port shift, michael was better positioned and shipped plenty of sugar from Ste Rose and St Philippe (he bypassed St Andre).

So it worked for him. Perhaps if I hadn't bought both port links I could have been financially bettter off and either built more track or competed better in the auction... I don't know. Certainly it was a tense game and we had no problem with the red goods. More plays are definitely needed to test the game setup further.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-23T07:20:12+00:00

Boycat-OH wrote:
This made me think you'd made up your mind that the system with the ports didn't work, so my posts were all directed at trying to get you to play again with a different cube distribution.

Frankly, I'm not convinced that they do work.

I admit, I only technically played this once, but we spent hours on the one game going back turns and playing them forward differently, trying to discover all of the permutations. Really, this is the very nearly the same as playing it 4 or 5 times. BUT, you are correct in your assesment that the distribution changes everything.

I will certainly play this again, and it will certainly have a different cube distribution, but the distribution isn't what I have issues with, rather the set up. I would love to hear how you think it is a good strategy to go for the red goods on the bottom right through the NE line.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Boycat-OH — 2005-11-18T15:30:37+00:00

sisteray wrote:
Boycat-OH wrote:
One question I have - after how many plays is this? If you think sugar is worthless after playing 10 times then I can see the problem, if it is only after 1 or 2 plays then it may just be a function of the goods cube distribution, and you should persevere.

I haven't played it 10 times. If you look at the title it is in the form of a question. I felt that there were enough good things going on with this map that I needed to examine what failed for me. Frankly, I wanted to get some feedback and have an open discussion about it.

I guess I missed the significance of the ?, and I was also distracted by this part of your initial post:

sisteray wrote:
I'll play this again, but I'm going to have to make up some rules. At the very least both ports must be open.

This made me think you'd made up your mind that the system with the ports didn't work, so my posts were all directed at trying to get you to play again with a different cube distribution.

Here's another take on the situation:

It may end up being somewhat like the London strategy and the NW strategy (and the London-NW strategy) on the England board - cube distribution will generally dictate how well one of these strategies will do. Of course this is true of all the boards, and the winner often seems to be the player who can 'see' the long shipments that will be available at the end of the game, and can also ramp up his engine in order to take advantage of such shipments.

To some degree there are long shipments ready-made on the Reunion board, but the inital cube distribution may favor a northern route over a southern route. If it doesn't, and you think the southern route is better, then it becomes more critical to take 1st build, or perhaps urbanization. And there may be situations where the cube distribution does not favor shipping to France in the early game - in which case you should avoid wasting money on the ferry link and concentrate on making a network that will allow longer shipments with the other color cubes (most likely black, but potentially the others, too).

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-17T06:36:34+00:00

100%Blade wrote:
I'm curious, Morgan. If you don't ship red goods to France, how do you set up any long (5 or 6) shipments? It seems to me that it is very difficult to do this with either blue or yellow. Sure, if you urbanise in the right palces you can get long runs for black goods but this is unlikely to sustain you through the full 10 turns.

You can also get longs runs of Blue and Yellow through the Black cities. These runs will be open if your opponent is working on the northern route.

100%Blade wrote:
The route to France may be expensive but can certainly pay off (a bit like the ferry lines in Scandanavia or the cost of building on some of the hexes in Germany).

I'd love to see the math. You don't lose your lines in Scandanavia or Germany.

What was your experience with building the line to France?

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-17T06:30:45+00:00

Boycat-OH wrote:
One question I have - after how many plays is this? If you think sugar is worthless after playing 10 times then I can see the problem, if it is only after 1 or 2 plays then it may just be a function of the goods cube distribution, and you should persevere.

I haven't played it 10 times. If you look at the title it is in the form of a question. I felt that there were enough good things going on with this map that I needed to examine what failed for me. Frankly, I wanted to get some feedback and have an open discussion about it.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-17T06:26:16+00:00

Ludo le gars wrote:
sisteray wrote:
The port closes invariably on turn 7.

Except if the other port isn't urbanized or eventually still avalaible.
Please, just see the invariable things and what can change during various games...

I see no reason not to urbanize it.

If you saw that your only opponent was building up to ship reds and as that opponent will be chosing engineer, you would be silly not to take ubanization and link the other city. In fact, when I'll play this again that will be one of my first moves for this game regardless of any other circumstances. It seems obvious to me.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

100%Blade — 2005-11-16T08:56:02+00:00

I'm curious, Morgan. If you don't ship red goods to France, how do you set up any long (5 or 6) shipments? It seems to me that it is very difficult to do this with either blue or yellow. Sure, if you urbanise in the right palces you can get long runs for black goods but this is unlikely to sustain you through the full 10 turns. The route to France may be expensive but can certainly pay off (a bit like the ferry lines in Scandanavia or the cost of building on some of the hexes in Germany).

As far as shipping from PHI to FRA is concerned, if you build between BEN and SUZ, missing out AND, it is only 6 cities even if you go via LEP. You don't need to build through the mountains.

Michael

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

Ludo le gars — 2005-11-16T06:19:53+00:00

shannona wrote:
I hope that's printed in real-gold ink on hardwood boards.

Hi, good news In fact they are the same maps as ours, because they got 18 boxes in Essen on our booth. So, with the 2 maps, you get the limited expansions box...
Of course, it's really cheap

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

shannona — 2005-11-16T03:16:01+00:00

I hope that's printed in real-gold ink on hardwood boards.

Thread: Re: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

GeoMan — 2005-11-16T02:37:55+00:00

John Bohrer wrote:
I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

John
Pittsburgh

And very cheap too!

Thread: I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

John Bohrer — 2005-11-16T01:56:37+00:00

I see that Funagaingames.com is selling this map!

John
Pittsburgh

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Boycat-OH — 2005-11-15T20:07:10+00:00

One question I have - after how many plays is this? If you think sugar is worthless after playing 10 times then I can see the problem, if it is only after 1 or 2 plays then it may just be a function of the goods cube distribution, and you should persevere.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Ludo le gars — 2005-11-15T18:50:10+00:00

sisteray wrote:
The port closes invariably on turn 7.

Except if the other port isn't urbanized or eventually still avalaible.
Please, just see the invariable things and what can change during various games...

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-14T21:55:24+00:00

Boycat-OH wrote:

If you issue enough shares you can afford the link to the port, right, just like Scandinavia or Ireland?
Yes, but you don't lose the port in those maps. For this map, at the very least it takes a 5 engine to ship the red goods from the eastern yellow city, if you go through all the north cities. This will take a minimum of three turns. In order to accomplish this you must get the engine in turn one and upgrade instead of shipping. Turn two Engine will be blocked (if it wasn't in turn one) so upgrade instead of shipping. Turn three Engine and upgrade instead of shipping to ship one cube 5 spaces. Of course you have to pay for shares, engine upkeep, auctions, track, win the roll selections, buy the port for 6, on top of the fact that you start the game with issues out with no starting money.

The port closes invariably on turn 7. So, if all goes perfectly, you can ship 1 on turn 3 for 5 spaces, 2 on turn 4 for 5 spaces, 2 on turn 5 for 5 spaces, 2 on turn 6 for 5 spaces. The ideal condition for that to happen is if the yellow city has all red. Otherwise, you have to build to the next city AND upgrade your engine to 6. That is of course if the volcano hasn't gotten you yet.

Now this other city can't ship around to the other port unless a new route is created (throught the other player's infrastructure, or through the very expensive mountains past the volcano)

Boycat-OH wrote:

And, looking at the map, all you would have to do is bypass one of those cities with your track and you will have 6 links. It's not compulsory to connect every city, is it?

If you connect every city efficiently at minimum it would cost 8 to the yellow city from the port town (then add the 6 port). The cheapest way around a city to connect to the far yellow is 11, assuming that no one is interfering with you.

If you can pull of building around the cities into the mountains, you suffer a much higher risk for a much higher cost because now you are closer to the volcano.

Plus, Magma is impassable terrain so if the lava makes a run for the water your game is over.

On the west side of the map, there is more room to move. You leave Urbanization open (because you must take Engineer) and very little risk from the volcano. The other player is going to flourish.

I want to like the board, but I don't think that the sugar works as is. The risk just doesn't seem worthwhile. The Volcano is fun, but perhaps you should be able to build over cold magma. The two player system is awesome though, and I want to implement it in other boards.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Ludo le gars — 2005-11-13T21:26:31+00:00

colotibou wrote:
We can bring sugar to the first or the second port from all the 3 towns, it's just necessary to buid others tiles!

You're right. Red cubes can be everywhere, so perhaps just very near the port. So, it's strange to think of playing a red cubes strategy is always a bad one...

During our playests, no problem with red cubes : sometimes you win by playing them, sometimes you lose, but everytime you have to think of using other cubes to win...
It is not an ultimate strategy nor a losing one

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Boycat-OH — 2005-11-13T20:21:37+00:00

sisteray wrote:
Yes, but opening the port costs six and you don't even score for it. When you can afford the first port you only get a couple turns out of it.

What is worse even if you ramp up your engines you can't get sugar to the port throught the north as it would require at least a 7 engine and the game maxes at 6.

If you issue enough shares you can afford the link to the port, right, just like Scandinavia or Ireland?

And, looking at the map, all you would have to do is bypass one of those cities with your track and you will have 6 links. It's not compulsory to connect every city, is it?

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

colotibou — 2005-11-13T19:24:41+00:00

We can bring sugar to the first or the second port from all the 3 towns, it's just necessary to buid others tiles!

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-13T19:01:09+00:00

Yes, but opening the port costs six and you don't even score for it. When you can afford the first port you only get a couple turns out of it.

What is worse even if you ramp up your engines you can't get sugar to the port throught the north as it would require at least a 7 engine and the game maxes at 6.

Thread: Re: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

Ludo le gars — 2005-11-13T11:12:06+00:00

Hi,

I'm the designer of this map. Thanks for the article and the big explanation about your disapointment (red cubes, the top part of the map) and your congratulations (the lava, the 2_players system).
I try to explain reasons here, but sorry for my poor english.

About the red cubes, I can tell it's because I wanted to desequilibrate the game with a big red potential behind the volcano without preventing to have red cubes elsewhere. So, you have often lots of red cubes behind the volcano and you can think it's good to try to connect them in order to deliver these cubes to France (but building is expensive and it's risked with lava). In your article, you say no sense to try it : bad strategy. I'm not sure, because if you have a look on the statistics, you can see volcano doesn't erupt often and it's very very rare when lava breaks tracks. So, if you try to connect the big cities behind the volcano, in order to get the red cubes, you have big chance to do that (about 95 %). So, doens't matter, if volcano erupts and breaks your tracks, just think it's natural catastroph and it won't happen each game !
Just to precise something : as red cubes may be everywhere, there is no objective reason for not delevering them by the first ferry. And, if you have time to do that, just try to get red cubes from the big cities behind the volcano. I think trying to get them quickly can't be a single strategy.

Hope this explanation could help you to understand why there is an interest with the red cubes.

Thread: Sugar: Is it a fools gambit?

sisteray — 2005-11-12T10:15:27+00:00

I just don't get how Sugar will ever be worth it. In order to get sugar from the three South East cities to the French Port you must build you locomotive up to 6 and hope that the lava doesn't get you.

As you can never rebuild over lava if it gets in your path there is just nothing that you can do if it hits you. At that point your game is over (at least for shipping red).

What is worse is that in order for shipping to be possible on the north end you must skip a city, building through the very expensive mountains and pay for the 6 port. You can't connect to all the cities because that makes seven links and it isn't possible to grow to 7 links.

The first 6 port never seems worthwhile as it disapears soon after you can afford it and before you can set up your network. This means that most of the activity in the game is going to be the North West as it is relatively safer to build there, there are more areas accessable for urbanization and this area gives access to the port at a logical time in the game.

Even still you can't ship red goods through this sector without skipping a city else you excede the maximum of 6.

My opinion is that going for red is a bad strategy, which makes me a little sad. I like the board, the lava is fun, I like the challenge of ramping up your engine, the two player system works well, but the math to ship reds sucks.

I'll play this again, but I'm going to have to make up some rules. At the very least both ports must be open.

Image

Ludo le gars — 2005-11-11T21:21:55+00:00

Prototype photo

Thread: Re: Man Thinks, The Lava Flows?

Ludo le gars — 2005-11-11T09:30:13+00:00

Hello !

sisteray wrote:

1) Does the lava flow from the point at which it stopped in the previous eruption or from the volcano cone? Should we assume that we need to keep track of the lead lava hex?
The lava starts from the volcano each time it erupts. So it may grow on the previous destroyed tiles, but the starter point is the volcano.

sisteray wrote:

2) Can the lava cross its own path? This can work in two ways. When lava moves, if there is lava in the way, can it pass over the old lava? When moving lava, and a 1, 6, 6 is rolled will the point of the lava end at the one or will it double back upstream? Can a lava flow move up and then move out up the path?
Yes, the lava may cross its own path. No pb. Just consider the direction of the lava.

sisteray wrote:

3) Can lava cross over the high "impassable" mountains?
Yes the mava can cross over the high mountains.

Hope you like this expansion map

Image

toulouse — 2005-10-19T12:20:52+00:00

Reunion Island and rules

Image

toulouse — 2005-10-18T20:21:49+00:00

The AoS expansion maps box (included with the purchase of Reunion Island and The Moon)

Image

Ludo le gars — 2005-10-04T15:51:53+00:00