Game: Kaivai

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

verandi — 2008-08-24T15:06:33+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
easterly1 wrote:
...I just think the cost structure for additional actions is just too high with 4 vs 3...

That's precisely why I find 4 so much more interesting and attractive.

+1

Image

brainst0rm — 2008-08-11T09:14:07+00:00

Big meeting in this island

Image

brainst0rm — 2008-08-11T09:12:33+00:00

We are ready to get some fish

Image

brainst0rm — 2008-08-11T09:08:41+00:00

Decisions...

Thread: Re: Microbadge?

verandi — 2008-08-09T03:31:40+00:00

woo! there's now a Kaivai microbadge! I'll be getting mine later this week when I scrounge together the GG!

Thread: Re: Microbadge?

RockLobster — 2008-08-08T02:57:21+00:00

I took six swings at it.

Go to http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2538097#2538097 to chime in on which you like (if any).

Thread: Microbadge?

verandi — 2008-08-05T02:26:19+00:00

Any tech-savvy Kaivai enthusiasts out there who want to make a Kaivai microbadge? I'd buy it.

Image

verandi — 2008-08-01T22:51:39+00:00

close-up of board at game end- Green and Blue tie for the win, a couple points ahead of Yellow and eleven points ahead of Red who came in last.

Image

verandi — 2008-08-01T22:47:55+00:00

End of a 4-player game: After a climactic island-village scoring, Blue and Green tie for the win.

Image

verandi — 2008-07-30T22:04:49+00:00

Beginning of Action Phase, Turn 4. Yellow did no actions last turn so he is rich in influence but lacks pretty much everything else at this point (he would end up coming in last). Blue has just moved the god to the island with his recently built shrines a

Image

verandi — 2008-07-30T15:55:07+00:00

Thread: Re: Error in rules translations here on BGG?

xethair — 2008-06-17T21:44:02+00:00

verandi wrote:
OK since this thread is otherwise useless, I thought I'd take the opportunity to point out that there are two CHANGES to the original rulebook that were published with the rules to the Kaivai Expansion
Changes to the original rulebook as in, these apply when playing without the expansion? Paying influence for losing bids seems awfully harsh -- doesn't that just reduce the endgame to a big guessing game?

Image

Oblivion — 2008-05-24T17:33:11+00:00

Kaivai Player Mats

Image

Oblivion — 2008-05-24T17:31:14+00:00

Kaivai Player Mats

Image

Oblivion — 2008-05-24T17:27:25+00:00

Kaivai tokens unpunched

Thread: Re: Building Twice With the Same Boat

verandi — 2008-05-23T04:58:08+00:00

I asked one of the designers and he confirmed that each boat may only build once per building action. So in effect a single boat cannot build several cottages at the same time.

Thread: Re: Is anyone working on translating the new rules?

Horologiom — 2008-05-04T09:03:14+00:00

I will start today, so it will take e few days...

Helge

Thread: Re: Bloodbath in the south seas

verandi — 2008-04-30T17:36:10+00:00

Nice session report!

pitris wrote:

I had big plans for this game. Big, glorious plans. I wanted to fish a lot and to deliver most of that fish to my own huts, so I could celebrate later for big points. A kind of a shipping strategy, so to speak.

A successful "shipping" strategy is certainly possible- I saw another player do it in my last game and he came in second by just a couple points (could have won if things had turned out slightly differently the last round and during island-village scoring). I recall that he only had 6 cottages by the end of the game.

pitris wrote:
When we reached round 3 I knew I was completely doomed. I had a 10 point lead in glory points, which at this point was a very bad thing because it meant that I was always the last to bid, and I found myself with some shells in my vaults intended to be spent of some shiny new huts... but no influence whatsoever. This meant that in the subsequent rounds, all I did was see my money lose its value and perform some of the leftover actions. I'll skip the easy joke and won't say that my shells were easy to mistake with dolars. The point is that my lack of influence prevented me from building much needed huts at a crucial point in the game. I should've made a sacrifice immediatly to get me some influence but I didn't. I regret it dearly.

Usually if you want to go first it is best to be last in the turn order, as you can make a bid higher than anyone else- this assumes that no one else is willing to bid 9 or 10, which is usually the case until the later rounds of the game (when they aren't building and either have great drawing distance or just want to take the party action). On the other hand, often a player earlier in the bidding order will bid 1 in order to secure the lowest bid, so going earlier (preferably first) in the bidding is better if you want to be last in turn order.

OF course, if you have to make a really high bid to go first, then you better have enough money

pitris wrote:
Luis decided to flex his bow and take a shot. He used to of his canoes to sink 2 of Bruno's. This allowed him to loose 7 glory points and become last on the glory point scale and, at the same time, move his other 2 canoes to prime building spots.

I just love this tactic!

pitris wrote:
The building distribution was interesting because several clearly defined colored zones formed on the map. The north and northest was blue, because Francisco had a very strong presence there. The east clearly belonged to Luís and his yellow might. And in the south stood the Bruno's huge green island, where the 7 meeting huts were built. I don't know if such a clear separation is usual, but my guess is that it isn't.

It does seem a bit odd for each player to build in his own area, as in the first half of the game it seems one would want to build meeting and fisherman's huts where other players can sell to them most easily.

Thread: Re: Building Twice With the Same Boat

DarrellKH — 2008-04-30T16:59:49+00:00

dkeisen wrote:
One can clearly choose the same action twice on the same round if it is still available to you in a useful way next time your turn comes around.

Sorry - it's been several months (and over a dozen new games I've learned and explained) since I last played it. I couldn't remember if there was an exception to that rule for a particular action or not.

Thread: Re: Building Twice With the Same Boat

verandi — 2008-04-30T16:54:59+00:00

I don't have an official ruling, but it seems to me pretty obvious that the intended rule is that when you take the building action each boat can only build once. This is consistent with the idea that each boat only fishes once when the fishing action is taken.

Regarding the question of whether an action can be taken several times by the same player in a given round- of course he can!

Thread: Re: Building Twice With the Same Boat

dkeisen — 2008-04-30T16:54:41+00:00

One can clearly choose the same action twice on the same round if it is still available to you in a useful way next time your turn comes around.

Thread: Re: Bloodbath in the south seas

DarrellKH — 2008-04-30T16:51:48+00:00

I pretty much enjoy any game, the first playing after which I'm sitting there, still trying to get a handle on what the heck I should do, in what order, to do better.

When we first sat down to this game, we thought something like, "Oh, how cute, a pretty Euro with fishing boats and whatnot."

No, no, no. This is a nasty, nasty game of unforgivingly tight strategy, that just begs for replaying - much superior to most of what it seemingly resembles.

Thread: Re: Building Twice With the Same Boat

DarrellKH — 2008-04-30T16:34:01+00:00

I think you're turning the letter of the rule against the intent of the rule. But even at that, sentence 3 kind of answers the question, too - the statement being that if a boat isn't going to build, it cannot be moved (and thus implying that it isn't eligible in your computation for how many builds you can have).

But there's nothing saying you cannot select the same build action again, provided you can afford it. (Is there? I'd have to check myself.)

Thread: Building Twice With the Same Boat

dkeisen — 2008-04-30T15:11:42+00:00

Can one build twice with the same boat?

The English rules as posted on here contain the phrase:

8.7 The building action is performed using canoes. As many huts may be built in a single action as the player has canoes. Canoes may be moved up to their full movement allowance before performing this action. However, a canoe that does not perform a build may not be moved. Otherwise, the normal rules of canoe movement apply (see 8.17 below).

That limits the number of buildings built all told on an action, but not the number per boat. So if I have 3 boats, clearly I cannot build more than 3 buildings. But can I use one boat to build all 3 of them?

Thread: Re: Infinite huts and building question

pitris — 2008-04-30T14:51:07+00:00

That was our reasoning as well, so apparently we played correctly.

Thread: Bloodbath in the south seas

pitris — 2008-04-30T14:49:40+00:00

4 fierce sea men showed up yesterday at my place. I always say that one should carefully choose the right game for the right crowd, so I suggested Container or Kaivai. After a brief discussion, we settled on the Polynesian epic.

I explained the rules to Luís, who was the only first timer, and we started the game.

I had big plans for this game. Big, glorious plans. I wanted to fish a lot and to deliver most of that fish to my own huts, so I could celebrate later for big points. A kind of a shipping strategy, so to speak.

I made several mistakes, though, and at an early stage of the game too. I didn't build enough fishing shrines. I didn't build enough fisherman's huts to give me those extra canoes for all the fishing I was planning on doing. And I didn't build enough meeting huts, so I had lots of influence problems.

Now that I look at it from afar, I can see that didn't build enough of anything and finished the game with only 4 huts.

Luis and Bruno, on the other hand, were doing ok. Both were following a building heavy strategy and soon the seas where splintered with green and yellow huts. Francisco was alone in his own archipelago and had more of a mixed thing going.

When we reached round 3 I knew I was completely doomed. I had a 10 point lead in glory points, which at this point was a very bad thing because it meant that I was always the last to bid, and I found myself with some shells in my vaults intended to be spent on some shiny new huts... but no influence whatsoever. This meant that in the subsequent rounds, all I did was see my money lose its value and perform some of the leftover actions. I'll skip the easy joke and won't say that my shells were easy to mistake with dolars. The point is that my lack of influence prevented me from building much needed huts at a crucial point in the game. I should've made a sacrifice immediatly to get me some influence but I didn't. I regret it dearly.

Bruno, in the meantime, fished like a true Polynesian. In one crucial round (round 4 or 5, I don't remember exactly), he earned a lot of money selling all the fish he had been gathering and built 4 huts in one go. However, he made a crucial mistake: instead of spreading them around he decided to build 4 meeting huts in the same island. His reasoning was that, since he was last in the glory point scale, he could move the fishing god to that island in the next rounds and earn himself 7 influences in the process. But instead what his insane building ambition accomplished was to paint a huge target on his forehead!

And Luis decided to flex his bow and take a shot. He used two of his canoes to sink two of Bruno's. This allowed him to lose 7 glory points and become last on the glory point scale and, at the same time, move his other 2 canoes to prime building spots. He was able to build a few more meeting huts in the same round, so, when he moved the god, he earned 3 influence, instead of Bruno gaining 7. This was a highly discussed and appreciated move by everybody... except Bruno, of course.

This was also the defining moment in the game, the one that prevented Bruno from cruising to an easy victory. The god would never land on "his" island until the end of the game and he never got the influence he craved for.

In the meantime Francisco had built a few fishing shrines. He was able to catch a lot of fish, sell it and celebrate in the 2 final rounds of the game. This gained him a significant glory point advantage at the beginning of the final scoring phase but left him with zero influence to use on the bidding.

The final scoring was depressing. Luís and Bruno had built all of their huts for a whopping 30 points, Francisco had 18 and I had a meager 8 points for my 4 huts. The bidding was tense but brought no big surprises. All the players won what was expected. Francisco, who had no influence at all, was able to win the 2 islands where he had a very strong presence. Bruno and Luís split of the remaining points with a slight advantage for Luís. I got nothing but I was used to it by then.

The final scores were tallied and Francisco managed to win, 3 or 4 points ahead of Bruno. Luís finished just one point behind Bruno and I trailed 300 or 400 points behind Luís.

Thoughts

After the game ended there was a lot of discussion over strategies, options, etc.

The building distribution was interesting because several clearly defined colored zones formed on the map. The north and northest was blue, because Francisco had a very strong presence there. The east clearly belonged to Luís and his yellow might. And in the south stood the Bruno's huge green island, where the 7 meeting huts were built. I don't know if such a clear separation is usual, but my guess is that it isn't.

I'm not very sure if we'll see 2 players build all of their huts in one game either. I think one of the main reasons this happened was my own failure to build more than 4 in the whole game.

Fishing shrines were also very underrated. Few were built during most of the game (3, I think). The exception was when Francisco built a few more near the end of the game that proved crucial to his victory, because they allowed him to fish and celebrate to win 7+ points. Also, I think Bruno made a big mistake when he decided not to spread his huts around. Luís's swift reaction really hurt Bruno and took what looked like an easy victory from his hands.

We all made a lot of newbie mistakes but everybody enjoyed the game a lot. I'm very, very impressed with Kaivai and I'm really looking forward to my next play!

Thread: Re: Infinite huts and building question

verandi — 2008-04-30T14:18:58+00:00

In the rules under Building it says: "The ship you use for building, must border on a CULT SQUARE. The cottage you build, must border on the ship and on any place of the island village". The use of the word the suggests to me that it is the same island village where your ship is adjacent to a cult square.

Regarding the supply of cottages, it is not stated explicitly in the rules, but it seems fairly logical to assume that since the other items in players' supplies (boats, shrines) are limited then so are the cottages.

Regarding the movement action, it also seems most logical that you can't choose it in the situation described, as you won't be using it. It is analogous to saying "what if I choose the building action and I have no money?"

Thread: Infinite huts and building question

pitris — 2008-04-30T09:48:09+00:00

Hi,

There are 15 hut counters available per player. Is this an intended limitation?

This question came up yesterday, when 2 of the players built all of their huts. We ruled that they couldn't build more, but I'm not sure if we did it right.

Regarding the building action, it's clear to us that the canoe performing the building must be adjacent to a cult hex and the new hut must be built adjacent to the island-village and the canoe performing the building. Must the cult hex in question belong to the same island-village where the hut is to be built? It seems to make sense that it must and we played it like that, but I couldn't find it in the rules.

[UPDATE]:

Just remembered another one: the rules state that a player cannot choose an action if he/she cannot perform the action. The question is, can a player that bid 10 and has no canoe movement bonus, thus having a total o zero movement points to spend, choose the "move" action?

Thanks!

Thread: Re: Is anyone working on translating the new rules?

jglasson — 2008-04-27T18:21:55+00:00

I thought I'd ping this thread again. It's been a while with no updates.

Thanks,
Jeff

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

verandi — 2008-04-25T14:26:50+00:00

After playing some more, I've come to the opinion that the game really needs the full 10 rounds for the narrative arc of development to unfold.

The other two rule changes I'm totally a fan of as I think they address the only niggling issues I had with the game at first.

Thread: Re: Feedback for the Expansion?

verandi — 2008-04-25T13:59:00+00:00

I also haven't played the expansion, but I adore the base game. Truly a masterpiece!

Thread: Re: Feedback for the Expansion?

DarrellKH — 2008-04-25T12:06:38+00:00

Helge, while I dont' have the expansion, I didn't want to pass on the chance to tell you just how much my group and I have enjoyed Kaivai. We all think it's a somewhat devlish game to play well, which just means it's that much more fun.

Thread: Feedback for the Expansion?

Horologiom — 2008-04-25T08:06:50+00:00

Are there any players, who can give me a feedback for the Kaivai Expansion?

I'm working on a new strategy boardgame and I am interested in your experiences with the complexity added to Kaivai by this Expansionset.

Thanks,

Helge

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

Horologiom — 2008-04-25T07:41:10+00:00

Our reason for shortening Kaivai from 10 to 8 rounds is based on the feedback we've got about the playing time: for many unexperienced players the game lasted too long. So if any one feels experienced enough, or doesn't care about time, use the original 10 rounds.

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

Belisarius88 — 2008-04-23T01:08:50+00:00

Player 3 in this session:

From the start I decided I would pursue a god manipulation strategy just to see how it could work. I built no fishing shrines until turn 7, instead building 3 boats and 3 influence shrines. I managed to get the god more than half of the game, although that's probably due to player inexperience. It seems that in a equally matched game it would be difficult for a player to get the god so often.

I feel I may have made a couple of suboptimal plays, especially in the last turn when I failed to use an available influence to fish again using my two T7 fishing shrines near my main island. The other players had passed or lacked influence. That missed fishing trip would have most likely scored me an additional 4-5 points, more than the 3 points from an island I grabbed by bidding influence and which I should not have won had player 4 bid correctly.

I have thought of another strategy to attempt, discussion of that will wait until game 3.

Mike, 2-0 in Kaivai so far!

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

clearclaw — 2008-04-22T20:33:21+00:00

verandi wrote:
If I follow correctly, you are saying that less rounds means less chances for your skillful building placements to pay off (whether it be setting up your own infrastructure to run efficiently or placing cottages such that for other players the most convenient option is to sell to you); while less rounds also means more influence of a single lucky (or unlucky) dice roll on the final score.

Yep.

This seems a reasonable argument. At present, the 8 round game is weighing in at almost 3 hours for our group. Perhaps in the future once we've streamlined the process a bit, I would consider shifting back to the 10 round game.

Yeah, our games run about the same length. I don't mind the time.

I was curious what your thoughts were on bidding in round 1?

Not a lot really. It depends heavily on the island placement. 6/5/4/1 is a typical spread, but I've also seen that wander a bit. Our last game started with 8/7/6/3 of all things (which I thought was nuts)

The only variability from game to game at this stage is the location of two of the island-villages, so it seems you could develop a general idea of what a strong bid is depending on your place in the initial turn order.

I haven't gone that far.

I was also curious how you balance the value of getting out of phase with the other players asap versus performing the actions that are coveted early, most notably building. I take for granted that building is the strongest choice for the first player in round 1, but what about the next player in turn order? Would you spend an influence to build as well? What about the third player who would have to spend two influence (and remain in phase with the other two players)? In general, what does the typical first round of your games look like?

A typical first turn pattern here is that the first player builds, the second player delivers, the third player fished and the fourth passes on their turn and collects two influence. Subsequent actions in the first round then break down very tractically.

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

verandi — 2008-04-22T19:05:46+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
I don't see how knocking two rounds off the game would be an improvement and strongly suspect that it would change the balance of building placement versus benefits of good fishing to the detriment of the game. In short I consider the original rules near perfect outside of the effects of statistically unlikely very good or very bad fish rolls.

If I follow correctly, you are saying that less rounds means less chances for your skillful building placements to pay off (whether it be setting up your own infrastructure to run efficiently or placing cottages such that for other players the most convenient option is to sell to you); while less rounds also means more influence of a single lucky (or unlucky) dice roll on the final score.

This seems a reasonable argument. At present, the 8 round game is weighing in at almost 3 hours for our group. Perhaps in the future once we've streamlined the process a bit, I would consider shifting back to the 10 round game.

clearclaw wrote:
The earlier you are in the turn order the more canoes you want, and the later the more influence buildings, and in the middle fishing buildings (I never bothered to learn the thematic names).

I can see the rationale behind these general principles. I was curious what your thoughts were on bidding in round 1? The only variability from game to game at this stage is the location of two of the island-villages, so it seems you could develop a general idea of what a strong bid is depending on your place in the initial turn order.

I was also curious how you balance the value of getting out of phase with the other players asap versus performing the actions that are coveted early, most notably building. I take for granted that building is the strongest choice for the first player in round 1, but what about the next player in turn order? Would you spend an influence to build as well? What about the third player who would have to spend two influence (and remain in phase with the other two players)? In general, what does the typical first round of your games look like?

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

clearclaw — 2008-04-22T18:19:59+00:00

verandi wrote:
Well, I didn't see much of a choice involved- those are just the rules now. I'm a little surprised that you chose to ignore them here, when otherwise you are a real stickler for playing by the exact rules as printed (e.g. no negotiation unless explicitly stated).

I play the rules of the game as it was published. Similarly I play Rat Hot with the original (and better) K:dK rules. I also play Neuland with the original (and better) rules.

Perhaps you could explain (drawing from your experience with the game) why you dislike the new official rules?

The new handling of influence in the end-game don't care much about either way: it seems benign. I don't see how knocking two rounds off the game would be an improvement and strongly suspect that it would change the balance of building placement versus benefits of good fishing to the detriment of the game. In short I consider the original rules near perfect outside of the effects of statistically unlikely very good or very bad fish rolls.

I also admit I'm a little disappointed that you made no comments on strategy- I was looking forward to hearing some of your thoughts.

A quick comment then:

The earlier you are in the turn order the more canoes you want, and the later the more influence buildings, and in the middle fishing buildings (I never bothered to learn the thematic names).

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

verandi — 2008-04-22T17:20:14+00:00

Upon rereading the rulebook to the expansion carefully (which is available for download here on the geek), I actually noticed there are THREE rule changes to the basic game. In addition to the two mentioned above, there is also the following: when fishing, you automatically get a fish from the god statue (large black pawn). You only roll dice for your own statues.

I'll have to make sure and play with that rule as well next time Kaivai hits the table.

To J C Lawrence- I'm still very much curious to hear your thoughts on the new rules, and in general your thoughts on strategy. In the meantime I'm going to continue playing with the rules intended by the designers (as much as I respect your opinion I have to give them the benefit of the doubt), but I certainly welcome compelling arguments.

On the surface, I really like the changes (including the third one I just noticed), but I've only played a couple times.

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

ropearoni4 — 2008-04-22T15:13:39+00:00

Having read this, I want to play my copy again. I have a hard time getting this to the table. I have the expansion as well, and the rules in there confuse the first rules by renaming everything to something that is already in the game, which is re-named as well. It does appear to be a great game, but I can't get my head around the rules to the point that I can say this _is_ how it is done, and then formulate a startegy as you and your group did. It gives me some hope that it will hit the table again.

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

verandi — 2008-04-22T14:52:38+00:00

clearclaw wrote:

I see no particular need or justification for those changes. The game works well without those changes.

Well, I didn't see much of a choice involved- those are just the rules now. I'm a little surprised that you chose to ignore them here, when otherwise you are a real stickler for playing by the exact rules as printed (e.g. no negotiation unless explicitly stated).

Perhaps you could explain (drawing from your experience with the game) why you dislike the new official rules?

I also admit I'm a little disappointed that you made no comments on strategy- I was looking forward to hearing some of your thoughts.

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

pitris — 2008-04-22T10:43:08+00:00

I'm curious on the impact of the rule changes.

Did you feel that 8 rounds was enough? The game didn't feel too long when we played it so I don't know if we'll keep this rule (but we'll try it, nevertheless).

And regarding the endgame change, does it have any noticeable impact? This one really intrigues me.

Thread: Re: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

clearclaw — 2008-04-22T08:15:25+00:00

verandi wrote:
NOTE: we played with the two rules changes published by the designers (can be found in the rulebook to the expansion, which is printable here on BGG): firstly, that the game lasts 8 rounds, not 10; secondly, that during the endgame village scoring ALL players lose their influence bid, not just a player who wins an auction.

I see no particular need or justification for those changes. The game works well without those changes.

Thread: Clash of the Water Eaters (on a Sunday Night)

verandi — 2008-04-22T06:15:42+00:00

Last night Mike, Klaus, Tom, and I played a game of Kaivai. Mike had played for the first time the night before, and was excited about exploring a different strategy. For Klaus and Tom it was the first time. NOTE: we played with the two rules changes published by the designers (can be found in the rulebook to the expansion, which is printable here on BGG): firstly, that the game lasts 8 rounds, not 10; secondly, that during the endgame village scoring ALL players lose their influence bid, not just a player who wins an auction.

I was randomly chosen as the start player for round 1, and made a bid of 6. As this was a learning game for some, I explained why I felt 6 was a strong bid for round 1: it is the highest bid you can make that still potentially allows you to build two cottages with the 15 shells you start the game with (base costs 6 + 6 with 3 left over for village size costs). I also mentioned however that bidding higher than 6 was not a bad idea either, as although you only get to build one cottage, you get to go earlier in the turn order so you spend less (possibly no) influence, plus you have more money left over after the base cost to spend on village size cost, which allows you to build at a more expensive - but possibly more desirable - location. More on this later.

I turns out 6 stood as the highest bid since Klaus and Tom (I guess?) were turned off by the higher building costs and lower movement capacity of higher bids than 6. Mike's pursuit of a different strategy involved making the lowest bid so he could move the god.

Then came the initial setup of two free cottages per player. I placed two fisherman cottages around the center of the map. I explained that in my view it was strong for your fisherman and meeting cottages to be in a central location where they could be most conveniently available for other players to sell to (this is the more desirable location I was referring to in the paragraph above). Klaus and Tom followed suit, but Mike made one of his initial cottages a meeting hut, and placed both his cottages together on an island distant from everyone else. It turns out his reasoning here was to have the god (which naturally he moved to the village where his meeting cottage was for an extra influence) far away from everyone else so they couldn't use it for fishing this round.

After Mike moved the god and expanded the corresponding village, I chose building as my first action and built two shrines at a nearby empty village on the edge of the board. I don't quite remember what Klaus built, but he did chose building (which cost him one influence). Tom was then faced with the decision to pay two influence to build or do something else (I'm still not sure myself what the correct move is here). He ultimately decided to build, although once again I'm not sure what he built. What I do remember is that they each built at least one shrine, but did not build two shrines on a single village like me. Mike increased his drawing distance. I could see his strategy now: build meeting huts, bid low so he could move the god and rack up influence, and work on his drawing distance early on so bidding low wouldn't cripple his movement in later turns (now that I remember, he actually spent an influence to increase his drawing distance again later that same round).

My turn again and I (naturally) decided to fish. I had somewhat bad luck and only caught 2 of 4 fish. Klaus also decided to fish which cost him yet another influence, which brought to everyone's attention the importance of turn order vis-a-vis influence. Indeed, I don't know that a bid of 6 should get away with being first in turn order on round 1 among experienced players.

By the end of the actions phase, Klaus and Tom had both sold fish for shells, which initially struck me as an unwise play since their shells would devalue at the end of the round. Ostensibly it seems that one should sell and then build in the same round. However, this was not possible for me to do in round 2, since everyone else (who had shells!) went straight to building, while I needed to first sell, by which time the build action would be too expensive. So I bypassed selling altogether and decided to fish again, amassing a little fish emporium on my personal board. In round 3 I sold a few (not all) of my fish for some cash, and further built my fishing oriented infrastructure. Klaus felt he had made a slew of tactical errors at that point, and indeed his position appeared weak. Similarly positioned was Tom, who was likewise new to the game and had meandered in the first few rounds a bit. Mike continued in his plan of moving the god back and forth between two villages where he was building meeting huts, and although his limited movement relegated him to his own little area of the board he seemed to be doing quite well for himself, although obviously his fishing setup was not impressive.

So by the mid-game I was perceived as the clear front-runner, given my solid fishing infrastructure and the mountain of fish on my personal board. Unfortunately, the mountain was more of a hill, as I had some pretty bad dice rolls, which concatenated with the fact that people were avoiding selling to my cottages had me worried, particularly worried about Mike. Thankfully, since Mike's cottages were not centrally positioned, he wasn't being sold to much either. I finally made my power play of selling a bunch of fish and then turning around before round end and building three new cottages. In hindsight, here is where I made the mistake that cost me the game: not building a 4th fisherman hut. I opted instead to build a meeting hut, as I was strapped for influence and had no meeting huts yet on the board. It turns out Mike was about to come over on his next turn and sink one of my boats (!), which left me with just two boats, only one of which was close to my fishing spot (the other had traveled far away to where the god was in order to build a meeting hut).

This was seriously crippling, as I had no money to build a fisherman hut, and it was going to take me a move action just to get into position to fish. In short, I was basically going to have to make do with my two boats for the rest of the game, and hope that my fishing efforts could muster the VP sufficient to win. Klaus was actually the first player to shift into selling fish to his own cottages for VP, in part because he missed the rule that cottages on the board count for VP at game end. Nonetheless, this was probably in his best interest, as the game was already around turn 6 or so when he started doing this.

I had some terrible fishing dice rolls towards the end, although on the bright side I did manage to feast all my fish (which I sold to my own cottages, strategically located right next to my fishing spot). Although he had less cottages than the rest of us, Klaus compensated for this by selling a bunch of fish to himself the last couple rounds. After cottages were scored at game end, he was still in the lead by a point. It was in the village scoring that Mike killed us, racking up 8 additional VP for the win. I came in third place, a couple points behind Klaus, who was 3 VP behind Mike. Tom ended up quite a few points behind me in dead last.

It seems that Tom actually made a stupid mistake in the final village scoring, and that if he had done things differently Klaus could have won. I didn't even have any influence at game end and on the whole had no chance at the win at that point. In any event kudos to Klaus who played an impressive first game despite some early game mistakes; and to Mike, who managed to successfully pull off the strategy he set out to implement at the beginning of the game despite my messing with him at times (including sinking his ship at some point).

This was the most exciting session of Kaivai I've had to date, and confirms it as one of my favorite games.

Thread: Re: Kaivai: Island Hopping for Fun and Profit

verandi — 2008-03-31T03:07:10+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
One of the concerns I’ve seen mentioned about Kaivai is its playing time, with a few players complaining about three hour long games.

This concern (among others) was addressed in the rules changes to the original game that were published in the rulebook to the expansion; which are:

- the game lasts 8 rounds, not 10.

- during the village scoring at game end, ALL players lose their influence bid, not just a player who wins.

- when fishing, the god confers an automatic fish; the dice only need to be rolled for your own shrines.

that being said, I prefer to play the full 10 rounds, as I feel they are necessary to really achieve the full narrative arc and feasibility of different strategies. The other rule changes I have adopted.

Thread: Re: Error in rules translations here on BGG?

verandi — 2008-03-11T22:37:50+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
dkeisen wrote:
That was in response to a posting that has since been deleted. Please ignore.

Was there a conclusion?

It was all based on a misunderstanding of an illustration in the rules-- this thread should be deleted by a mod.

Thread: Re: Error in rules translations here on BGG?

clearclaw — 2008-03-11T22:12:36+00:00

dkeisen wrote:
That was in response to a posting that has since been deleted. Please ignore.

Was there a conclusion?

Thread: Re: Error in rules translations here on BGG?

dkeisen — 2008-03-10T18:26:54+00:00

~~You gather correctly and this is starting to frustrate. That said, we thoroughly enjoy the game ruling the way we have to date so maybe there is no harm, no foul here. Maybe.~~

That was in response to a posting that has since been deleted. Please ignore.

Thread: Re: Error in rules translations here on BGG?

dkeisen — 2008-03-10T17:09:09+00:00

How does that even work if you sell fish to a hut that already has some? You always get as many shells as pieces of fish you sell, but they are all placed at the lowest value shell-location that any of them would normally qualify for? So if there is one fish on a hut and you sell two there, you get two shells on the 3 space?

Thread: Re: Kaivai - Review

Redneon — 2008-02-24T04:12:19+00:00

To JC Lawrence. You mention you like tight games. Have you tried In the Year of the Dragon yet. It seems to scratch the same itch as Kaivai. We just learned Kaivai last week at Mittencon and played it again today with a better understanding of the rules.

Thread: Re: Kaivai - Review

xandolino — 2008-02-23T04:56:16+00:00

Hi,

I would like to know if the new rules for Kaivai are already available.

These new rules would extinguish the dice from the game.

If yes, were can I find them?

Thanks

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

clearclaw — 2008-01-23T06:46:12+00:00

easterly1 wrote:
...I just think the cost structure for additional actions is just too high with 4 vs 3...

That's precisely why I find 4 so much more interesting and attractive.

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

easterly1 — 2008-01-23T02:51:44+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
fs1973 wrote:
BTW, one more thing, is this better with 3 or 4 players? What do you think?

I greatly prefer 4 players. It works with 3 but the phase-driven aspects of the game are greatly reduced and the phasing aspects of Kaivai are the primary attraction of the game for me. it really hurts to be in the wrong phase at the wrong time in Kaivai -- with 3 players this happens far less often.

couldn't disagree more. I just think the cost structure for additional actions is just too high with 4 vs 3, and the game falls into a player order trap otherwise. I will only play it with 3, granted I haven't tried the expansion yet...

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

clearclaw — 2008-01-22T17:43:05+00:00

fs1973 wrote:
BTW, one more thing, is this better with 3 or 4 players? What do you think?

I greatly prefer 4 players. It works with 3 but the phase-driven aspects of the game are greatly reduced and the phasing aspects of Kaivai are the primary attraction of the game for me. it really hurts to be in the wrong phase at the wrong time in Kaivai -- with 3 players this happens far less often.

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

fs1973 — 2008-01-22T16:08:31+00:00

Thanks guys. My question was theoretical, i just wanted to know if it was possible or not. I played this game once some months ago but i figured out the rules all wrong, so it was a lousy game. Now i'm about to give it another try and i wanted to get everything right this time. That's why i named this thread a "stupid question" i already had the idea that this would not be a good idea

I think that i'm now ready to play this game right. BTW, one more thing, is this better with 3 or 4 players? What do you think?

Thanks,
costa

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

clearclaw — 2008-01-22T15:37:35+00:00

I imagine the OP wanted it in order to teleport his canoe to a more desireable location.

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

Horologiom — 2008-01-22T10:00:23+00:00

No it is not allowed.

(And what should be the advantage? You would lose 2 VP for sinking the 4th canoe - and you would disable yourself to perform a chosen action four times.)

If you just want to build a hut, that can be delivered with fish, build a meeting hut.

I would like to know, why you wanted to sink your own canoe.

Helge

Thread: Re: Stupid sinking question

pitris — 2008-01-22T09:54:27+00:00

I would say no, but I'm not sure.

But why would you need to build another fisherman's hut, if you already have all the canoes?

Wouldn't it be better to just build a meeting hut or a god's shrine?

Thread: Stupid sinking question

fs1973 — 2008-01-22T01:44:27+00:00

Is it allowed to sink your own canoe? If a player has already build all of his canoes and wants to make a new fisherman's hut, this would be a solution. Can it be done?

thanks,
costa

Thread: Re: Quickrules in German

ropearoni4 — 2007-12-22T21:22:46+00:00

ditto on that for english.
And does it cover the expansion?