Game: Industrial Waste

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

jholme — 2008-07-18T20:58:54+00:00

dcorban wrote:
You should resolve the accident and set the accident card off to the side. Continue drawing the usual number of cards and finish the turn as normal. After the current turn is over, take all of the cards, including the accident, and shuffle them, creating a new draw deck.

Thanks! That's a very useful clarification. I guess I missed it in my reading of the rules...

So, with 5 players the accident card would come up 25% more frequently; with 6 players, 50% more frequently than with 4 players.

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

dcorban — 2008-07-17T23:48:49+00:00

jholme wrote:
When the accident card is drawn, we put it in the discard pile so it doesn't come up again until the deck is played out and reshuffled. Is that the right way to do it?

No. You should resolve the accident and set the accident card off to the side. Continue drawing the usual number of cards and finish the turn as normal. After the current turn is over, take all of the cards, including the accident, and shuffle them, creating a new draw deck.

Knowing that accidents are not possible in a given turn would change the game significantly.

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

DaveD — 2008-07-17T23:06:14+00:00

jholme wrote:
artmark wrote:
I really like industrial waste as well, but I think container is more similar to it than scepter, which plays 5.

with more players you could make a roll when the accident card comes up, so it happens only some of the time.

When the accident card is drawn, we put it in the discard pile so it doesn't come up again until the deck is played out and reshuffled. Is that the right way to do it?

The problem with that approach is that if the accident happens near the top of the deck, players can predict it won't be drawn again until after a reshuffle, enabling them to postpone waste management with some impunity.

It occurred to me that we could put it back in the unplayed part of the deck and reshuffle; then it would come up more often and less predictably. Another way to diminish accident predictability would be to pick up all the cards and reshuffle the entire deck whenever the accident card is drawn.

According to the rules the deck is reshuffled every time the accident card is drawn, so it is possible you could have an accident every turn. Adding extra players would make this possibility much more likely.

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

jholme — 2008-07-17T22:55:30+00:00

artmark wrote:
I really like industrial waste as well, but I think container is more similar to it than scepter, which plays 5.

with more players you could make a roll when the accident card comes up, so it happens only some of the time.

When the accident card is drawn, we put it in the discard pile so it doesn't come up again until the deck is played out and reshuffled. Is that the right way to do it?

The problem with that approach is that if the accident happens near the top of the deck, players can predict it won't be drawn again until after a reshuffle, enabling them to postpone waste management with some impunity.

It occurred to me that we could put it back in the unplayed part of the deck and reshuffle; then it would come up more often and less predictably. Another way to diminish accident predictability would be to pick up all the cards and reshuffle the entire deck whenever the accident card is drawn.

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

artmark — 2008-07-17T18:38:20+00:00

I really like industrial waste as well, but I think container is more similar to it than scepter, which plays 5.

with more players you could make a roll when the accident card comes up, so it happens only some of the time.

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

locusshifter — 2008-07-17T18:27:28+00:00

The Scepter of Zavandor plays up to 6, and it closely resembles Industrial waste, with a couple differences.

Another is Goa, and though it only allows 2-4 players, is another in the same vein of game.

Thread: Re: Why not 5 or 6 players?

Eldard — 2008-07-17T17:44:38+00:00

jholme wrote:
I recently acquired and played Industrial Waste for the first time. My gaming group thought it was great, but we had more than 4 people who wanted to join in. It seems like there's nothing inherent in the rules that would prevent a 5-6 player variant: just copy and mount a couple of additional innovation/waste track mats, improvise some markers and you're ready to go. The cards just keep recycling and there's plenty of money to go around. Has anyone tried this? Any suggestions on how to optimize for 5-6 players?

Don't forget the number of cards in the card deck. If you add 1-2 players, the disaster card will come up more frequently.

This is easy enough to fix, however, if you own two copies of the game. Use it to get the extra mats and to add some cards to the first deck.

I agree with your group -- Industrial Waste is a great game!

Thread: Why not 5 or 6 players?

jholme — 2008-07-17T17:25:14+00:00

I recently acquired and played Industrial Waste for the first time. My gaming group thought it was great, but we had more than 4 people who wanted to join in. It seems like there's nothing inherent in the rules that would prevent a 5-6 player variant: just copy and mount a couple of additional innovation/waste track mats, improvise some markers and you're ready to go. The cards just keep recycling and there's plenty of money to go around. Has anyone tried this? Any suggestions on how to optimize for 5-6 players?

Thread: Re: Any experience with the designer's variant?

NickDanger42 — 2008-05-15T02:50:43+00:00

No variants listed in the American (RGG) version. Perhaps you could enlighten?

Thread: The accidental industrialist

Paul Mackie — 2008-04-15T13:34:25+00:00

I believe Brian had been hanging out to play this for a while, so Pat lugged this around in his games bag for some weeks. It finally got an airing tonight with the same three players that played this last time at Pat’s place…

I had no strategy in this game, feeling entirely at the mercy of the card draws. Eg., I had resolved to push my waste reduction track as far along as I could, but I managed to get my hands on exactly two Innovation cards in the whole game. Because the first of these came with a Hiring/Firing, I used it for this instead to reduce my fixed costs each turn.

So my turns were spent largely on production and waste accumulation, with the occasional waste offset card, insufficient to keep me out of the yellow and red zones. Waste accidents hurt me twice! But my factory was stuck on level 14 (the lowest) for almost the whole game, while my opponents managed to rip up this chart and probably make just as much money overall anyway. For a few turns Brian looked like he was threatening to push over the game-ending 20, until Pat finally did this for what felt like a short game.
12 mins setup and rules; 35 mins game time.
Results: Pat (blue): 35. Brian (red): 32. Paul (green): 31.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Image

Ceryon — 2008-01-26T20:42:49+00:00

German box front without border

Thread: Re: What a waste

tonguepaste — 2007-12-12T13:41:51+00:00

Great session report! I have a longstanding fondness for this game, and it's nice to see something written about it ... Doesn't happen very often!

Thread: What a waste

fusag — 2007-12-12T00:07:05+00:00

Richard H. Berg says that selecting the right title is half the battle in selling a game: the right title gets them to pick the game off the shelf; then the description on the back of the box clinches it or not. Okay, that statement is a bit outdated in an era with BGG, user reviews, pictures, and (sometimes) online rules. But during my game nights with people who haven't played many of the games in my collection, looking at the shelf Industrial Waste gets asked about a lot. And it has a strong theme, so it gets picked more often than most.

Anyway, this weekend we had a small turn out, but the people who did come were regulars. Greg announced, before the game began, that his strategy would be to fire off his workers, make money by selling resources, and start his factory back up when it was fully automated. He went third in the first round, but we let him have the exact stack he needed (an Order for initial cash injection, Hiring/Firing, and Raw Materials).

Moving clockwise, Henry improved his raw materials tech even though the pre-game strategy discussion was lukewarm on it. In the 8 years I've known Industrial Waste, I've seen few people try this and no one win with it. Something to do with the best place to have your raw materials tech is where everyone else is.

Lev went with a hybrid strategy: his first two techs were one automation and one waste reduction. Based on my experience, this could be bad if the game ends early because the best way to generate victory points is to get one tech all the way down to 1. However, many things went against my experience this game, and Lev did pretty well, considering.

I went with my tried-and-true strategy of automation tech and laying off workers to run a lean operation. It failed utterly, partly because I never had the opportunity to draw a second Hiring/Firing until midgame. Instead, I got a bunch of Growth, which did me no good as you'll see.

The first two turn went smoothly. Greg sold two batches of resources; Lev learned to reserve money for paying your workers the hard way, but managed to repay the loan quickly; I had automation 3 thanks to a doubled Innovation, but still paying 4 workers. The first Accident (or the EPA, as we call it) occured on Turn 2. On Turn 3, I did my 2nd Order, moving me to yellow pollution, thinking I was safe for a while.

Wrong, and I was fined 5 million and my company got slammed down. Now I figured the coast was clear, and one more Order brought me into red pollution. Slam. I was worried this would happen, which is why I saved an Agent to double a Waste Disposal. So, of course, when it was my turn to pick first, there were none. SLAM. Then I picked last and they were chosen before it got back to me. SLAM. Despite one Bribery, I had gone from 18 to 14 on the growth track, and with it went any chance of ending the game before others could catch up to my innovation points. Oh yeah: SLAM. Not that I could take any more growth hits now.

How were the others faring? Greg's strategy wasn't working quite as planned. Because he wasn't using resources (not enough people to run his factory), Henry's raw materials tech was out of synch, Lev was saving money to get running again after paying off his debt, and I didn't have the money to spend or space in my waste disposal to produce, the price for raw materials was quite low this game: in the midgame, 5 resources were going for 2-4 million. This means, after discarding Orders turn after turn, Greg was forced to improve his automation tech enough to run his factory with 2 workers. On the other hand, since he hadn't been producing pollution all this time, his pollution was still in the green. And seeing what happened to me, he kept it in check most of the game.

Henry was muddling through; after an EPA scare, he abandoned the raw materials innovation track and improved waste reduction instead. But as Lev was the only one who bothered improving his waste reduction for the first several turns, he had a lead in waste management he never lost. However, since Growth cards were either not drawn or were being nullified by EPA slams, no one was higher than 16 growth far into the game. When had been going at it with a late arriving 5th player sitting on the sidelines for almost 2 hours now, we stopped the game at 5:00p. The final tally:

Lev with a slight lead thanks to cash. Waste disposal at 1, automation at 3, pollution hovering between green and yellow. If the game went on 2 or 3 more turns, Lev would be my bet to win as he had the best ability to fill Orders without getting hit by the EPA.
Greg contests that he had the better position. Automation at 1, waste disposal at ~3, pollution also hovering around the green-yellow border.
Henry: Waste disposal at ~2, raw materials at 3, perennial cash flow and pollution problems.
Me: Automation at 1, waste disposal at 4, pollution high in the red. Oh, and 60 million in loans. Had I not given up trying to stay solvent half way through the game, I might have been able to keep it to 4 or 5.

This was the first time in 8 years playing this game I ever took a debt. In real life, I hate debt (specifically, paying interest) and have no student loans and pay off my credit cards. But this game was a combination of bad luck (3 consecutive EPAs when I couldn't draw a Waste Disposal), bad play (I passed up a Waste Disposal later because the other 2 cards were useless to me, and this cost me in fines for the rest of the game), and stubbornly sticking to an automation strategy when it should have been clear it wasn't working.

After the game, I went back and checked: my deck does have all 53 cards. Thus this game was just unusually long and had far more Accidents than usualy. But there is a morale: in a 4-player game, give a hoot: don't pollute. The EPA will hit every 1 or 2 turns, and strategies that control waste (waste disposal innovation or simply not producing) work better.

Thread: Re: Keep it green

cvlw — 2007-08-09T17:27:11+00:00

This sounds like a typically tight game. One thing we appreciate about IW is that having "a strategy" is often not rewarded. The game allows for a general approach possibly, but because the cards are randomized and because burdens such as waste can add up quickly, IW requries nimbleness.

Thread: Keep it green

Paul Mackie — 2007-08-09T12:38:42+00:00

Brian proposed this one and it wasn’t too hard for both Pat and I to agree.
Early in the game I had decided on a particular strategy and pretty much stuck to it. This was to keep the orders turning over and focus innovations on one track at a time, starting with waste minimisation. This kind of worked, but the timing of available cards appearing was just a bit below optimal. I picked up more resource generation cards than I really needed, and I struggled to lay claim to the apparently rare innovation cards - Pat seemed to nab these faster than anyone else.

Brian pushed along quite well, the main differences being that he had managed to get his labour costs down, but his accumulated waste levels were quite high. I managed to hold mine in the green levels for the whole game and I think the same could be true of Pat. Unfortunately Brian’s hit the yellow, and even the red levels at exactly the wrong moment - the “accident”! As a result he suffered heavy penalties on his cash reserves and future productivity.
The game finally came down to who had to pay the least taxes in the last turn, which Pat scraped in.
60 mins total, incl rules.
Results: Pat (blue): 61. Paul (green): 60. Brian (yellow): 37.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Thread: Re: number of raw material

Guantanamo — 2007-08-01T02:44:28+00:00

I actually think he was referring to the VPs.

Also, don't forget that you can not have any duplicate cards in any one stack.

Thread: Re: number of raw material

cvlw — 2007-08-01T01:36:17+00:00

That bottom track is your waste tracking guide. Everytime you complete an order you move the marker depending on your level of waste management in the above section of the board. Similarly, you'll move that marker depending on whether you dispose of waste or whether an opponent dumps waste on you.

Thread: Re: number of raw material

BeachBoy3000 — 2007-08-01T01:09:03+00:00

ok I know what I'm doing wrong now, can't believe I've been playing wrong.

Basically we've been using the bottom number of the raw material marker for selling materials which goes up to 15.

wow I really blew that one, I need to play this the correct way.

Thread: Re: number of raw material

cvlw — 2007-08-01T00:48:21+00:00

Ditto

Thread: Re: number of raw material

bharath — 2007-07-31T20:32:07+00:00

1) How can anyone aution 15 raw materials at a time? When a player player raw material card heshe takes as many raw materials from the common supply as indicated by the market in hisher raw materials section and sells them. Maximum raw materials can be 5 here. If the player autction the raw materials along with 2X card them maximum raw materials can be 10.

Winner of the aution gets all the raw materials.

2)Order execution: In order for a plyer to execute an order heshe should have sufficient co-workers and raw materials needed to complete an order. When a player executes the order action,player returns the needed number of raw materials to common storage.

As a result of order execution raw materials are returned back to the common supply.

So...in all the games that I have played ... I never saw a case where there aren't enough raw materials in the common supply.

Thread: number of raw material

BeachBoy3000 — 2007-07-31T18:25:05+00:00

It seems that in our games we always run out of those barrels of raw materials. When everyone is auctioning 10, 15 raw materials at a time it's hard not to run out.

so my question is that: are the raw material limited to whatever is given (50 i think) or is it unlimited.

or am i playing something wrong that this shouldn't be a problem?

Thread: Re: (2P) A Convenient Truth - good game

hughthehand — 2007-07-02T13:51:53+00:00

Nice review sir.

more people ought to like the game better than they seem to.
I feel the exact same way about this game.

Thread: (2P) A Convenient Truth - good game

cvlw — 2007-07-02T02:38:01+00:00

Industrial Waste is a good game. A very bland and unexciting sentence save for the fact that it is a true statement – Industrial Waste is a good game. Here’s another statement, though this is a normative one: more people ought to like the game better than they seem to.

So maybe some will tolerate my normative claim, but maybe others will challenge what I have stated as fact. Is not goodness a subjective concept? (As a philosopher, I can guarantee that you do NOT want go into this debate.) Sure. Maybe. However, I hold that it is possible to prove my statement. So, here’s my review in the form of a philosophical proof. [This is all in good fun, of course.]

PREMISE #1 – A condition of a good game is that it is well produced

Industrial waste is a well produced game. Inside the box are four company mats, one playing board, a bag of bits – 4 pieces in 4 colors, a Euro marker, and 50 raw material cylinders – and money, in addition to a deck of cards and loan note markers. The company mats are very nicely produced of heavy cardboard and are designed in sync with the general production of the game – give gamers what they need to engage the theme and strategize their session. The particulars of the mats will be described below. The playing board is also heavier stock cardboard and is denoted by a simple 5x7 grid. The bits are of a nice quality as far as bits go. Though I will say that I appreciate minimizing the quantity of bits and their different kinds. The only bits that are in excess, are the raw material pieces. Now, I usually hate paper money in games but the money used in Industrial Waste is at least aesthetically pleasing. Designed in the fashion of the Euro, the individual notes are multicolored and look textured. If you’re going to make me use paper money, at least make it pleasing. You hear that Power Grid??!?! The loan note markers are of a thicker cardboard than the deck of cards, which are themselves miniature size and designed to symbolically represent the various actions in the game. My one complaint here is that the graphical representations are not appealing in the least. I would have much preferred a bit more of a whimsical artistic rendering of innovation rather than photograph like depictions of scientists with 80’s mustaches. Last, the game is packaged in such a way that setup is a 5 minute affair as is packing it up. Each denomination of money has it’s own preassigned slot in the box. The bits are in a bag that you empty out and separate and the mats are easily distributed. The absolute least fiddly 60+ minute game I own.

- Industrial Waste is a well produced game.

PREMISE #2 – A condition of a good game is that it is well designed

- Premise #2a – A well-designed game in part depends upon an inverse relationship between learning time and room for strategic possibilities

In many of my reviews I’ve made much of games with the simplest of mechanics and rules yet which offer lots of choices and room for strategy. Among the games that fall in this category are: Hive, Bridges of Shangri-la, DVONN, Samurai (though there are many, many others). These kinds of games offer a low barrier to engagement, rewarding a small investment with intriguing possibilities and challenges. Here is an outline of the game:
 the first player to grow their factory to a value of twenty triggers the end and the player with the most points wins
 players get points depending on factory growth, amount of money, and development along three dimensions (discussed below).
 every round, players choose from a set of three cards that permit one of 7 actions which all contribute to the above mentioned development
 players also have access to a couple of cards that augment their growth and income or protect them from disasters which are drawn randomly during the game and happen at game’s end
 at the end of each round players pay the costs of employment and then change the starting player
I read the rules for this game twice, set it up, explained the premise of the game to my wife, we played one complete round and already understood the mechanics in perfect fashion yet we acknowledge that each game will offer us many opportunities to try new approaches and similarly prompt us to be flexible in our strategy.

- Industrial Waste’s rules meet the inverse relationship condition

- Premise #2b – A well designed game matches theme to play mechanics better than the average
One of our favorite games is Goa. The reason is that when the game ends, we always reflect back on a session and think about how much fun it would be if we could do even more stuff in the game. The only reason we reflect in this way is because the game does such a good job in immersing us in its mechanics which in turn gets us to appreciate the processes and development the game prompts us to undertake.

Industrial Waste is a game that tries to get players to engage the idea of balancing industrial production and the capitalist impetus with the exigencies of labor costs and the penalties that can attend excessive production of waste. The gameplay itself revolves around managing these processes by taking actions such as innovating, increasing your factory capacity to produce more profits, removing waste or disposing of it while dumping it off on competitors. The accomplishment of this game lies in its ability to never make any combination of actions or options cost free. For every action you take, such as in a game of Goa, for instance, you forego some other option that would have benefited you along another dimension. Where a design such as Industrial Waste’s really shines is in the fact that every option has many branches of impact so that in the next round or next session, a different approach yields a sufficiently new experience.

To get into some game particulars:
1. Each player gets a mat that denotes four different aspects of the game: rationalization which determines how many workers you need to complete an order; material efficiency which determines how many material you need to complete an order; waste reduction which determines how many units of waste you produce when completing an order; and, the waste disposal area: how much waste you actually produce when completing an order.
2. In moving your markers to the right in any of the first three areas you become a more efficient producer of goods. But your efficiencies will not be equal because of the limited times you can innovate – you might make your factory so efficient as to require only 200 workers but still produce 5 units of waste putting you at risk when an accident occurs.
3. There is a main game board. The left side of the board is numbered 1-5 which indicates both how many workers you employ and the amount of basic costs you incur each round. In very intuitive fashion, the fewer workers you have the lower your costs will be. The top of the board is numbered 14-20. This indicates how much money you earn when completing and order as well as how many points you get at game’s end. Manipulating your factory on this board will indicate your revenue as compared to your overhead.
4. I mentioned above that each round players get to take a set of three cards that will represent their options for that round. The dealer puts out a number of columns of cards equal to the number of players plus one (2 player game equals 3 columns) and each column has three cards in it. Players take one column of 3 cards.
5. Players take actions round-robin by playing a card, discarding that card, or saving their last card (you are only allowed to ever carry over one card from round to round in a non-cumulative fashion)
6. The cards, in a nutshell:
 order: allows you to complete an order so long as you have enough workers and materials, hence earning you revenue
 raw material: prompts you to auction a number of materials as indicated by your mat. Opponents get to bid first, with you bidding last. This area hold the most potential for player interaction as players have an ability to make you pay a great deal for resources if they know you have an order pending with no resources in storage.
 waste disposal: you reduce your amount of waste in the disposal area by 3 units allowing you dodge penalties when an accident comes. If you remain in the green area, you are a friend of the environment.
 waste removal: allows you reduce your waste disposal by 1 unit but increases that of your opponents by 2 u nits.
 innovation: allows you to move any of your development markers ahead by one, not only making you more efficient but gaining you more points at game’s end
 growth: move your factory over by one bringing the endgame near as well as garnering you more revenue for orders completed
 hiring/firing: you move your factory up or down by one unit on the game board indicating both how many workers you have and your costs at the end of each round in running your enterprise
 in addition: there is a double up card which allows you to take most actions twice or increase your order revenue at that moment by 5 million euros; and there is a bribery card so that in the case of an accident at a moment when you are in the waste penalty zone, you can avoid the sanction of 5 or 10 million euros and factory shrinkage for the low price of 1 million euros

Now, as the game unfolds, players will constantly be pressed to make decisions on a couple of levels. First, what package of options to take at the opening of the round. The cards are randomized enough that rarely is there one set of cards so obviously beneficial that another set can easily be foregone. Taking any one set of cards is to effectively close off other benefits no matter how sweet that combination you did get is. The upside to this is manifold. First, it avoids paralysis by analysis since you are never really stuck. Second, you still have to choose wisely as some option will prove to better than others. Third, though some options will prove better, just as in Goa, a good player can salvage a move (though in a very limited time).

The second set of decisions comes with timing. You may have a factory growth card in your hand, an innovation card, and waste removal card. Playing the waste removal card may be an obvious step this round, but will it behoove you to hold that order card until next round. Here’s why you might: you could play the hire/fire card and fire 100 workers relieving your costs by 1 million this round (and trust me, every million and every point will count). However, that will leave you with fewer workers than your rationalization development demands. But, you might have noticed that few innovation cards have shown up and you are set to go first next round, meaning that there’s a good chance that 1 of the 6 cards dealt next round will be an innovation card making it prudent for you to save that money now and getting revenue later, effectively increasing your profits.

Given the many options which loosely replicate enterprise management through the mechanics, giving a player multiple paths that may take in this game, I conclude:

Industrial Waste matches theme to mechanics better than the average

- PREMISE #3 – a good game scales well to different numbers of players

Now, this aspect I can only comment on partially. Industrial Waste plays very well for two players. Games get to be a duel with victories coming down to a mere 2 points sometimes. When playing this with my wife, there is a very intimate sense of enterprising competition as I watch how many workers her factory has, how efficient here waste management is, how much revenue she will earn. Additionally, one pays constant attention to the set of options you opponent opts for as this will allow you to possibly exploit their business decisions. If they take a set containing an order card with no raw materials card, while you notice that they also have no raw materials in storage, you may take the other set of cards that has attractive options for you including raw materials. Now, if you’re in a position of strength, meaning you already have your stash of raw materials, you might pressure your opponent into overpaying for those materials since they will bid first when you play the card and they wish to prevent you from outbidding them. In this way, you get them to pay more than usual, and they will pay it to you best of all!

A challenging aspect of this game is that many decision may wash out over the course of many rounds, such as the cost of materials since both players will at some time get to enact a similar strategy if they play well. This is the reason games will end close. What will make the difference in a game played tightly by two players are small decisions as to bring a whole game strategy into line with early decisions such as to rationalize. If you fail to fire promptly though you are rationalizing you will be forced to wait to complete orders delaying your generation of revenue. One reason this game scales well to 2 is Strohm’s decision to constrict the number of packaged options by number of players so that there is always some agonizing both in terms of one’s own strategy and in terms of concern over another player’s position.

Given that most multiplayer games are identified as having a sweet spot of three or four, even when specified for 2 and more, I conclude…

- Industrial Waste scales well to different numbers of players

CAVEAT
All games are flawed, including good ones. While Industrial Waste definitely makes players think before they act, a well played game can see a player at little risk for external penalties. In our experience, at only one or two select moments was either of us in the yellow area in waste disposal and we’ve never been close to reaching red. In this sense, all the tension has been limited to managing process maximization and not necessarily risk as most businesses must.

The next comment is not a remark on a flaw but a comment on how the game might possibly be even better: it would benefit from a La Citta type of Voice of the Market. The orders received in Industrial Waste are generic. If there were a more complex mechanic that had players trying to anticipate certain products the market might want, and then being penalized if the market turned on them (the market that round wanted textiles over foodstuffs), hence increasing the waste produced, this would add, I think, a challenging and further immersing element to the game.

Along these lines, Industrial Waste would be better if it demanded even more out of players with regard to their managerial skills.

CONCLUDING THE PROOF
1. if it is the case that premises 1-3 are met, then it is the case that a game is a good game
2. if it is the case that Industrial Waste meets premises 1-3, then it is a good game
3. Industrial Waste meets premises 1-3, therefore it is a good game

...further
1. if it is the case that BGG-ers like good games, and it is the case that Industrial Waste is a good game, then more BGG-ers should like the game more than they seem to.

-c-

(Edited for additional comment)

Image

ScottH — 2007-06-17T18:48:16+00:00

What comes in the box

Thread: Re: producing orders - going over waste disposal limit

DaveD — 2007-05-30T14:27:21+00:00

On page 5 of the English rules about half way down at the end of the section titled "The Waste Disposal"

Note: If a player has no more room for waste in his waste disposal section, he may not complete an order! Thus if producing an order would require the player to move his waste marker beyond hole 16 in his waste disposal section, he may not complete the order.

I have to admit that until I looked just now, I have always thought that the rule was just that any excess waste was ignored, so there must have been past occasions (though not many as we don't tend to spend much time in the red) when we have played this wrong.

Thread: Re: producing orders - going over waste disposal limit

xombe — 2007-05-29T13:01:54+00:00

That's what I intuitively felt, but can someone point out where in the english rules this is stated? I looked and could not find it.

Thread: Re: rules questions - passing (keep your last card for next

xombe — 2007-05-29T12:59:45+00:00

when it's your chance to play a card during the action phase, you MUST either:

play a card from your hand
OR
discard a card

UNLESS you have only one card left in your hand
in which case you MUST either:

play the card
discard the card
OR
turn it face down in front of you to pass, holding it for the next turn.

So, you can keep the same card from turn to turn by holding it until your last play in the action phase, then you pass. This is the way to hold on to bribery so it will be available when you have an accident.

you will never have more than 4 cards to play in the action phase of a turn.

Thread: Re: 'Bribery card' in hand?

DaveD — 2007-05-28T17:40:30+00:00

You can always discard a card from your hand, without using it's effect, when it is your turn to play one (except for the raw materials card). This may be the bribe card, so there is no need to hold it over.

The Bribe card in my opinion is the worst card in the deck, being only useful in the case of an accident and even then you still have to pay the cost of the accident plus 1 million.

Thread: 'Bribery card' in hand?

davebo — 2007-05-28T16:48:18+00:00

You may only hold back one card from turn to turn. If you choose the bribery card as one of your three, must that card be the bribery card? Can you play a bribery card just to get it out of your hand?

We've been playing that the bribery card isn't kept in your hand, it's just laid out and waits to be used, not affecting hand count. Not sure if that's right, but the alternative (it must be your held over card) seems wrong.

Thread: A close 3 players (well 2 out of 3)

DaveD — 2007-05-25T18:43:36+00:00

This game of Industrial Waste played at Halesowen Boardgamers on 23 May 2007.

Steve is almost always an advocate of a green strategy and whenever he departs from this, things seem to go horribly wrong. In this case he went for reducing the workforce early on and allowed his waste produced to go up into the yellow section and even once into the red. Of course he got hit by 2 accidents resulting in his needing to take a loan to cover the costs and when he repaid the first loan he was soon required to take another.

I tend to reduce my raw material requirement early with the idea to control waste by using cards, but there seemed to be a bit of a shortage of such cards this game (they tended to turn up as duplicates and get discarded) and I had to change strategy part way through to reduce waste production, I had to take a loan at this point to pay for the innovation necessary as the order I was about to produce would otherwise have taken me into the yellow zone when an accident was certain the following turn as the card deck was almost exhausted. I was able to recover from this, later repaying the loan.

Richard had quietly gone along adopting a combined waste/raw materials plan as well as regularly advancing his factory, so it was that he was the one to trigger the end of the game. No one was affected by the end game accident and although I was slightly ahead on innovation I lagged behind on factory growth and this together with a slight advantage in money gave Richard the win in a close game. Steve had been forced to take a second loan and lagged some way behind.

Score Richard 56, Dave 55, Steve 32.

Image

DaveD — 2007-05-18T10:55:36+00:00

Factory Close Up

Image

DaveD — 2007-05-18T10:54:15+00:00

Image

DaveD — 2007-05-18T10:52:39+00:00

Factories advance towards us

Thread: Re: out of stock

locusshifter — 2007-05-10T17:32:24+00:00

Barkam wrote:
I played this and Notre Dame. I think you should get Notre Dame instead because it does what Industrial Waste much better.

I also had Industrial Waste in my 'must buy' list but since I have played Notre Dame, it no longer is and Notre Dame is.

Good Luck.

Notre Dame and Industrial Waste do not share similar mechanics or gameplay.

Industrial Waste is very similar to Goa and Scepter of Zavandor.

Notre Dame, while not totally original, is a totally different animal. I has more in common with El Grande, except that you draft the cards you will play for the round.

Depending on the games you like, you could go either way.

Thread: Re: out of stock

BeachBoy3000 — 2007-05-10T17:12:04+00:00

Barkam wrote:
I played this and Notre Dame. I think you should get Notre Dame instead because it does what Industrial Waste much better.

I also had Industrial Waste in my 'must buy' list but since I have played Notre Dame, it no longer is and Notre Dame is.

Good Luck.

I'm sure Notre Dame is a good game, but Industrial Waste is still a more attractive game to me due to the theme.

See my geeklist here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/21484

I'll look into Notre Dame more tho.

Thread: Re: out of stock

MWChapel — 2007-05-10T17:00:10+00:00

At the moment RGG shows it out of print. I don't believe this one will be popular enough to bring back into print for a long while. Maybe valley will pick it up in 2015 when eBay prices for it skyrocket...or maybe not.

Thread: Re: out of stock

Eldard — 2007-05-10T16:56:11+00:00

BeachBoy3000 wrote:
I want to play this game and looking to purchase it but I everywhere I look it's out of stock. Anybody know where I can find a copy? Any news that this will be reprinted?

I'm certain that I saw a copy of Industrial Waste last week at Game Parlor in Chantilly, Virginia. Here's their website:

http://gameparlor.com/

They're very accommodating. Several years ago, I steered a poster on Funagain to Game Parlor for a copy of La Citta, and the store shipped it to him immediately. He was very satisfied. Give 'em a try.

Thread: Re: out of stock

Barkam — 2007-05-10T16:25:28+00:00

I played this and Notre Dame. I think you should get Notre Dame instead because it does what Industrial Waste much better.

I also had Industrial Waste in my 'must buy' list but since I have played Notre Dame, it no longer is and Notre Dame is.

Good Luck.

Thread: out of stock

BeachBoy3000 — 2007-05-10T15:46:12+00:00

I want to play this game and looking to purchase it but I everywhere I look it's out of stock. Anybody know where I can find a copy? Any news that this will be reprinted?

Thread: Re: Q: different rulings for shuffling after 'Accident' ?

Mattias Persson — 2007-04-27T12:25:49+00:00

Oh, you mean _that_ rule Sloppy rules-reading on my part. Forget what I said

Thread: Re: Q: different rulings for shuffling after 'Accident' ?

DaveD — 2007-04-24T10:13:47+00:00

Mattias Persson wrote:
In our recent game we had one player being hit by accidents three times in a row without being able to respond: Lay out sets - accident: pay 10, back two steps. Reshuffle. Lay out sets - accident: pay 10, back two steps. Reshuffle. Lay out sets - accident: pay 10, back two steps. Reshuffle. Lay out sets - pick a set and try to recover. That was a bit too much I think.

I'm not sure what set of rules you have Mattias, but reading from the Rio Grande English rules, they state that after the accident is resolved the dealer continues laying out the combinations. It does not say reshuffle.

Then at the end of the turn, when the start player changes, the deck is reshuffled if there has been an accident that turn. So it is possible for there to be an accident once every turn, but not more than once.

One unclear point is where the deck is exhasuted while dealing out combinations. The rules say that the discard pile is reshuffled and dealing continues. We add that if an accident has already occured that turn it is not shuffled back in at that point. The whole deck is then reshuffled at the end of the turn.

Thread: Re: Q: different rulings for shuffling after 'Accident' ?

Mattias Persson — 2007-04-23T13:09:27+00:00

After our session yesterday I´m thinking of a middle road here: After the accident is resolved, reshuffle all cards except the accident card. Lay out new sets of cards, and then shuffle the accident card back into the deck.

In our recent game we had one player being hit by accidents three times in a row without being able to respond: Lay out sets - accident: pay 10, back two steps. Reshuffle. Lay out sets - accident: pay 10, back two steps. Reshuffle. Lay out sets - accident: pay 10, back two steps. Reshuffle. Lay out sets - pick a set and try to recover. That was a bit too much I think.

Image

myadestes — 2007-04-13T02:20:36+00:00

Thread: Re: rules questions - passing (keep your last card for next roun

ramis — 2007-04-10T17:03:04+00:00

The way we have been playing this is you cannot keep more than one card in your hand. So you can pass and keep one card for the next turn or discard a card. You can pass two or more turns in a row by discarding. So you loose the card action.

Image

mdornbrook — 2007-04-06T21:23:27+00:00

Back of the Box

Image

mdornbrook — 2007-04-06T21:21:02+00:00

Boxfront. This game is hilarious, especially if you're from Cleveland, OH!

Thread: Re: rules questions - passing (keep your last card for next

Sprydle — 2007-04-04T01:06:26+00:00

Yes you can pass two turns in a row--if you have 1 card left or no cards left. In fact it's entirely possible to have no cards left when your opponents still have 2. You cannot pass however if you have 2 or more cards--you must instead discard if you don't want to play. If you have one card left and want to pass, you flip that card over to indicate that it will be saved until the following turn.

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-03T16:20:18+00:00

looks like real Euro currency

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-03T16:19:26+00:00

Personal board

Thread: Trial by fire.

KSensei — 2007-03-21T23:51:18+00:00

I just learned Industrial Waste mere moments ago. Given the shotgun version of the rules I was mercilessly tossed into the industrial machine and left to figure out how cards work on my own.

This session was just a 2-player duel in the arena of toxic management. We each took different strategies. He opted for moving his factory to the right across the board thus giving him a higher payout for orders. I tended to move my factory down thus making my operations cost cheaper. I had worried for the first two-thirds of the game or so since it appeared that he was able to get resources for cheaper and use them more efficiently. It turned out though, that I was better able to manage my waste. In the end, thanks to one last waste disposal card that got rid of any negative points, I won 36-31.

I'm really interested in trying this again with 4 players next time.

Thread: Re: Company Logos

gaskit — 2007-02-23T19:15:08+00:00

The green one is a modified Nine Inch Nails logo, which I think was used on one of the maxi-singles (Sin, maybe?).

Thread: Re: rules questions - passing (keep your last card for next

ttfn — 2007-02-12T08:42:33+00:00

Hi, thanks for that, but can a player pass 2 turns in a row? The english rule seem to say yes, the german - english translation seems to say no. BU the example at the end of the rule book seems to say yes.

I'm confused. Any thoughts?

Peter

Thread: Re: rules questions - passing (keep your last card for next roun

gamemark — 2007-02-10T21:37:10+00:00

ttfn wrote:
There seems to be a difference in passing. The german translation to english seems to suggest that you can't pass 2 turns in a row. the english rules saying nothing of the sort. The example at the end of the book also has the player with 4 cards, advisor, waster dispoasl, growth and raw materials (so it would seem they pass the last turn) and they then pass this turn as well.

Clarification please.

I need to check on this one. From memory, here's what we do.

If you pass, you must either discard a card OR lock a card in as your "passed" card.

Secondly, the bribey card - as not actively played - does this mean a player can keep it from round to round (does the player have to use it as their passed card or can they pass and keep the bribery card) ? To play with the accident card it must be kept to the deal phase when the action cards are dealt.

Yes, it is their passed card.

In order to play it, you must have it in hand when an accident happens.

Thread: rules questions - passing (keep your last card for next roun

ttfn — 2007-02-10T20:45:08+00:00

I have the german version and a printed copy of the rules in english and the rules as per the iwrule.zip (scanned english version.) I also have the printed game aids.

There seems to be a difference in passing. The german translation to english seems to suggest that you can't pass 2 turns in a row. the english rules saying nothing of the sort. The example at the end of the book also has the player with 4 cards, advisor, waster dispoasl, growth and raw materials (so it would seem they pass the last turn) and they then pass this turn as well.

Clarification please.

Secondly, the bribey card - as not actively played - does this mean a player can keep it from round to round (does the player have to use it as their passed card or can they pass and keep the bribery card) ? To play with the accident card it must be kept to the deal phase when the action cards are dealt.

Some what confused.

Peter

Thread: Re: Simple Game - More Interesting Strategy

tonyfung1205 — 2006-12-12T21:47:58+00:00

I am aonther one. Though I didnt play this game much (due to the short of suitable players with similar skill levels around), I like it pretty much. I like the theme about running a factory, by coordinating the multiple corelated factors.

Thread: Re: Simple Game - More Interesting Strategy

hughthehand — 2006-12-12T16:49:12+00:00

Good review. Short and to the point. This is an under-played game, in my opinion. The simplicity of the game, but depth of the play is what got me. I am probably one of the few who actually likes the theme on this one. Its very different from whats out there.

I agree that you can't have a set strategy on this one. Plus, this is a game that is different every time, and works fairly well even with 2 players.

Thread: Re: Hiring / Firing

Danny from Tower — 2006-12-12T11:44:32+00:00

This is an area in the game that is most elegant but seems to cause the biggest misunderstandings.

1) The number you have pegged in your factory board is the minimum number of staff you need to have employed to be able to fill an order.

2) The row position of your factory on the main board is how many staff you actually have in your employ at the moment. If you have fewer staff employed here than required according to your factory peg then you cannot fill orders.

Why would a factory be understaffed? One of my strategies is to make money out of selling resources to other players. If that strategy is working then it is profitable to reduce your staff to 1 even when your need is higher because you are not filling orders, and this saves on salaries. The R&D can catch up later. If things change and you need to start filling orders then it may be necessary to re-hire staff.

Thread: Simple Game - More Interesting Strategy

Danny from Tower — 2006-12-12T10:18:54+00:00

The rules for Industrial Waste are well reviewed by Dan Pool so I will just summarise here. The players have factories that "fulfill orders" providing the player with money, using up resources that the player bought earlier and producing waste. The players can improve their ability to make money on an order, reduce the workforce (and hence payroll costs), reduce the number of resources need to fill an order and reduce the amount of waste produced by doing so. If players have too much waste in their factory dump they are liable to suffer an environmental disaster and have to pay hefty clean up costs.

The central mechanism of the game is an elegantly simple set of cards that allow various actions such as shipping an order, producing more resources, cleaning up waste or (most important) doing some R&D.

Whats most enjoyable about this game is that there is no "best" strategy to win. Instead your strategy is shaped by the other players and circumstances and you have to be willing to change if you find yourself barking up the wrong tree.

The most obvious strategy is to ship, ship, ship while reducing the resources required to do so and increasing your shipping payoff. This is a high risk strategy because your waste quickly builds up to dangerous levels and you rarely get time to clean up before an accident happens. Still with a bit of luck this can actually be a winning strategy if your opponents aren't particularly crafty.

A less obvious strategy is to rapidly downsize your workforce, spending a fair bit on the necessary R&D to do so, then ship the occasional shipment while reducing waste output. Once your waste output per shipment is 3 or less (The amount you can get rid of with a single clean up card) then its time to go like the dickens shipping orders and raking in the profits, while avoiding the nasty envionmental spills.

A third, even less obvious strategy is to ignore shipping orders altogether. Again drop your workforce costs but try to corner the market on producing resources and selling them to other players so they can ship their orders. This is pretty much a pure profit play with the benefit of not producing any waste at all! Unfortunately if two or more players go for this strategy they may flood the market, blocking their own profit for many turns.

There are other strategies that you can discover by playing the game, and with each game taking only an hour I have at times played four games in a session and learnt a lot.

This game gives a lot of bang for the buck, replayability is high, its easy to get in to, even for newbies to boardgaming (I've introduced quite a few non-gamers to it successfully) and just plain fun.

Game Components get a 9/10
Rules simplicity and elegance get an 8/10
Replayability and fun each get a solid 8/10

My overall rating for the game is 8

Thread: Re: 2 - player

The Lazy Literati — 2006-11-30T07:27:16+00:00

I agree, one of my favorite aspects of IW is that it plays well for just Gwen and Dave - or more if we have another couple over.

Thread: Re: 2 - player

voynix — 2006-11-27T22:01:30+00:00

It scales well with 2 due to the fact different numbers of cards are drawn each turn based on the number of players