Game: Evergreen

Thread: Re: Evergreen....is it?

charlieherrick — 2008-08-13T00:20:37+00:00

funny you said you don't like the feeling you get from the theme because the publisher changed the theme and kramer doesn't like it either... or so i read in an interview on the dice tower.

Image

Meander — 2008-07-24T02:31:48+00:00

Evergreen Mirror Image

Image

Meander — 2008-07-24T02:30:57+00:00

Evergreen All the Parts

Thread: Evergreen....is it?

Domino Man — 2007-06-13T03:38:12+00:00

My kids and I sat down last weekend for our first game of Evergreen. This will be an "as we open the box" review of the game. I usually don't like to review a game after a single play, but I noticed lately that I haven't seen many "first impression" reviews out there.

The box: I'm a music nut....and anyone who loves music will love the box. It's the standard (Puerto Rico) sized box that can stand with the majority of your games if you're a Eurogame fan. If not, this game will stand well in any bookshelf with other games. As you open the box you get:

- a set of rules (well organized...we were up and playing our first game in 10 minutes....something I like very much)
- several discs large & small that appeared to be records. My kids are 11 years old and the concept of playing a game with records was really fun for them. That added to their (and my) liking of the game.
-- Some white pieces to put the discs together (they went together in 5 minutes or less, making this easy to play out of the box)
-- a sturdy deck of cards. Easy to shuffle.

Overall: The game is easy to set up and play quickly. If you see this at a convention, grab it, because you'll be able to get the group playing fast, even if nobody has played before.

The gameplay: Each player has a set of cards. You play cards to try to have the highest number for any single record on the table. So...if someone has a nine and you have a six card (in the same color matching one of the records), you try to cover up the nine so that your six is the highest number.

The game is very easy to play, and once learned, goes quickly. You'll need a pen and paper. However, our game was done in 20 minutes max.

Final Analysis: How did I like it? I liked the game...enough to play again whenever someone asks. However, I don't think the theme is adequate. I love music and remember following the charts as a kid. In this game, I didn't get the feeling that I was taking a band up the charts. I got the feeling that I was playing a cool game with a pasted on music theme. This game was one that I'd play again, but at the same time it made me want to create a game that I thought this was going to be...a game where you created a band and saw how far you could take it up the charts.

This was a game I really wanted to love. Instead, I found a game that I will like very much...but not as much as I'd hoped. On the BGG scale, I'm going to rate this a 7, with thoughts that after another play it may come down to a 6. I can't imagine this as an 8 on my scale. Fun, good times, but not a favorite.

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:49:25+00:00

Evergreen - The 6 Artist's Disks

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:48:34+00:00

Evergreen Hit Disk

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:47:34+00:00

Evergreen - Green Suite

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:46:44+00:00

Evergreen Box Side

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:46:12+00:00

Evergreen Box Front (Higher Res)

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:45:23+00:00

Evergreen Box Contents

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:44:27+00:00

Evergreen Box Back (Higher Res)

Image

dipdragon — 2007-04-16T20:43:41+00:00

Evergreen - All 6 Card Suites

Thread: Re: User Review

kdean1 — 2007-03-02T13:38:49+00:00

We need to know when games don't measure up. Thanks for saving me (and maybe others) from having to find out for ourselves that this one's a stinker!

Thread: User Review

CortexBomb — 2004-11-09T23:54:13+00:00

Evergreen is a thinly themed game created by well-known design team of Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling, the same fellows responsible for such games as Tikal and Raja. Evergreen is one of their semi-obscure offerings, and portends to be about organising concerts in the 50's, which is lightly carried out with art on the cards that form the heart of the game, and on the 45 like (as in 45 RPM vinyls: the equivelent of a 'single' for those who are beyond vinyl, they were small diametre records which were played at a rate of 45 revolutions per minute as opposed to standard 33 1/3 speed for 12" records and had only 1 song on each side) disks which show the current status of each of the artists, which is between 5 and 12 (5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12). There is also a 'hit record' 45 which has one spot for each artist, and denotes which one has the current chart topping single, which naturally increases their value.

The cards come in 6 suits, each with a given ficticious artist's name and picture on it, and there are 13 in each suit, 1 for each number between 1 and 13. At the beginning of the game, the deck is shuffled, and 13 cards are dealt at random to each player. This will be ones resources for the entire game, so careful hand management is crucial to success.

After dealing out the cards, each player chooses 3, and puts them face down in front of them before revealing simultaneously with the other players. Each player's holdings are then checked, and whoever has the greatest sum total in each given artist is given the corresponding 45, with the score on it set to the base value of 5. The game proper is then set to begin.

Essentially, on each turn a player has to flip over the sand timer, and then must play between 1 and 3 cards from their hand, if they fail to do anything within the time alloted a card is pulled at random from their hand and placed on their own middle position, a nasty result which is worth avoiding at almost all costs. Cards may be played either on ones own cards, or on the cards of the opposition. Each player will always have only 3 cards in front of them, but values can naturally fluctuate wildly given this kind of play. After each card is played, the active player has to announce what the result is, if any, on each player's holdings and shift the 45's around accordingly.

For example:

Michael currently has a purple 13 in front of him, and the corresponding 45. Sean, who currently has a measly purple 2 in front of him, decides to play an aqua 4 on top of Michael's purple card, because Michael no longer has any purple cards, and Sean is the only other player with a purple in front of him, the purple 45 transfers to Sean, and moves up one notch in value (ie: from 5 to 6)

Each card play can have major ramifications. One can easily play a card such that a given player loses one record, but then gains another.

All of this swapping has an important game effect as well, the value of the artist will go up one notch on its corresponding 45 each time it changes hands. So controlling an artist early is only worth a potential measly 5 points, but after they've changed hands a few times, they can get up to a more valuable 10 or 12. Of course, a spanner can also be thrown at that game state, as the artist will devalue back to 5 after 12, so it's easy for players to drop the value of a given artist if they are starting to get to dangerous levels.

In some cases it is also possible to stockpile 45's, this is because, in the event that 2 or more players are tied in value, the 45 stays with its current holder. In some cases, this means that, if, for instance, you are the only person with a card out for a given artist, you can cover that card up to get another 45, and because no one else has cards by the original artist out, you retain control of their 45, a rather powerful trick.

To add further intrigue, a 'hit record' disk is also available which has a spot for each artist on it. At the beginning of their turn, the active player takes possession of the disk, and then can move it one spot left or right. The artist who currently has the hit record is worth double points for scoring purposes, obviously, this is incredibly lucrative when artists are getting up toward the double digits in value.

But how does the scoring work? Good question. During the course of the game each player holds 3 voluntary concerts, and also takes part in a final concert at the very end of the game after all of the players are out of cards. Of the 3 voluntary concerts, one is also a 'gala', which changes the scoring. Holding a concert is rather straight-forward in any case: the player whose turn it is simply has to declare that they are holding a concert, and say whether or not it will be their Gala before the timer runs out. The value of their current holdings is then scored. Each artist 45 held is worth its face value. If the artist currently has the hit single, that particular record's value is doubled. The Gala concert will in turn double the total, and can lead to some spectacular results.

As referenced above, the game ends after all of the players are out of cards, at which point, a final scoring is made which disregards the hit record and cannot be disignated as Gala.

Basic strategy:
Overall, the main strategy for the game is to pace onself unless an opportunity comes up. Each player only has 10 cards to play over the course of the entire game (since 3 are used for initial placement) and spending early can make one's final holdings anemic to say the least. There are certainly situations where it pays to be aggressive, particularly when one has the chance to, say, hold 4 of the 45's at once, but for the most part this is difficult to accomplish beyond the early game, where it is least valuable (as the 45's will still be at low values, and hence, not worth much anyway).

If one can wait until the late game, one also has the added advantage of being able to use an entire timer up for each card play, weighing the results more carefully, and setting one's final score up nicely.

The summation:
Evergreen is manic, the sand timer is really the key to this game having any interest at all, as having the time to actually look over everyone's holdings carefully would reduce this title to a dry, mathematical crawl. The problem is, that the game is still dry, mathematical, and solidly mediocre even with the timer. A significant chaos factor also exists in that it is extremely difficult to see all of the ramifications of a given card play, this is worst at the high scale, but is still significant even with only 3 because of the timer inspired panic. Overall, there just isn't much meat here, and the game met with a very poor reception in my groups. It seems as thogh the designers came up with a basic mechanism that seemed good at the onset, but then realized that it would devolve the game into a math fest, so then tried to compensate by speeding it up, which only served to make it an amazing combination of dry, mathematical, and chaotic. I love Kramer games, but his colloborations with Kiesling have been real hit or miss affairs, and this is one of the big whiffs.

4/10

Thread: Session Report

yudp — 2002-12-02T17:49:30+00:00

As Ed showed up, we had five people and the only game we hadn’t yet played that would handle five was Evergreen. Why this game is so maligned still baffles me. Each time that I play it, I find it enjoyable. In this game each player tries to manipulate 6 different records and take advantage of their popularity to score points. Cards (1-13 in 6 suits) are used to control the songs. Each player is dealt 13 cards – these are the only cards that the player will get the entire game! Each player chooses 3 cards to place face up and are revealed simultaneously. The totals for each color are added up and whoever has the highest total in each color gets the scoring marker for that particular color (song). Each scoring marker starts a a value of 5 and can increase as high as 12 (then back down to 5…). Each time the marker changes hands (whenever
someone new has the current highest total for that color), its value increases by one step. On a players turn, which is time constrained by a sand timer, a player may play one to three cards – on either his own cards or on top of
opponent’s cards. Each player will have ONLY three cards in front of them – if a new card is played, it goes on top of the old card. After playing cards, the player gets to choose if he wants to score or not. Each player declares three scoring rounds during the course of the game (at his/her will) and there is a final scoring at the end of the game. In addition, the player can name any one
of his scorings to be double – but this has to be done when the scoring occurs, not in retrospect at the end of the game. Scores are calculated by adding up the number on all of the scoring markers you have in front of you at that time. The game moves quick and ends in 30 minutes or so. The game ends when all players are out of cards – this is quite variable because each player has the choice to play from one to three cards per round. There is a definite
advantage to having cards near the end to play. Dale, Brian and Paul got out to early leads as they used their first scoring opportunity as their Gala (or doubled) score. As the game moved on, Brian quickly found himself out of cards – he had played multiple cards each round and soon was out of them. Though he was the leader after each player had elected to score three times, he was
unable to play any more cards and lost all his scoring markers by the end of the game (thus scoring zero for his last score). Ed, who was waiting for the perfect opportunity to double his score, ended up waiting too long and had to double a paltry 9 at the end of the game. Luke ended up victorious in this one (not surprisingly, he also had 2 cards left to play at the end when the rest of
us were all out). Rated 9/10. It’s quick and tense and fun. I think that most complaints about there not being enough control in this game stem from people not taking enough advantage of playing cards onto other people.

Thread: Session Report

Deleted User 1 — 2002-06-23T15:55:15+00:00

Here’s something unique, a Rio Grande game that I’ve never heard of! After Liberte, we thought we’d try something lighter so Dan brought out Evergreen. We had a six player game with Corwin, Dan, Joe, Shari, William and me, none of us had played before.

In Evergreen, each player plays concert organizers who are trying to put together concerts with various artists. The better the artists are when the player puts on a concert, the better a player’s score.

Evergreen is basically a card game, but it also uses a few interesting components. The artists and their popularity are kept track on very cute small cardboard records (remember records?). When a player takes his turn, a sand timer is used – the player must complete his turn before time runs out or it’s hasta la vista, baby.

In our game, we started staging concerts right off the bat. People got very clever with their cardplay, making sure that the artist was at their maximum popularity before they staged a show with them. While the rest of us were madly holding concerts, Joe held back a bit and then hit us with a pile of concerts at the end of the game. He made big points at the end, but not enough to beat Corwin, who came out the winner.

Score:

*Corwin* - 128
Joe – 123
Rick – 116
Dan – 115
Shari – 110
William – 100

Ratings:

Corwin – 5
Joe – 5
Rick – 5
Dan – 6
Shari – 6
William – 5

We were all pretty lukewarm on the game. I think the major thing that I didn’t like about it was the downtime between turns. You do have to wait a few minutes between turns with very little to do as there is really no interaction in the game. It’s a cute light game, but I don’t know if we’ll be playing it much in the future.

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Jonathan Degann, Jay Ouzts, Ty Douds and Lenny Leo played this game about getting songs onto the Billboard charts and keeping them there for as long as possible.

Jay Ouzts writes: Good game. Ty Douds won with 138 points; Jonathan Degann and I tied with 136. Lenny finished fourth with 121. A real nail-biter.

We played without the timer. However, the timer would definitely improve the game as there is a possibility of analyzing possible moves to death.

Ratings: Jonathan, Ty and I gave it 7's. Lenny gave it a 6.

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Roger writes:

Roger: 148
Janet: 142
Doug: 131
Bernie: 123

What an unusual little game! I admit to being somewhat sceptical before play. I had read the rules (badly as those who saw the question I posted to the list will realise) but I just couldn't get any idea as to how the game would play. A bit like Lost Cities really. Anyway, I was pleased to find it plays very well indeed. The timer (about a minute) puts on just the right amount of pressure to keep things interesting. There is plenty of scope for strategic play. One of the nice features is that both high and low level cards are equally important. Low, to bring your opponents' totals down, and high to raise yours. The problem with raising yours though is that you have to cover one of your own cards. Very Knizian. I wonder what this would be like with 6? Totally chaotic I assume with so much more to keep track of.

Roger's rating: 7.5

Doug writes: I'd like to go on record and give this a '7' - I really enjoyed the way you were forced to think quickly as that timer doesn't take that long to expire. I can remember two errors I made simply due to being rushed. I thought the game was a lot of fun and look forwards to trying it again...there is some strategy to it in terms of hand management.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Played a two-player game of this one tonight and we both agreed that it must work a heckuva lot better with more players. The feeling is that there is little or no chance of getting a record's score up to a 10 or 12 in a two-player game and game play deteriorates (quite early) into increasing the record's scores and possibly screwing over your opponent.

For the final concert, I was able to snatch Mike's only record away from him which resulted in him having no points for the final concert and me scoring three records and doubling them because the final concert was also my Gala concert.

I think there's a lot of potential here, but I won't be able to comment until I've played with a larger group.

A very different game from Mr. Kramer and Mr. Kiesling.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

First time out for this Kramer / Kiesling number. There is one (fake) 45 rpm record for each of the 6 suits. These serve as a scoring device for that suit via a rotating piece in the middle which points to values of 5 to 12. Suits differ depending on number of players - for 3 players it was 1 to 9. You have three piles in front of you and you can play 1 to 3 cards in a turn which is timed with a 1 minute hourglass. At the end of your turn, if you have the highest total of cards in a suit, you claim that suit's record from the previous owner and the score rotates one higher - well unless it's at 12 and then it rotates back down to 5. Adding any records that no one claimed off you since last turn, you may choose to score this round adding up the total scores of the records you own. There's also a doubling device where you choose which one of three available suits you'd like to double. You can only score 3 times before the round / game ends (roughly 30 minutes) after everyone's played their cards, at which point there's a final scoring.

The tricky thing about the game is that you can play your (presumably low) cards on other people's decks. Covering up a high yellow with a low brown may give you the lead in two suits with only one play if you have a yellow and a high brown already showing on your piles. The hourglass stops the game bogging down looking for the optimal move, but seemed strangely dis-satisfying whilst learning the game, feeling like you were being forced to play sub-optimally. This likely goes away with more playings.

It seems like the game should be likeable, but I wasn't sold. It's probably to do with the fact that with a card game you expect interaction and quicker play. You can watch the play and plan, maybe count some cards, but there's
still that waiting feeling for a few minutes until your turn comes around again. The bits are good, but the theme is paper thin. Happy to play it a few more times to check it out, especially with different numbers, but the jury won't be out for long.

Scores: Nick 154, Rick 147, Pat 131

A rating of 5 after 1 game for 'average game, take it or leave it'.