Game: Wealth of Nations

Thread: Re: End-game scores?

Gamer_Dog — 2008-07-04T06:51:49+00:00

Gamer_Dog wrote:
Just got in my first play yesterday. Was enjoyable. I do agree that the boardplay seemed much more important than the industries, or at least that was how I felt I won.

So those who have many more plays under there belt:

If loans were shares, and instead had a more punitive effect, say for example,
$2 every round, couldn't be paid off, and -2 VP at game end, wouldn't that slow down expansion? And perhaps level the playing field a bit when it comes to board control? The cost to get an extra red (flag) out would be significant, especially at higher share levels.

As a follow to this, if this is used, the bottom loan obviously cannot be $1. You'd need to make the cap something more sensible, like $10. It might also make sense to make loans an action if this were used, since the marginal cost of delaying an action might become a more interesting decision if this were used.

Thread: Re: Comment on Game Components

clearclaw — 2008-07-04T06:13:48+00:00

dcorban wrote:
It seems obvious to me, based on comments here and elsewhere, that the designer/publisher overestimated how bad loans are and didn't anticipate that players would take so many. I think that players will take anywhere up to 10 loans, so you would need 50-60 notes.

Even simpler would be to just give an additional $123 to each player right after the draught (8 loans) and just ignore the rest of the details.

You will need a spreadsheet or paper to write the final trade round numbers down anyway, so you can just mark down loans there.

Why? The final trade round is not that difficult. We've not used spreadsheet or paper for our games.

Thread: Re: Voluntarily Not Feeding a Tile.

dcorban — 2008-07-04T05:39:17+00:00

Which is why you will just take loans and gather the resources to build two industry tiles instead of one. ;)

Thread: Re: Comment on Game Components

dcorban — 2008-07-04T05:15:27+00:00

It seems obvious to me, based on comments here and elsewhere, that the designer/publisher overestimated how bad loans are and didn't anticipate that players would take so many. I think that players will take anywhere up to 10 loans, so you would need 50-60 notes.

You will need a spreadsheet or paper to write the final trade round numbers down anyway, so you can just mark down loans there.

Thread: Comment on Game Components

John Weber — 2008-07-04T03:11:52+00:00

Just got the game, haven't played it yet, but a couple of observations on the game components.

First, the positive side: The bright colors, clearly delineated, are much better than in many recent games, notably Container and also RR Tycoon, where the colors are often hard to distinguish. Also, the player aids are really well done and helpful, practically indispensable.

However, on the negative side, the limited number of promissory notes is a definite practical problem. Surprised that, with all the other fine components, TableStar couldn't do something similar to RR Tycoon and have them in denominations of 10s, 5s and 1s, which would have solved the problem.

Thread: Re: Endgame Question

dcorban — 2008-07-04T01:37:03+00:00

Good point. I played that the previous start player stayed the start player. Now that you point out the phase order, I see that passing the start player marker is the last step.

Thread: Re: Endgame Question

Rokkr — 2008-07-04T05:27:27+00:00

We played this last night and since a turn ended, we passed the first player token before the final trade phase.
It seemed the logical way to do it.

Thread: Endgame Question

John Weber — 2008-07-04T04:47:21+00:00

Does the Start Player change for the final trade phase after the endgame is reached?

NOTE: This would seem to make a difference as the first to sell would seem to have a slight advantage, unless as the player tip recommends, everyone calculates the sale at the current market price, which would also have the advantage of speeding play significantly.

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:29:19+00:00

all 6 player flags

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:28:33+00:00

industry tiles - farm (yellow), generator (blue), academy (red), mine (white), factory (black, bank (purple)

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:23:49+00:00

3 first player tokens?? Fistfights ensued.

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:22:55+00:00

automation tokens

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:21:55+00:00

starting packages sheet

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:19:07+00:00

rule book cover

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:17:32+00:00

player aid sheet

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:11:02+00:00

hi res back cover scan

Image

Rokkr — 2008-07-03T05:06:57+00:00

hi res cover scan

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

clearclaw — 2008-07-02T07:11:01+00:00

Cinnibar wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
AIR future agreements are not binding in WoN.

Depends how you play, really. One could go deep and note that no trades (future or present) are binding...that you could give someone cubes and then have them break the deal by not giving anything back.

The general assumption (here?) is that all deals which can be satisfied immediately are binding. If you wish the goods exchange is simultaneous for both parties.

Negotiation is part of the game.

Only in limited form. The rules explicitly mention trade negotiations for cubes and money. The rules do not mention negotiation for flags, buildings, board space or other consideration. Those aspects are outside of the game and may not be negotiated. By extrapolation trades of goods into the future however would be acceptable.

Thread: Re: End-game scores?

Gamer_Dog — 2008-07-02T06:23:45+00:00

I'm not sure eliminating them is ideal --makes the initial draft too important.

Thread: Re: End-game scores?

dcorban — 2008-07-02T05:48:31+00:00

How about simply eliminating the loans? It would incite slow play, which is exactly what the incremental gains in this game crave.

Thread: Re: End-game scores?

Gamer_Dog — 2008-07-02T05:25:14+00:00

Just got in my first play yesterday. Was enjoyable. I do agree that the boardplay seemed much more important than the industries, or at least that was how I felt I won.

So those who have many more plays under there belt:

If loans were shares, and instead had a more punitive effect, say for example,
$2 every round, couldn't be paid off, and -2 VP at game end, wouldn't that slow down expansion? And perhaps level the playing field a bit when it comes to board control? The cost to get an extra red (flag) out would be significant, especially at higher share levels.

Thread: Re: Origins 2008

VinceHerman — 2008-07-02T04:55:16+00:00

I did take part in a lot of games at Origins. It was a ton of fun!
I love that there are no dice to randomize things. Straight head to head strategy.
3 and 4 player games are smooth. 5 and especially 6 player games are slug fests!

Image

DaMarsh — 2008-07-01T11:47:11+00:00

Oversized demo version played at Origins08

Thread: Re: Origins 2008

xxbriguyxx — 2008-07-01T09:10:02+00:00

I bought a copy as well. I was always in play when I walked by. Just wish I got a chance to play it when I was there...:(

Thread: Re: In my local store

chessduffer — 2008-07-01T07:01:54+00:00

Emile wrote:
For some reason, all my posts sound like I'm dogging the game, when I'm really just trying to deconstruct it a little - a task I'm not well suited for. Now that the game is in a wider release, I'll be interested to read more opinions and analyses about it.

I think I'm actually in the same boat. I am only addressing some issues brought up by my group or here on BGG. I actually love the game.

Thread: Re: In my local store

Emile — 2008-07-01T06:43:25+00:00

For some reason, all my posts sound like I'm dogging the game, when I'm really just trying to deconstruct it a little - a task I'm not well suited for. Now that the game is in a wider release, I'll be interested to read more opinions and analyses about it.

Thread: Re: Origins 2008

medicalchick — 2008-07-01T12:29:33+00:00

Glad you got a copy...there were hard to come by at the end!

Thread: Re: In my local store

The Schaef — 2008-07-01T11:46:53+00:00

Emile wrote:
There is no ability to have goods shortages

Produce and keep some extra rather than trading/selling the surplus. The only way out of that is for the players to build their own markets, decreasing the efficiency of their produce phase and buying you a little time while they struggle to cope with your induced shortage.

I would hesitate to compare this game to chess in terms of strategic depth, but I would say that it can measure the same three aspects of determining your state-of-game: strength, space, and time. Having a solid market and revenue is one thing, controlling key sections of the board is another. But I also think that forcing players to make sub-optimal plays in order to overcome a disadvantage gives you an advantage in the third aspect: time.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Cinnibar — 2008-07-01T12:57:20+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
Cinnibar wrote:
It could if one has a future trade with someone.

AIR future agreements are not binding in WoN.

Depends how you play, really. One could go deep and note that no trades (future or present) are binding...that you could give someone cubes and then have them break the deal by not giving anything back.

clearclaw wrote:
Cinnibar wrote:

If you produce, your trade-partner might demand you fulfill the bargain when you need *everyone* at the market. Not producing means you are simply unable to satisfy the trade the next turn, smiling sweetly as you explain. :arrrh:

Which is offensive dissembling. It is clear that you could have produced had you wished to.

Yes, it is clear. And? Negotiation is part of the game.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

clearclaw — 2008-07-01T12:01:19+00:00

Cinnibar wrote:
It could if one has a future trade with someone.

AIR future agreements are not binding in WoN.

If you produce, your trade-partner might demand you fulfill the bargain when you need *everyone* at the market. Not producing means you are simply unable to satisfy the trade the next turn, smiling sweetly as you explain. :arrrh:

Which is offensive dissembling. It is clear that you could have produced had you wished to.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Cinnibar — 2008-06-30T11:14:54+00:00

clearclaw wrote:

I wonder if the hoarding idea would have created angry neighbors? This way he could honestly hold up his hands and say "I have nothing to trade to you" instead of looking like he was holding out.

Assuming that the liberated cash from not powering the buildings wasn't needed somewhere else, they are effectively the same and I would expect any competent gamer to realise that.

It could also help if one has a future trade with someone. If you produce, your trade-partner might demand you fulfill the bargain when you need *everyone* at the market. Not producing means you are simply unable to satisfy the trade the next turn, smiling sweetly as you explain. :arrrh:

Thread: Re: Turn order of Produce Phase?

dcorban — 2008-06-30T10:08:20+00:00

A hidden and simultaneous reveal of intended production might be the best method. Sort of like the develop/settle actions in Race for the Galaxy. I'm not sure how this could be handled in WoN. Maybe a small deck of industry cards for each player.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

clearclaw — 2008-06-30T10:02:37+00:00

Peteloaf wrote:
clearclaw wrote:
He could have achieved the same end and made even more money by producing on the building and then simply refusing to sell/trade his cubes.

Yes of course! That did not occur to him I guess.

Nod. He's not the first I've seen make that mistake.

I wonder if the hoarding idea would have created angry neighbors? This way he could honestly hold up his hands and say "I have nothing to trade to you" instead of looking like he was holding out.

Assuming that the liberated cash from not powering the buildings wasn't needed somewhere else, they are effectively the same and I would expect any competent gamer to realise that.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

chessduffer — 2008-06-30T09:59:31+00:00

In one of our games, someone by mistake didn't produce in one round. This just caused the other players to begin a factory for that cube production (black). Now the main black producer lost much of their negotiation power.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

chessduffer — 2008-06-30T09:55:40+00:00

Yes selling and buying from the market should still be a single transaction per turn.

Thread: Re: Origins 2008

dcorban — 2008-06-30T09:50:31+00:00

I was the dude (maybe one of many) that kept checking in to see how the game was going. After seeing the CABS copy constantly in play and being informed of a $5 discount, I went down to the booth and bought a copy for $40. There were 5 left at the time.

Thread: Re: Turn order of Produce Phase?

Peteloaf — 2008-06-30T09:49:49+00:00

Cinnibar wrote:

It actually mattered in my first game...
It appears that people do care!
I suggest that you produce in turn order.
It strikes me that the first player has a turn advantage in trading first and developing first. It would be a disadvantage to produce first which might have a slight balancing effect within each turn.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

dcorban — 2008-06-30T09:47:54+00:00

It seems like simply sticking to the "fair market" values printed on the board make trading almost too easy. Assuming competent players familiar with the game (played a round or two), using the printed fair market values, the trade phase should be very fast. It was my impression after a few rounds that the vast majority of players' actions should be almost instantaneous.

The turn order and single transactions of the printed rules definitely need to be maintained. Imagine playing an 18XX game where players bought and sold everything they wanted in a single turn! :gulp:

Thread: Re: Turn order of Produce Phase?

dcorban — 2008-06-30T09:34:50+00:00

By turn 2 of my first game it was apparent that the decision order in the produce phase could be important. If another player decides to forgo powering their generators/mines/etc and creates a shortage, that definitely affects my decision if I am choosing not to power something of mine.

Thread: Re: In my local store

DrakeStorm — 2008-06-30T09:30:04+00:00

BGG is great.. always tons of people claiming how broken a game is or how such and such doesn't work, etc. after 0, 1, or even 2 plays.

I've only played 1 full game and 1 partial game, but enough to know that there is no way to know if the game is broken after that many plays. Its not some short filler that only has 1 way to win and you can figure that out after 1 play.

I'm not saying the game is necessarily 'fun', or even that it is not broken (it might be), but I am saying unless you have played it 10+ times with DIFFERENT play groups, your opinion, at least for me, means nothing.

Alot of people play with the same people, and groupthink takes over very quickly.

I bet the people who lost to the person who got a ton of loans at the beginning, still freely traded with them throughout the game. Well I can see how the loan person would win. They start in the lead and everyone else just lets them stay in the lead, and then complain the games is broken. The game isn't broken, the players are just stupid.

I would view the taking of a lot of loans as an aggressive gesture and make the player pay for this, by forcing them to pay more for their goods, boxing them out on the board, etc. Maybe maxxing out on loans is still too powerful, but I'm not convinced yet.

I also think the bartering of loans adds to the game and so there is a reason why you wouldn't want to get all your loans at the beginning when in later rounds you can barter for them from someone else and get a premium than if you just got it straight from the bank.

Edit: Realized I was reading multiple threads about the game at the same time, so this response is not just regarding this thread but since I posted it here first, I'm gonna leave it here.

Thread: Re: bartering: what defines a barter action; binding agreements

Cinnibar — 2008-06-30T09:24:53+00:00

My first game last night had a huge number of future actions such as

"I'll trade you three food and one labor for one electricty now, and an ore next turn."

This came easily to us after we got enough of the game under our belts. But it can be a hassle to remember what is owed.

I would like to see some counters depicting either one or two of each cube, a flag, and "IOU". The same with values $1, $3 and $5. These could be given by the flag owner to help remember agreements. If someone is good at such imagry making, please do and post and thanks! My own attempts won't be very polished. :)

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Peteloaf — 2008-06-30T09:24:41+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
He could have achieved the same end and made even more money by producing on the building and then simply refusing to sell/trade his cubes.
Yes of course! That did not occur to him I guess.
I wonder if the hoarding idea would have created angry neighbors? This way he could honestly hold up his hands and say "I have nothing to trade to you" instead of looking like he was holding out.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

The Schaef — 2008-06-30T09:23:54+00:00

mdp4828 wrote:
I'm not really sure this works. Bartering is great if you both need something because it cuts out the middle man (the differential between the buy and sell price in the market). But if only your opponent needs something, and you trade with him, then you're cutting out the middle man for him twice, once when he sells his resource and once when he buys what he needs. Meanwhile, you've actuallized your loss on the transaction by selling to the market.

You say that your action drives the market down, but wouldn't the effect be the same if you forced your opponent to sell? Except he'd pay the middle man instead of you. If he didn't sell, then presumably he couldn't build whatever he was going to build so chances are he'd sell it himself without your help.

It depends on several variables. Say food is 7-8-9, energy is 8-10-12, and ore is 15-18-20 (may not reflect real-world board values). I can get the same cash selling either the two cubes, or the ore for which I trade. A barter is also a zero-sum game. So neither move gives me an immediate dollar advantage. The opponent saves $6 over a sell-buy action in the short term. But my resources retain their market value, he loses a dollar on his exchange rate, and therefore bargaining power with other players is lessened over the long term, plus it diminishes buyback value at endgame fire sale.

The math doesn't work every time but a couple/three sales could significantly impact someone's market, especially on a turn where they were getting ready to ramp up production and take advantage of a seller's market. In games I've seen, players have been more likely to spend and mortgage to the hilt, and sometimes hang onto extra resources rather than liquidate them, to retain high market value and sell big at the end of the game. Trading away that market influence is IMO worth losing a couple bucks in an unnecessary trade and liquidating immediately.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

clearclaw — 2008-06-30T09:18:46+00:00

Peteloaf wrote:
During one game the Labor player (Randy) saw that his labor market was quietly crashing. It was down to 1 cube below the starting value and looked like it was on a downward trend. He had 5 labor tiles and was producing 9 cubes a turn. I think it was around turn 4 so everyone had a pretty robust economic engine.

Randy did not produce at all on the produce phase. This led to a huge run up on the labor market. It moved 7 positions higher in one turn. The buy price went from 16 to 20 in that trade phase. This was a great move and he eventually won the game.

While the tactic works his execution was poor if as described. Cube producing opportunities are limited. Cube selling/trading opportunities are common. He could have achieved the same end and made even more money by producing on the building and then simply refusing to sell/trade his cubes. The price would have gone not only gone up equally, but he'd have defended against the risk of another player moving in on Labour production amd he'd have the beginnings of a large stack of cubes to cash in during the end-game.

Thread: Re: Turn order of Produce Phase?

Cinnibar — 2008-06-30T09:12:23+00:00

Peteloaf wrote:

I do have to say that after playing 60+ times and moderating 30+ playtests this has never come up as an issue. The choice to use automation or not during the produce phase is generally obvious and based on the values and availability of commodity cubes. This decision is usually made during the trade phase and it is rare that a player has enough resources to actually make this choice in the produce phase. Since they would have sold off extra food or ore.

It actually mattered in my first game. I, player #2, elected not to use my automated generator blocks for nine cubes to drive up prices. Player #4, because of this and short on resources, decided not to power her capitol tiles and feed her generators instead for three cubes.

Player #1 didn't get the option and bargained hard for blue the next round, despite having a blue generator he didn't bother to feed since trading with me for electricity was more advantageous.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

chessduffer — 2008-06-30T09:11:50+00:00

I just meant let's say I am producer of Food, and I have a pile. Everyperson wants to deal in food with me, however they don't want to use their turn to make a deal with me instead choose to do it with someone else. So I have to wait till my turn each time. Multiply this between multiple people and you get a BOG Down.
Just need to find a way to allow multiple trades at once. Or just allow a person during their turn to do multiple trades at once.

Also a big problem in my games may also be that I got a rule wrong. I thought you had to pay force placement whenever you placed a Tile next to another tile of a diffrent production, however it seems that it is only if the circles touch. That cause a slow down in production, mostly to my disadvantage :(

I am going to try the following in my next game. One, play with the correct rule. Two, explain to try and keep to the trade price value on the board when dealing with trades, I am just afraid that this will cause the barter aspect to lose any negotiation since you are following a set rule of numbers. Also I only have played 3 games and again with a rule wrong. However it seems many agree that the Trade Phase is just too long.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Eldard — 2008-06-30T09:00:30+00:00

Thanks, Peter! I'm going to make copies of this and hand out to the players.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

jjloc — 2008-06-30T08:58:30+00:00

chessduffer wrote:
Peteloaf wrote:
chessduffer wrote:
The real problem is most people for most part enjoy the game, but not for the time that it takes (5 player 4+ Hours).
I see these lengths of time with newbies but experienced players usually get the game finished in 90 min to 2 hours.

One thing that helps a little is to keep track of the final sell off on paper instead of pulling out all that money just to add it up.

We did that, the game was already at 4 hours before the final scoring. It actually ended quicker, because one of the players forced it to end, he just started laying down flags just so he would run out. The trade phase just seems to be too long. However the fact that I had a rule wrong (force placements) may of sped up the game some more if done right, meaning people would be able to develop more quickly and create a market. I still like the game, but would enjoy it more and probably could get others more enthusiastic if the game clocked in at less then 2 hours. I think the problem is that the Bartering takes an action, and you can only work with one person. So in a 5 player game if I want to make a deal with all 4 people I need to take 4 turns just to barter.
This just adds so much time to the game.

Wow, 4 hrs, our first game lasted 1hr45mins which included teaching time. The key to the barter is to not take it so seriously per say, stay in line with what is posted on each of the market boards. We have a person in our group that is notorious with the analysis paralysis, and we still finished under the 2hr time posted on the box.

By the way you can work with more than one person you just cannot make the final transaction with more than one person. Meaning you can make players compete for the stuff you have and then take the best deal offered.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Peteloaf — 2008-06-30T08:55:53+00:00

Eldard wrote:
I have a copy of the game, and we expect to play our first game next weekend.
First game tip:
The first trade phase can really drag with players trying to figure out what in the heck they are trying to do. I suggest they go down the following checklist with the goal of creating one more industry tile of the industry they started with:

1. Do I have enough food for my existing tile + 1 (for the new tile I am about to build). Usually 3 (except for farmers).

2. Do I have an energy cube? Except generator

3. Do I have a red cube to lay a flag?

4. Do I have enough cubes to build the tile I have in mind.

When I am doing a demo I am constantly scanning the other players piles and running through this list. Then when they appear stuck I prompt them; "Hey do you need an energy?"

Finally at the end of the first trade round I usually do a food + energy check. Why? Because there is nothing worse than getting into the produce round and realizing your industry wont run because you forgot something.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Cinnibar — 2008-06-30T08:51:43+00:00

I had a five-tile nine-cube automated eletricity block going in my first game. Seeing low blue prices, I elected to simply not produce on one turn. :arrrh:

I lost horribly, but the expressions on the other players' faces? Priceless.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

chessduffer — 2008-06-30T08:48:01+00:00

Peteloaf wrote:
chessduffer wrote:
The real problem is most people for most part enjoy the game, but not for the time that it takes (5 player 4+ Hours).
I see these lengths of time with newbies but experienced players usually get the game finished in 90 min to 2 hours.

One thing that helps a little is to keep track of the final sell off on paper instead of pulling out all that money just to add it up.

We did that, the game was already at 4 hours before the final scoring. It actually ended quicker, because one of the players forced it to end, he just started laying down flags just so he would run out. The trade phase just seems to be too long. However the fact that I had a rule wrong (force placements) may of sped up the game some more if done right, meaning people would be able to develop more quickly and create a market. I still like the game, but would enjoy it more and probably could get others more enthusiastic if the game clocked in at less then 2 hours. I think the problem is that the Bartering takes an action, and you can only work with one person. So in a 5 player game if I want to make a deal with all 4 people I need to take 4 turns just to barter.
This just adds so much time to the game.

Thread: Re: Dramatic market shift

Eldard — 2008-06-30T08:32:48+00:00

Thanks for the report, Peter. I have a copy of the game, and we expect to play our first game next weekend. Anecdotes of market manipulation and consequences are very helpful, and reinforce my first impression (reading the rules) that the game offers a lot of potential for competing strategies. I'm looking forward to giving the game a try.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

Peteloaf — 2008-06-30T08:30:33+00:00

chessduffer wrote:
The real problem is most people for most part enjoy the game, but not for the time that it takes (5 player 4+ Hours).
I see these lengths of time with newbies but experienced players usually get the game finished in 90 min to 2 hours.

One thing that helps a little is to keep track of the final sell off on paper instead of pulling out all that money just to add it up.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

Eldard — 2008-06-30T08:19:14+00:00

The Schaef wrote:
There have been times where people have offered trades that I did not need for my extra resources that they did need. I happily took the trade, and then sold the cubes into the market for cash, driving the value of their commodities down.

Ooooo, that's a clever tactic. I'll have to keep that in mind.

I just acquired the game, and we hope to play it next weekend.

Regarding the numbers of loans, I've been reading the discussion on this forum, and it sounds to me that charging $1 per promissory note each turn would offer some remedy to grabbing 10 or 11 notes on Turn 1. But seeing as I haven't played it yet, I can't say that's it's been a problem in need of a remedy.

Thanks to all for the continuing discussion on this game and your valuable insights.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

drabel — 2008-06-30T08:16:50+00:00

Jonas was kind enough to teach me the game last Sunday.

For me, there just wasn't enough enjoyment gained by the barter mechanism to justify additional playing time it requires. I did enjoy the board play of the other two phases and felt the Trade phase kept getting in the way of the rest of the game.

However, I do think a lot of D’oh! moments occur during the development phase because people, too focused on not getting screwed in the Trade phase, easily overlook a needed cube or two.

I would like to try it again without the barter aspect and see if there is sleek interesting game underneath. But perhaps the game truly resides in the barter/trade portion only.

Yeah, we got that forced placement rule wrong and that accounted for about half of those D’oh! moments.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

chessduffer — 2008-06-30T07:56:52+00:00

I am seeing the need to have a barter system. How about having an open barter system at the beginning and End of Trade Phase.
The real problem is most people for most part enjoy the game, but not for the time that it takes (5 player 4+ Hours). The main culprit of this is the bartering time during the trade phase. The rules as is now is you can only negotiate betwen one on one, if a 3rd person is intregal in that trade then you have to wait till that person turn or your turn again, while taking yet another action to do the one transaction. I think opening up the Barter aspect of the trade phase will speed up the game tremendously.

Thread: Dramatic market shift

Peteloaf — 2008-06-30T07:32:35+00:00

I witnessed a fun moment this weekend in one of our WoN games. (Caveat - I was involved with 7 games and did not take notes so I will not be precise in the data).

During one game the Labor player (Randy) saw that his labor market was quietly crashing. It was down to 1 cube below the starting value and looked like it was on a downward trend. He had 5 labor tiles and was producing 9 cubes a turn. I think it was around turn 4 so everyone had a pretty robust economic engine.

Randy did not produce at all on the produce phase. This led to a huge run up on the labor market. It moved 7 positions higher in one turn. The buy price went from 16 to 20 in that trade phase. This was a great move and he eventually won the game.

Looking a little deeper. He did not produce and lost sales of around $120 (9 cubes * 14$ barter price = $126). His operational cost that he saved was around $58 (5 food * $9 barter + 1 energy at $13 = $58). On the next turn his income was $20 * 11 cubes = $220 instead of $16 * 11 cubes = $176. This resulted in a permanent $50 bump for a one turn loss of $60. Also since he was not purchasing food and energy from the others the $60 he did not spend was 6 vps not going to other players.

I was happy to see this move made since it is rare that players have the will-power to not run their industries. Also I think it really pushed his game forward for the final 3 turns.

If anyone else remembers this game please help me out with the details.
I think it was Sat night in the board room.

Peter

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

medicalchick — 2008-06-30T07:31:06+00:00

"2. I agree, one needs to determine how many loans they should take and do it at the begining."

I don't really think you will know how many you will need on turn one. As markets and demands fluctuate, there should be a different dynamic to notes for each game.

I can say I have taken a lot of notes and lost and taken a few notes and lost. It varied with the starting packages I chose and what the demand became.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

mdp4828 — 2008-06-30T06:44:56+00:00

The Schaef wrote:
There have been times where people have offered trades that I did not need for my extra resources that they did need. I happily took the trade, and then sold the cubes into the market for cash, driving the value of their commodities down.

I'm not really sure this works. Bartering is great if you both need something because it cuts out the middle man (the differential between the buy and sell price in the market). But if only your opponent needs something, and you trade with him, then you're cutting out the middle man for him twice, once when he sells his resource and once when he buys what he needs. Meanwhile, you've actuallized your loss on the transaction by selling to the market.

You say that your action drives the market down, but wouldn't the effect be the same if you forced your opponent to sell? Except he'd pay the middle man instead of you. If he didn't sell, then presumably he couldn't build whatever he was going to build so chances are he'd sell it himself without your help.

Thread: Re: Some ideas?

The Schaef — 2008-06-30T06:20:11+00:00

There have been times where people have offered trades that I did not need for my extra resources that they did need. I happily took the trade, and then sold the cubes into the market for cash, driving the value of their commodities down.

Eliminating the barter phase in favor of rote trading would eliminate this strategic possibility, and opening up the barter phase gives substantially more weight to the turn order, especially when compared with the develop phase which happens one action at a time. Plus, it would essentially eliminate the manipulation of market forces from available strategies during the barter phase, because again, turn order would be king.

I can't say I'm big on these ideas.

FWIW, placement conflicts arise when any different-colored dots touch on sides, or touch on corners. So it's thirds as well as halves (but not one half against one third).