Game: Pizarro & Co.

Image

rober — 2008-11-14T10:23:38+00:00

overview

Thread: Re: Are there enough cards to play with 6?

Larry Levy — 2008-10-16T17:09:16+00:00

Not at all. In fact, as you can see from the title page, one of the best things about Pizarro is how well it plays with 6. You are shuffling the spent money cards with the undealt cards at the end of each phase, right? If you're not, then yeah, I can see how you'd be running out of cards!

Thread: Are there enough cards to play with 6?

ERPriest — 2008-10-16T12:46:30+00:00

I played this for the first time last night with 6 players. Although this first game seemed chaotic and confusing, I think it may improve with repeat plays and a better understanding of the explorer roles.

My biggest complaint however was that we were continually running out of money (bag) cards. We all thought that maybe there should be more of these cards included in the game to prevent this from happening with 6 players.

Has anyone else had this observation?

Image

Emil 109 — 2008-05-14T09:10:55+00:00

Greek Edition

Thread: Re: bidding order in 2nd and 3rd year

chaosbreaker — 2008-05-06T00:43:53+00:00

That is what we did as well but I wondering if there is an official rule on this.

Thread: Re: bidding order in 2nd and 3rd year

funpaul — 2008-05-05T23:57:46+00:00

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but our group plays as though that player where obliged to pass. Thus the player closest to him in turn order among the interested parties is effectively the first bidder.

Thread: bidding order in 2nd and 3rd year

chaosbreaker — 2008-04-05T21:26:35+00:00

In the 1st year, the winner of previous auctions bids first. Which player bids first in year two, since the previous auction winner may not be able to participate in the auction if he has no ships from 1st year.

Image

Vagos — 2008-03-28T22:08:33+00:00

The two Boards from the greek version

Image

Vagos — 2008-03-28T22:05:57+00:00

Greek Version by Kaissa

Thread: Re: Still confused as hell about Magellan's ability

Drew1365 — 2008-02-19T13:25:29+00:00

Also, on side A of the board you place a card from your hand under Magellan. On side B board, you place a card from your payment under Magellan.

So on side A, you need to have at least one card left over after you pay to place under Magellan. On side B, one of the cards you pay with goes under Magellan. So you have to figure out the best combination of cards to use for payment in order to get the highest VP value under Magellan.

Thread: Re: Still confused as hell about Magellan's ability

weishaupt — 2008-02-18T20:58:33+00:00

Got it. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Still confused as hell about Magellan's ability

snoozefest — 2008-02-18T20:12:03+00:00

Doug's post??

Anyway, I think it's pretty straightforward: each Magellan you win in Round 1 starts a new stack. When you win the card, immediately place one of your money cards face down under the card you just won. In Round 2, each Magellan you win goes on top of one of the Magellans you won in Round 1 (you may NOT put both Round 2 wins on top of just one of the Round 1 Magellans). Again, you place a money card face down -- this time, under the stack (i.e., pile of 2) of Magellans. If you win Magellan in Round 3, it goes on top of your Magellan stack and again put a money card under the stack. So you'll have a stack of 3 Magellans, with 3 money cards underneath. At the end of the game, calculate the value of each Magellan stack individually; value = sum of VP on money cards multiplied by number of Magellans in the stack.

EXAMPLE
The best you can do is win all 6 Magellans:
Round 1
M - 3VP card
M - 3VP card
M - 3VP card
Round 2
MM - 3+3VP
MM - 3+3VP
M - 3VP
Round 3
MMM - 3+3+3VP ==> 9VP x 3 Magellans = 27 VP
MM - 3+3VP ==> 6VP x 2 Magellans = 12 VP
M - 3VP ==> 3VP x 1 Magellan = 3 VP

Make sense?

Thread: Still confused as hell about Magellan's ability

weishaupt — 2008-02-18T16:50:37+00:00

Even reading through Doug's post, I can't seem to make the example in the rulebook make sense.
The math doesn't add up.
Help!!

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of

topherr — 2008-01-27T19:09:01+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
From the review . . .
Because you must pay with exact change . . .
I'm pretty certain that you don't have to pay with exact change. You can overpay, but you don't get any change back. To me this makes bidding even more interesting because a bluff element is added. If you have a 6, 7, and 8 in your hand, you can still bid 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, or 21 . . . you'd have to overpay if the bidding stops at anything less than 21, but you don't have to jump from 15 to 21 in one round of bidding.
Of course you're right. I meant that you don't get change, but that's not what I said. Thanks for clarifying. I'll go back and edit now....

Cheers,
topherr

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

Drew1365 — 2008-01-27T19:03:01+00:00

From the review . . .

Because you must pay with exact change . . .

I'm pretty certain that you don't have to pay with exact change. You can overpay, but you don't get any change back. To me this makes bidding even more interesting because a bluff element is added. If you have a 6, 7, and 8 in your hand, you can still bid 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, or 21 . . . you'd have to overpay if the bidding stops at anything less than 21, but you don't have to jump from 15 to 21 in one round of bidding.

Thread: Re: Question on requirements for bidding in Year 2

Drew1365 — 2008-01-26T19:57:02+00:00

qzhdad wrote:
It is correct. I don't have the rules here, but that is definitely the correct way to play. There's something in there about needing a ship in the first space to bid. After you've moved your only ship to the second, you no longer meet that requirement.

That seemed right.

In the rules it states:

"In year II, a player may bid on an explorer card only if that player has at least one card of this explorer from year I."

I note that it says "card" rather than ship, and since cards aren't moved on the board, . . . well, there's where the confusion lies. If what you say is true (and it feels like it should be) then the rules should state:

"In year II, a player may bid on an explorer card only if that player has at least one ship placed on this explorer in year I."

Thread: Re: Question on requirements for bidding in Year 2

qzhdad — 2008-01-26T17:47:04+00:00

It is correct. I don't have the rules here, but that is definitely the correct way to play. There's something in there about needing a ship in the first space to bid. After you've moved your only ship to the second, you no longer meet that requirement.

Thread: Question on requirements for bidding in Year 2

Drew1365 — 2008-01-26T17:32:48+00:00

Okay, this came up during our initial game, and we couldn't find the answer in the rulebook.

Situation: In the first round of bidding, when each explorer comes up three times, you win an explorer and place a ship in the Year 1 column. Your opponents get that explorer the other two times he appears.

In year two, you win that explorer the first time he appears, and you move your ship into the Year 2 column. The second time he appears in year 2, can you bid on him again even though you only placed one ship on him in the first year?

The rules state that you can bid on an explorer in Year 2 if you have at least one card of that explorer from Year 1. This would seem to indicate that you can bid on him twice in Year 2 even if you only took him once in Year 1. However, if you did win him a second time in Year 2, you wouldn't have a ship to move into that column. You would, however, shut out your opponents from doing it.

We played that if you took only one of that explorer's cards during the first year, you could only take one in the second year. This seemed right. But is it?

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

Admiral Fisher — 2007-09-17T22:05:30+00:00

I'm not keen on Bohnanza - too silly and not enough skill. Just a load of trading.

I don't mind out and out silly games, but Bohnanza is a strange beast.

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of

topherr — 2007-09-17T20:11:24+00:00

Barkam wrote:
How does this compare to Medici? That is suppose to be another good auction game for 6 players. As I wrote above:
topherr wrote:
Like Medici, it plays up to 6 (though I think it's fine with as few as 3), and it's actually better with 6 than Medici. Why? As much as I like Medici with 6, it tends to bog down just a bit with so many, mainly b/c the calculations of who you're competing with for goods and for top numbers increase quite a bit with 5 or 6. Counting to see whether you're likely to end up 3rd or 5th in total numbers for a round is just a little more complex than I'd like for a short, lighter game. With Pizarro, more people actually decreases your complexity, because you're involved in less auctions. Still, it goes by so fast that there's little down time even with 6.

Cheers!

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of

topherr — 2007-09-17T20:06:15+00:00

Admiral Fisher wrote:
I like the game too.

I think you've written a great review here, but I'd just say this to you:

Atlantic Star

- this is a game just as good for 6 that lasts about an hour.

Of course, I'm not including the Knizia bidders in there as you've already mentioned them. It's funny that you mention Atlantic Star, because it's also a favorite of mine, and plays well with 6. I thought long and hard about what to include on my list of quick games that play well with 6. I thought about including AS, but didn't b/c It has very little player interaction, putting a notch or two below Mü & More and Bohnanza. Nevertheless, Atlantic Star is a great game, and probably underrated as well. Also, unlike Pizarro, the game length increases dramatically as the number of players increase.

Cheers!

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of

Barkam — 2007-09-17T19:02:27+00:00

How does this compare to Medici? That is suppose to be another good auction game for 6 players.

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

Admiral Fisher — 2007-09-17T18:46:38+00:00

I like the game too.

I think you've written a great review here, but I'd just say this to you:

Atlantic Star

- this is a game just as good for 6 that lasts about an hour.

Of course, I'm not including the Knizia bidders in there as you've already mentioned them.

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

Drew1365 — 2007-09-17T17:23:18+00:00

Got it on clearance at Cardhaus a few months ago, and haven't gotten it to the table yet. But it's good to know that it works well with the full complement of six.

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

ixnay66 — 2007-09-17T15:04:29+00:00

This is a great auction game for 6 that plays in 45 minutes.

Thread: Re: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

Great Dane — 2007-09-17T11:06:31+00:00

It's is cartainly not a bad game.
But after 5 years of play I feel it has exactly the ratimng it deserves, and is not underrated at all.

Thread: Underrated quick auction game, great w/ 6 players (9 of 10)

topherr — 2007-09-17T09:49:45+00:00

Although designer Tom Lehmann is not as popular as top designers Kramer, Moon, Knizia and so forth, he has had some recent successes lately with Phoenicia and To Court the King. He also co-designed the nifty 18xx game that's set in space (!), 2038. Pizarro & Co. is an overlooked 2002 gem from Lehmann (currently rated #459) that stands up well to Knizia's auction hits Ra (#14) (redone and rethemed admirably in card game form as Razzia! - #189), Modern Art (#32) and Medici (#102).

]]>
courtesy Psauberer

Like these classic pure auction games, Pizarro plays wicked fast (30-45 minutes). Like Medici, it plays up to 6 (though I think it's fine with as few as 3), and it's actually better with 6 than Medici. And Pizarro boasts enough truly snazzy mechanics to feel different than any other auction game I've seen.

The theme - hiring explorers like Pizarro, Marco Polo and Columbus to go find new lands - may be thin, but the graphical execution is very well done.

]]>
courtesy dipdragon (board B, side 1)

Rules
Pizarro is played in 3 increasingly fast rounds. In round one, up to three boats (representing financing) may be placed on each of the six explorers you bid for, for a total of 18 auctions. In round two, each explorer receives 2 boats (12 auctions). In round three, there are only six auctions, or one per explorer. The order of the explorers is critical, and completely random, making for some very interesting decisions (more on this later). Each player has a maximum of 6 boats (this maximum only really matters in a 3-player game; with more players there is nil chance of winning 7 auctions on round one anyway).

]]>
courtesy Stas

Each player starts with 9 cards, numbered 1-9, totaling 45 gold. To make things even more interesting, at the end of the game, unspent cards are worth victory points, but not in the usual way: the low cards (1,2,3) are worth 3 VP each, the medium cards (4,5,6) are worth 2 VP, and the high cards (7,8,9) are worth, you guessed it! - 1 VP each. At the end of rounds 1,2 & 3, players get 2 new random cards plus bonus cards depending on which explorers they backed. Bonus cards at the end of round 3, obviously are only for VPs and cannot be used for bidding (b/c there is no round 4).

Auctions go round and round in the style I first saw years ago in Outpost - keep going round till all but one passes. Because you don't get any change from the cards you play, and because cards are worth VPs, the bidding choices are delicious. And after a few plays, it's not too time-consuming to value your choices.

As each round has fewer auctions than the round before, this means that only those who won the previous auction (as shown by a boat) may participate in the next round's auction for that explorer. So for example, if a player wins both of the second round auctions, s/he can take the third place auction for any price s/he wants (this is a common strategy). Note that because boats move forward if they win an auction, the VPs for each explorer are paid out only for the space a boat is on at the end of the game - but the bonus cards and special abilities resolve each round.

]]>
courtesy dipdragon (board A, side 2)

Each explorer gives different rewards in each of the three rounds. And the two playing boards (each with 3 explorers) are double-sided, with some interesting variations in the payouts of each explorer:

Columbus gives 1, 5 and 10 VPs in the 3 rounds, and pays 1 bonus card per round. He also has a special ability that each of his three first round cards may be used to delay one auction in the game, any time after the card is purchased. That is, the player flips the card over and the card that was up for auction is put at the bottom of the deck. This can be critical if you want to delay a particular auction until your rival or rivals have less resources than you do. Columbus is the only explorer that is identical on both sides.

Pizarro gives 7, 0 (!) and 15, and gives 0, 3 and 0 bonus cards. So you may prefer to leave your boat on the round one spot than contest the next auctions. On side B, he gives 0, 0 and X and pays 1,2 & 0 bonus cards. To resolve X, the player who wins round 3 flips over gold cards till he stops, getting 1 VP for the sum of the cards (1-9 each, not 1-3) of "busts" if s/he pushes her/his luck and gets over 20. Thus you are assured at least 11 points before you have to risk a bust. This is, by the way, the only payoff of the game that I don't like - it's exciting but simply too luck-driver for a game this good.

Magellan pays no bonus cards, and gives 1x, 2x, and 3x VPs where the card(s) underneath the Magellan card are multiplied (for maximum VPs of 3, 6, and 27 VPs). On side A, you must put a card from your hand under Magellan. On side B, you put a card from your bid (this makes Magellan much more powerful on side B, but I don't play side B b/c it has "bad Pizarro").

]]>
courtesy dipdragon

Marco Polo gives 0/0/3 and pays 2/2/2 bonus cards. On side B, he gives no VPs, but pays 2/3/4 bonus cards. He has a special ability on side A only - before rounds 2 and 3, for each Marco Polo boat you have, you can trade in up to 3 cards after drawing your cards for that round. I like the ability, so I like side A here.

Vasco de Gama gives 1/3/6 and has the absolute coolest special ability. He pays 1/2/3 bonus cards, but you draw the cards immediately, not at the end of the round! This means that you can easily gain a card advantage on other players, because you are replenishing your resources right away. Side B has a neat dual track, where the left side of the track gives no VPs but has the 1/2/3 bonus cards immediate draw ability, and the right side of the track pays no bonus cards but scores 8/12/8 VPs. Importantly, you can switch back and forth between the left and right sides, depending on whether you need bidding arsenal or VPs more. The only thing I don't like about Vasco (my favorite b/c of his cool ability) is the 8 VPs you get on round 3. Since the average VPs are 6 (b/c the average per card is 2 VPs), 8 doesn't seem like enough. I think maybe it should be 10. Small gripe, though.

James Cook gives 5/10/20 VPs, pays no bonus cards, and forces you to play with your hand face up the rest of the round after winning one of his auctions. This can be a big disadvantage. Worse still, on side B, although the VPs are even higher - 6/15/27 - you lose a random card after winning each auction, which is even more brutal.

At game end, you get your bonus cards if any, count up your cards and VPs for boats you have on the board in a space that awards VPs, and count up. Most points be dee weener.

GAME REVIEW CHECKLIST

]]>
courtesy Stas

1. DEPTH/COMPLEXITY 9 of 10
"How many and how compelling are the decisions you make per minute?"
The keys here are the speed and the difficulty in computing the end value of cards versus the necessity of having more gold to bid with along the way. You start with 18 VPs, and collect another 6 free cards during the game, for an average of 30 points at the end if you do absolutely nothing. And still I've seen plenty of scores under 30 points.

One really nifty element of the game is that in rounds 2 and 3 you know exactly who your competitors are for each auction, and you have to plan around what auction(s) you feel you must win and what each of your competitors is likely to feel that she or he must win.

- Analysis Paralysis/Downtime?
I've never seen downtime be a problem in many plays of this game. I'm not sure exactly why, but I think it's because the calculations are either fairly easy to calculate or totally opaque, giving no real incentive to try to endlessly crunch numbers. Like a lot of other great games (including Puerto Rico), the critical strategic decisions are made early, and the rest of the game is about refining tactics.

2. MECHANICS 10 of 10
"How intuitive, elegant and flowing are the moves that bring your tactics to life?"
There's just so much elegance in the way the rules weave together. The explorers are just different enough to give a lot of interesting scenarios, but not so complex that you need to check the rulebook. The setup is remarkably fast, and there are just so few pieces that the game is amazingly un-fiddly. The order or auctions and the reduced number of competitors means that you often are in a position going into round 2 that you have no more auctions against a specific player or two.

3. INTERACTION 7 of 10
"To what degree does it facilitate a rich social experience?"
Auction games necessarily have a lot of interaction, as does this one. What makes it different is that you compete with just one or two players on all the auctions later in the game, not the full table. Nice twist!

]]>
courtesy Surya

4. ORIGINALITY 8 of 10
"How fresh and unique are the strategy, mechanics and theme?"
There's just so much that's fresh: 1)having VPs on each gold card that make low gold cards worth more VPs; 2) the way that you are blocked forever from future auctions on an explorer if you don't get in on the ground floor; 3) the interactions of all the different explorer payoffs and special abilities; or 4) the way in which payouts are somewhat opaque and variable. This last twist makes the game feel more like craft and less like science, which is a good thing.

- What's the freshest part of the game?
The way the game narrows so that by the end you may have no contested auctions at all. This does reduce interaction, but with the benefit of making the game end very quickly when there are fewer contested auctions. This is what makes Pizarro a great 6-player game - it plays almost as fast regardless of the number of players.

5. AMBIENCE 8 of 10
"How much do the theme, aesthetics and bits add the overall experience?"
The theme is admittedly thin, but the board, and the cards are just exquisite and clear. I am often annoyed in Euros at the choice to have pretty art at the expense of clarity (like in Medici!). It's nice to have both here, and more rare than it should be.

6. AUDIENCE
"Who would love this game?"
- Fans of X may love this game, but fans of Y may not.
People who like auction-heavy games with little setup or downtime will love it. People who don't like auction games or who want extremely high player control may not like it.

- Does it hit a sweet spot? Which one?
Absolutely. It's the best 6-player auction game I know.. Plus there are few games out there of any genre with quick set-up, low downtime and a decent amount of depth all in about 45 minutes. China, Saint Petersburg, Samurai and Modern Art also come to mind.

- Luck (& Chaos) : Player Control
Relatively high player control, but the draw of cards from Vasco de Gama, and between rounds can be pretty big. Getting a 9 from Vasco in round one is much better than getting a 1 or 2, for example, and can influence the game quite a bit. As the game is so fast, however, this is not a huge problem, and can be planned for to some extent. The player control is probably a little lower than any of the big 3 Knizia games b/c of this.

]]>
courtesy itiswon

SUMMARY 9 of 10

For a six-player game in under an hour, I'd make it 10 of 10. The only other game that meets that criteria consistently is Mü & More, or maybe Bohnanza with a quick group that doesn't push for the impossible trade every turn.

Despite its speed, there are many ways to win the game. Focusing on one or two explorers to reduce the number of contested auctions. Focusing on the big point explorers, Cook and Magellan. Keeping flexibility by buying one boat in several different explorers. All these strategies can win, or fall flat, depending on execution and the actions of other players.

I'm not sure it's as good as the big 3 by Knizia, but it's sure not far off, and is packed with enough innovation and elegance for several games.

Cheers!

]]>
courtesy dipdragon

Image

Stas — 2007-05-15T18:26:11+00:00

Image

BaSL — 2007-04-12T17:00:04+00:00

Image

BaSL — 2007-04-12T16:59:33+00:00

Box Back - Dutch

Thread: Re: 5 player differences

ixnay66 — 2007-04-07T15:37:21+00:00

I think this is a great auction game when you have 5 or 6 players and it wraps up in 45 minutes.

Thread: 5 player differences

citylife — 2007-04-07T10:28:51+00:00

It seems not many people are playing this one as I have the last session report on record right now and am adding to my body off knowledge all by myself. Come on guys, give me a leg up with your session reports.

Today we played five player instead of six player. We only played a couple of heavier games and this was one of them. The first differnce to notice between five and six is that some players are going to get more than three boats in round one. Knowignt his didn't quite prepare us for the bargins that would be available near the end of the round. As fierce bidding continued for the earlier auctions, the price came down to just one card at the end of the round. Some bargins were had.

The players that did well today were the ones who took the bonus card explorers and used these to fund their higher point expeditions. Cards at the right time translated in points at the end.

And ultimately it was the card control that won the day. Our winner took three cards twice at the end of round two and was unstopable from that advantage.

The moral of this story was cards are cash, carfds are points, so combine the two and cards mean winning. Watch out for this next time. Well down Whare for your victory, very well deserved.

Thread: Re: A six way dual

citylife — 2007-03-15T05:06:09+00:00

I really like how you are a caretaker for the theme of the games our group plays. Everyone has their role and you always evaluate the theme and how well it intergrates into the game. Thats cool. (I'm hoping blantant flattery will help me win the next time we play)

Thread: Re: A six way dual

wharekumera — 2007-03-07T09:49:17+00:00

yeah, let's play again sometime soon. Pizarro may have the most bizarro and lame-o theme, but hey... it's a tight and fun game.

Thread: Re: A six way dual

guttedgeek — 2007-03-06T04:05:24+00:00

Nice writeup and great game indeed. I really thought I was in the running and the final result was a nail biter to the bitter end. What more could one ask for in a game!?

Thread: A six way dual

citylife — 2007-03-04T23:46:14+00:00

Golly gosh this is cut throat, brutal and mind numbing barbaric. Doesn't stop it being a beautiful game though.

We played a full six player game and there were some great stories to tell. Threats and counter threats, fights to teh death and razor thin margins. This game had it all.

Some comments before I tell you my sad little story. I think experience will help and especially knowing what combinations you can use. Clearly there is great benefit being able to fund a high points expedition from another expedition, those combinations will be important. There are big benefits if you have an uncontested advancement, and getting yourself into that situation is invaluable. And it is difficult to get your head around how the points stack up in the endgame. Most players didn't have a good feel for what was going to happen in the end game. Case in point the player that won declared himself out of the game in round one .... hmmmm does he get kudos for winning, or lose kudos for believeing it was over. And most importantly this si a game of balancing the tradeoffs. The value of the veto can be so clearly seen and it is a shame there is not one available in rounds two and three, that would add significantly to the game. If you fight is against someone who has already won a hardfought battle elsewhere then you are going to be a winner.

So uncontested bidding was the winning of this game. Over 20 points in cash crowns contributed to Jacobs win, and he will be very proud of it. I started off bidding for numerous areas but wasn't prepared to pay any price above 12 for the big point spots or 9 for the additions. About half way through I still had no ships but had my eyes on a purple and a green expedition. I had decided 3 was the optimal number of boats and that I could drive my big points purple to the end for 27 points. That was the aim. In the end I delivered but there was some hardship along the way. So round one was 2xgr and 1xp

In round two I feinted on the early green and passed it away for ten leaving me with a free boat to stage two, freeing up cash for my purple run, I felt in very good shape. Alas my opponent in purple was given a free advancement by a player trying to conserve cash for a battle. He didn't bid at all in case he got the bid and the result was my oppponent had heaps of cash for round three. Still all was well as he only had 12 cash to compete with me and I didn't think he would play for it given he had waved awy on another player. But he did, because he could and that was that, game over.

So into the thrid round I was much shorter on cash than I had hoped. The purple bid was early on and I had the full force of my opponents money to fight against. Ironically I had just enough to win the bid but not even enough to place a third card under my boat and certainly not ennough to bid on the green expedition and not enough to win the game.

The end game was exciting for those in the running. Three players had potential to come through and the winner was a surprise. All in all a very good game. Cut throat ofcourse given that one player was effectively knocked out in round one, two in two and the final battle was only three players. But it was a great tradeoff game and I enjoyed the mechanics.

Image

Stas — 2007-02-12T22:25:47+00:00

Image

itiswon — 2007-01-21T18:50:00+00:00

Money Money

Image

dipdragon — 2007-01-12T16:57:19+00:00

Pizarro Money Cards 7 to 9

Thread: Re: Our host didn't do his homework

dwarf — 2006-06-12T00:45:24+00:00

By reading the rules, I understand better how it works. About how you calculate pts from the example on the back of the rulebook, I decided not to follow it or try to understand it. Next time we will use paper and a pencil.

Pierre-Luc

Thread: Re: Our host didn't do his homework

ValJor — 2006-06-12T00:28:23+00:00

Hi Pierre-Luc!

Me, too! I want to try this game again! Even though our first experience was not that good, I believe the game has potential.

Thread: Re: Placing ships

nysmoke — 2006-06-11T00:46:21+00:00

Actually, I find the game works quite well with three for the very reason that you do get to place all your ships. The beauty of the game is that the strategies and tactics are quite different based on the number of players. If anything, I would say 6 is the worst number (though by no means is the game bad with this number) just because a lucky draw of money cards can create a bigger imbalance between the players.

An interesting note: this was the very first "German" game I ever played. My first experience was with 6 and I didn't really care for the game, but saw the beauty of these types of games. A few months later I played with 3 and it clicked, becoming a game I'll gladly play most anytime with any number of players. It's definitely a game that deserves a second play before passing final judgement, as I can attest to!

Thread: Re: Placing ships

dwarf — 2006-06-10T22:39:24+00:00

I havn`t really played that much. Is there an explorer that is really better than another?

From the looks of it, James Cook looks like a winner, though I would need to play more games.

dwarf

Thread: Re: Placing ships

Ed_the_Red — 2006-06-10T22:23:06+00:00

Yes, that's right, if you get all three spaces for one explorer, you place three of your ships on the first space, and get the benefits three times. Two of these would then be able to advance to the next space in the next round, at a minimum bid without opposition as you say. Both gain the benefits. Then in the final round one of these advances to the final space, again without any opposition. It sounds like you have played it correctly anyway. Though I must say it is very unlikely that you will be able to (or, probably, even want to) put three ships onto one explorer.

Good game - less good with three I think because you can always play all of your ships (6 each and 18 spaces). But excellent with 4 or 5 players.

Hope this helps

Eddy

Thread: Placing ships

dwarf — 2006-06-10T22:04:50+00:00

It says in year I, you place one ship per explorer card you have, if you got less than 6 explorer cards after year I, than the rest of your ships are placed back in the box.

For example, if in year I you got all 3 of the same explorer card, you would put 3 ships on that explorer? Would you have the bonus of that explorer 3 times because you have 3 ships?

In year two, you can only bid on explorer cards you got in year one. In the case that someone got all 3 explorer cards of one kind, that means in Year II, he will have no opposition which means he can bid his lowest money card and win the bet automatically?

dwarf

Thread: Re: Our host didn't do his homework

dwarf — 2006-06-10T21:50:01+00:00

I reread some game rules today. This game was one of them. We should be good next time.

I really want to give this game another shot.

dwarf

Thread: Re: Number of players?

DaviddesJ — 2005-11-18T23:18:52+00:00

I don't think the game as published works well with 3, because there are 18 auctions in the first round, and no player can win more than 6, so at the end some players are eliminated from the bidding even if they have money left, which creates an undesirable dynamic at the end. You could probably fix this with some tweaking. Otherwise I think the game should be reserved for 4-6.

Thread: Re: Number of players?

Hallow — 2005-11-18T20:54:03+00:00

I have played one four player game, one five player game, and one six player game (with 5 fifth graders). I enjoyed the five and six player games the most, but would gladly play with four or even three.

Thread: Re: Number of players?

Octavian — 2005-11-17T06:17:30+00:00

The more the merrier with this one, IMO. The game is already perilously close to having not enough going on. If you don't have enough players competing for the different expeditions this one falls into being a bore.

-MMM

Thread: Number of players?

Sonja — 2005-11-17T06:09:39+00:00

What's the ideal number of players for this game? Does it play wel with 6, for example?

Thread: Re: Three Player Test: Magellan Triumphant Again

Paul King — 2005-10-25T09:09:54+00:00

I think that Magellan is a little weaker than Cook.

To get the top payoff from Magellan requires using 3 cards worth a total of 9Vp in themselves in addition to the bid, for a net bonus of only +18. Cook nets +20.

The second place payoff is not so good - a net score of +6

Third place is no good at all.

Thread: Re: User Review

_Kael_ — 2005-10-24T14:41:13+00:00

Dan Bosley wrote:
You are supposed to be a king hiring the best explorers of the day to bring back fame and fortune from their discoveries in the New World.

Except.....how can we be bidding for these explorers all at the same time? Marco Polo died in 1324, and James Cook wasn’t born until 1728. At least the other 4 explorers are all in the late 1400’s to the early 1500’s range! But what are we doing bidding on Marco Polo and James Cook at the same time?

Methinks the theme is a little shaky, there.

...apart from the fact that (as far as I know) different kings didn't bid on the services of explorers, but explorers came begging for a ship/money at the feet of their king.

Very shaky indeed.

Great review. Very slapped up theme, but thanks to you, I'll give it a try!

Thread: Three Player Test: Magellan Triumphant Again

Chuckles — 2005-10-24T10:42:10+00:00

We had a rather chaotic assembly for Friday's game night. Kelly had announced that she must go home early. I had been feeling ill, and when my computer crashed at work, my productivity sank to absolute zero. I put out the word that I might be able to attend a quick game or two if we got together soon, but I wasn't going to last long. So Kelly and I left work a little earlier than planned, and went to Ben's. The three of us had time to get in a game before Ed and Ron arrived.

Kelly selected Pizarro, which we had yet to play with three. I was curious as to how it would scale with that number.

Quite well, it turned out, the same intriguing, post-mortem-inducing game that has been each time. It stood to reason (to me) that the bidding prices would be lower in a three-player game, so I hung back in the early bidding to try to get a higher quantity of explorers overall.

First round:
Polo -- Ben 14
De Gama -- Kelly 10
Magellan -- Kelly 9
Cook -- Ben 8
Pizarro -- Kelly 10
Magellan -- Ben 7
Columbus -- Chuck 6
Pizarro -- Kelly 11
Polo -- auction vetoed by Chuck
Cook -- Chuck 5
Columbus -- Chuck 5
Pizarro -- auction vetoed by Chuck
Polo -- Chuck 10
Cook -- Kelly 5
De Gama -- Ben 9
Columbus -- Chuck 11
Magellan -- auction vetoed by Chuck
De Gama -- Ben 10
Polo -- Chuck 8
Pizarro -- Ben 3
(One Magellan unbought)

A few observations:

I hadn't a clue how to use the auction vetoes provided with Columbus, and no doubt used them stupidly. The only one that I used, I think, well, was the veto of Magellan towards the end. Had I not done that, Pizarro would have been the last item up for bid, and Kelly would have had a monopoly in Pizarro. As it was, Magellan went unclaimed, as no one had the spare card to pick him up.

I came out of the round with a huge card advantage, from my three Columbuses and my two Polos. Adding in the two cards one gets anyway, I was dealt nine new cards to start the second round. This caused a lot of table talk from Ben about how I was clearly going to wipe out the two of them.

But that's not really how this fascinating game goes. Pizarro is an intriguing game for the interplay between card-getting and point-scoring explorers. I was heavy in the card-pilers, but not in the point-scorers. I knew that my advantage in cards would pretty much enable me to win any auction I wanted from that point forward, but I didn't necessarily see a route to getting as high a score in the final round as I would need.

Kelly was in a bad spot after the first round. Her explorer purchases look pretty good to me, but it was the sequence that killed her. She often wound up overpaying her actual bid, and that was what ruined her for the game. It wound up having a peripheral effect on me also.

Second round:

Cook -- Chuck 6
Magellan -- Ben 4
Columbus -- Chuck 1 (I had the monopoly)
De Gama -- Ben 8
Cook -- Kelly 6
De Gama -- Ben 4
Polo -- Chuck 9
Pizarro -- Ben 5
Polo -- Chuck 23
Columbus -- Chuck 9
Magellan -- No one could buy
Pizarro -- Kelly 3

Per above, I won every auction I could. Five of my six ships advanced, the only one not doing so being the third Columbus I'd bought in the first round (only two explorers of each type come up in the second.)

Now suddenly my strategy had to shift. I was ridiculously heavy in card-power, and "Trading up" with my Polo cards meant, not getting better cash cards, but better victory point cards. Thus, I actually "traded down" to get better cards for game-end scoring.

Third round:

Polo -- Chuck 4 (I had monopoly)
Columbus -- Chuck 5 (I had monopoly)
De Gama -- Ben 7 (had monopoly)
Pizarro -- Ben 24
Magellan -- Ben 9
Cook -- Chuck 23

That meant that at game's end, Ben and I each had three explorers in the third round. But Ben's outscored mine at every turn (Magellan over Cook, Pizarro over Columbus, and De Gama over Polo). But we'll get to that.

First we totaled the crown victory points on our cards. The score stood:

Chuck 14
Ben 11
Kelly 10

Then we went through the explorers we each had in the third round. Per above, Ben had three of them, I also had three:

Ben -- Magellan 27, Pizarro 15, and De Gama 6, so:
11 + 48 = 59
Chuck -- Cook 20, Columbus 10, Polo 3, so:
14 + 33 = 47
Kelly -- zip, so
10

We temporarily forgot to count the explorers we all had sitting on rounds 1 and 2. We started putting the game away and then had to reconstruct the game in order to do it. This meant:

Ben -- 8 more points (2nd round de Gama, 1st round Cook)
Kelly -- 11 more points (1st round Pizarro, 1st round Magellan, 1st round de Gama)
Chuck -- 6 more points (1st and 2nd round Columbus)

Thus, the finals were:

Ben 67
Chuck 53
Kelly 31

We had the usual vigorous post-Pizarro post-mortem. The general consensus was that Magellan was king again. Pretty much every game we have played, the player with Magellan in the third round has won.

I'm not quite ready to buy into that consensus. Magellan is a costly card to have, and undercuts one's overall card position. I also believe that Magellan has been powerful in our games due to fortuitous circumstances.

1st game -- we didn't know what we were doing, magnifying value of Magellan's game-end of 27 points
2nd game -- two players holding Magellan failed to leave themselves an extra card to enable them to bid in round two, giving the other player a clear inexpensive shot at Magellan in rounds 2 and 3
3rd game -- This game. Pretty much same thing. Only two Magellans sold in first round. Ben got him for minimal value in each of second and third rounds because Kelly couldn't bid.

I continue to believe that Magellan is not as strong a card as reputed among our group. Each time, his holder has benefited from big tactical mistakes by opponents, thus undoing the principal disadvantage of Magellan (card cost.)

At the same time, it's clear that Magellan is stronger than I've thought. I shouldn't have let Ben have a Magellan for 7 in the first round.

Our group regards Columbus as the weakest, and I think Chris is a little stronger than that. His veto power has certainly been useless with us, but only because we don't know yet how to use it properly.

One theory in our group is, I believe, correct. That combinations of explorers have more inherent value than single explorers. That is to say, Magellan plus de Gama is a great combination, because de Gama restores the cards that Magellan takes away.

I also believe that Polo combines well with Cook or Magellan.

The key to winning Pizarro, I still believe, is being strong enough in the card grabbers (Polo, de Gama) early, but having an avenue to dominate the point scorers (Magellan, Cook) late.

That and hoping that none of your opponents benefit from blunders that give them an effective monopoly.

Thread: Re: Ships in phase I

Hallow — 2005-10-15T03:46:56+00:00

Nope, once your ships are gone they are gone and no more bidding in phase one for you.

Thread: Ships in phase I

DarnCZ — 2005-10-14T21:40:56+00:00

Hello, I have question about bidding in phase I - Can I bid for a character even if I have no ship left (eg. I have bought 6 characters recently)? Thx

Thread: Our host didn't do his homework

ValJor — 2005-09-25T12:35:55+00:00

Date: September 24th, 2005

Game: Pizarro & Co.

Players: Christian, Paulo, Pierre-Luc, Ray and Valdir (myself)

]]>

When we finished our game of For Sale the others hadn't arrived yet, so we decided that it was time to get into the heavier games. As Pierre-Luc wanted to try Louis XIV before ordering it for himself, I proposed that we should start with it.

We were taking out the components out of the box when Ray (whom we know from the Montreal Meetup Group) arrived. That was quite serendipitous as the game plays better with four than with three (with three, one of the players is first player twice, which is a disadvantage in this game. The rules even say he should get an extra intrigue card in order to compensate for that).

At Pierre-Luc's we do our game all in French because that's the first language of the majority of players who attend. Ray, although he is capable of understanding the language, feels more at ease in English, so I explained the rules for him in English.

Unfortunately, I had barely gone over all the four phases of each round when the door bell rang again. Christian, our fifth player for the afternoon, had finally arrived. And with that, our hope of playing Louis XIV was dashed, as the game can only handle up to four players.

The options were then Maharaja and El Grande, two games that I absolutely love and would never pass up. However, Pierre-Luc also mentioned Pizarro & Co., a game I had seen him taking around to meetings and for one reason or another we could never play it. Therefore I suggested that we should play that one and all agreed. In hindsight, it was a bad decision...

Pierre-Luc had only played the game with someone else's copy and liked the game well enough to buy his own copy. However, he had never had the chance to really play it and the rules have faded in his mind, his memory of the game was quite shaky.

We all got our four ships and the first thing you notice is that the score track is divided in tens (10, 20, 30, ... 100) and units (1, 2, 3, ... 9), so we quite naturally reasoned that two of the ships should go in the score track, one in each track. As the game has three phases and we could clearly see that each phase awards points for the players with ships present in that phase, it was a reasonable deduction.

And that is how we played the game. Paulo noted that as we were five and each would have four ships and there were only eighteen explorers in phase I to be auctioned, two of the ships would be out of the game (Pierre-Luc had told us that we could only bid in phases II and III if we had already made a bid on phase I). Therefore we were all in a rush to put our ships on the board as soon as possible, nobody wanted to be handicapped and play with only three ships against four of the other players.

After both Christian and Paulo had already four ships on the boards, Christian took the rules and read the part where it says that each player is only allowed three ships in phase I, two in phase II and one in phase III. Boy, was that some disappointment...

We still tried to understand how the game would work, but we quickly agreed that our session was not salvageable and we had to scrap it. What a waste, the game looked really interesting. We can only hope that Pierre-Luc will be ready for the next outing of this game...

Thread: Magellan - how does he work? - Well, I'll explain....

DougA — 2005-09-04T04:18:53+00:00

Magellan - Clarification of how he works and scoring.

I've actually been able to figure out how Magellan works, it just took a while, so I am posting this for anyone else who may find themselves confused.

Part of the problem was that the example for playing Magellan was with only 1 ship, but then the scoring example had two ships, and it seemed to be missing a bit of an explanation in between.

Here's the way to look at it.

1) THE CARDS STAY WITH THEIR INDIVIDUAL SHIP - THINK OF THEM AS CARGOWhen you win/play a Magellan card and place a gold card under it and place the ship, these cards are basically cargo in the hold of that ship. There should almost be a marker that you place on the ship and on the cards indicating that this is Ship #1 and Ship #1's contents.

If you win/play a 2nd Magellan card, that is ship #2 and the cards are ship #2's contents.

And the same goes for #3 being Ship #3 and Contents #3.

You can suffice simply by laying the cards out in some order to indicate which cards are for ship #1, #2 and ship #3.

2) FIRST MAGELLAN PLAYED IS ADDED TO SHIP #1
In year 2, the first Magellan you get will go to your designated Ship #1. The next Magellan will go to Ship #2.

In Year 3, if you get Magellan again, this is added to Ship #1.

End result would be that you have three ships:
Yr 1 Yr 2 Yr 3
Ship #3 Ship #2 Ship #1
1 card 2 cards 3 cards

3) SCORING:
With this understanding, scoring is also becomes clear.
You multiply the gold from any ship by the indicated modifier of the
year they are currently occupying.
In the above example, Ship #1 cards x 3... Ship #2's cards x2...
Ship #1 cards x1

Thread: Tao of Gaming Review

Bankler — 2005-07-04T18:58:43+00:00

[This review originally written in 2002 -- Brian]

Good auction games rely on uncertainty. Imagine a game where you have 100 Victory Points, everyone has $100, and you auction the points out one at a time. Pretty boring. Auction games work when players bid on widgets, and each player has to answer two questions: How much is this widget worth? and Am I likely to get a better deal later on?

Analyzing uncertainty is a tricky business. Literally millions of professionals make a good living doing just that (actuaries, financial specialists, and engineers probably being the largest three groups). But it's still engrossing enough to make a good game.

Pizarro makes players into Kings, hiring out the services of valiant explorers to go to the new world. The game is played in three rounds. In the first round, each explorer sends out three ships. Any player who wins an auction gets to put a ship into the "Year One" box. In year two, each explorer advances two ships, but they have to be ships from year one. And in the last year, each explorer advances one ship from year two to year three. So at the end of year three, an explorer (Magellan, say) will have a ship in each of three boxes. Different boxes are worth different victory points.

Players are bidding with money cards (from 1-9). Cards are also worth victory points at the end of the game, with the low money cards being the high victory point cards.

And finally, each explorer has a special power. At the end of each year, everyon gets two cards. Some explorers grant bonus cards at the end of each year, which is worth 1-3 Victory Points ... or can be used towards winning more bids. And explorers have other powers. Marco Polo lets you control the order of auctions (a little). Cook is worth a slew of victory points, but makes you suffer a penalty.

If you don't like auction games, there isn't anything in Pizarro to attract you. I like auction games, and find Pizarro to be a worthy addition to the field, for a few reasons:

First, analyzing the value of an auction presents a lot of uncertainty. You have to worry about getting a source of cards versus certain victory points; not overbidding early (letting other players get better deals later on), and worry about players stacking on one explorer. The last point -- player may get two (or three) ships onto one explorer in the first round. This guarantees at least one cheap win later. A player who gets all three ships of one explorer doesn't have to worry about anything: he's getting first, second and third! This may be considered a flaw, as that player may be done for the rest of the game. In fact, in our second game one player won three ships, said "Autopilot me", wandered away for twenty minutes and then came back to see if he had won. This is a valid strategy, but disconcerting. [And one that shouldn't happen very often among experienced players. Now that we have played it more often, we tend to try to fight everywhere. Of course, we've also been playing six player games.]

Second, The explorer's special abilities are interesting. Apart from the variety in victory points and cards granted, the powers are cute. One power lets the winner 'play blackjack' for victory points...keep flipping cards, but if your total (in money) goes over 20, you lose them all. One explorer lets you take either cards or victory points. Of course, if you advance your ship, you get to choose again, and you hope that you picked cards. But if you didn't advance...

Thirdly, There are actually four combinations of explorers. The boards for tracking them are double sided (and there are two boards). This is just a nice little additionally touch. I had already decided to buy the game after my first playing, but seeing the boards flipped over after the game thrilled me. The extra value is a nice touch.

Overall, a good auction game. I don't expect to play often, but I expect to be playing several years from now.

Thread: Re: Bizarre Game of Pizarro & Co.

Psauberer — 2005-06-18T00:43:41+00:00

dkeisen wrote:
Last couple of times I've played it has not been just one person, but really the whole game. Each of the six explorers, or maybe just five of them, was owned by a single person who then just went through the mechanical process of cashing them in during Phase II and Phase III.

Seems to me that it is in each player's interest to focus on a given explorer rather than having to prepare for fights in the later two phases. And it also seems to me that this kind of ruins what I had previously felt to be the best pure auction game out there.

Would be happy to hear I have misanalyzed this.

I don't believe that the explorers are of equal value, so doing this is only in the interest of the person who has the most valuable explorer. I have ended up going the Cook-centric route at least once and got my head handed to me, so it defintiely is not a guaranteed victory.

The key to the game is to get the most valuable mix of explorers at the optimal cost.

Thread: Re: Bizarre Game of Pizarro & Co.

dkeisen — 2005-06-17T19:36:00+00:00

Last couple of times I've played it has not been just one person, but really the whole game. Each of the six explorers, or maybe just five of them, was owned by a single person who then just went through the mechanical process of cashing them in during Phase II and Phase III.

Seems to me that it is in each player's interest to focus on a given explorer rather than having to prepare for fights in the later two phases. And it also seems to me that this kind of ruins what I had previously felt to be the best pure auction game out there.

Would be happy to hear I have misanalyzed this.