Game: Stone Age

Thread: Re: How is this for two players?

the_spy — 2008-07-04T08:10:57+00:00

Somewhat I like it for 2 better than for 3 or 4 for the same exact reasons. Seven spots on the resources are too much for me.... even in a 4 players game seldom you can't find a spot for your worker in any resources.
I will try a variant with only 5 spots.

Two players is much more a tactical game.... you may very well easily block your opponent but he can stop you... so be careful for what you wish....

This game IMHO is very good for 2.

Thread: Re: How is this for two players?

dkeisen — 2008-07-04T07:04:31+00:00

I don't like it for 2.

It is too easy to block the opponent in his or her goals, move one meeple to the resource area they want to go, take the hut they want even if you can't profitably use it. There is too much where it doesn't much matter what you do because you gain from something either way: either it helps you or it blocks your opponent.

Not my preference in a game.

I prefer it with 4 to 3, but that is more an aesthetic choice than a real thought-out opinion on the quality of the game. The rules about only two people in an area and only two in the farm/love shack/tool area seem hokey and tacked on and even if they work, I don't like them. But fundamentally what matters is whether or not they work and the seem to.

Thread: How is this for two players?

wwscrispin — 2008-07-04T06:50:27+00:00

I was teaching this to my wife today and it seemed easy to get food, and other items, with only two players. We were playing with the 2 player variation.

It seemed more low stress than with four. That may have been because it was my wife's first time and so it was a less competitive game.

What do other people think about how it plays with 2 compared to more?

Thread: Re: Starvation ain't all it's cracked up to be?

mark_biggar — 2008-07-04T06:23:22+00:00

The problem I have with starving is that it seams a real "Red Queen's Race".

Thread: Re: Starvation ain't all it's cracked up to be?

paulhar — 2008-07-04T05:17:44+00:00

Werbaer wrote:

There are currently 67 people with 150+ plays on BSW; one of them with 612 plays :)

Yes, that would be Diane :)

Actually, I have to weigh in on starvation. I thought about appending to that really long thread but since this one is more recent, I'll write here. Definitely being an anti-starvation player, because I think it's a bad strategy (many reasons have been given already), I had an unusual situation come up in my 177th game where I was "backed into" the starvation strategy. (I guess that makes me one of the 67 people)

I went fourth. Round 1, not in the village. Round 2, meeples (farm and tool were gone; I would have preferred these.) Round 3: double shamen came up in the '2' spot (costing 2 resources); the player before me took a farm, a close decision in my opinion, and I took the double shamen. In Round 4, where I went first, I had no farms (couldn't pick one up via dice civilizations either) and another double shamen came up in the '2' spot. Now it didn't seem close anymore. Already being way behind in the farm race, it seemed like it was high time to take two more shamen, plop on the love shack every turn, and starve. I did end up winning a very close game. Maybe in another 170 games, I'll try it again if backed into it.

There are players that strive to starve every game and they win a fair amount. I think their winning is due to their experience and superior gameplay and not due to starving; i.e. they would win MORE often if they didn't starve. I believe that the conditions required to try for starvation are rare indeed; you are fourth in a four-player game and cannot score a farm in the first three turns; and you have a good alternative first pick when you finally get to go first.

Thread: Re: What score did you finish with?

Gstealer — 2008-07-04T04:03:38+00:00

We played our first game last night and really enjoyed the game. Four player with my wife and two dayghters (12 and 8). Our daughters didn't really understand the importance of cards and each only had 15-20 points worth of them.

I scored 205. Ny wife 185. The girls 155 and 135.

Thread: Re: Surprising victory!

Hawk — 2008-07-04T01:44:03+00:00

Harae wrote:
Significant details:
You've missed one... Judging from your avatars, you're a wargamer.

Like you I prefer historical games (i.e. wargames), am not allergic to dice, and quite enjoyed STONE AGE for its simplicity and multiple paths to victory!

Good session report.

Thread: Re: Surprising victory!

Harae — 2008-07-04T12:10:52+00:00

Hi Werner,

Thanks for the feedback. Stone Age...of course...well I don't own the game and played it for the first time:blush:.

Actually not sure exactly regarding the score of the cards but is must be something of that stretch. As for the Golden house, it must have been 42 then.

Will definately play again and try to optimise / use flexible strategy.

Thread: Re: Surprising victory!

Werbaer — 2008-07-04T11:37:52+00:00

Harae wrote:
3 player game, my first game Stone Henge.
How about playing Stone Age next time ;)

I will start how it ended: I won the game with only 5 workers!
Extra workers need time to pay off. You did the right thing to shorten the game.
On the other hand, with your 7 farms, you might have won a longer game too, if you take 1-2 extra workers (much more profitable for you than for them, since you don't need to feed them)

7 X 3 Card (food) – 21 points
There is no such card. The only x3 card is for huts. I assume you mixed up these two in your report.

-The other player got 46 for one building (!!) a almost all 7 resources were pure gold.
Max is 42 - 7 gold, worth 6 each

Anyhow VICTOR WAS MINE I ……guess this was beginners luck
I guess it was playing aginast group think. The other players were used to slow moving games ending by the stack of cards exhausted.

In addition, if they both went for people and maybe both for green cards, and you're the only one going for farms, they have to buy their cards at a high price, and you get the farm cards cheap. In this game, it pays out to take a different route than the other players (esp. than the player to your right)

Thread: Surprising victory!

Harae — 2008-07-04T09:16:56+00:00

3 player game, my first game Stone Henge.

We were supposed to play Formula De but as 2 guys did not show up, someone introduced Stone Age…..My initial though: please give me a break, yet another resource management game…..So, I was unimpressed from the start but after 15 minutes explanation we took off (3 player game) and throughout the game I got more excited.

I will start how it ended: I won the game with only 5 workers!

As it was my first time I choose an alternative strategy as 2 players continuously occupied the house of fun to gain extra workers. I decided to do something completely different. Focus on food and buildings and see how it would turn out. Well when you least expect it something beautiful might happen.

I felt a bit insecure about my actions as I was against players who played the game a couple of times. So the other two players raised massive armies of workers to chop wood, gather food, dig for gold and gained cards, cards and more cards.
I economically placed my 5 workers on the building desired / resource required and sometimes I grabbed a nice card. Half way I realised that the other players would benefit from a longer game to make use of their workers so I sought the opportunity to end the game as quickly as possible: I simply cleared one stack of buildings!

When I built my eighth building the pile was empty so we calculated the final scores and here is what I recall my score was:

7 food each turn
4 resources left – 4 points
8 buildings – 106 points
1 card with 3 VP’s on top – 3 points
7 X 3 Card (food) – 21 points
7 X 1 Card (food) – 7 points
8 X 2 Card (buildings) – 16 points
8 X 1 Card buildings – 8 points

Total of 165 points

The other two were quite stunned and I was quite stunned as well. Half way I asked the game owner if you could build beyond the 5 building spaces and his answer was that it was legitimate to build more than 5 buildings.

Significant details:
-Not once did I use the tools
-The game owner got 65 points for his 8 different symbols
-The other player got 46 for one building (!!) a almost all 7 resources were pure gold.
-The game took us arbout 1 hour and 15 minutes.

we might have had a rule wrong from which I benefitted. Anyhow VICTOR WAS MINE I ……guess this was beginners luck 

Conclusion: I really liked the game as it was quick and the decision making not overly complex so it would lead to analysis paralysis. As I am a war gamer by trade these comments are seriously positive and in favour of Stone Age. However, I should play it more often to comment on how good it really is.

Thread: Re: Cards & Building Placement

kusinohki — 2008-07-03T11:51:56+00:00

To expand on that a bit... Each individual card and individual hut is a completely separate area (with space for only 1 cave-meeple).

So it would take 4 turns to place a guy on every card, assuming none of the other players block you.

Thread: Re: Upgrading spent tools

JonBen — 2008-07-03T11:47:01+00:00

The problem is that your described loophole sounds an awful lot like a point of tactics if it was intended that used tools become unused when upgraded.

I agree that the rule should be that a used hammer remains used after an upgrade... but does it?

Thread: Re: Upgrading spent tools

kevinb9n — 2008-07-03T11:28:09+00:00

A simple common scenario is you're buying a +1-hammer civ card, but first you have to roll to get some wood to use to buy the card with. On that roll, you use some hammers to help you get more wood.

I think it's important to establish that an upgrade of a used hammer is a better, *used* hammer. Otherwise you have a weird loophole.

"Hm, I rolled a 6, but I need 3 wood. I could use my 3 hammer to make it 3 wood, but instead I'll use both of my 2 hammers! That way when I upgrade one of them I'll end up with TWO usable 3 hammers for my gold roll (instead of a 2 and a 3)!"

Thread: Re: Upgrading spent tools

JonBen — 2008-07-03T11:19:28+00:00

Note that you can also get tools from civ cards, specifically the general store.

In any event if the answer to the question is 'the new tool is unused' then it would be stupid NOT to use the tool before upgrading, hence the importance of the question!

UPDATE: Upon looking at the rules, the card I called the general store is not referred to by this name. I think another thread in the rules forum used that term so I adopted it here. It's the card that lets you roll one die for every player and the each player takes a die and an associated benefit.

Thread: Re: Upgrading spent tools

Redneon — 2008-07-03T10:58:46+00:00

Several questions arise:

Do you have any other unused 1 tools? If so, upgrade one of those.
If no other 1 tools, it would come in used.

Most important, why ever would you not take the tool before you roll for resourses?

John

Thread: Upgrading spent tools

sabaki — 2008-07-03T10:21:34+00:00

Suppose I have a 1-tool, and I use that during my resource collecting. Then, I upgrade my tool to a '2'. Does the 2 come in used or unused, or something in between (we just track I have one unused pip, I suppose).

It makes pretty clear sense to me that the new tool would come in used. Unused is too powerful, and the other one is too fiddly, but I'm surprised this hasn't been asked here, it came up about 3 times in my first game (though, I was doing a heavy tool strategy).

Thread: Re: Cards & Building Placement

the_spy — 2008-07-03T09:54:07+00:00

The latter.... only one worker per turn on cards or buildings.

Thread: Cards & Building Placement

Gstealer — 2008-07-03T09:42:24+00:00

Can you ever have more than one worker in the card or building areas? If no ignore the other questions as they are both examples.

For example, could I place one-four workers (on different cards) on my turn? Could I do the same thing with buildings?

Or could I play one worker on a card or building, let the turn go back around and then select another?

Thread: Re: Starvation ain't all it's cracked up to be?

Werbaer — 2008-07-03T12:52:58+00:00

J.L.Robert wrote:
But remember, this game has been on the shelves a scant 6 weeks. 5+ games a day? That's more obsession than hobby, IMO.
It is available for online play against human oppponents on BSW (Brettspielwelt) since 9 weeks, and was available in stores before that point (amazon.de lists it as feb 23th, but that mightt have been for preoder). topherr wrote in another thread that most of his games were online. That's still 3 games per day, but "only" 1.5 -2 hours; less if he played many 2 player games.
There are currently 67 people with 150+ plays on BSW; one of them with 612 plays :)

Thread: Re: Starvation ain't all it's cracked up to be?

jvalj — 2008-07-03T12:29:35+00:00

Thanks for your response.

I understand your point and it is generally a good one. That said I think it is unnecessary to call out a specific person on the time they spend on a particular hobby. He probably doesn't spend much more time on games than some spend on TV.

Many people have addictive tendencies that are hard to control. We should all want them to choose Stone Age (or World of Warcraft etc.) rather than one of the many more dangerous and socially destructive addictions out there.

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

Neil Thomson — 2008-07-03T04:24:01+00:00

f_briere wrote:
Most excellent review!

However:

Neil Thomson wrote:
With 2 players only 1 of the specialty huts may be occupied and only 1 player can be present in any one resource location.

is incorect.

Here is the quote from the rule:

With 3 or 2 players, only 2 of the 3 places: tool maker, hut, and field may be filled in each round. The third place remains empty. Naturally, the empty place can be different in each round. [...]

With 2 players: on each of the places: forest, clay pit, quarry, and river only 1 player may place people in each round.

Cheers - fixed now.

Thread: Re: Any reason this can't be played with 5?

ColtsFan76 — 2008-07-03T02:40:27+00:00

Yeah, most likely this will get the "Pillars of the Earth treatment" and we might see a 5-6 player expansion.

It might be too limiting in its current state to support a 5th player.

Thread: Re: Any reason this can't be played with 5?

J.L.Robert — 2008-07-03T02:29:49+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
Future expansion, perhaps?

You've just answered your question. ;)

Thread: Re: Starvation ain't all it's cracked up to be?

J.L.Robert — 2008-07-03T02:27:36+00:00

jvalj wrote:
I think that these negative responses are missing the point of strategy discussions. They are not here for people who prefer to play a game a couple of times then move on to something else, eventually coming back a few months later. They are for people who have played the game ten or more times who want to understand it and debate what it is about. They are not writing or reading these articles so they can beat all of their friends. It is part of the learning process after you have played the game a bunch of times and are beyond the initial discovery phase. You can learn something new from thinking about a game in a systematic way and then writing up an analysis that other experienced players can consider and respond to.

I understand strategy discussions. And I do plan on having this game in my regular rotation for the immediate future.

But remember, this game has been on the shelves a scant 6 weeks. 5+ games a day? That's more obsession than hobby, IMO.

Thread: Any reason this can't be played with 5?

Drew1365 — 2008-07-03T02:07:50+00:00

Aside from the need for extra meeples, that is. (Easy enough to accomplish anyway.)

You might run out of some resources, and you might need to add two spots to each resource location. but . . . it seems like it would work. (Future expansion, perhaps?)

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

the_pirate — 2008-07-03T01:31:15+00:00

Neil Thomson wrote:

Did you win the tie on the permanent food count back?

According to the BSW rules page: "In case of a tie the player with the highest sum of food supply, tools and people wins."

We were dead even and therefore shared the victory. I can't imagine that would happen too often. Pretty cool but.

I think the final score's were 164 - 164 - 163 - 137

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

f_briere — 2008-07-03T12:40:46+00:00

Most excellent review!

However:

Neil Thomson wrote:
With 2 players only 1 of the specialty huts may be occupied and only 1 player can be present in any one resource location.

is incorect.

Here is the quote from the rule:

With 3 or 2 players, only 2 of the 3 places: tool maker, hut, and field may be filled in each round. The third place remains empty. Naturally, the empty place can be different in each round. [...]

With 2 players: on each of the places: forest, clay pit, quarry, and river only 1 player may place people in each round.

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

Neil Thomson — 2008-07-03T12:16:27+00:00

the_pirate wrote:
Let’s see if I can't earn a few geek points here....Tribesple or Meepmen (Meeple + Cavemen).

Cavemeeples of course!

Great Review.

Played this only a few times on BSW, found it so far to be extremely close. In fact my second game ever was an exact tie for first place with the next player 1 point behind.

Have others found this to be true with repeated plays?

Definitely when all players have a similar level of experience. Of course playing with a newbie can result in a player that follows the newbie being left very good options.....

Did you win the tie on the permanent food count back?

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

the_pirate — 2008-07-03T12:02:46+00:00

Let’s see if I can't earn a few geek points here....Tribesple or Meepmen (Meeple + Cavemen).

Cavemeeples of course!

Great Review.

Played this only a few times on BSW, found it so far to be extremely close. In fact my second game ever was an exact tie for first place with the next player 1 point behind.

Have others found this to be true with repeated plays?

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T11:11:29+00:00

Fair enough. Neither of us has been able to convince the other which is fine. Perhaps others will offer their opinions later. In the meantime we will both enjoy this great game and discover new things and our strategies and tactics will evolve. See you online! vs & vg.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

drunkenKOALA — 2008-07-02T10:33:07+00:00

1. Relative to one opponent, who may or may not be the stronger opponent. And this isn't free: you need to pay one meeple for it.

2. I was saying that without the huts multipliers, there is absolutely no reason to spend one resource on the 1-7 hut early game. (Unless your opponent somehow managed to collect 7 gold early game.)

3. I'd value wood gathering (if I can place 3 or 4 meeples on it) over the 1-7 hut regardless of how much I need to pay for cards in the current round, and how much wood I already have (unless it's way more than enough, say more than 10).

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T07:29:19+00:00

One of the great things about life is that we can like different things for different reasons and they are equally valid from each person’s perspective. I tend to dislike downtime more than most people and I prefer making tactical decisions over strategic ones. This means that I prefer smaller numbers of players in my games and those that have quick decisions (which makes me particularly fond of the drafting mechanic popularized by Caylus). For me the 3 player rules don’t feel contrived. If I had designed a 3 player game with no 4 player option I would not have done it any differently than Brunnhofer did with Stone Age.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T05:52:34+00:00

drunkenKOALA wrote:
For example, if I have zero hut multipliers and each other player has four I net four points relative to both players by taking it.

You only net four points relative to one of the players, whoever would've taken the 1-7 hut. They can't both take it.

Any resources you spend on the 1-7 hut will reduce the number of huts you can build over the course of the game (thus costing you victory points!)

Not really, unless you are talking about victory points from huts multipliers. The points gained from the huts themselves should be no less, if not greater by spending more on the 1-7 hut.

It might be worth it in a 3 player game to take a 1-7 hut for cheap, in anticipation of the huts multipliers. But I would only consider doing so late in the round when other prime locations have been taken. I'd likely value gathering wood over the 1-7 hut early game. Needless to say the village huts and any decent cards that are worth their price.

1. I didn’t word that correctly. It is of course true that both of your opponents can’t take the 1-7 hut so the mathematical expression of the concept is not perfectly specified – I haven’t had enough time to reflect on it. Regardless I think you are agreeing that you gain an average of four points relative to one of your opponents. If it happens to be the stronger opponent you are therefore gaining four relative points toward victory. You can’t know that for sure but it would seem that paying a single resource for the hut is the way to go. All of this assumes that you are gaining no hut multipliers (which is unlikely given that about 8 are likely to be shared between three players over the course of the game).

2. I didn’t understand your second point. When you put, say, your last gold and two stone into the 1-7 early these are resources that could have been put into a later hut for the same number of victory points. In addition you would lose the points you receive relative to other players from the hut multiplier (minus the loss of about 3 pips for the worker placement).

3. I agree that you should take the 1-7 hut with a late pick and only if you have sufficient wood to pay for your cards, as I said previously. I would add that if you know you will have a couple of wood left over for the following round, the cheap hut is clearly worthwhile.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

drunkenKOALA — 2008-07-02T05:10:38+00:00

I prefer the 4er game not because the gameplay is necessarily better, but because the extra rules for placement in the 3er game feels a bit contrived.

In general I like games with fewer players, because I like to have more control. But 4er Stone Age is still ok in terms of control and is without any artificial rules.

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

Sp3lly — 2008-07-02T05:09:42+00:00

wow - best review ever.
Makes me want to get the game.
Seriously, I am looking for a game my family of four can play when we need a break from Power Grid. I have played Pillars of the Earth (wth expansion) only once and it was okay. I'll have to reread your review all the comments to see if this is the *type* of game I think would be fun. A lot of Euro games are just not "fun" to play. And that doesnt mean a competitive game cannot be fun (we love Power Grid, Catan, Risk, Monopoly, et al.). I'll have to check out some of your other recommended games also. Ive been interested in Last Night on Earth and others.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

drunkenKOALA — 2008-07-02T05:06:45+00:00

For example, if I have zero hut multipliers and each other player has four I net four points relative to both players by taking it.

You only net four points relative to one of the players, whoever would've taken the 1-7 hut. They can't both take it.

Any resources you spend on the 1-7 hut will reduce the number of huts you can build over the course of the game (thus costing you victory points!)

Not really, unless you are talking about victory points from huts multipliers. The points gained from the huts themselves should be no less, if not greater by spending more on the 1-7 hut.

It might be worth it in a 3 player game to take a 1-7 hut for cheap, in anticipation of the huts multipliers. But I would only consider doing so late in the round when other prime locations have been taken. I'd likely value gathering wood over the 1-7 hut early game. Needless to say the village huts and any decent cards that are worth their price.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T04:49:41+00:00

I disagree. In most games 9 hut multipliers will be awarded. To aid analysis let’s say that 8 multipliers will be awarded in an average game. In this case each hut is worth an average of 2.66 victory points to each player in a three player game. If I take a “free” hut that someone else would have gotten I net points regardless of whether I own any hut multipliers. For example, if I have zero hut multipliers and each other player has four I net four points relative to both players by taking it. If I have four hut multipliers and each other player has two I net six points relative to both players. If I have all eight multipliers I net eight points relative to both players. It is true that your return increases as you gain multipliers but even if you have no multipliers a net gain of four points against both players is worth the placement of a single tribe member with a third pick (only 3 or so lost pips after taking wastage into account). The only time this is not the case is if you lack resources to pay for your civilization cards or feed your tribe. Any resources you spend on the 1-7 hut will reduce the number of huts you can build over the course of the game (thus costing you victory points!) so you want to spend as little as possible until you get to the point in the game when you run the risk of not being able to convert all of your existing resources into huts or civilization cards.

You mention that you play a lot of 4 player games. I generally avoid them because for me they make the game longer while often reducing the likelihood of getting shut out of a key resource and thus making the decisions less interesting (to be clear I still think that 4er Stone Age is an excellent game and worth playing, just not as good as 3er). In the case of the 4er the minimum average value of the cheap early hut would be 2.66 victory points relative to the other 3 players. In that case you may want to consider getting a hut multiplier or two before engaging in this strategy. That said in an average 4er you would get 2 multipliers and thus would earn 4 relative points by taking that hut. In my opinion it is still worth it to take the 1-7 and put in as little as possible before the end game.

I want to clarify that my thoughts developed after substantial experience in Stone Age. I have won about 75% of my 3er games on BSW since my initial learning period. That said I recognize that this is a deep game and it is open to debate. My opinion is that the approach that Matthew outlined above is best in the first half of a game.

Thread: Re: POLL: Average game length?

locusshifter — 2008-07-02T02:02:12+00:00

I have to agree; this game is too long for what it is. It should be an hour max...and even that might be too long.

If it were more 30-40 minutes I would probably more interested in playing it.

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

drunkenKOALA — 2008-07-02T01:13:00+00:00

misteralan wrote:
Neil Thomson wrote:
On a side note I was dissapointed to see this miss out on the SdJ. Perhaps it had too much meat for that award and is a better chance for the DsP award later in the year?!
I think Stone Age hasn't been around long enough to create the stir it deserves. I played it 3 player first and was disappointed. Now I am Puerto Rico excited - I think it is that good!

Too heavy may be one factor; another is the need to give Knizia a life-time achievement award. How would the SdJ look if it was said that Knizia never won one?

Thread: Re: POLL: Average game length?

Zalasta — 2008-07-02T11:54:43+00:00

"Too long for what it is" would be my choice.

Thread: Re: POLL: Average game length?

unittype — 2008-07-02T11:34:09+00:00

Werbaer wrote:
From my games, i'd say that the games takes 30 minutes per player for inexperienced players (most of my games so far), and 20 minutes per player for somehow experienced ones. In all these games, nobody tried to accelerate the game end by burning through one stack of huts; i assume playing time will be down to 15 minutes per player in this case.

So for your poll, i need to be able to check multiple selections, depending on number of players.

Agreed. For the one time I tried to rush the game to prevent the others gaining too much cards, I dramatically lost the game, so this seems to be no appropriate strategy anyway.

Greeting,
Carsten

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

drunkenKOALA — 2008-07-02T10:45:07+00:00

jvalj wrote:
After a lot of experience with the game with the great players on BSW I want to endorse Matthew's point above. In the early game it is generally better to spend as few resources when building huts as possible. For example, if I can build the 10 point hut I'll usually choose it over a 14 point hut even if I have the resources available for the latter. I will never put more than one resource into a 1-7 hut. In the mid to late game you need to judge the size of your population and stockpiled resources to determine how many to dump into a 1-7. You want to give yourself the flexibility to benefit from the hut multipliers when they come up. In a three player game you will average 3 bonus points per hut built, which is worth the 3.5 pip placement as a 3rd pick in the draft when you have sufficient wood for your card purchases.

But that is 3 huts multipliers you may or may not get. Better to evaluate first how many huts multipliers you will get, and then decide how to buy your huts.

By the way barring my 0-7 start on BSW, my percentage is over 50% with more 4er games played than 3ers.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T09:55:26+00:00

One clarification on valuation: the average point value of building a hut in a 3 player game is actually 4.5 (the 3 points you get plus 3 points you deny to the other two players divided by 2). This is great value for your measly 3.5 pips with a late pick. All early resources will eventually find their way into a hut or a civilization card so at that point you should put no more than one resource into the 1-7.

Thread: Re: First-Round Choices for the Fourth Player?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T09:44:41+00:00

After a lot of experience with the game with the great players on BSW I want to endorse Matthew's point above. In the early game it is generally better to spend as few resources when building huts as possible. For example, if I can build the 10 point hut I'll usually choose it over a 14 point hut even if I have the resources available for the latter. I will never put more than one resource into a 1-7 hut. In the mid to late game you need to judge the size of your population and stockpiled resources to determine how many to dump into a 1-7. You want to give yourself the flexibility to benefit from the hut multipliers when they come up. In a three player game you will average 3 bonus points per hut built, which is worth the 3.5 pip placement as a 3rd pick in the draft when you have sufficient wood for your card purchases.

Thread: Re: Starvation ain't all it's cracked up to be?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T09:08:29+00:00

I think that these negative responses are missing the point of strategy discussions. They are not here for people who prefer to play a game a couple of times then move on to something else, eventually coming back a few months later. They are for people who have played the game ten or more times who want to understand it and debate what it is about. They are not writing or reading these articles so they can beat all of their friends. It is part of the learning process after you have played the game a bunch of times and are beyond the initial discovery phase. You can learn something new from thinking about a game in a systematic way and then writing up an analysis that other experienced players can consider and respond to.

Thread: Re: POLL: Average game length?

Werbaer — 2008-07-02T08:58:41+00:00

From my games, i'd say that the games takes 30 minutes per player for inexperienced players (most of my games so far), and 20 minutes per player for somehow experienced ones. In all these games, nobody tried to accelerate the game end by burning through one stack of huts; i assume playing time will be down to 15 minutes per player in this case.

So for your poll, i need to be able to check multiple selections, depending on number of players.

Thread: Re: Are sets too weak? And if so, is it a game flaw?

jvalj — 2008-07-02T08:26:27+00:00

In this type of game there is no such thing as "too" weak. The drafting mechanism ensures that the game balances itself. It is only a flaw if you think that going all out for a particular strategy at the beginning of the game is important for your enjoyment. In this case Stone Age is probably not an ideal game for you because it is meant to be played tactically. You make choices based on the state of the game rather than driving the game in the direction you want to go.

To play effectively you should give symbols a lower priority in your drafting order. The game is balanced enough that the cheapest two card slots are always worth more than you pay on any given turn so they will be taken eventually by someone.

I agree that symbols are less valuable in most cases than multipliers (though the ones that give two resources are quite good). Picking them aggressively early in the game is counterproductive. That said, I'll take any symbol for two wood once the village spots are taken and assuming there is not a better value card available in another slot. I will rarely first pick them (unless I already have 4 different types) whereas I commonly first pick the double multipliers. I generally play a balanced strategy so I can always go for the best value card or infrastructure piece when my turn comes, at least until the mid-late game, when I'll focus on my existing multipliers (if I need to get more tools for example) and choose multiplier cards that benefit my strengths.

Thread: Re: POLL: Average game length?

chaddyboy_2000 — 2008-07-02T07:01:15+00:00

I know the game can vary drastically depending on the strategies people are going after. It all depends whether players want to burn through a stack of huts or not.

Thread: POLL: Average game length?

TimothyP — 2008-07-02T06:10:21+00:00

I'd like to know what is the most common average game length.

[poll=10310]

Thread: Re: Stone Age - A Detailed Review

jabesly73 — 2008-07-02T12:55:06+00:00

Great Review! I've found Stone Age a great way to introduce new folks to strategy boardgames, me included.

IMO it plays best with 3 players. With 4 players, the starvation strategy is difficult to stop without a team effort from at least 2 of the other 3 players. With 3 players, you are correct that the starvation strategy is costly.

This is one of my favorite games and one of the few I'd rank a 10. (75 plays in 2 months on BSW)