Game: 6 Billion

Image

AndrewT — 2008-01-23T01:38:33+00:00

Close-up of the unique and colourful game board

Image

mdornbrook — 2007-04-06T21:20:05+00:00

Shot of the side of the box

Thread: Re: User Review

red_gamster — 2006-11-16T11:28:57+00:00

I'd like to play this with the optional rules as the one (big) flaw I found in my only play was too many cards towards the end of the game were made redundant - you spent too long trawling the deck for that one elusive card. It'd make game time more manageable.

Games looks great though - would have liked to have met David a few years before I did, that way I could have pointed out that one flaw (and perhaps helped write the rules?). Very good effort though.

Thread: Re: User Review

envision — 2006-09-12T22:39:56+00:00

Thanks for a nicely structured and very useful review.

Thread: User Review

GSReis — 2005-03-25T03:25:34+00:00

6 Billion took its name from a report of the United Nations which state that the Earth's population is growing at an exponential rate. The time that the population takes to double is always becoming shorter. The game contemplates the future colonization of our Solar System, as an optimistic response to the usual apocalyptic approach on the problem of overpopulation.

Components

The production quality is closer to American standards than to German ones. The box fits in that description, but it's nicely squared and not much smaller than your average Kosmos big box. The board is sturdy enough and the cards look cheap but are acceptable. There is also a cardboard chart, and a mini-board of the same size and material. Sets of plastic tokens complete the game. Considering it's a self-published game, the overall quality is fine, and it's not a bad thing that the final price was relatively low.

However, there are some design issues. The main part of the board is formed by numbered tracks for each planet and the Asteroid Belt. It's a very nice idea that these tracks are represented by planetary orbits, but that is only true for the inner planets, up to the Asteroid Belt. It seems that the board was just too small and the other planets had to get plain straight tracks near the edges of the board. A better solution might have been to place the sun at one side of the board, rather than in the middle, and show only a small part of the orbits. Also, the rounded tokens were not the best choice to keep track of the players' population on each planet, as they are too large and there is no way to have two of them on the same track space without stacking them. They cannot even be properly placed side-by-side on sequential spaces on the tracks and boxes near the edges of the board. Adding to the two different types of tracks, they make it difficult to visualize the board situation.

The art is average. I like the starry space in the background, but the planets could be more like the photos and most artwork I have seen. It would have been nice to have different artwork for each type of card, but they only contain letters and symbols - which are at least functional - on the same background.

Theme

The theme is original and one that I really like. It's presented in a realistic way, thus don't expect alien attacks or mysterious cosmic phenomena. The difficulties faced by the players are famine, pestilence and adverse climatic conditions. The gameplay feels quite abstract, but it cannot be said that the theme was pasted on. The relative distances between planets are correctly represented in the distance chart, the cards try to reproduce the pattern of colonization and migration, and the rules even address the difficulty to establish a colony under the extreme temperatures of Mercury and Pluto. Nice!

The rules

The game is much easier to play than you would think at first, by looking at the rules. I should mention at this point that I've not read the published rulebook, but I have translated the updated rules into Portuguese. It's strongly recommended that you use the latest version, available at the game official site, whichever language you prefer. The rules are very detailed and even redundant at times, but it's better to sin by excess than by scarceness.

Gameplay

Setup is very quick. On the beginning, there is a total population of 6 billion people on the Earth (5 billion with 3 players). These are equally divided into the players and neutral factions, so that each color in play has a token on the number one or two of the Earth population track. Each player gets a hand of 6 cards and a hidden agenda card, which names a planet that will score double points for him. Place one token for each player at the starting space of the score track and you are ready to go.

On each turn, the order of players and neutral factions is randomly drawn. A player turn follows a simple structure. First, there is free doubling. It should be known that each turn represents a variable amount of time, during which population doubles. Thus, each track is numbered 2, 4, 8, 16, etc. There is a limit for free doubling on each planet, but until it's reached, the player just moves his token one space up the track. The next step is to move his tokens from holding boxes to population tracks (more on that later). Then comes the main part, where you play one or two action cards.

The main actions are "Double", "New Colony" and "Migrants". The first is very straightforward: just move a token to the next space on its track. The other two allow you to send people to other planets. You may send one or two billion from a planet where you are established, but you must halve your population there to do so (the excess is lost). Each card has a printed maximum distance, and you must check the distance chart to see where you can go. Migrants typically can go farther, but they can only go where there is already a colony of another color. You don't send people directly to population tracks. Instead, they must stay in the limbo of holding boxes until your next turn, when the markers you put there are moved to the respective tracks. While they are in the boxes, they are vulnerable to action cards of other players, which can remove them. Action cards can be made null by cancel cards, which in turn can be cancelled by response cards. At the end of the turn, the player may discard one card and refill his hand, choosing from three face-up cards and/or the face-down deck.

One interesting feature is the inclusion of one or two neutral factions, depending on the number of players. At the start of a neutral faction's turn, the controlling player is determined according to the current board situation. (That should not be hard, but here is where the design issues come into play: it's not very easy to see the situation at a glance, and you really have to count the tokens.) The player with least colonies is in control, which works as a catch-up mechanic, but in the end, neutral tokens may affect several or all the players. The neutral turn is simpler, as a free migrant replaces card play.

Also noteworthy is that some beneficial cards can only be played on another player or neutral faction. That adds interesting decisions, as you always get victory points by playing those cards.

The game ends immediately when all tracks have at least one token or when population reaches the last space on Earth or the Asteroid Belt. Then players score according to their position on each track. Discovery cards, which can be taken during the game, allow for doubling scoring on certain tracks.

There are optional rules that require the use of the mini-board. It contains three extra tracks, representing other goals. Each card has a symbol that permits players to advance in those tracks, if the action on the card is not taken (player's choice). Each track grants the leading player a special power to change his position in the turn order. That can be very important, especially near the game end, when it may determine whether or not a player will have a turn.

Final comments

While not very engaging, it's a fine game with well-designed mechanics, by an obviously talented designer. It's basically a majority game, but an original one at that. The luck factor with card draws is not high and, with the optional rules, every card may be useful. It's definitely a gamer's game, not for the occasional player. I can't find any real flaw, and my only gripes are related to the general visualization. I would certainly like to see an improved edition, which might put this game in a better light and a more deserving place among the gaming community.

Thread: For those that claim to have difficulty with the rules...

dacoutts — 2005-01-28T06:15:03+00:00

Opinion seems to be split on whether the rules are clear or not. This email is addressed to those who claim to have problems with the rules:

First, make sure you are using the version 2 rules (available since 2000):

http://members.optusnet.com.au/bnbg6billion/6BillionRules.ht...

and example of play:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/bnbg6billion/6billionEG.htm

One or two user's ratings comments for 6 Billion seem to imply the players just can't get their heads around the rules. Ask me. Yes, the URL in the rules has changed. I changed ISP. But 6 Billion has always been easy to find on the Internet, so if you have outstanding questions then I encourage you to ask them.

Some people have claimed that one must refer to the FAQ. This would seem unlikely, given that there are only TWO rules questions on the FAQ. Still, if you don't find your answers in the rules, the example of play, or the FAQ then ask me.

Thread: Re:The loneliness of a solo game designer

maka — 2004-12-04T20:25:27+00:00

dacoutts (#53702),

I didn't know about all that, and am also surprised at the ratings, I got this game last year from a small shop in Madrid, and found it to be very nice. Keep up the good work

Ah! I don't care so much about the pictures... If a game is bad it doesn't matter how pretty the art is, and if a game is good, it's enough...

Thread: Re:The loneliness of a solo game designer

KakarisMaelstrom — 2004-10-29T23:32:04+00:00

dacoutts (#53702),

I honestly found the game kind of fun. I'm a little surprised by how low the rating is... but one lesson from the big dogs I've learned: Never defend yourself. If anything, offer suggestions on ways to solve problems.

When you defend yourself, it makes you appear weak and people continue to attack you. Instead act like their comments do not matter (since they really don't) and keep on promoting!

Image

dacoutts — 2004-09-12T14:27:38+00:00

6 Billion designer David Coutts with Reiner Knizia

Thread: Re:The loneliness of a solo game designer

Latria — 2004-09-10T07:43:46+00:00

dacoutts (#53702),
I don't think you are the only one, I have read similar stories elsewhere. Reviewers can be a little harsh and expectations on rules writing standard and board graphics design has certainly been raised to a very high standard over the past ten years, such that it is very difficult for solo game designers to compete or even comply. I remember Alan Moon commenting somewhere that if he were to go back in time, he would not have started his White Wind project given the hindsight. Glad to hear that you have come around.

Thread: The loneliness of a solo game designer

dacoutts — 2004-09-10T03:12:39+00:00

Following the modest success of 6 Billion after it was launched in 1999 (e.g. listed at number 9 in Games100, and featured on front cover of Games Games Games issue 137), I got involved in a flame war on rec.games.board for - how dare he? - attempting to defend my game from the critics.

I'm not interested in debating that any more - my views have not changed, so there's nothing more to say other than it wounded me deeply.

The point of this article is simply to mention how hard it is to create something like a game (which took a few years effort and over AUD 45,000 of my own money to produce) and then almost single-handedly defend, support and promote it. So, I offer my thanks to those who took the time to provide translations for the game, or offer alternate board designs, or any positive contribution towards the game.

I have found the personal and emotional cost much higher than I ever thought possible. I have lost a few good friends, which still hurts me a good deal. I've never really understood why, either. No doubt it's my fault. I have faced numerous personal dissapointments - promised help that never materialised. Being from England, and living in Melbourne

There was also family tragedy, and personal sickness.

I descended into clinical depression, and though it may have started with 6 Billion it didn't stop there.

I do not expect sympathy for me or my creation, nor reconciliation. I am who am I am, and I do not apologise for that. In some ways I am no doubt my own worst enemy.

However, for those of you who enjoyed my article on the Design And Production of 6 Billion

http://www.discovergames.com/gamedesign.html

this post addendum is for you. Be warned - solo game design is not for the faint of heart.

For those who are interested, I have finally lifted myself out of my depression. I am back. If you ARE a fan of the game, or have any questions about the game, I would be happy to help.

Currently I am working on the science-fiction novel (set in the distant 6 Billion future, 2999AD) which should be ready in one or two years at the most.

Regards,

David Coutts
Proud Designer of 6 Billion

Thread: 15 minutes of fame (or, look where game design can lead)

dacoutts — 2004-09-10T02:38:06+00:00

A funny thing happened after designing 6 Billion - I ended up on a "talking heads" science show discussing Nanotechnology:

http://www.abc.net.au/aftershock/episode2.htm

This was partly due to an article I'd written:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/bnbg6billion/6billionGreyGoo....

and an interview with a nanotech visionary,Robert Bradbury:

http://members.optusnet.com.au/bnbg6billion/6billionMBDebate...

Since, I've written this article on K. Eric Drexler (THE nanotech visionary):

http://members.optusnet.com.au/exponentialist/Drexler.htm

I hope you enjoy them.

Regards,

David Coutts
Designer, 6 Billion

Image

Lobo — 2002-08-06T11:34:02+00:00

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Listed at number 9 in the Games 100 for 2001 in the Family Strategy category

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Whoever wrote the description for 6 Billion does not understand what the game is about. "Relieving population pressures by colonizing the solar system is the idea behind 6 Billion" is NOT what the game is about. Read Per Ardua Ad Astra, and The Cassandra Prophecy on the Official Board Not Board Games website.

[Note from Administrators: We replaced our original description with an 'objective' description from the Board not Bored website.]

As for Mr Degann's comment "If you look at the game mechanics, you'll see that for all practical purposes, growth is really arithmetic, not geometric.", he offers no real argument to back up his claim.

The series "1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024" is an exponential series (or geometric as Mr Degann calls it). Hence, growth is exponential. With such growth, it has been accepted practice since 1798 (Thomas Malthus, "An Essay On The Principle Of Population" to use population doubling when dealing with exponential growth.

I don't mind criticism, and everyone is entitled to their opinion of the game, but if you are going to criticise the game on the basis of its theme then please put some effort into it. I'm tired of such lazy efforts as Mr Degann's, and disappointed that Boardgamegeek can't even accurately describe the game.

Thread: Session Report

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

Present: Alan Stewart (red) , David Coutts (blue), Nick Price (orange), Roger Smith (green)

David Coutts writes:

All players were familiar with playtest versions of the game, having been amongst the playtesters. This, however, was the first time I (or anyone) had ever played "6 Billion" using the finished product - Needless to say I was a bit excited by the prospect! For a quick overview, see:- http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/bnbg.htm

Set up was quick and simple, and we decided to use the optional rules for the Discovery Track (which allows for happy, wealthy, and generally pro-life populations, and allows players to manipulate the otherwise random turn order). With 4 players there are 2 Neutral factions, which were Black and Pink.

The early play saw Alan focusing on The Asteroid Belt, Roger and Nick on Mars, and myself the Earth. For myself, I cancelled Roger's Double card on Earth with Death. Later, I used a Pestilence to stop the free doubling of one Neutral, and a Famine to stop the other Neutral's free doubling on the same turn. I did score 2 points for doubling a Neutral on Earth - the first to score any points!

Alan kept opposing populations low on the Asteroid Belt by shipping them elsewhere. My Asteroid Belt colony was halved when I got sent to Mars as migrants, and both the Neutrals were sent off to Jupiter or Saturn. Roger and Alan started things on the Discovery chart by playing Smileys. Then I got ahead on the Dollar row(but had no victory points to spend!), with Alan joining soon after. Nick, meantime, had a field day with Recycle cards. There are only 2 in the deck, but during the game he used Recycle 4 times and none of the rest of us saw one! Recyle got Nick onto the 2 position of the Leaf row of the Discovery Track, and the other 2 times he used it as a normal action to double his lowest token (and reshuffle the deck - one time he got it straight back after the reshuffle!).

Having been dealt Earth as my Hidden Agenda (there are 2 Hidden Agenda cards each for Earth, Mars and The Asteroid Belt - so in a 4 player game 2 are out), I decided I had to get hold of Double cards as soon as possible. This is because, thanks to the Opening Treaty rule, cards cannot be played against your solitary token (unless you give your permission) whilst you only have one colony (Earth). I wanted to get my token there to "8" before I sent out a colony, as once a token is at "8" it is not halved if it generates a New Colony (normally, tokens are halved to genarate New Colonies and Migrants). So, to maximise my chances of a Double card I had to discard something (you are allowed to discard 1 card per turn, prior to drawing back up to 6 cards). I discarded a "Make A Discovery" Card on the first turn as they are not playable until turn 3, and 2 more were showing in the 3 face-up cards next to the deck (when you draw you can always draw from the 3 face-up cards, or draw blind).

This proved an unfortunate decision as I didn't see another "Make A Discovery" card for the rest of the game (except when the others took one from the face-up cards). You need a "Make A Discovery" card to draw from the Discovery deck. The Discovery deck contains cards that allow you to double your points at game end for one of Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto. Using the Optional rules, it also contains 2 cards each of Smiley, Dollar and Leaf (which double your points at game end on the Discovery Track). Hence, this meant that at game end I had no Discovery cards and so got basic value for my positions on the Discovery Track. During the game, Roger obtained 2 (Smiley and can't remember the other one), Alan got one (Neptune) and Nick got one (Pluto).

The only way to score points during the game is to play cards which affect tokens belonging to another player (get 3 points) or a Neutral (get 2 points). I went ahead there (about 8 points) before Alan passed me by a couple. Nick stayed firmly on zero, with Roger getting only a few points in his last turn. The cards that let you help another player, or the Neutral, can be a double-edged sword. Yes, you get immediate points (even if the action is cancelled), but the other player gains a colony or migrant (either of which may well score points for another player at game end). However, apart from your points you also get to halve one of their lower value (4 or 2) tokens. So, take them away from where they compete with you and give them third place (or worse, if you can) elsewhere.

One area where I did well was in getting Double cards. In the end I got three, 2 of which I used to secure first place on Earth and the other I used on Mars for equal first place with Nick and Roger (Alan never made it to Mars). Earth, Mars and The Asteroid Belt are the big scorers in "6 Billion". Each player gets one Hidden Agenda which doubles these big points for one of Earth, Mars of The Asteroid Belt - but you don't know who you'recompeting with (if anyone at all!).

One of the other features of the Discovery cards (normally kept face-down with your Hidden Agenda, and not part of your hand) is that the planets ones can be used to generate a free colony by revealing the card. For Pluto and Mercury this counts as 2 actions and the rest count as 1 action. During the game Nick did this for Pluto, Alan for Neptune and I don't recall Roger using his. Both Alan's and Nick's made it unopposed.

I managed to colonise Venus later in the game, Roger colonised Uranus, and Roger/Alan colonised Saturn and Jupiter (joined by later colonies and migrants). The typical way a colony works is to play a New Colony card to put your token in the holding box for that population track and, if it survives until your next turn, it becomes established a a colony on the corresponding population track. Migrants can only migrate to established colonies. They too must survive a turn in the holding box for that population track before becoming colonists themselves.

The end game came suddenly. I had helped Nick early on by sending off some colonists to Mercury. I say "helped", but I scored 3 points, one of his population was halved (The Asteroid Belt, I think), and both Mercury and Pluto require 2 tokens to get on the "1" position of that planet. Hence, I had stranded 1 billion of his colonists in limbo in the holding box. This proved crucial in this game, as it turned out.

In "6 Billion" the game can end in 2 ways. Either all the planets and the Asteroid Belt are colonised, or a faction (player or Neutral) gets a token to the 1024 space of the Asteroid Belt or Earth. Many of our playtest sessions ended with a token on a 1024 space, which results in a longer game (2-3 hours quoted on the box). In this game, Nick had sent his second token to the Mercury holding box the turn after I sent a token off to Venus. As it happened these 2 were the last 2 not colonised. Often it is Pluto or Mercury that get colonised last, if at all. But Nick had already colonised Pluto, quite easily as it turned out.

Roger tried to kill off my Venus colonists, but my "Save Our Souls" stopped him. Alan used Power Politics to try to cancel my "Save Our Souls", but my Power Politics stopped his. They landed later on what was to be the penultimate turn. I tried to kill off one of Nick's tokens at Mercury, but he had protection, too, and nobody could stop his protection.

When "6 Billion" ends, it ends immediately. The turn sequence is such that a free doubling or a Migrant or New Colony leaving its holding box for a population track will end the game before the player whose turn it is can play a card. The only other way is for a Double card to push someone up to a 1024 space. Sadly for me, I was no longer in front on any of the rows of the Discovery Track. Hence, I was at the whim of fate. Alan had been careful to sneak ahead of me on the Dollar row, and so could buy positions in the turn order. Roger was Mr Smiley, looked quite happy about it, and could swap positions with one of the Neutrals. Third, and last to be able to manipulate the turn order was Nick (on the Leaf row) who could freely go up or down 1 or 2 postions.

As it happened, Alan spent 2 to go from third to first. Then Roger swapped with Black to go from fifth to second, and finally Nick moved up 2 positions to get third. I was in last place and stayed there. On Roger's turn we exchanged War cards (we each had to halve one of our own tokens of our own choosing) after I stopped him doubling one of his tokens. Then it was Nick's turn, and his Mercury colonists made it! Game Over!

One aspect of the game that I haven't mentioned is control of the Neutrals. Each Neutral faction turn it is necessary to determine who controls that Neutral for this turn. Roughly speaking that is whoever is losing. Throughout our game control was fairly evenly spread, with me having most control in the later game. This allows you to send out a Neutral migrant from where you please to wherever you please (so long as there's a colony there, and the Neutral is not already there).

Another aspect I haven't mentioned is the free population doubling limits. The Asteroid Belt does not have one. We reached the limit on Mars, to Roger's disadvantage, and on Earth too (to my advantage).

The game was over in an hour and twenty minutes. In all my playtesting, 90% of games were around the 2 to 2 1/2 hour mark. There was one game that took an hour, and one game that took 3 hours! Still, I don't mind, it was a fun hour and twenty minutes, even if I did come last!

Alan - 44
Roger - 42
Nick - 40
David - 38

Well played Alan!

Alan, Nick and Roger seemed happy with the game - I look forward to their reports. And I have to say that I am delighted with the final product (but, of course, I would say that), my only concern being lack of space (in the end) for more examples in the rules. Hence the example of play on the Board Not Bored Games web page:

http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6billionEG.htm

Hmmm! "6 Billion" DOES look nice on my games shelf!

Roger Smith writes:

Despite having helped proofread the rules and components a couple of times, I had only played once before. After a couple of turns the rules were coming back to me. This is really a very simple game, with some interesting mechanisms that require you to play once to see just how they work. An example being the difference between migrants and colonies. I also hadn't played with the optional tracks before. These allow you to influence turn order, and add to your final score. I thought they worked really well - in fact I would probably not bother playing without them, except maybe to simplify the game for new players.

Early in the game I noticed David going for all the "nasty" cards (Pestilence, Famine etc.) so my strategy was to collect a reserve of responses/remedies to these and go for an expansionist strategy. I was also lucky to pick up the score doubler for the smiley track on the optional board (where I already had a presence). I was easily able to push myself to the lead on that track. Where I came unstuck was thinking I had a doubler that would give me supremacy on Mars (my hidden agenda) at the end. In fact, it was a doubler for a neutral player, so I ended up sharing the lead with two others - aarrgghh! This would have won me the game; as it turns out, I came second. One interesting aspect of 6 Billion is that you are never quite sure who is winning. In this way it reminds me of games like Civilization and Die Macher. You really have to pay attention and make the most of your two actions. I probably wasn't paying enough attention to the hidden agendas of other players, but I think that was because I was relearning the game. Next time I certainly will.

Finally a word on the components. The game has come up looking 100% professional, easily on a par with the majors. The graphics on the board and cards are well executed and appropriate to the theme. I think David has priced the game well for the Australian market and wish him all the success he deserves

Alan Stewart writes:

The production on the boxes came up well. Colorful, and interesting.

(Maybe there should be a . after THE ASTEROID BELT in the list of ACTIONS on the back).

Heft factor - 8/10
Fart factor (on closing) - moderate

The colors on the board came up well, and there were no problems reading instructions or place names.

The colors chosen for the tokens were easily distinguishable.

The cards were very readable. (The blue strip on `must play on a neutral faction' perhaps a bit dark, but you knew what it meant anyway, and the blue matched the reaction card color).

It was a fairly `friendly' game with only 1 migrants (neutral) sent home. All colonies landed safely, though a few had to fight for the privelege. All discovered planets (Pluto, Neptune) landed safely. Even colonies and migrants sent out by other players landed safely, there was none of the `send out/kill off' double action plays.

Quirks of this game.
Nick saw all the Recycle cards (4).
Alan never saw a Double card.
David only saw 1 Discovery card.

The game ended with all population tracks filled in about 80 minutes. As we all `knew' the game, not much time was spent reading the rules. A bit of backtracking as we forgot the Discovery Track options on the turn order a couple of times.

Working out who controlled the neutrals slowed the game slightly. Perhaps you could give a marker to the person who controls them, and if someone else thinks it should now be them, it's up to them to prove it when the next neutral player's turn arrives, or the current controller keeps on controlling.

Thoughts on this particular game: As the only card I could legally play on my first turn was the free Colony 2 card, I had to send out a colony then. Getting onto one of the Discovery Tracks with a discard was another worthwhile option at this point. I kept a `save our souls' card, but never needed it in the end and should have discarded it. After setting off on the colonisation and Discover scoring tracks, I just needed to pick up some points by palying scoring cards. This developed into a 'score a bit in all three areas' strategy.

Two mistakes: I should have sent a colonist (from David) to Mercury, instead of Saturn, as it probably wouldn't have earned him any points.

On my last turn, I played 1 discovery card (drew Saturn - useless). I could play another discovery, hoping to double Jupiter or the $ track (possible extra 4 points), but instead I played `send out a colony' on Nick for 3 points. Mistake! I should have sent out a colonist from David which would not be able to land before the game ended. Instead Nick's colonist landed on Uranus, earned him 3 points, and then he ended the game by landing on Mercury.

Overall a close game, and I wasn't sure who was winning. Nick seemed to have the best colonising spread but no points on the board, while I had points in all three areas.

Rules problems and queries?
If a `discard when played' card is discarded to advance on one of the optional Discovery Track, is it removed from the game or just remains in the discard pile?

Not stated specifically in the rules: If you have more than 1 population token to move from the holding boxes to a planet, is it up to the controlling player in what order this happens?

At the end of the game Nick had a token to land on Uranus (and earn 3 points) and tokens to land on Mercury (earn 4 points and immediately end the game!). We played that it was up to Nick what order they landed in, and of course the one on Uranus landed first!

Nick Price writes:

6 Billion - First Game with a Production Copy

First up is one of the most interesting part of any board game with counters; picking the colours. There must be papers on the psychology analysis of colour counter selection. This must be the first game where no one has bid for the black at all and I have it as a choice! So I select orange. Never a popular choice that I know of unless you are a Dutchman. As I am not Dutch I'm still not sure what drew me to it. Pity maybe.

I've played the game a couple of times before but with long gaps in between and so hope to play late in the turn so I can pick up the moves again. This falls good for me. The game has an almost in built mechanism to teach the reticent the game as the player trailing has to move the neutral players and thus gets extra practice. So the early days of the game see me at the back but I get to shift the neutrals around at least once which gets the gears oiled again.

The optional rules board throws me a bit but fate, and an ill shuffled deck maybe, puts recycle cards into my hands with abandon. This allows me to establish myself on the hard/expensive Leaf row of the Discovery Track while the others fight it out on the cheapies. I have to admit I didn't quite know why it was good to be there but as every one else was using the options I thought I had better be in it. This turned out to mean I had an ability to move around the playing order a bit after the counters were drawn. Whoopee ! Now if I only I had that long term strategic thinking to actually use it to great advantage. At best this was more of a psychological advantage for me over the others (I rationalised) which I 'exploited' by some meandering of my counters around with some vague abandon in the guise of 'a plan'.

My strategy this time was to colonise and focus on my Hidden agenda 'Mars'. How sophisticated can you get. I had been ill served with cards that generated points this time so I had to procreate or fail! (I kept getting all these bloody recycle cards in my hand - ho ho). Being the cunning and subtle person I am I immediately hooned off for Mars without pretence or feint elsewhere. As the game progressed there was quite a bit of competition for Mars but I guess its one of those 'name' planets that every has to have. A bit like Bali I suppose but without the fake watch sellers. Plaster of Paris canals but no watches.

Everyone strikes for the Asteroid Belt and of course I was no exception. It was the usual shuffling up and down there with people pumping out, literally it strikes me, colonies for themselves and each other. Not a pretty or scenic place but always a good battle ground. The rest of my colonisation was pretty much driven by other people on my behalf although I burst out for Pluto (as I remember it) because I had drawn an agenda card for it. I think by this time you can see my mulitextured and dimensional approach to winning the game. 'Knee jerk' some might call it.

So by luck and design I had a 'shotgun' attempt at colonising the solar system from the inners of Mercury to the outers of Pluto, the obligatory Earth and the hop on to Mars and of course the Asteroid belt. My 'strategy' lead to the end of the game as by chance I ended up colonising the final planet. I would have had an interesting and hardy race of people at the end given the harsh environments they had to live in. At this point it strikes me that perhaps that the race/people that time has forgot and leap-frogged may have a resurgence in the future where their stalwart genes made for living in unwelcoming and dreary places may come to the fore. Like the American Red Indian and the Australian aborigine the Welsh may well be an untapped resource for the future. 'Look you boyo, I'm off to Pluto'

My final position, third, reflected my poor points cards, or I should admit my lack of play of them. My observations of these cards are that as well as earning points they lead to the more subtle strategies for knocking your opponents back by forcing them to generate colonies/migrants from their progress on different tracks. By now you know that where you see me use the word 'subtle' you know this means 'something powerful and/or complex happens there but I don't understand what'. The session was quick and fun as we had all played the game before. The players all had different styles and dealt with their 'hand' in different ways and used different approaches. Very interesting.

I enjoy playing the game as there are different strategies to try depending on how the cards fall out for you or how you want to play. The simplicity for a racing colonisation game versus a points fever game is there plus, as you develop, more deeper mechanisms to play with. Strategies using cards to force others to send out migrants/colonies, using the discovery track, using your agendas and the use of the neutrals gives you a lot of things to explore. Also the elements of the game offer opportunities to play with the rules such as control of the neutral players.

The quality of the games production is very good and visually interesting in presentation. The form and movement of the game with the variety of possibilities without having the use a dice, sometimes a playing bottleneck, is good. The opportunity for strategising while awaiting your turn in a round is very useful and can lead to quick play. I'd recommend the game for competitive play, even learning the game is interesting as you see natural strategies emerge for players and get to look at its backdrop too.

Thread: Session Report

davekohr — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

(RicB, JohnH, CharlesP) :

I heard Ric make the remark "it's like Chutes & Ladders, but without the ladders" which does not bode well....

RickB: "But what you should have heard was my comment that it "had all the strategy, skill, and excitement of abacus manipulations."

Seriously, this was a wierd little board/card game that showed a lot of desire to display refined graphics on the board but not refined play value. Little flaws like the fact that your tracking chits (small poker chips) completely covered the numbers you were trying to reference on the board made me wonder if it had been beta tested. Determining where you were in your finishing status was an algorythmic challenge. And there was a serious lack of variety in play strategies. Maybe it's just me, but a game that admits it's going to take two to three hours to finish should have a little more depth.

No winner here, Charles and I almost simultaniously suggested we call the game a draw after the first hour or so. Charles was muttering something about canceling his preorder...

I did however like how the game represented the real distances between planets. Gotta say something nice, right?"

CharlesP: "I liked John's comment of the board being "like Barbarella, but without Jane Fonda." A gaudy mix of pastel colors, bizarre population track shapes (inner planets in big circles which don't start in the same place and outer planets in separate small boxes located arbitrarily around the board), and confusing new colony and migrant holding boxes made for poor utility of the playing surface. The "meat" of the rulebook was covered in a confusing few pages; the various mechanics from choosing who controlled the neutral factions to the utilization of the holding boxes were poorly organized and explained. I really wanted to like this game (since it's already on the way to me and I want to make the most of my 15 bucks!); with a rewrite of the rules and an edited board, this could be an interesting abstract short game.

I haven't read them yet, but in regards to our 6 Billion description, I see the rules have undergone a new edition, including a much-needed example of play.

http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6BillionRules.htm

Thread: Session Report

davekohr — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

(RichI, JohnH, CharlesP, Rick, DaveO) :

quotes of the evening:

RichI: "This game is not quite as bad as Assassin."

DaveO: "This game rules!"

the quotes say it all but wait, there's more! :-)

RichI: "Seriously, the big problems with the game are:

- murky rules, There lots fiddly rules: the difference "migrating" and "establishing a new colony" that add nothing to the game, the rules are badly phrased--instead of saying "You cannot migrate to a planet if you have the maximum number of one token on that planet.", say instead "You only allowed to have one token per planet.", etc. Cards that that can be used only to aid an opponent or the neutral faction (Why is a neutral necessary in this game?) Fiddly rules for distances, etc.

- murky artwork, that, in addition to being uninteresting, is really hard to see what the heck is going on (numbers are barely visible, board not logically laid out, lots of boxes and areas for minimal bookkeeping, fuzzy almost "dot matrix" text on the score and turn order track.) The cards have loads of 2 point text limiting when you can play it, whether it helps an opponent or the neutral, etc.

Actually if the artwork and rules had been better, I think the game would not have been too bad. These two problems really drag the game down. If think a game could be found there, if I could stand looking at that board..."

Thread: Session Report

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

Playing: Donna, Alan & David

With less than an hour to go I asked Donna & Alan if they'd try a short-game variant for 6 Billion that I'm trying out, which they were happy to do. Both were familiar with the game (I think Alan has the rules committed to memory!), though Donna was a bit rusty. I designed it, so no excuses for me (even so, we did make 1 error - see below).

We used a combination of Variant 14 ("A Token Gesture") and an old suggestion of Doug Adams' to only use 1 Neutral (it should be 2 for a 3 player game): http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6billionVar.htm

Alan raised the question of whether the limited number of tokens includes or excludes the tokens required for the turn order track and scoring track. They are included, so playing with 10 tokens gives you only 8 tokens for population tracks and discovery tracks. At my suggestion, we opted for 11 tokens each which gave us 9 playable tokens each.

I'd drawn the Earth hidden agenda and, as it turned out, so had Alan. This became obvious when he used a total of 3 Double cards to reach the free doubling limit. Not good for me. Donna's hidden agenda also became obvious when she quiclky colonised Mars, then killed off some Neutral migrants and also used a Double card on herself to take a commanding lead.

Both Alan & I toyed with the idea of not expanding from Earth. This is a difficult strategy to win with, requiring dominance of all 3 discovery tracks and lots of VP cards played. If the other players see what's going on it's fairly easy to stop. So, we both colonised The Asteroid Belt. The Asteroid Belt was a much more interesting and closely contested location. Donna took an early lead, then I slowed her with a Famine. Stupidly for me, when Donna later played a Pestlince on my Asteroid Belt colony, I reponded with a War. Donna retaliated with her own War, and I only had 2 colonies to choose from - Earth & The Asteroid Belt. Donna was too close on Earth, and there was no free doubling there, so I had to let The Asteroid Belt suffer the war. Donna, by this time, had more colonies than Alan & I put together. So, she was able to suffer minor casualties on Saturn (where she had no competitors) for my War on her.

Another fun play on the Asteroid Belt was when I played a Colony (for Another Player) and Migrants (for Another player) on Alan's colony there. Because it was on the 16 space it had to drop back to 8 and I scored 6 points. The colony went to Mercury, the Migrants to Jupiter (Alan wwould be behind Donna, me & the Neutrals!).

A key play from Donna (see later), much to Alan's annoyance, was when she took control of the Dollar discovery track from Alan (who had the Discovery card for it). On the discovery tracks, I quickly put tokens on all 3. Alan tried to dominate Dollar, and also stopped my dominance of Smiley. The discovery tracks, apart from earning you victory points at the end of game (doubled or quadrupled if you have the appropriate Discovery cards), also allow the leading player to alter the turn order after it is drawn. Note that the game normally ends immediately (denying other players a turn!) a token reaches a 1024 space, or all population tracks are occupied. Using the variant, the game now also ends when a faction (player or neutral) runs out of tokens. So, control over the turn order is crucial as the game reaches a conclusion...

As the end approached, Alan revealed his Discovery card for Mercury and placed a further 2 tokens in the Colonists half of the Mercury holding box (making 3 in total). This is actually against the 2nd edition rules which limit each half (Colonists / Migrants) of any holding box to 2 billion each. (See 6.2 Holding Boxes) http://www.bnbg.com.au/~bnbgames/6BillionRules.htm

As it turned out, not only did Donna take control of the Alan's prized Dollar track, but she also equalled me on the Leaf track (meaning that nobody can use the Leaf power to adjust turn order). Cleverly, she did this at the end of 1 turn, whilst in a position to place her last token on the Smiley discovery track. Ideally, she'd want to go first so that Alan and I missed out on a turn...

The turn order for what was to be the last turn was drawn: David, Donna, Alan, Neutral. Well, by spending just 1 VP, Donna was able to move up the turn order to first spot. Neither Alan nor I could do anything about it.

By this point, Donna was looking in a good position, but it's always a gamble ending the game (scores can be doubled by Hidden Agendas, or doubled / quadrupled for Discovery cards). On the VP track, I was ahead by about 5 points on about 15, then Donna, then Alan (who'd only scored a 4 or 5 points).

Well, going first gave Donna control of the Asteroid Belt over Alan (for a net 8 point gain over Alan), and Venus (for a net 6 point gain over me). Plus, Alan's Mercury colony was still in its holding box, so didn't score (a sure 8 points for Alan). Then, of course, both Alan or I would have played cards to score more points for ourselves, or deny others points.

The variant played in 1 hour - excellent. It also highlighted a new tactic - always keep 1 discovery track free as you can instantly (without fear of it being killed like colonists or migrants) place your last token to end the game!

We thought Alan was also in this position, but he would have got tokens (which should only really have been 1) back when he colonised Mercury. Both Pluto & Mercury have a 2 for 1 "exchange rate" which always means you get a token back when you go there.

Scores:
Donna - 51
David - 36
Alan - 29

Alan finished the evening by generously giving Donna and I a chocolate Yowie (a Yowie is a mythical Australian beast).

Thread: Preview

Jonathan Degann — 2000-07-09T18:09:36+00:00

Without giving a full review here, I've played 6 Billion once, and found it to have merit - but didn't find it to be exceptional. One advantage - I was taught by someone who had already played and who worked out problems in the rules.

The board, the chips, the card fonts did not especially bother me. I agree that the solar system display is not intuitive. It might have been better to put the sun in one corner and have quarter orbits emanating from that point. I will agree though that there are too few interesting decisions - and some game mechanics that ultimately harm the decision making (like the rule that allows you to make free colonies after a point). The most damaging aspect was the fact that the game is not fluid. There is insufficient opportunity to fight it out for control of a planet once someone has a lead.

I also found the whole "doubling" concept to be pasted on. If you look at the game mechanics, you'll see that for all practical purposes, growth is really arithmetic, not geometric. Indeed, the game might have worked better using wooden cubes to "grow" rather than movement along a track.

In short - I'd play it again; I'm in no rush to own it. A 5-6.

Image

2000-04-17T01:26:25+00:00