Game: Cityscape

Thread: Re: Dividing blocks between players

Cashtool — 2008-06-12T14:35:18+00:00

The easiest way to solve the one block problem is to play four rounds of Cityscape, with each player getting an "extra" for one round. The game is short enough for everyone to play four rounds in one setting and tally the scores.

Thread: Re: Dividing blocks between players

dale walton — 2008-06-04T19:01:24+00:00

This suggested variant can change play significantly, but mainly would encourage the small blocks to be played first and large block last. This means the effect of the final blocks is greater, which may give the last player(s) even more ability to unbalance the game.

If you like playing with pre-allocated blocks, the next level of complication is to auction them by bidding reductions in your score to get possession. - Or even bartering during play. However Cityscape is fun because it is fast, and I think an auction would become heavier than the game itself.

A simpler concept, that would require play testing to fine tune, would be to charge one or more point per building height that a player uses. (Maybe 3 points per unit height if the 25 point tallest building scoring is used) This would give encouragement to use smaller buildings to optimise one's score, and might mean larger buildings were left until later in the game. One player might choose goals of one and 2 and use only small pieces - or bluff and achieve higher goals with small investment, another might spend to dominate the layout of the city. If the cost is well balanced, there would be a variety of possible building selections at the last round.

These do have the disadvantage of adding running scoring deductions to the game.

Image

Terraliptar — 2007-07-31T20:44:18+00:00

Detail shot 2

Image

Terraliptar — 2007-07-31T20:42:59+00:00

Detail shot 1

Thread: Re: Fixing the first player brokenness

Cashtool — 2007-06-24T04:22:32+00:00

Or. . . just play four rounds, with each player taking turns to be the first to move. This works out well since the game moves quickly.

Thread: Re: cityscape puzzle #1

alextfish — 2007-06-14T09:50:59+00:00

600 is the highest possible score, with the arrangement you show.

Proof:
The maximum score for any player is 160. If each player scores 150, you get the board shown above, scoring 600. So for a score to be higher than 600, at least one player must score 160: i.e., must score 40 for each of their 4 rows.
Note that the theoretical maximum score for all players would be 640 (4 x 160). So if a total score is to be higher than 600, not only must at least one player score 160, but all players must score at least 130 (as 120+160+160+160 = 600).

How can a player score 40 for each of their 4 rows? The only plays that can score 40 are 4, 5 or 6. Consider each of these in turn.

If a player were scoring a 4, then the opposite player could score a maximum of 10 for that row (a 1 or a 6 could score 10, while nothing would be scored for a 2, 3, 4 or 5). So this opposite player's score would be at most 130 (40+40+40+10). Thus, there can be at most one 4 scored anywhere on the board. 4s are not the way.

If a player is using a 6 to score 40, a 5 would also have scored 40 for the same row. Thus, we can assume nobody is using 6s (by replacing them all with 5s).

In other words, we can assume at least 14 of the 16 dice around the board are 5s, with at most one 4, opposed by a 1. But if there were such a 4, then at least one of the 5s on the board would not be maximised. (This can be proved - it's fairly obvious, but fiddly in the detail. I can provide a proof if anyone wants.) Thus a score containing a 4 can't be greater than the 600-point configuration shown above.

So there are no 4s or 6s: everyone's chosen 5. Now it just remains to prove that the arrangement in the picture above is optimal.

This isn't quite as obvious as it looks, because there could be a set of heights a, b, c and d (some of which might be the same) which could be distributed as follows, to let everyone score fully for their 5s:
a a b b
a a b b
c c d d
c c d d

However, here's where parity comes to our rescue. The available blocks are 5 copies of each of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. So the total height is 75. This is an odd number, so it can't be divided into matching pairs or fours. So there must be an odd number of towers which have a different height to all the others. Thus, at least one vertical row will have either 1 or 3 of this height in it, as will at least one horizontal row. Thus, for each of the players, at least one of their 5s will score 30 or less, making the maximum score 600.

This proves that the board above is optimal.

Note that if we were on a board of size 5x5 or larger, parity wouldn't help, because we could get rid of an odd number of heights in a 3x3 block like this:
a a a b b
a a a b b
a a a b b
b b b b b
b b b b b

Note also that if you don't require all the blocks to be played to the board, the maximum score of 640 is easily possible:
5 5 4 4
5 5 4 4
3 3 2 2
3 3 2 2

Thread: Dividing blocks between players

alextfish — 2007-06-13T13:54:47+00:00

I mentioned in this thread the simple variation that we always use when playing Cityscape, of leaving one block unplayed.

But for those who get irritated with the way the largest blocks go first, there's an alternate variant that's more significant: at the start of the game, you divide the blocks between the players, and each player can only play the blocks they got allocated.

This is quite a big change to the game, and it changes the way play happens: rather than everyone rushing for the biggest blocks before they run out, some people might play the biggest blocks first, but others save theirs till the final turns.

The division takes a little working out. For 3 players, the natural division is this:

First player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 1,2,3,4 (total: 25)
Second player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 2,3,5 (total: 25)
Third player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 1,4,5 (total: 25)

Thus, each player gets 25 height worth of blocks; and the first player gets one extra turn, but gets one fewer size-5 block compared to the others.

For 2 and 4 the divisions don't work so neatly. For 2 players, I suggest:

First player gets: 2 copies of 1,2,3,4,5, plus 1,2,4 (total: 37)
Second player gets: 2 copies of 1,2,3,4,5, plus 3,5 (total: 38)

Thus the first player is also last player, but the second player gets one chunk more of height than the first, and one more size-5 block than the first.

For 4, you could use:
First player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 1,2 (total: 18)
Second player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 5 (total: 20)
Third player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 4 (total: 19)
Fourth player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 3 (total: 18)

Or perhaps:
First player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 1,3 (total: 19)
Second player gets: 1,2,2,4,5 and 5 (total: 19)
Third player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 4 (total: 19)
Fourth player gets: 1,2,3,4,5 and 3 (total: 18)
(These 4 player versions haven't been tested.)

Thread: Fixing the first player brokenness

alextfish — 2007-06-13T13:42:44+00:00

My wife and I played this game at a friend's a couple of weeks ago, and liked it enough to immediately pick up a copy. The speed of play and combination of making your plans, then trying to bring them about, clicked with something inside us.

But the benefit for the first player (being last player, and getting one more block than anyone else) seemed rather unfair. We quickly came up with the following variant, which we've been using since then:

The game ends when there is 1 block left in the box.

Thus, rather than 25 blocks being played and the first player also being last player (whether you have 2, 3 or 4 players), instead 24 blocks are played, and so each player gets the same number of turns.

It's a very simple and minor variation, but it does fix one of the biggest problems in the game.

Thread: Re: cityscape puzzle #1

spearjr — 2006-11-09T02:51:33+00:00

I'll have to double check, but I think it may be possible to score 640 points. (Although, I'm probably wrong.) However, if this is possible, I'm positive that 640 is the absolute highest.

*Update*
Nope, I'm in agreement, 600 is the best score possible.

Image

IronMoss — 2006-10-13T20:03:17+00:00

Cityscape Box

Thread: Re: cityscape puzzle #1

mrbass — 2006-10-10T22:10:20+00:00

this game is 50% off for $16.50 at amazon now. Just saying.

Thread: cityscape puzzle #1

ddyer — 2006-10-10T20:58:55+00:00

Cityscape ought to be a rich source of puzzles. I'm officially
offering 5 GG for improvement in the solution to the following
puzzle (or for a proof that the current solution is optimum)

Highest Total score (sum of all player scores) in a 4-player game.
Baseline: 600 points for the referenced picture.
]]>
To claim your gold, simply post a picture with your claim as a caption.

Image

ddyer — 2006-10-10T20:55:00+00:00

600 points. All four players play all 5's

Image

IronMoss — 2006-09-29T20:52:19+00:00

Cityscape - A View of New York

Image

IronMoss — 2006-09-29T20:46:48+00:00

Cityscape

Image

IronMoss — 2006-09-29T20:27:39+00:00

Cityscape

Thread: Re: OtB rules different from the rules in my edition(Austral

GeoMan — 2006-06-27T19:28:13+00:00

In the original Pin International edition the scoring is as you described. The OtB rules are somewhat different (simplified).

Thread: OtB rules different from the rules in my edition(Australia)

shawn_low — 2006-06-27T07:01:34+00:00

This is strange:

I downloaded the rules for the Out of the Box version and it differs from my edition. I got mine in Australia and it comes with 4 sets of rules (English, Spanish, German and French).

Changes:

1) With the '5' dice, my rules say that you score 10 points for each building of the same height HORIZONTALLY ACROSS a player's front row. This means that the 5 doesn't need to be set to a specific row.

2) The '6' scoring is different. My rules state that you score 10 points for each building in that row as tall as the tallest building. OtB's version says to score 25 points if the tallest building is in the row.

Now this changes scoring substantially! I will try this set out and see which one's better!

Perhaps the poorer reviews here are due to playing with differing sets of rules?

Thread: Re: Cityscape is a broken game

dale walton — 2006-05-31T10:38:43+00:00

Thank you for raising your points. Cityscape is indeed a family-fun kind of game with some thinking, not a heavy strategy game.

However, before calling it a "box of poop", please note exactly what the rules state about who goes first:

"For the first round the youngest player takes the first turn. Subsequent rounds will be started by other players in rotation."

Thus each player gets a chance at starting a round. And therefore each player has an equal chance to make use of any "broken" strategy. The game is short enough that this should be feasible.

The tallest building is indeed 25 points each side (giving the 50 points you mention.) This is not totally automatic, the blocks actually have to be placed there at the expense of other goals. With two players, the second player may or may not choose to immediately fight the first player's first placement, but may work on other goals first(assuming that the second player even chose this goal at all.) The first player must then choose to consolidate his advantage at the loss of playing elsewhere, or allow the second player a chance to consolidate his own attempt at highest building at a different position. Whether this is actually worth doing depends on how well the opponent's placements fit with your goals, and whether you want, or do not want to consume blocks in a race for tallest as part of your overall strategy.

Also, if your play becomes too predictable, your opponent may set his goals to make use of your placements as well as his own.

For two players who find they are stuck in a predictable strategy, because it is consistantly working for them, (e.g. due to fixed beliefs about what is best play) the game you can easily be varied with house adjustments. For example, when playing with only two players, adjust the value of tallest building down (say to 15 points) or require that the highest building scores only once per player per building.

Never-the-less this game is intended for quick play for enjoyment, and not as a brainburner.

Thread: Cityscape is a broken game

Illeagle — 2006-04-13T03:43:39+00:00

A 2,3 or 4 player game with 25 blocks, indicating that there will be 25 turns. This means that whoever goes first (according to the game's official rules, this is always the youngest player,) will have the advantage as he/she always gets to go first and last.

Why does this break the game? It gives the first player a virtual lock on getting the tallest building built where he wants. In a two player game, this is especially game-breaking as it is an automatic 50 pt. score. A heckuva deficit for any player to overcome.

Why is this a MENSA select game? Hell if I know. My buddy said it's MENSA select because it teaches you that life is unfair as we're not all on a level playing field.

Do yourself a favor, pass on this box of poop.

Image

fuzzyfife — 2006-02-04T20:06:39+00:00

Thread: Cityscape - Session Report

gschloesser — 2006-01-18T14:08:42+00:00

PIN International has been releasing a series of wooden games, mostly abstract in nature. The games are being distributed by Out of the Box, apparently giving them a wider audience. Normally, I would not be a member of that audience, as I’ve never really been a connoisseur of such games. While I’ve always appreciated the tactics and skills required to play them, I’ve generally found them to be rather dull and a bit too confining.

Well, I must say that the PIN line seems refreshingly different. There are over a dozen games in the line, and I’ve played a half-dozen or so. Most seem to be original designs, with one or two being remakes of earlier titles. Of those I’ve played, City Scape is one of the most lavishly produced, and perhaps the most novel.

Players will take turns placing hunky wooden blocks onto a 4 x 4 grid, attempting to stack the blocks so that their four secret goals are met. There are 25 blocks in total, five each of five different sizes, and they stack evenly and solidly, allowing for tall skyscrapers to be formed without toppling.

Each player receives four diminutive dice and a holder sporting the name of a famous city. Players will secretly insert these dice into the holder, aligning each die with one of the columns on the board. The number atop each die represents the target or goal the player is attempting to accomplish for the corresponding column:

• If the player has placed a 1, 2, 3 or 4 on top of a die, then he will attempt to arrange pieces in the corresponding column so that, respectively, 1, 2, 3 or 4 buildings are visible from his perspective.

• If a “5” is face-up on the die, then the player is attempting to get at least two buildings of the same height in the corresponding column.

• If a “6” is placed face-up, then the player is attempting to have the tallest building on the board in the corresponding column.

The challenge is to place blocks in such a fashion so as your objectives are met. Each player views the board from where he is seated, with the actual line-of-sight being from the tabletop. Thus, a taller building will obscure a smaller or equal-sized building located behind it. Of course, when attempting to place blocks so satisfy your goals, you could be helping opponents meet theirs. More often than not, however, your placements tend to impede the objectives of your opponents, much to their consternation.

While there is a certain thrill in attempting to meet your goals, in reality, one really doesn’t have a huge degree of control, particularly when playing with four players. Not only are each player’s goals likely to be different, but even when their dice match yours, their seating and board perspective will likely cause any matching objectives to be in different rows. So, for every block you get to place, there will be multiple blocks placed over which you have no control. Usually, you have to eventually choose two or perhaps three rows on which to concentrate. Very rarely someone will score all four rows, but that is inevitably largely a fluke.

Since there are 25 blocks to place, one or more players will have less blocks to place than their opponents. The game addresses this unbalance by suggesting the game be played over the course of a number of rounds equal to the number of players. That’s fine, but when playing with a full complement of players, four rounds just seems a bit too many.

At the end of each round, points are tallied for each row wherein a player has met his objective:

‘1” = 10 points
“2” = 20 points
“3” = 30 points
“4” = 40 points
“5” = 10 points for each building of equal height
“6” = 25 points for having the largest building in this row

Since it is more difficult to have three or four buildings visible in a row, greater points are awarded for achieving such a task. So, players must decide whether they wish to play conservatively and attempt to achieve one or two buildings visible, or “go for the gusto” and try to meet more lofty goals.

The reality hits you after a round or two that there really isn’t much control here. Still, strangely and perhaps inexplicably, I still find the game fun to play. There is a certain sense of achievement when goals are met, even though you know that it was mainly accomplished via sheer luck. That really should bother me … and it usually does. But for some reason, I still find myself enjoying this game.

Gail, Jim, Jared and I vied to construct the skyscrapers and meet our objectives, knowing that we would likely not play four full rounds as we were expecting the arrival of Ray at any moment. Sure enough, Ray arrived midway through our first round, so we opted to cease play after its completion. Jim and I both scored a “3” row and 25 points for the tallest building.

Finals: Jim 55, Greg 55, Gail 50, Jared 50

Image

Regai — 2006-01-16T14:10:17+00:00

Photo from abstractstrategy.com (Used with Permission)

Thread: Cityscape Review

LittleMisfit — 2005-10-23T23:38:17+00:00

In Cityscape you are trying to build the city to your own specifications. The problem is that your opponents are trying to build the city to their own set of specifications, which are different from yours. Players take turns placing blocks onto the city forming buildings of varying heights. The player that matches their specifications the closest wins. Click here for detailed rules.

Like all of the Out of the Box MasterPiece games, the components are highly crafted stained wood. The game is very easy to learn and only takes about 10 minutes to play. It's a perfect game to play while you're waiting for the rest of your gaming group to arrive.

You can play with up to 4 players, but I don't think this game works that well with more than 2. With 4 players, it just becomes a game of luck where you have very little control over what happens. You pretty much just hope that people don't screw up your plans too much. With 3 players, the player with no one across from them has a distinct advantage. The 2 player game works exactly the same as the 4 player game, but each player plays 2 sides. The reason I like this better is because it gives you a little more to think about. You have to play your piece so that it works for both of your sides. If you're not careful, you could do a move that helps one of the sides you are playing, but accidently screw up the other side you are playing. The two player game seems more mentally challenging and less chaotic.

On a scale of 1 to 10, I would give Cityscape a 6. Although it's not a bad game, it's not one I see myself playing more than a few times a year. I think casual gamers would enjoy this game more.

Thread: Session Report

Don Quixote — 2005-03-09T12:51:03+00:00

Cityscape - Well all of our heads were spinning so we decided to take a little breather and try something less complex.

Cityscape is a really cool uber-heavy wood game. Each player has a dice tray and 4 dice. Before them is an empty cityscape this is a 4 x 4 grid. Before the game begins, each player puts in his dice code for what he wants to see from his perspective (that would be looking straight ahead down his four rows).

So lets say a player wants to be able to see 2 buildings in row 1, 3 buildings in row 2, the highest building in row 3 and 3 buildings in row 4. His dice would read (2 - 3 - 6 - 3). The other options are 1 (for only 1 building), 5 where you have equal buildings in that row). Pretty simple enough. Well the crazy part comes from the fact that there are 3 other people who have 3 other vantage points that they are trying to form as well. Then the game begins.

Each player takes turn selecting from 5 different sized blocks to begin building buildings. Once all blocks are placed, the game ends. Each player then reveals his dice tray and points are scored.

This game just flies and we managed to play 3 or 4 times. It’s a beautiful game to look at and a great filler.

Thread: User Review

beauka — 2005-01-14T14:30:19+00:00

Cityscape is one of those deceptively simple-looking games that never seem to get you where you want to be. The board consists of a 4 x 4 grid upon which players place blocks to build towers to match their pre-determined specifications. There are five each of five different sized blocks. Before the game, each player uses four dice to notate how they want the view from their side of the board to look: for example you may want your first row to have at least two towers of the same height, row two to have at least two different towers visible from your angle, row three to hold the highest tower of the game, and row four to have three different towers visible. Some plays (like having more towers visible) are much harder to get than others, and therefore reward more points if completed.

The game is okay with two or four players, and is fairly lopsided four three players. With two players you will generally want to each play two adjacent sides, as this adds a lot more strategy and otherwise the game can turn into a fairly boring cat and mouse game. One problem with the game is that the taller blocks are generally the most important, as these can help insure a tall tower where you want them. With five blocks, the first player (whether playing with two or four players) will always get to play more of the taller blocks than any other player. The first player to place will also get to be the last player to place, adding to the innate imbalance of the set up.

Fortunately, because the games plays extremely quickly (generally in less than five to ten minutes), you can alleviate this problem by having each player go first at least once and totalling the scores at the end. Playing four games with four players allows each person to reap the advantages of going first while still clocking in at under a half an hour.

The price tag on the game is a bit prohibitive for what it is. The high-quality wooden board and blocks look fabulous, and are very attractive, especially to non-gamers that you would like to introduce into the world of higher strategy games. However, it is very easy to replicate play without the board -- we even play with paper and pencil as an "advanced tic-tac-toe" when there's nothing better to do. If a high-end, low-level game is what you need to fill a niche in your collection, you could do a lot worse than Cityscape.

Thread: User Review

tolendante — 2004-09-02T23:13:25+00:00

Sjakk Griffioen's Cityscape is a unique abstract strategy game that plays quickly but still allows an ample opportunity for strategic decisions. The game is played on a square board divided into sixteen smaller squares. The object of the game is to build a city that has a skyline that matches the one predicted. It is a simple game that can be taught in a matter of minutes, but which holds up to repeated plays.

Before the start of a round, players use dice to predict the skyline of the city that will be created by all players during the course of the game. If a player puts a one in a column, he or she is predicting that, from his or her point of view, only the first building in the column will be visible (any building behind a shorter or identical building is considered blocked). Placing a two predicts two building will be visible. A four, four buildings. Playing a five predicts that at least two buildings in a column will be of the same height. A six predicts that the highest building in the city will be in that column.

Players take turns choosing and placing blocks of various heights on the board in an attempt to manipulate the skyline in their favor. As the game progresses, players must balance attempting to complete their skyline with disrupting their opponent's plans, which can be intuited by observing where they are placing their blocks.

Points are rewarded for columns that match the prediction, with the more difficult arrangements paying off more. A round is over quickly, five minutes or so, and we usually play one round for each player and total the scores. We have found the game to be fairly addictive, and when it comes to the table, four or five games usually follow.

Cityscape is simple enough my two year old daughter can play it and deep enough that the two-player version between adults is tense and competitive. On days when lighter fare is needed, especially sessions that feature new players intimidated by these strange (read not Monopoly) games our group plays, Cityscape is a perfect choice.

Components: Cityscape, like all the MasterPiece games from PIN, features gorgeous wooden components. The board is heavy, solid wood. The sixteen darker-stained city pieces are attracted and durable. The four dice holders used to register player predictions are a bit clumsy, but functional. Overall, this is a gorgeous, sturdy game that looks great on the tabletop.

Tolen Dante
8/31/04

Thread: User Review

davidgpeterson — 2004-07-09T20:23:07+00:00

My buddy got this one for me for my birthday back in march. I remember seeing it for the first time and thinking that it looked pretty fun.

A group of four of us played it for the first time last night. It was a big hit. Is summary - Cityscape is one of those games that's very very simple to learn and play. Yet it has layers and layers of strategy to it. That to me is a great combo.

The square board is divided into four rows of four smaller squares. A player sits facing each side of the board and tries to build vertical "buildings" using various sized wooden blocks. The object is to build a specific number of buildings in your four rows of squares that match your building goals. Goals are determined by each player in secret prior to play. The fun is that each player has their own goals of what to build and where. This conflicts with each of the other player's goals to build.

The winner is the player with the most points by the end of the game.

I love the simple wooden board and the simple wooden blocks. Everything is top notch here. Again, play is simple to learn but the strategy is very deep.

This game is a perfect filler for the more advanced set. It's also great for a beginning group or a group that just prefers some simple fun. We really enjoyed it.

D

Image

warlock — 2004-06-28T19:47:19+00:00

Thread: Session Report

spearjr — 2004-02-18T22:28:17+00:00

Erik, Michael, & I got a second chance to play some Cityscape. Michael was running a little late, so Erik and I got two games in before he showed up. Both of these games were played with us running two sides each.

1st Game – I tried all fives on one side while mixing up fives with a two and a three on the other side. Erik managed to foil all my plans while achieving his. I think I should have tried messing up his objectives more rather than working on mine. Not sure when you make that decision.
Scores – Erik 110, Jason 50

2nd Game – Again I tried to be “tricky” this time I went with all twos. This ended up being a decent strategy since I achieved my objective in all eight spots. Erik did manage to get a lot of points as he was alternating between twos and threes, but I won out. I don’t think this strategy would work all the time, but once in a blue moon, you might be able to pull it off.
Scores – Erik 120, Jason 160

Michael showed up so we switched to 3 player games. As with the last time we rotated who got to play first as well as who was in the position without an opponent opposite him. None of felt that this position was an advantage, but it kept things interesting as we played musical chairs. (With our 3 player games we play 3 games in a row, call it a round and add up the scores from each round to try and come to a fair score.)

3rd Game - 1st Round
Michael started in the middle, which Jason going first. Round Scores: Michael - 30, Erik - 50, Jason - 50.
- 2nd Round
Erik is in the middle and Erik goes first. This round I really didn’t get my objectives. I think there may be some merit in trying to make your opponents think you are going for one objective while waiting until the last minute to get another. Round Scores (Added to previous round): Michael - 90, Erik - 140, Jason - 70.
- 3rd Round
I moved to the middle, while Michael goes first. Round Scores (Added to previous round): Michael - 120, Erik - 180, Jason - 100.

4th Game - 1st Round
Jason started in the middle and Erik went first. Erik borrowed from my strategy in the two player games and went with all fives. He figured this would allow him to work with any combination of two, three, or fives that I might have been trying to get. Round Scores: Michael - 70, Erik - 60, Jason - 50.
- 2nd Round
Erik moved to the middle while Michael went first. Michael kept in the lead while all of us scored pretty well. Round Scores (Added to previous round): Michael - 130, Erik - 120, Jason - 120.
- 3rd Round
Michael moved to the middle and finally Jason got to go first. With a mixture of one three, two twos and one five I was actually able to score points in all four slots and scored a big ninety points. Round Scores (Added to previous round): Michael - 180, Erik - 170, Jason - 210.

End thoughts: I still don’t think I have an strong strategies, other than getting a four is almost impossible and sixes seem to be not very worthwhile, unless you can foil someone else’s goal by going after it. We are likely to play some more this week and I’ll continue to try and figure out what works and what doesn’t.

Thread: Session Report

spearjr — 2004-02-16T21:52:05+00:00

Erik, Michael, & I got together to try out Cityscape, which I had picked up over the weekend. We played three rounds of three player. Others had suggested that not having a player directly across from you would be an advantage, so we all took turns in that position.

1st Round
Michael was in the "sweet spot", with Erik starting. (It's worth noting that the player who starts gets to play one more piece than the other players.) Play order was Erik, Jason, then Michael. Erik and I ended up having very opposing objectives and we hurt each other more than Michael. Round Scores: Michael - 60, Erik - 40, Jason - 30.

2nd Round
Erik and Michael switched spots, while I started. (So play order was now Jason, Erik, then Michael.) I think I tried to achieve my objectives too early and Michael was able to foil some of my plans while getting his pretty easy. Erik noted that he didn't really feel that not having someone across from him was an advantage, since both Michael and I were countering his objectives just as much. Round Scores (Added to previous round) : Michael - 140, Erik - 90, Jason - 110.

3rd Round
Erik and I switched places, with Michael starting. Play order was now Michael, Erik then Jason. Erik made a superb comeback this round. I don't think I was really able to take advantage of the "sweet spot" but I did well enough. Michael got pretty hosed as Erik and I accidentally hammered on his objectives while trying to get our own. Round Scores (Added to previous round) : Michael - 150, Erik - 170, Jason - 160.

After that game, I decided to bow out and let Erik and Michael a chance to try a two player game. We didn't have a lot of time left, so they decided to try and manage only 1 side each. Michael played first. They got into a conflict with Michael having a 6 at the start of a row that Erik had a 4. Erik also choose to ignore a pretty clear 3 that Michael had set up to instead try to achieve his own objective. Michael ended up taking the game handily with final scores of: Michael - 60, Erik - 20.

Ratings - 3 Player - Erik 8, Jason 8, Michael 8.5
2 Player - Erik 9, Michael 9

Thread: Session Report

pmboos — 2003-10-21T13:05:49+00:00

A group of reservists got together (an extension of NoVA I'll call it - although I guess I could start a new group called NADEP 0386..., naw, we'll keep it NoVA); anyway, we played 5 sessions of Cityscape. The first session we kept the dice exposed so we could go through it and see the impacts of how play went so people could learn teh mechanics. Then we played four sessions for real w/the dice hidden.

Players are Ben, Hal, Jim, and Paul. in that order

First game: Ben starts and progresses in the order above.

We are still trying to learn the feel of the game a bit, guessing how things work. I had a slight jump since it was my game and while it was my first time I played, I had run thorugh a couple of games against myself to understand the mechanics. End results: Paul-60, Jim-40, Hal-30, Ben-20

Second game: Hal starts - same order, wraps back to Ben.

Ben caught on to building out his - no one has quite caught on too much to blocking their opponents. End results: Jim-90, Ben-50, Paul-30, and Hal-20. Even though Jim had a high score, he wasn't trying to block any of us. It's interesting how competing goals can still allow for 2-3 people to easily meet their goals.

Third game: Jim starts - same order, wraps back to Hal.

OK, Jim got the hang of identifying other people's plays - me in particular. End results: Jim-50, Ben-40, Hal-30, Paul-10.

Fourth and Final game: Paul starts - same order, wraps back to Jim.

No blocking - people had a hardtime guessing and blocking what was going on. End results: Hal-70, Ben 70, Jim-60, Paul-40.

Bottomline: this game is really fun to play. It is fast! So if you need a filler, this is perfect.