Game: New England

Thread: Long time

Paul Mackie — 2008-08-05T14:24:04+00:00

It had been years since I’d played this game so I had forgotten pretty much the whole thing. But, it didn’t take too long to get into the swing of this and I actually felt that I was doing alright. At one point I made a rather ‘pussing’ (that’s pronounced pʌsɪŋ for those who are unfamiliar with the term) play against Neil, partially intended, but in fact at the time I didn’t fully appreciate that I completely destroyed his chance of ever being able to play down the 10-point card that he had tucked under his barn. I did feel kind of bad about this afterwards, but hey, we all move on…

By the time I had collected 5 pilgrims I even thought I was in with a chance of winning. But the cost of collecting them is high - your land tiles are of course tied up and can become impossible to score from, and this too was my problem. I think I got a decent score in the end - just not enough to win.
15 mins rules and setup; 70 mins game time.
Results: Pat: 36. Paul: 34. Brian: 33. Neil: 27.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Image

That_Quiz_Guy — 2008-05-12T13:13:57+00:00

The Game Comes With Tiny Boats (So There's Little Detail To Look At)

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

Gamegrunt — 2008-03-15T02:19:41+00:00

benwang wrote:
Windopaene wrote:
The problem I have is that it really only works as a 4-player game. A good game of it has some really interesting decisions, from the placement of your starting lands, to the positional, nearly Through The Desert-ish tile placements. And paucity of funds tends to keep the bidding at 4-3-2-1 for far too long for the nifty auction mechanic to shine.
3-player game is broken. 4-player game is awesome. With experts, this game can become brutal. If you are locked out from your goal, you are doomed.

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/169366

Gg

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

benwang — 2008-02-25T19:52:17+00:00

Windopaene wrote:
The problem I have is that it really only works as a 4-player game. A good game of it has some really interesting decisions, from the placement of your starting lands, to the positional, nearly Through The Desert-ish tile placements. And paucity of funds tends to keep the bidding at 4-3-2-1 for far too long for the nifty auction mechanic to shine.
3-player game is broken. 4-player game is awesome. With experts, this game can become brutal. If you are locked out from your goal, you are doomed.

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-02-01T01:55:20+00:00

components

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-02-01T01:53:18+00:00

box cover (higher resolution)

Image

ArtEmiSa64 — 2008-02-01T01:51:21+00:00

back of box

Thread: Re: cards in barn

TheCat — 2007-11-25T03:54:53+00:00

fmoros wrote:
Can barns be emptied? (as simply discarding the card to make room for a new one?

Nope. The rules say "Cards stored in a barn must be used and cannot simply be discarded."

Thread: Re: Before you buy...

fmoros — 2007-11-16T07:42:38+00:00

I also like the game and everyone i played with also liked it.
Still there is sthing that makes me thing the game can be difficult to new players, but actually the game is very simple. I think I kind of struggle on my frist game so it looked complicated at first, but it is not.
There are hard decissions to make, and I like the subtle advantage of the Pilgrim, boat and barn, but i am not sure if the pilgrim is too strong, but anyway is there for anybody to take it

Happy games!

Thread: Can cards in the barn be discarded?

fmoros — 2007-11-16T01:03:26+00:00

Can barns be emptied? (as simply discarding the card to make room for a new one?

thanks
fer
happy games!

Thread: Re: Developing Land with Units

Spielfreak — 2007-10-08T23:03:01+00:00

I think my connotation of "considered developed" is necessary when a wooden piece is on it, otherwise you would be tempted to flip such a tile when creating a field/building. A field/building can only target undeveloped tiles. A blank tile with a wooden piece on it cannot be used for a field/building, unless the piece is moved to another tile.

This may not help with your thematic interpretation, but I find it does help when explaining the rules to new players.

Thread: Re: Developing Land with Units

EmperorJacob — 2007-10-08T22:51:03+00:00

Thanks for your reply, but I'm still unclear about why you'd even "consider" a tile developed?
It makes more sense to me to say that figures can only be placed on undeveloped tiles and that the tiles remain undeveloped. The idea of temporary development isn't thematic or necessary, in my mind.

I guess I'm just messing with your wording and not your understanding of the game (what do I know? I've only played it once). I see no value in "considering" a tile developed. I do see value in sometimes not developing a tile (so that a figure can go back to it in the future), but this short-term development concept confused me and I can see now that it really shouldn't be emphasized from a teaching perspective.

Since I'm not changing the rules, just the thematic interpretation of them, I find it simpler to explain tiles with figures on them as still being undeveloped. Unless I'm missing something, but I think I got it now.

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread.

Thread: Re: Developing Land with Units

Spielfreak — 2007-10-08T22:25:26+00:00

EmperorJacob wrote:
Spielfreak wrote:
3. Once a tile has either been flipped or has an object on it, it is considered developed.

But what does "considered" mean for the gameplay? I don't understand the value in having a blank tile that is considered developed. If ships and pilgrims can only be transferred to tiles that are undeveloped (blank side up), later on, can they be moved back to their original tile? Because originally, the pilgrim was on a developed tile ("considered developed"), so in the future, the pilgrim cannot move back to that tile because pilgrims can only move to "undeveloped" tiles. Correct?

A tile may be developed in either of two ways:

1) If a blank tile is used in a field/building configuration, it is flipped, and is considered developed for the rest of the game. Nothing more can be done to this tile. Once it is flipped, it cannot be used to support wooden pieces (pilgrim, ship, or barn).

2) If a blank tile has a wooden piece on it, then it is considered developed. If the piece is a barn, then it will stay developed for the rest of the game. If the piece is a pilgrim or a ship, then the tile can revert back to undeveloped if the piece is moved off of it and onto another blank tile (which itself then becomes developed). Think of this developed state as being temporary so long as the wooden piece is on the tile.

The value in having a blank tile that is considered developed is that you gain by having the wooden piece present on the board, and potentially gain by re-developing the tile later if it forms part of a field/building configuration. This second part, of course, assumes that you can move the wooden piece to another suitable location.

A pilgrim/ship piece CANNOT be moved back onto a tile that was once blank-side-up and is now flipped to its developed side. A pilgrim/ship piece CAN be moved to any blank-side-up tile (well, it has to be coastal for the ship).

Thread: Re: Developing Land with Units

EmperorJacob — 2007-10-08T21:57:20+00:00

Spielfreak wrote:
3. Once a tile has either been flipped or has an object on it, it is considered developed.

But what does "considered" mean for the gameplay? I don't understand the value in having a blank tile that is considered developed. If ships and pilgrims can only be transferred to tiles that are undeveloped (blank side up), later on, can they be moved back to their original tile? Because originally, the pilgrim was on a developed tile ("considered developed"), so in the future, the pilgrim cannot move back to that tile because pilgrims can only move to "undeveloped" tiles. Correct?

Image

CinMel — 2007-09-29T02:04:28+00:00

Box front - Uberplay edition

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

Drew1365 — 2007-07-20T03:17:34+00:00

The first (and only) time I've played it, we did not use suggested starting locations, and we were very cruel to each other in placement. There was one type of terrain to which I could only add two tiles because of the way the others had blocked me. I was unable to claim any of it for points.

If players do decide to choose their own starting locations, it's important to note that if you plan to build ships, you will need tiles on the coast. Don't let other players lock you out. On the other hand, placing starting locations next to the coast makes it easier for other players to keep you from expanding, so there's a trade-off. The bidding mechanism and the blocking are what make this game work for me.

Paucity of funds tends to keep the bidding at 4-3-2-1 for far too long for the nifty auction mechanic to shine.

I suppose it depends on how you play. Most people bid low, particularly at the beginning of the game, because they want to make two purchases. Bidding first can force those who follow you to bid a certain way, but bidding first is also rather dangerous. For example, when a card came up that I really, really wanted, I opened the bid with 7 (which was almost all I had) . . . I recall the following players each bid higher and could better afford it. Therefore, I was stuck with a relatively high bid, able only to make one purchase, and it wasn't a purchase of what I wanted anyway.

This really can be a nasty game!

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

tonetonitonyrussell — 2007-07-20T02:15:11+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
Might also have been a Goldseiber way of doing things. Löwenherz (also Goldseiber) has the exact same thing--a separate sheet with recommended starting positions for four players, though like Settlers (and New England) you need not follow it.

First of all, I want to thank everyone for weighing in on this game. It has been my experience that people have very strong feelings about it.

I just wanted to say in response to Drew: absolutely, after an initial play with the suggested setup, I would not want to play that way again. Like Settlers, it's much funner to mix things up a bit and cause some strategic mayhem. For this reason, I really disliked my first game.

I typically play with four, so spacing is almost always a problem, but I can see how brining down the number of players might help with spacing problems.

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

huckleberryfinn — 2007-07-19T22:50:55+00:00

I disagree. My wife and I have found it a very engaging two player game. Each of us has two of the families and we each play through all the families (i.e. I play family #1, she plays family #2, I play family #3, she plays family #4 - end of the round). I haven't played it for about two years (1.5 year old and a 2 month old really sucks your time away), but I recall the scoring outlined in the rules made it challenging enough so that it required you to balance the building of your two families. Our bidding goes through the entire range.

So, through my multiple experiences with the game, I must disagree.

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

Drew1365 — 2007-07-19T21:22:42+00:00

In a mechanism that may have been inspired by Settlers of Catan, the box includes a separate game overview sheet that includes a graphic of the board that shows recommended starting positions for the start tiles in a four player game.

Might also have been a Goldseiber way of doing things. Löwenherz (also Goldseiber) has the exact same thing--a separate sheet with recommended starting positions for four players, though like Settlers (and New England) you need not follow it.

I suspect it probably does work best with four. Four is the only way I've played it, and it was a very tight game. The bidding mechanism really makes this game for me, but I think the rest of the game is good as well.

If the tight space is a problem, try it with three.

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

toguopp — 2007-07-19T16:41:30+00:00

Not sure what's meant by "nothing New England about New England". It has pilgrims arriving by boat and building up plots of land - pretty good theme fit as far as Euro-games go.

And, I may be in the minority, but I do connect to the theme on an emotional level. The Pilgrims were cool bunch of people to venture out to a strange world to recreate society anew. Not everything has to be about conquest and making money and that sort of thing to get one's blood rising.

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

Windopaene — 2007-07-19T15:45:56+00:00

The problem I have is that it really only works as a 4-player game. A good game of it has some really interesting decisions, from the placement of your starting lands, to the positional, nearly Through The Desert-ish tile placements. And paucity of funds tends to keep the bidding at 4-3-2-1 for far too long for the nifty auction mechanic to shine.

Thread: Re: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

Gamegrunt — 2007-07-19T14:44:49+00:00

I would agree with some of the criticisms of the game components, especially the pointlessness of the black markers and the "Caylus" money, but these are mere quibbles and are compensated for many times over by the sumptuousness of the game's overall production values. The box, insert, the generously large board, cards and tiles that are larger than they could have been (think Santiago for the opposite case!), the thickness of the land tiles and bidding coins, the wood bits are all well-above the high standards of most eurogames.

My complaint about the bits (which wasn't pointed out) is the mis-match between the pilgrim "meeples" depicted on the pilgrim card and the wood bits included in the game that are of a different style. Again, this is a little thing that doesn't detract from the play of the game. Lots of games feature bits that help the players recall turn order and they always serve a useful purpose, so the swipe at the inclusion of a turn marker in NE is somewhat bewildering. Also, I'm of the opinion that the family identity cards are a nice touch as they eliminate the need at times to inquire as to who is who on the board.

Some have been critical of the color scheme of the land tiles. I admit that they take some getting used to! Similar to Tigris & Euphrates in that the players are not represented by a color, but rather a symbol...in New England it is the initial letter of their family name, this also serves (as in T&E!) to present a learning challenge for some.

In a mechanism that may have been inspired by Settlers of Catan, the box includes a separate game overview sheet that includes a graphic of the board that shows recommended starting positions for the start tiles in a four player game. There is a learning curve to this element of the game and poor placement of the double tiles during this initial phase can doom a player from the start. Space is at a premium in New England, which is a big element of its appeal. Competing families are carving out parcels of land to expand from humble beginnings. The knock on the game with only 3 players is that it lacks this dimensional tension. Some of us have come up with variants to address this issue.

Here's mine:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/169366.

Like all great boardgames, New England does not overstay its welcome in that experienced players can complete a game that has a lot going on in a short period of time; games of an hour in length are possible. Perhaps what underpins the negativity that is sometimes directed at the game is the theme itself; if the game doesn't grab a player on an emotional level from the very first that player will be highly reluctant to invest the additional time necessary to make this game, or any game, a rewarding experience. There are so many games to play, and more become available all the time, but the time available to play even excellent games is sadly limited.

I enjoy owning and playing New England and find a way to play it four times a year. I still believe it to be a better game than Kiesling and Kramer's Australia, the game I traded away to obtain my copy.

Thanks for the review.

Gg

Thread: New England: Why You May Want to Pass This One Up

tonetonitonyrussell — 2007-07-19T02:39:17+00:00

Overview
New England is a beautiful game, one of the best-looking ones I have seen. On my first play, the artwork alone sucked me in: the detailed coins, the nicely printed cards, the autumn theme. The game takes little time to set and is easy to learn. Like many great games, there is no "one way" to win, but like other reviewers, I just feel that something is missing from the game.

]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Brad Johnson.

Components
As I said, the game is beautiful. The board is handsome, the pieces are standard wooden pieces, great tiles, the cards high quality. As I said, the artwork originally sucked me into this game. It really exceeds expectations when you see it for the first time.

]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Rik Van Horn.

One of my biggest concerns early on about the game components (one that others have shared) is the inclusion of the notoriously pointless four black wooden pieces.

]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Colonel Mustard.

The game also includes a turn token and cards that remind the player which family s/he controls. This is like having a card with a car on it or an iron for Monopoly. Gee, I wonder if I could get a wooden cathedral for the center of the board to mark which round we are playing; then this game would be complete.

]]>
This image of the ever-critical turn marker and family reminder piece submitted to BGG by Pasi Ääpälä. Thanks Pasi for getting them in one shot!

In the game (see Gameplay image above as reference), players score bonus points by placing tiles corresponding to their houses and their types in certain shapes indicated on the cards (i.e. three-in-a-row, an "L"-shape)--all fine and dandy. Luckily, these little black markers are provided so that you can indicate these shapes on the tops of your tiles before flipping them over. All I can say is: this was a bad sign for me. Fatal? No. But suspect? Well, yes.

Flow of Play
Players choose an amount of tiles and cards to be laid on the board for auction. Tiles build onto players' estates, and cards offer bonuses for patterns. Cards also include barns, ships, and colonists (The New England colonist's twin brother, I think, is on the front of Goa's box; or maybe it's some reincarnation thing.)

Example of Card Alongside Tiles:
]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Colonel Mustard.

Example of Bonus Cards:
]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Colonel Mustard.

Colonists/pilgrims allow for extra money but take up space on one's lands that could otherwise be used for bonuses from the cards. Barns can "store" cards to be used later, and Ships allow one to add one item to the items up for bids. Bonuses (see above) are awarded to players that have the most of each one at the end of the game.

The auction component is actually one that I like very much. Players select amounts from 1 to 10. The highest bidder buys first but also pays that amount. Players will typically stay in the 1, 2, 3, 4 region unless there is a real need to secure a piece or block another player.

]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Colonel Mustard.

Strategy
New England demands that players play a balanced approach, again normally a component of great games. For instance, players must decide how much to emphasize cards over tiles, how many spaces to fill with barns (that don't move), pioneers (that can move), and ships (that must remain on coastal spaces). I find, however, that the board is just too small to really ever get anything going. It's a bit cramped, which proves advantageous for blocking, but you never really score huge in auctions, like in Ra, for example. Everything is kind of piecemeal, here and there.

I like the Barns idea, the ability to "store" cards, and I have won the game by building up a bunch of barns, while other players haggled over more pilgrims in order to get more money (pilgrims provide one more increment in money at the end of one's turn), but I also had to play several bonus cards for building patterns on the board. (And would you believe, I never had to use those stupid black markers! They are, however, useful for table basketball and a fun variant on table football. They are also a choking hazard--not that I've ever done that or anything.) I was also let down by the "money" in the game. The bidder markers as seen above are very well done.

Here's what your money looks like:

]]>
Image submitted to BGG by Tom Fisher.

Conclusion
I won this game the first time I played it. (I didn't like that, and I typically don't like that.) I prefer something with a steeper learning curve. The dynamics of this game are relatively simple; it seems more to resemble other games you own than a game in and of itself. You know, it's little bit this game and a little bit that game. Thus, even the them for me falls a bit short. Without being, I hope, overly critical, almost any theme would do for the game. Other than the art, there is not much New England about New England, and I'm not sure that that can, unfortunately, be remedied.

I don't like to play this game when it comes out. I don't feels as though I can do very much. The luck factor is small and not very much to blame, but the great auction mechanic and artwork do little for the cramped board and average gameplay. I always suggest something different. The best thing about New England is the Patriots.

I rate this game as just a 5.5.

Note: I prefer to give credit where credit is due, especially when it comes to the images I use in my reviews. Thus, if you have the time, please give a thumbs up recommend to the images in this article that help your understanding and appreciation of the game. My thanks to those who submitted them.

Image

ColMustard — 2007-06-20T02:41:22+00:00

The four (useless) wooden markers.

Thread: 3 Player Variant

Gamegrunt — 2007-06-05T13:07:51+00:00

New England plays best with the standard rules and components with four players; I don't believe there are many who would disagree with that premise. With 3 players, IMO, the game lacks the scarcity of resources that is a quality of a game with four players. As an example, if all four 10 point settlements are included when playing with only three players, there is then 1.3 tiles of this type available per player instead of one per player.

The simple solution (that works!) is to eliminate 25% of the resources.

Remove:

5 - Each of the Land Tiles (15 total)
4 - Pilgrim Cards
3 - Barn Cards
3 - Ship Cards
1 - 10 Point Settlement Card
1 - 6 Point Pasture Card
1 - 3 Point Pasture Card
1 - 6 Point Farm Card
1 - 2 Point Farm Card

This reduction of 15 tiles and 15 cards will also make for a shorter game with a much better trajectory.

The other issue is the board size. With 3 players there is more space available per player, but the game does not suffer from this additional space per player if the non-playing fourth family's start tiles are played to the board.

Each player in addition to their 3 start tiles receives one of the start tiles of the fourth, non-playing family. We use the Annable Start Tiles for this. In this way, all 12 Start Tiles are included in the 3 player game and serve to make the board small enough to make expansion a bit more challenging. The Annable Family does not have a turn nor are their land holdings expanded - their starting tiles merely take up space and add a strategic element to the Start Round.

I have found this variant to be a great way to improve 3 player games of New England. Give it a try the next time you have only 3 players for this excellent game.

Gg

Thread: Re: Two-Player New England

Rokkr — 2007-05-11T19:19:12+00:00

This is a game that would strike me as losing a lot of what makes it worthwhile scaling it down to two players.
There are SO many excellent games designed for two players, I'm always reluctant to mess around with games obviously aimed at multiplayers.
I suppose if the games you have available to you are limited, it might be worth trying though.

Thread: Re: Two-Player New England

Subey — 2007-05-11T18:40:55+00:00

In a three player game if you remove the back two rows you end up with 25.67 squares per player vs 24.75 in a 4 player game

Image

Rokkr — 2007-05-03T07:25:26+00:00

game in progress

Image

JayAdan — 2007-04-06T16:29:13+00:00

Saving table space by playing online..

Image

ColMustard — 2007-03-16T23:30:45+00:00

Players purchase land tiles and configure them to match the example on the card. When the card is later purchased, the land is developed and the player gains 3 points.

Image

ColMustard — 2007-03-16T23:24:57+00:00

Players purchase land tiles, and configure them to match the card. When the card is later purchased, the the land is developed and the player gains 6 points.

Thread: Re: Before you buy...

SwedeLad — 2007-01-02T21:30:00+00:00

I am among the folks who love this game. It is one of only 3 games that I have rated a solid 10 here on BGG. The bidding mechanic is about as perfect as they get, and yes, I agree that 4 players is the way to go with this one. Nice review.

Thread: Before you buy...

ColMustard — 2007-01-02T18:19:27+00:00

New England is currently out of print. Yet, the game is still available in some stores and online. (Although if you are interested in buying it, it may take some searching.) But there is not a lot of buzz around this game. If one word was used to describe the reception this game has received, that word would be: lukewarm. But why? There are a number of recurring comments that are made regarding New England. Knowing these may assist you before you make a purchase.

First, a quick overview…
Players represent a family arriving in Cape Cod in 1621. Each player is given some land (tiles) to start with. By using a (new) bidding mechanic they attempt to purchase and develop more land. By doing so, they gain Victory Points. There are also ships and barns to buy and Pilgrims to entice to your land. There are tough choices to be made throughout and there is often more you want to do each turn. Of course, you need money for everything, and it seems you never have enough. The player at game’s end with the most victory points wins.

Initial reaction…
The theme is weak and there is not a huge link between the theme and the bidding mechanic of the game. But this does not affect the general game play. The components are generally excellent and the overall look of the game is great. The board might look a little boring at first but as the tiles, pilgrims, ships and barns fill in, it looks very interesting. One common comment is in regard to the money. They look like Tiddly-wink chips and don't seem to fit in with the look of the game. But they work. It is a medium weight game that has a nice balance of luck and clever maneuvering. Games can be played in about 45- 60 minutes.

The learning curve…
New England is not hard to learn. The instructions are clear and full of illustrations. It would take about 20 minutes to read them and start initial play. A few of the strategies are not self-evident so a couple of plays will help fill in the reasons for certain rules or possible moves. Also, it would have been helpful if an aid had been included to indicate how many development cards there are of each colour and configuration. Without this it takes awhile to get familiar with the cards.

Comments on number of players…
The game is listed as 3-4 players. But there is no question the game is best played with four. The three player game takes away the claustrophobic positioning in the initial set up and does not lend itself for players to interrupt another’s development plans. It also removes some of the tension by providing a better chance of making a necessary purchase at the auction. It works with three - it is just not as fun.

The bidding mechanic…
The auction and bidding is the heart of the game. Each player takes an oversized coin (numbered one through ten) to indicate two things: 1) play order and 2) cost per item (you can purchase two). The highest number goes first, but also pays the highest amount. If the situation arises that a development card or tile is a necessary purchase, you are going to have to be first to snatch up the item before another player grabs it from you. But to do so you will have to pay the highest price. Some complain that bids never go higher than four, leaving the higher coins/options pointless. But I have played several games where the bidding has needed to go all the way to 10. Without this auction mechanic the game would fall flat. This is the heart of the game and is what makes the game shine. It is an excellent device to keep things tense and push players to increase their income while jeopardizing their chances of developing land (ie gaining victory points).

Final comments…
The overall reaction to New England by the general public has been one of indifference. I am in the minority. I quite like the game and feel it is underrated. Granted I do not play it as often as other games in my humble collection. But I would say this is because it is more dependant on being a four player game. Yet I have never introduced it to a new player who did not respond favourably towards this game. It seems to me that there is no one single overarching reason for the mediocre reaction New England has received. The game is not broken and can be quite enjoyable. But like so many games, it comes down to a matter of personal taste. For the price, it may make sense to try it (if possible) before you buy it. You may well be in the majority that does end up getting too excited about developing New England.

Thread: Three Newbie’s and a trip to New England…

ColMustard — 2006-12-31T23:06:53+00:00

I still feel that New England is underrated. Granted it is not an earth shaking game. And of course it always needs four players to be at its’ peak. But even so, it offers a lot… especially to new gamers.

The players were myself, one who owns and plays Settlers and two who are pretty much non-gamers. The rules were explained well (if I may say so myself) but everyone looked at me like a had a square head. I went over some things again…several times with illustrations. I avoided explaining strategy as I find that just confuses players. But they just didn’t get it. I thought this was going to bomb but suggested we just get started. Tentatively, we did.

As it turned out, the game went very well. After about ten minutes, the lights went on for the 'Settlers player'. He really began to see what was happening. This encouraged the other two who suddenly realized that this game could be understood. About a third of the way through the game, another player picked up on things and started playing quite strategically picking up a four square red card and tile to grab ten points. One player lagged behind for quite sometime saying that she really didn’t know what she was doing. But a moment soon came when everything made sense. Suddenly, it was a full fledged race to the finish.

They really like the auction mechanic and several sales were made at very high prices. It got good and competitive which always adds to the fun.

The game ended with my final grab at a second boat. This secured my position as having the most boats and gave me two bonus points. I ended with 35, followed by 33 (the Settlers player) and the non-gamers were tied at 30. Time did not allow us to play again, but I know they would have been up to it.

I always find it satisfying to ‘pull’ non-gamers into the gaming hobby with a good experience that leaves them realizing some of the fun they are missing out on in life. Now maybe they’ll turn off the TV and visit New England.

Thread: Session Report

Shade_Jon — 2006-12-03T19:24:53+00:00

Jon 33, Elijah 29, Nadine 26, Adam 25

Only Adam had played this before, so we were able to approach the game unburdened by any understanding of strategy or prior opinion.

Overall, the game is fairly enjoyable once you get into the swing of things, and the mechanics work smoothly. It's not exactly a thrilling game, but I would certainly play it again.

New England feels like it's got a lot of clutter in it, even though the play is fairly elegant. It's kind of like marrying the simplicity of Santiago with the plant arranging in Power Grid. It all kind of works, but it feels like another few weeks of development could have pared it down just a bit better.

As an example, the player's choice at the start of each round as to how many cards vs tiles come out isn't a bad mechanism, but it doesn't feel like it's really necessary. It doesn't add enough to the game to warrant its inclusion. Another example is the poor choice of color and identity recognition. It is difficult at a glance to determine who owns what field and how many of each thing each person has. Another: you are not allowed to count the remaining tiles in the bag, but almost all of the non-remaining tiles are on the board; anyone with sense can just waste time counting them each round for a fairly close accounting.

As a side note, I have never seen a theme so divorced from the mechanics of a game. Even Through the Desert feels like it has a more coherent marriage of theme to mechanics. Trying to arrange three plots in a particular shape is the height of abstract game play.

In our game, Adam started off doing things that didn't seem to make much sense to us. We all figured out that extra income was a good idea, just like it is in every other game. However, he took a barn and a scoring tile very early and he paid a lot of money. This turned out to be a hindrance for him, as we spent no great amount of effort making it difficult for him to fulfill the scoring tile. He eventually got it scored, but it wasn't worth the effort to do so, in the end.

By the time it was done, I had more pilgrims than he did, and I scored four 6 point bonuses of my own. I ended with 4 pilgrims, 4 6-point tiles, one barn, and the bonus for most pilgrims. Elijah was using his ship here and there, but he was mostly bored with the game and sorry that we wouldn't let him quit to play Shadows Over Camelot.

Nadine seemed to like it, but only as a second tier game.

Thread: Session Report

Shade_Jon — 2006-12-03T19:20:32+00:00

Adam says:

New England

Score: Adam 37, Itamar 32, Michal 31, Benny 28

It's a nice game, based on developing territory and getting victory points. The basic idea is to buy items in turn with which you extend your territory and develop it. Developed territory and other structures (settlers, ships, and barns) give victory points at the end of the game, and you get extra victory points for having the most colonists, ships, o barns. The player who buys first has to pay more for each item he buys.

In our game, I was able to gain a monopoly in settlers in the first few rounds, which lasted toward the middle of the game, because settler cards were somewhat scarce in the beginning, and I had a settler advantage throughout the game. Settlers are the money source, so I had a large advantage in money, which by the middle of the game I was able to turn into a point advantage, even when I had to pay relatively high prices for territory and development cards. Towards the end of the game it turned into a game of blocking me as the leader, and on the last turn Itamar bought two development cards which I could use but he couldn't, worth 12 points, though it turns out that wasn't necessary for me to win. All in all, the game is light and easy to understand, not overly complex, with straightforward mechanics, and fun to play.

Binyamin adds

I can add that the rules [to New England] are a little unclear, and we missed 2 rules both important - you are not allowed to buy more then 2 things per turn (we played unlimited), and the first player should change every turn in order (we played that the player who takes the highest token is first next turn). The tactics where not so clear so we all fiddled around. I tried to fight Adam a bit over the settlers (the money source) but he was lucky to be first when the settlers flipped and he could buy. The next time Itamar or Michal were before him but didn?t buy them, so he got ahead in money. We also couldn?t see the advantege in barns and ships so they were almost not bought in the start .

Thread: Re: We should have gotten a refund for those Mayflower tickets

Frank Burbach — 2006-11-22T22:29:45+00:00

I really love this game, but it has received a lukewarm reaction from just about everyone I've introduced it to. Admittedly, the gameplay is far-removed from the theme, but I'm really used to it after all the german games I've played.

Thread: Re: We should have gotten a refund for those Mayflower ticke

Windopaene — 2006-11-22T22:25:33+00:00

No I don't

I do like the game quite a bit, but it is dry as a bone. But we are talking about Puritans here, so it should be austere...

Thread: Re: We should have gotten a refund for those Mayflower ticke

Jpwoo — 2006-11-22T21:26:03+00:00

Remember when New England was the new Puerto Rico?

Thread: Re: We should have gotten a refund for those Mayflower tickets

DarrellKH — 2006-11-22T14:20:17+00:00

While your journey certainly seemed to have more sideroads and off-ramps, the conclusion you reached sounds a lot like mine - a dry, dry game with some clever (though largely unoriginal) mechanics. One player in my group really likes this game, but the rest of us almost always manage to shout him down.

There's just too many other games that are at least as clever (if not more so), the theme for which does seem to be affixed with more adhesive. As an alternative Alan Moon game, I'd recommend Oasis.

Thread: We should have gotten a refund for those Mayflower tickets

drsingle — 2006-11-21T20:29:37+00:00

Dinner was complete, the kids had finally been convinced to go to bed, and Rumis put away. With no distractions, it was time to pick a "meatier" game to delve into. Our guests were still relatively new to game night, although they picked up new games fairly well.

Aimee's gaze passed from title to title on my shelves of games. It unfortunately passed right over Ra (still unplayed) and settled on New England.

"What's that game like?" she asked.

"I have no idea," I answered.

I had no idea. I bought the game at a FLGS closing for half price. It was unwrapped, and I have a vague recollection of glancing through the rules once upon a time, with positively no lasting impression. Although I absolutely hate doing it, I suggested...

"Well, we could set it up and learn it together..."

Ugh. Mistake. So while Stephen and Amy (different from Aimee) began punching out the counters and bits, I started a speed read through the manual, grasping the concept of a particular part of the game and quickly summarizing for the other three players.

"Ok, so we're each a family settling in New England, I guess. And we each get a set of those big tiles...and I guess the smaller tiles go in the bag...and the cards are shuffled, except for those three..."

If you've ever done this, you know how painful it is. Fortunately, the group was in good spirits (this would be short lived) and was willing to put up with it.

"So, what's the point of the game? How do we win?" was asked.

"Uhh...I have no idea."

I had no idea. How difficult is it to put victory conditions at the BEGINNING of a manual? Would it have killed someone to write, "Gain victory points by developing land while playing cards, as well as obtaining ships, pilgrims, and barns."

So, eventually the game was setup (we think, correctly) and we began. The first chore was starting positions. Somehow, the insert in the box that says something like "beginners should use this layout for a balanced game" was completely missed by everyone at the table and only discovered after the game was finished. Stephen remembered something in the rules about ships, so placed a couple of his homesteads near the ocean. Everyone else pretty much just dropped their starting tiles on the board at random. We had no idea what strategy might be effective.

The first few turns were rough, but we eventually got the hang of things - grab an oversized novelty coin, buy tiles or cards, play tiles or cards, next turn. It seemed simple enough. We began to question the need for coin/turn values over 4. It became a running joke that someone might actually choose the 10 coin. I suppose on the last turn of the game, if a player was flush with cash, they might take the 10 to get that one last perfect card...I suppose.

Eventually strategies in the game became apparent. Stephen soon recognized the folly of his seaside development, although we pointed out that in 300 years, his beachfront property would be pretty valuable. My pilgrim strategy was in full effect, however I had trouble cashing in development cards for big points since I had meeples sitting on most of my undeveloped land. We all scratched our heads at barns for awhile before I managed to use one for its intended purpose. Aimee and Amy were generally rolling with it, however Aimee was quickly becoming discouraged with the game.

Which brings us to our major disapointment. New England appears to be a fairly decent area-control type game, planting your tiles before your opponents and blocking their expansion, but the theme seems completely tacked on. In a better game, this wouldn't have bothered me as much, but in a game with mechanics as dry as this one, a vibrant theme is practially required.

By the end of the night, we had started to re-theme the game. Pilgrims had become pirates ("Baby...baby...pirate? Pirates are wild!"). The starting player marker was affectionally re-named "the Captain." Barns were houses, ships not just ships...but PIRATE ships. Shillings, well, they were shillings...but PIRATE shillings. Sheep...well, they were still sheep, there's not much one can do with sheep. What did you expect, pirate sheep? That's silly. I don't even remember the other tile types.

Honestly, our re-themed game didn't make much sense (and alcohol wasn't even involved). But the fact that players felt the spontaneous need to rebrand components mid-game through the first playing was a sure-fire sign that this was a dry game. Even the board wasn't immune from barbs:

"Man, New England sure is a flat and boring place."
"Isn't there actual rock somewhere near Plymouth Rock?"
"Well, the trees on the border aren't too bad...they're colorful."
"It's a good thing that there are places to put the coins numbered 1-10. Otherwise we wouldn't know what order they went in..."

By the end, three of us had agreed that the game was decent mechanically and might be willing to play again under the right conditions (read here, "drunk"). Our fourth vowed never again to play New England and was forced to acknowledge that she would never, ever, pick the game to play again.

I ended up winning the game, but somehow we all lost.

Thread: Re: How language dependent is this game?

lokides — 2006-10-27T23:23:38+00:00

Thank you all for calming my fears

Thread: Re: How language dependent is this game?

RaDiKal — 2006-10-27T22:54:41+00:00

Werbaer wrote:
The only text on cards or chits is the family name on your starting tiles. Completely language independant.

and it's really just the first letter of the family that appears in large type that serves to differentiate the tiles so if you can track down English rules, this is really a language independent game.

Thread: Re: How language dependent is this game?

Werbaer — 2006-10-27T13:44:36+00:00

The only text on cards or chits is the family name on your starting tiles. Completely language independant.

Thread: Re: How language dependent is this game?

lokides — 2006-10-27T13:41:19+00:00

Whoah, that was fast!!!!!

I'd only just edited the obvious late night typo in the title before my question was answered

Thanks Chris

Greg J. Schloesser wrote

Every so often a game is released that contains a mechanism that is so unique that it elicits a collective "Wow!" from most folks in the gaming community.

- I shall resume my state of fevered anticipation

G'day

Stew

Thread: Re: How langiage dependent is this game?

cggritt — 2006-10-27T13:34:05+00:00

I can't remember exactly, but I have the German version and have played it many times (although not recently). I don't know any German at all and I don't go in for paste-ups, so it must have no, or very little, German.

Thread: How language dependent is this game?

lokides — 2006-10-27T13:30:32+00:00

Just purchased a copy of New England via BGG and am looking forward to playing, but in my excitement, right after hitting the 'button of perpetual commitment', noticed that I've picked up a German copy

How much of an issue is this likely to be (with the understanding that the translation is here)

Thread: Re: New England in 5 Steps

Gamegrunt — 2006-10-12T15:34:20+00:00

TheCat wrote:
Windopaene wrote:
You should add that it only really works well for 4 players

You say that like it's a bad thing. New England plays wonderfully with 4 players and is a bit below average with 3 players. So just play it with 4 and enjoy!

Also, as a criticism of the review, your comment falls pretty flat. TaleSpinner said: "[I] was immediately pulled in as the 4th player for New England. So here it is my step-by-step take after my first game of New England." The review is clearly a first-impressions take after a 4 player game, so it shouldn't be expected to cover the 3 player game experience. The "only 4 players" comment has been repeated ad-infinitum in other reviews and comments, so why use it as a criticism of this review?

New England doesn't work as well with 3 players using the standard rules as with 4 players.

Absolutely true.

Tweaking the rules will help and the obvious change is to reduce the number of cards and tiles by 25% (i.e. remove 5 each of the land tiles, remove 15 cards as well...4 pilgrims, 3 ships, 3 barns, and 5 of the development cards (i.e. one of the 10 point settlement cards, etc.)

Afterall, with three there are 25% fewer players. I've tried this and it works beautifully.

Gg

Thread: Re: New England in 5 Steps

TheCat — 2006-10-12T11:47:02+00:00

Windopaene wrote:
You should add that it only really works well for 4 players

You say that like it's a bad thing. New England plays wonderfully with 4 players and is a bit below average with 3 players. So just play it with 4 and enjoy!

Also, as a criticism of the review, your comment falls pretty flat. TaleSpinner said: "[I] was immediately pulled in as the 4th player for New England. So here it is my step-by-step take after my first game of New England." The review is clearly a first-impressions take after a 4 player game, so it shouldn't be expected to cover the 3 player game experience. The "only 4 players" comment has been repeated ad-infinitum in other reviews and comments, so why use it as a criticism of this review?

Thread: Re: New England in 5 Steps

Windopaene — 2006-10-09T17:08:43+00:00

You should add that it only really works well for 4 players

Thread: New England in 5 Steps

TaleSpinner — 2006-10-09T12:50:27+00:00

OVERVIEW
I'd stepped into the monthly gathering of euro-gamers called the Eurogamesfest and was immediately pulled in as the 4th player for New England. So here it is my step-by-step take after my first game of New England.

In New England, each player represents a pilgrim family settling into New England. As pilgrims, players attempt to develop tracts of land and gain Victory Points as they do so. The player with the most Victory Points at the end of the game is the winner.

COMPONENTS

GAME BOARD
The game board is a 9x11 grid. The top and left sides of the grid are coastlines. There is a "stuff for sale" section on the board.

TILES
Tiles are tracts of land that are placed on the game board. The flip side of a tile shows an undeveloped tract of land, while the other side shows a developed tract of land.

There are 3 types of tiles:
- dark-brown tiles that can be developed into crop land
- reddish-brown tiles that can be developed into settlement land
- green tiles that can be developed into pasture land

Each tile takes up a 1x1 space on the board, with the exception of the players' starting tiles which are 2x1.

BIDDING TOKENS
There are 10 Bidding Tokens each numbered from 1 to 10.

CARDS
There are four types of cards: Pilgrims, Ships, Barns and Land Development Cards. Every card has a Victory point value. The bulk of your Victory points will be from the cards you own.

COINS
Coins represent money (duh!).

MEEPLES
What's an euro without little wooden meeples? There're meeples to represent Pilgrims, little wooden Ships, and little wooden Barns.

GAMEPLAY

GAME START
Every player starts off with a 2x1 tile of each type (i.e. three 2x1 starting tiles). They take turns placing their starting tiles on the board. The cards form a draw pile and the tiles are placed into a draw bag. Everyone starts off with some coins determined by player order.

STEP 1: Declare the stuff for sale
During your turn, you get to declare how many cards or tiles are to be drawn. You may declare 3-6 cards and 3-6 tiles, as long as the total number of cards and tiles make up 9. (eg. "5 tiles and 4 cards") These are drawn and placed on the "stuff for sale" section.

STEP 2: Pick a Bid
Next, you get to pick a bidding token, followed by everyone else in clockwise order. Bidding tokens affect 2 things: they determine who starts buying stuff first in Step 3, and they determine the cost of stuff. Say you pick the "5" token while everyone else picks 4,3,2 or 1. Because you've picked the highest token, you get to buy stuff first, but you must pay 5 coins for each card or tile you buy. A simple yet effective balancing mechanism.

STEP 3: Buy stuff
The player with the highest Bidding Token buys stuff first. He can buy up to 2 items (i.e. 2 tiles, or 1 tile and 1 card, etc.) For him, each item costs as much as his bidding token.

An important thing to note is that you are unallowed to buy something if you cannot immediately build it. Eg. A pilgrim takes up one 1x1 undeveloped tile. If you do not have a 1x1 undeveloped tile on the board, then you cannot buy a Pilgrim. However, Barns bypass this rule, as you'll see.

STEP 4: Build stuff
New tiles are placed on the board as "undeveloped" tracts of land. There are some involved rules on tile placement, but generally, you can only place a tile orthogonally next to another one of your tiles of the same type.

New cards are placed in front of you, and their corresponding wooden meeple is placed on the game board.

For each new Pilgrim, place a wooden pilgrim meeple on one of your 1x1 undeveloped tiles. You are allowed to move pilgrim meeples to your other undeveloped tiles at anytime. Each pilgrim you own increases your income by 1 coin.

For each new Ship, place a wooden ship on one of your 1x1 undeveloped tiles that is on the coast. You are allowed to move ship meeples to your other undeveloped tiles on the coast at anytime. Each ship allows you to import another tile or card into the "stuff for sale" section when it comes to your turn to buy stuff.

For each new Barn, place a wooden barn on one of yout 1x1 undeveloped tiles. You are NOT allowed to move barns once placed. Each barn you own allows you to "hold" ONE card for future builds. Say you purchased a Pilgrim card, but you have no tiles to put it on. Ordinarilly, you would be unallowed to purchase the card, but with a Barn, you can stick the card in there and put it on "hold". Next turn, if you pick up more tiles, you can immediately pull the card you had on "hold" and place the Pilgrim.

For each Land Development card, you can develop tiles according to the configuration stated on the card. For eg, some configurations may look like this:

[][]

[][][]

[][]
[]

[][]
[][]

These can only be used to develop land tiles that fit the corresponding configuration. A bit like tetris, really. Once developed, the land tiles are flipped over, and the Land Development card is placed in front of you. Land Development cards tend to have the highest Victory Point value, so it is imperative that you develop a lot of lands to win the game.

STEP 5: Collect Income
After building, you collect income. You collect 4 coins, plus 1 coin for every Pilgrim you own.

NEXT PLAYER
Once a player is done buying and building, the player with the next highest Bidding token goes next (does Step 3-5), and then the next player, and so on. Once everyone has finished buying and building, the next player gets to start his turn with Step 1.

GAME END
The game immediately ends when the last tile or card is drawn. Everyone sums up the number of Victory Points they have on the cards they own. Bonus Victory Points are awarded to the player with the most Pilgrims, Ships, and Barns. If 2 players tie, then the bonus points are awarded to both.

CONCLUSION
New England demands a delicate balance of keeping undeveloped tiles for useful stuff like Pilgrims, Ships and Barns, and developing tracts of tiles for Victory Points. Because Land Development needs to follow a particular configuration, it is entirely possible for someone to screw someone else over by placing his tiles over land that his opponent will need to develop his land. And the Bidding Token mechanism is a refreshing balance of spending more to get what you want, or spending less to buy the dregs that other players have left behind. All in all, I find New England to be a well thought-out game that rewards forward planning and prudent money management.

Thread: Re: Two-Player New England

IirionClaus — 2006-09-28T08:48:34+00:00

Perhaps hide the choices made in the shillings auction? Each player chooses a number secretly and they are revealed simultaneously. The tie breaker can be the starting player marker.

Thread: Play New England online

robeng — 2006-07-25T17:46:52+00:00

GameTable Online is happy to bring to the internet, a fully licensed online version of New England. Using the original artwork and rules we have made it look and play like the real thing. Try it out at www.gametableonline.com. Everyone who registers at the site gets 2 weeks free to try out all of our 13+ games!

Thread: Re: New Enland session report

kinga1965 — 2006-07-23T15:05:11+00:00

Others may obviously correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe only development cards may be stored in barns for future use. Ships and Pilgrims must be played onto an undeveloped land space immediately upon aquisition. If you do not have an undeveloped land space available (one bordering the ocean for ships) then you can not choose that card.

Thread: Re: My Take on New England

rayito2702 — 2006-07-19T02:09:55+00:00

My mistake. I clicked on the wrong profile for games owned. Thanks for your comments.

Thread: Re: My Take on New England

TheCat — 2006-07-18T02:36:00+00:00

Well, I've never heard of Victory and Honor and I don't own Primordial Soup, so I guess we'll have to let it go at that. I would argue that most of my games have a range of +1/-1 players to be optimally played, despite the fact that the box lists more possible players. For example, Traders of Genoa is listed as 2-5 players, but I won't play it with less than 5 players.

At any rate, your point is made -- you see this as a negative, which is a valid part of your review. I happen to see it as neither a negative or a positive, since I'm pretty much always happy to play New England with four players and have no problem finding another game to play if there aren't exactly four players available.

Thread: Re: My Take on New England

rayito2702 — 2006-07-18T02:26:41+00:00

TheCat wrote:
rayito2702 wrote:
A game that can only play one numbering of players that is greater than 2 is the most limiting. Games that can play two numberings of players, both being greater than 2, for me are the next most limiting.

I'd guess 95% of the 3+ player games in my collection are "limiting" by your definition!

That said, I really enjoy New England and am almost always happy to play it if there are three willing opponents.

In my rush to type a response I guess I wasn't clear enough. The most limiting games as far as number of players is concerned are games that can only be played by one number of players and that number of players is greater than two. The only game you own that meets this criteria is Victory and Honor in that it is played by exactly 4 players at a time.

The second most limiting type of games are games that can only be played by two numbers of players with the number of players being greater than two. The only games you own (excluding expansions) that meet this criteria are Settlers, Primordial Soup, Hell Rail and New England (all need either 3 or 4 player to play).

Hopefully this explaination made more sense. I think the very fact that so few games are designed for so few number of players (excluding two player only games) is evidence that there is something about them that people don't like.

Thread: Re: My Take on New England

TheCat — 2006-07-17T23:43:02+00:00

rayito2702 wrote:
A game that can only play one numbering of players that is greater than 2 is the most limiting. Games that can play two numberings of players, both being greater than 2, for me are the next most limiting.

I'd guess 95% of the 3+ player games in my collection are "limiting" by your definition!

That said, I really enjoy New England and am almost always happy to play it if there are three willing opponents.

Thread: Re: My Take on New England

rayito2702 — 2006-07-17T23:39:58+00:00

TheCat wrote:
I always play with four players, but don't feel that's "severely limiting" at all. If we have more or less than four players, we simply choose a different game.

For me, versatility in the number of players a game can support makes it much more likely to get played and thus more likely I'll be able to play it when I want. I don't think it negatively affects game play, it's just a nicety I look for if I want to play the game more frequently.

A game that can only play one numbering of players that is greater than 2 is the most limiting. Games that can play two numberings of players, both being greater than 2, for me are the next most limiting.

sedjtroll wrote:
I had this game, played it 2 or 3 times. I have to say I didn't find it all that exciting. I did agree with the internet sentiment that the game is much better with 4 players than with 3, however I didn't find it to be all that great even with 4.

I ended up trading the game for Mississippi Queen... another game I thought I'd like better than I do :/

At this point I don't feel New England has the zing that a game like Ticket to Ride: Europe has. I do think there is a lot of interesting things going on and that's what makes it fun. You really need to know the card distribution in New England in order to do well. And while the game is relatively simple, the game elements can have quite a complex inter-relation.

And I'm with you on Mississippi Queen. The only time I played was when you brought it to game night. Boring!

Thread: Re: My Take on New England

sedjtroll — 2006-07-17T22:36:32+00:00

I had this game, played it 2 or 3 times. I have to say I didn't find it all that exciting. I did agree with the internet sentiment that the game is much better with 4 players than with 3, however I didn't find it to be all that great even with 4.

I ended up trading the game for Mississippi Queen... another game I thought I'd like better than I do :/

- Seth