Game: Santiago

Image

Deadwood — 2008-08-21T01:33:22+00:00

Farmers are ready to play ...

Image

Deadwood — 2008-08-17T16:31:43+00:00

And the winner is ....

Image

machollic — 2008-08-16T09:47:56+00:00

A good way to start the game...especially my 1st game

Image

Deadwood — 2008-08-06T04:48:39+00:00

Mid game progress

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-19T01:38:18+00:00

Close up on beans and bananas

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-19T01:37:03+00:00

Pedro trying to hide behind a wall of black cubes

Image

Toynan — 2008-07-18T10:41:40+00:00

Where to put this tile ??

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

Andrew York — 2008-07-15T22:51:47+00:00

I played it as a 3 player for the first time recently and it's still a pretty decent game. In fact there is a slight twist in that the highest bidder gets to place a second tile (with no cubes) after everyone has placed their first tile.

Thread: Re: Impressions: Playing with Kids

Windopaene — 2008-06-21T17:26:41+00:00

I just played with my kids last night as well. Youngest, (7), daughter pulled off the win with a huge 72 point Bannana plantation...

Thread: Impressions: Playing with Kids

craniac — 2008-06-20T05:45:08+00:00

Impatient to play this face to face (as opposed to Spielbyweb) after receiving it in a trade (Mr. Jack), I talked my kids into playing it. The are:

Boy (11)
Boy (8)
daughter(7)

And me.

It took about 90 minutes. My daughter tried to pass every turn and be Watermaster. My sons cut deals with anyone who would listen. We hollered and pleaded for water. My oldest asked me why bribing was illegal in real life. The eight-year-old spent for tiles like "Happy Escudo Day" was at the end of each turn phase. "I'm all about bananas" said my oldest.

Afterwards they would walk by the box, look at the cover, and tell me their theories about how to play next time. Who would have thought this was such a great kids game? We'll have to read about Santiago and look it up on Google Earth next.

Image

csibadajoz — 2008-06-14T21:30:43+00:00

Customized box. Ratio compression 20%

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Reish Galuta — 2008-06-01T07:24:32+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
Karlsen wrote:
There doesn't look like there are enough canals on the board. Are you sure you played it right? The implication is that at times the overseer didn't place a canal at all. I don't have the rules handy, but I didn't think that that was an option. The overseer can place the canal where they want, possibly at a premium price if they are ignoring the bribes, but I don't remember not placing a canal at all as being an option.

Hmmm. There seem to be 12 canals in that image. That's more than one per turn so some people obviously didn't place their extra canals.

Fraser, I think why this looks odd is that there are two complete squares built with canals, which is wasteful, as well as canals running along the board edge.

I think they did it right, but gosh . . . brutal game indeed.

Quick note: There are actually 13 canals in the picture. The one on the very bottom right along the border is mostly cut off and hard to see unless you view the picture at large size. That was where Gavriel placed his emergency canal to water the far corner of Pepper.

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Karlsen — 2008-06-01T07:15:24+00:00

Reish Galuta wrote:
If everybody passes on bribing the overseer, then the CO can pay $1 to place it wherever he wants.

If the CO doesn't want to pay $1 then no canal is placed that round.
Ah, now that explains it. That has very rarely, if ever, happened in our games. Usually at least one person is willing to pay something to put a canal somewhere.

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Reish Galuta — 2008-06-01T06:56:42+00:00

Also (and we had to look this up b/c it almost happened), it is possible not to place a canal in a given round. If everybody passes on bribing the overseer, then the CO can pay $1 to place it wherever he wants.

If the CO doesn't want to pay $1 then no canal is placed that round.

If that had actually happened the deserts would have surely won.

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Reish Galuta — 2008-06-01T06:53:27+00:00

Karlsen wrote:
Drew1365 wrote:
Karlsen wrote:
There doesn't look like there are enough canals on the board. Are you sure you played it right? The implication is that at times the overseer didn't place a canal at all. I don't have the rules handy, but I didn't think that that was an option. The overseer can place the canal where they want, possibly at a premium price if they are ignoring the bribes, but I don't remember not placing a canal at all as being an option.

Hmmm. There seem to be 12 canals in that image. That's more than one per turn so some people obviously didn't place their extra canals.

Fraser, I think why this looks odd is that there are two complete squares built with canals, which is wasteful, as well as canals running along the board edge.

I think they did it right, but gosh . . . brutal game indeed.

Yes, good point. The two complete squares are truly brutal play and would account for it.

One of those (bottom mid-right) was from the last turn from Tuvia who hadn't used his emergency canal yet, and just put it on the table b/c he could. The other (left mid-top) was due to truly evil play.

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Karlsen — 2008-06-01T03:27:27+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
Karlsen wrote:
There doesn't look like there are enough canals on the board. Are you sure you played it right? The implication is that at times the overseer didn't place a canal at all. I don't have the rules handy, but I didn't think that that was an option. The overseer can place the canal where they want, possibly at a premium price if they are ignoring the bribes, but I don't remember not placing a canal at all as being an option.

Hmmm. There seem to be 12 canals in that image. That's more than one per turn so some people obviously didn't place their extra canals.

Fraser, I think why this looks odd is that there are two complete squares built with canals, which is wasteful, as well as canals running along the board edge.

I think they did it right, but gosh . . . brutal game indeed.

Yes, good point. The two complete squares are truly brutal play and would account for it.

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Drew1365 — 2008-06-01T02:48:52+00:00

Karlsen wrote:
There doesn't look like there are enough canals on the board. Are you sure you played it right? The implication is that at times the overseer didn't place a canal at all. I don't have the rules handy, but I didn't think that that was an option. The overseer can place the canal where they want, possibly at a premium price if they are ignoring the bribes, but I don't remember not placing a canal at all as being an option.

Hmmm. There seem to be 12 canals in that image. That's more than one per turn so some people obviously didn't place their extra canals.

Fraser, I think why this looks odd is that there are two complete squares built with canals, which is wasteful, as well as canals running along the board edge.

I think they did it right, but gosh . . . brutal game indeed.

Thread: Re: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Karlsen — 2008-06-01T01:55:40+00:00

There doesn't look like there are enough canals on the board. Are you sure you played it right? The implication is that at times the overseer didn't place a canal at all. I don't have the rules handy, but I didn't think that that was an option. The overseer can place the canal where they want, possibly at a premium price if they are ignoring the bribes, but I don't remember not placing a canal at all as being an option.

Thread: An Excercise in Inefficient Irrigation (21/45 Deserts)

Reish Galuta — 2008-05-31T22:15:46+00:00

Players: Avri, Tuvia, Meir, Mory, Gavriel

This was the most vicious, badly irrigated, brutal game of Santiago I've seen yet. Here is a picture of the end game.
]]>
21/45 deserts. Mory almost acheived his desired goal of more deserts than crops. Just to give you an idea of how badly we scored: You start the game with $10, every round you get $3 income. There are 9 rounds. This means that if you sit and do absolutely nothing the entire game, pass every round, and end up with 0 markers on the board, you will have $37. That's exactly what Gavriel ended up with at the end of the game. It's quite possible he was never watered when he was not the water carrier. The rest of us didn't fair much better. Tuvia had the only potato in the game after there was a deliberate sabatoging of the potatoe fields (what would have been the center of the board.

The game started off with Tuvia and I being the water carriers and accepting eachother's $1 bids to help ourselves and mess over everybody else. The game continued this way with the water carrier most of the time doing everything they could to simply hurt the most people. The only time I accepted a bid to help others was when Meir offered me a lucrative $7 bribe.

Mory had 3 markers in the Pepper patch to 2 of mine,2 of Meirs, and 1 of Tuvia's. Late in the game when the last Pepper showed up, Gavriel got it, placed it in the bottom right corner and emergency watered it. I used my emergency water offensively to prevent Mory and Meir from watering their potatoes, even though I didn't really need water at the time. The Sugar patch had 4-5 markers for Tuvia and 2-3 for me. The peas were mainly Mory and Meir. Gavriel had a couple singleton points in the lone patches.

By the end Tuvia and Mory looked like they had the most on the board, but there was very little spending that game and Meir, Gavriel, and I were sitting on a pile of cash. Even though Gavriel only had about 15-16 on the board, he had over $20 in his hand. I was slightly lower that Tuvia and Mory, but after the $7 bribe, I knew I was sitting on a lot more cash than either one.

Final Scores: Avri 50, Tuvia 45, Meir 41, Mory 40, Gavriel 37

Image

MattDP — 2008-05-08T20:54:20+00:00

Santiago straight out of shrinkwrap

Thread: Re: OOP?

Spielfreak — 2008-04-22T20:28:44+00:00

Gamesurplus seems to have it in stock.

http://www.gamesurplus.com/site/product.cfm?id=B3958393-3048...

There may be other online retailers who still have copies. I, too, love this game, so my recommendation to get a copy now while you're still able.

Thread: OOP?

wmshub — 2008-04-22T20:00:42+00:00

Thoughthammer and funagain are out with no expected restock date. ZMan's web site seems to say (not sure I'm interpreting correctly) that it is out of stock but expected in may; thoughthammer has a strange note saying that zman will get "a limited number" of reprints only.

Ouch! I love playing this on SBW, but always held off on buying it because I don't think it will go over well with my "real life" play group. Thus it has sat on my wishlist for a few years now. Even though I don't think it'll get played much if I buy it, I like it so much online that I'm tempted to pick up a copy while I can...!

Anybody have more exact details on when/if a reprint is coming?

Thread: Who uses these palm trees?

kevinb9n — 2008-04-02T04:39:32+00:00

I'm curious whether most geeks prefer Santiago with or without the palm trees. Would you take a second to vote on the issue here?

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/30317/item/628975#item...

thanks!

Thread: Re: Missing blue spring

tonksey — 2008-03-23T22:09:31+00:00

Zimeon wrote:

Or you can try contact the German maker. They're usually helpful.

Thanks - do you know how to contact them?

Matt...

Thread: Re: Missing blue spring

Zimeon — 2008-03-23T21:36:37+00:00

if all else fails, you can probably order a similar one from spielmaterial.de. It's a wooden blue cylinder, approx 10mm diameter and 15mm high.

Or you can try contact the German maker. They're usually helpful.

Thread: Missing blue spring

tonksey — 2008-03-21T11:19:28+00:00

Who can I contact to (hopefully) get a replacement missing spring? Or if any Geek has a spare, let me know please?

Thanks,

Matt...

Thread: Re: Da água viestes e para a água voltarás

lbathayde — 2008-03-03T14:45:22+00:00

É, a Andrea chegou, ferrou - salve-se quem puder!
A baixinha fala pouco, fica no cantinho dela, mas é um perigo!

Thread: Da água viestes e para a água voltarás

tiagoaob — 2008-02-26T23:37:48+00:00

Depois de uma pausa no deserto, voltamos para a água neste jogo que fazia muito tempo que queria experimentar. Neste ponto, havíamos desistido de esperar mais gente pelo StarCraft: The Board Game, mas a Andreia, esposa do Luiz, se animou a jogar e então decidimos deixa-lo para mais tarde.

Explicação rápida das regras para mim e meu irmão, que não conhecíamos nada do jogo e nos pusemos a jogar. No início, estranhamos muito o pouco dinheiro existente no jogo, pois haviam muitas notas de 50 no jogo, mas o volume de dinheiro envolvido no meio do jogo era bem irrisório.

O sistema de leilão é bem interessante. E o de venda de canais mais ainda.

Vamos à partida etão, fui o primeiro mestre de obras e com isso e mais a ajuda de uma benção do Luiz, pude fazer minhas primeiras plantações renderem um pouco.

Porém, fiz muitos erros (de novo ) e lentamente fui vendo minhas plantações afundarem. Logoem um dos primeiros turnos, em vez de fazer um canal que benefiacia a todos, optei por sugerir um outro canal e o resultado foi que fiquei com minha plantação seca e tive que gastar logo o meu canal de bonus. Fui o primeiro a fazer isso.

Depois, por inumeras vezes, eu colocava minhas plantações em lugares secos em vez de locais já irrigados, mesmo quando isso nõ atrapalhava em nada o futuro desenvolver da plantação.

No final do jogo, consegui começar a esboçar alguma reação e consegui algum lugar em plantações de cana e de vagem gigantescas, mesmo assim, o reino da pimenta, que ocupava quase metade do tabuleiro, permanecia longe de mim.

No final, a Andreia venceu disparada, graças aos seus reinos de pimenta, enquanto o João e eu ficamos com uma pontuação mais próxima e o Luiz atrás por conta de uns errros nos ultimos canais.

Thread: Re: 1 blue canal longer than the others

Demo_Boy — 2008-02-11T12:24:39+00:00

and Sergey for the win.

Thread: Re: 1 blue canal longer than the others

syst — 2008-02-11T11:15:17+00:00

Looks like a great way to determine starting player.

Thread: Re: 1 blue canal longer than the others

Port Power 1914 — 2008-02-08T14:51:51+00:00

Hmmmmmmmmm
Perhaps in Santiago , size does matter ??!!?

Thread: Re: 1 blue canal longer than the others

Demo_Boy — 2008-02-08T12:07:13+00:00

might be worth keeping it longer, since you can prioritize the others first and you may eventually come up with a variant that uses the longer one

Thread: Re: 1 blue canal longer than the others

Gamegrunt — 2008-02-07T20:08:47+00:00

It's a defect, not a feature!

My copy had one longer than the others and I shortened it to match the others.

Gg

Thread: 1 blue canal longer than the others

Skadar — 2008-02-07T20:00:19+00:00

I just got Santiago and was going through the game. One of my blue canals (15 in total) is a full centimeter longer than all of the others. I read through the rules and found no justification for this single, solitary sentinel of a canal standing alone in the distance, proudly flaunting it's extra 1cm in the face of all the other blue canals. I assume this is a mistake, but I just want to make sure before I take a Dremel to it.

Image

Niyes — 2008-02-07T00:04:10+00:00

Santiago box under a tiramuse cake with the BSK logo

Thread: Re: CO/HB Toggle Strategy

TheKeck — 2008-02-01T23:23:56+00:00

wmshub wrote:
I don't see how this strategy can work. I play on SBW mostly, and there, you can't toggle.

When you bid on plantations, you don't start with the prior highest bidder. You start to the left of the prior canal overseer. So in a 5 player game:

A,B,C,D,E (previous overseer)

If E bids highest, and let's say A passes, then yes E selects and places a field first. But next time there is bidding, bidding order will be:

B,C,D,E,A

So it will be very hard for E to become overseer; only if B, C, and D all bid nonzero amounts.

Am I missing something? Does SBW implement the game incorrectly?
Yes, this strategy would depend on other players not pursuing CO vigorously.

Thread: Re: CO/HB Toggle Strategy

cparrott — 2008-01-22T21:20:18+00:00

wmshub wrote:
Am I missing something? Does SBW implement the game incorrectly?

No, I don't believe there is a problem on SBW. The toggle is switching from CO to HB. You can pretty much do this every time you are CO excepting a cash problem. Other players can conspire to keep this from happening by not offering much in canal bribes, but this has its own potential pitfalls.

You rightly point out that it is hard to go from HB to CO since being HB in no way has any bearing on where the CO is aside from it's not you. Of course you can pass if no one else has yet, but I consider a pass a very weak play except to set up a situation to be HB next round and no attractive fields are available in the current round. The loss of just one farmer can be crucial.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

TheCat — 2008-01-13T09:23:14+00:00

claudio212 wrote:
By the way: does anyone know why negotiation is a category and not a mechanic?

Because the people who designed the controlled vocabulary system weren't information specialists.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

claudio212 — 2008-01-09T03:15:36+00:00

Great review. I've been looking for easy games to learn with lots of player interaction. I find that these are the best gateway games for my non-gamer friends. I think that is a big part of what makes Settlers so popular. Your review sealed the deal on this one.

By the way: does anyone know why negotiation is a category and not a mechanic?

Thread: Re: CO/HB Toggle Strategy

wmshub — 2008-01-08T20:52:25+00:00

I don't see how this strategy can work. I play on SBW mostly, and there, you can't toggle.

When you bid on plantations, you don't start with the prior highest bidder. You start to the left of the prior canal overseer. So in a 5 player game:

A,B,C,D,E (previous overseer)

If E bids highest, and let's say A passes, then yes E selects and places a field first. But next time there is bidding, bidding order will be:

B,C,D,E,A

So it will be very hard for E to become overseer; only if B, C, and D all bid nonzero amounts.

Am I missing something? Does SBW implement the game incorrectly?

Thread: Re: CO/HB Toggle Strategy

TheKeck — 2008-01-02T15:36:02+00:00

houjix wrote:
After many games of Santiago, I think it's a seriously rare case when you should pass on the overseer. That said, I think the game really hinges around the overseers bonus of bidding last in the next round. Taking the overseer gives me absolutely final say over if I want first choice next round or not. With that in mind, as the overseer I try to set up an empty but watered space next to big plantations. That way if a good tile flips I can be guaranteed to outbid, play into the big field and already have it watered. Santiago is a prospecting game as much as anything else.
Ha, you replied to thread the day I created it and I only notice now.

Also, I agree with everything you said.

Thread: Re: CO/HB Toggle Strategy

kat69 — 2007-11-11T00:00:00+00:00

I agree win the bids keep it watered. You will lest be in the game.

Thread: Re: Slick Session Report #4 - We Can Really Relate To This !

Port Power 1914 — 2007-10-01T14:05:53+00:00

Alison really enjoyed it as she got a feel for it early and whilst she was unable to win began to appreciate what was needed to succeed at this game .
As for Ruth - well - she didn't so much enjoy it as endure it but she was being a good sport as she knows that her husband David (one of the other players in our game) really enjoys the verbal jousting which occurs in Santiago .
It is fun - but with a real competitive edge .

Thread: Re: Slick Session Report #4 - We Can Really Relate To This !

marioaguila — 2007-09-30T17:21:02+00:00

I'd like to know Ruth's and Allison's impressions...

Thread: Slick Session Report #4 - We Can Really Relate To This !

Port Power 1914 — 2007-09-30T14:28:49+00:00

Living in Australia generally means you may well go short on water . We are now however living through what has been declared as 1 in 1000 year drought . With that as the pertinent backdrop we sat down to a 5 player game of Santiago .
It was only my third session so as "teacher" I am still a little "green" the 2 previous had been with 4 and 5 sitting in .
My wife Lynley and friends David , Ruth and Alison joined me - Ruth who is a reluctant gamer and Alison had not played before so there was some educating needed . The explanation took only 7 or 8 minutes and whilst Ruth's eyes exhibited a slight glazing over we began .
We placed the spring in one of the more central positions but the game developed along intriguing lines - by halfway through all but 2 of the planted crops were in the filled longitudinal half of the board .
This led to much conversation/advice/bribing to try to get water on the other half of the board as the game progressed . A large 9 tile connected section of bananas soon shrank to a game-defining lot of just 5 tiles as canals were placed elsewhere - in 2 cases in places which had little direct benefit to the canal overseer but which severely limited opponents with large numbers of cubes on those plantations .
The big winner was my wife who won primarily on the back of a red pepper crop with 8 tiles in common that she has a large presence in and because she was the last to use her extra canal in a spot which was also very advantageous .

Final scores : Lynley 60 - Ruth 51 - Alison 48 - Me 44 - David 38 .

Some closing and important observations :
How did Ruth do so well ? We gave her a lot of help as it was a "friendly" co-operative game with first timers aboard . Even still , the beauty of this game is that there is constant and ongoing negotiaton - if you enjoy the poker-hold-your-cards-tight-to-your-chest scenario then this isn't for you .
In that sense this is a strange beast - you ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO collude , negotiate and converse with others as I feel winning is impossible without doing so . It does feel a little strange openly telling others where you want canals to go , why they should place that green bean with just the 1 cube there and indeed why YOU are going to place that green bean cube with just the 1 cube there !!...
For me though as far as almost constant interaction goes this is a real gem .

Thread: Re: Video Review

Driver 8 — 2007-09-12T12:00:51+00:00

Great review. I'm getting this game now. One thing though, did you mean to call the Canal Overseer the Harbor Master so many times? Maybe you were thinking of Manila.

Thread: Re: Reseña en español/Review in Spanish

marioaguila — 2007-08-28T12:22:45+00:00

Entretenida tu reseña y muy ajustada a la realidad.
Diría que Santiago tiene un sustrato matemático y posicional, aderezado con una pizca de subastas y otra de negociación, dando como resultado un plato sabroso, pero fino.
Como dices, pese a simpleza y elegancia de su funcionamento, no teniendo esa variedad de vías de victoria típica de muchos juegos, no resulta fácil dominar. De hecho, hace muchos pero muchos juegos que no logro ganarlo.

Thread: Reseña en español/Review in Spanish

barnyams36 — 2007-08-28T09:12:15+00:00

**This review can also be read at Nosolorol e-zine www.nosolorol.com/revista**

Esta reseña también puede leerse en el e-zine Nosolorol www.nosolorol.com/revista

Aquí tenemos para vuestra alegría y regocijo un juego con nombre muy español donde intentaremos regar nuestras plantaciones de patatitas, pimientitos y otras verduritas sanas, sanas. Se trata de Santiago, un excelente juego que aúna una buena diversidad de mecánicas, con mucho sentido, para un juego realmente redondo. Un juego de plantar, regar, sobornar, aliarse… y por supuesto, romper alianzas.

Esa caja…

El aspecto de la caja está bien, es una ilustración simpática, que no es que te enamore, pero no te echa para atrás. El tamaño de la caja ya es otra cosa. Sí, caja enorme para lo que contiene. Y es que aquí no se han molestado en hacerle un pliegue al tablero, y claro, para que quepa, la caja tiene el tamaño de la del Samurai, o el Maharajá, o el Hansa (pero más gruesa). Dentro viene un plástico para clasificar las cosas, donde hay más huecos de los necesarios, y que viene preparado para separar los billetes de dinero en sus valores, e imagino, facilitar la vida del jugador que haga de banca. Nada, todo a la basura, y dentro caben unos cuantos de juegos más chiquititos.

Los componentes están bastante bien, no son la monda, pero cumplen su función, y el cartón de las losetas está bien. Encontramos: el tablero, bastante soso, porque simplemente representa unas tierras donde poner nuestras plantaciones, así que está simplemente ilustrado como si fuese eso, tierra, con unos canalillos dibujados. Las losetas de las plantaciones, 45 en total, con cinco plantas distintas, claramente distinguibles por su color y dibujos. Un montón de billetes de distinto valor, la inmensa mayoría de los cuales no se utilizan jamás de los jamases. Papel normal, tipo monopoly, y como digo, sobradísimos (no me imagino quien puede llegar a necesitar los de 50 o los de 20 escudos, francamente). 110 cubitos de colores, en cinco colores, representando los trabajadores de cada uno de los jugadores (de 3 a 5 jugadores, por cierto, aunque mucho más recomendable cuantos más sean), unos cuantos de palitos azules que representan canales de riego, y también un palito del color de cada jugador para proponer el lugar de riego. Tres palmeritas de plástico para una versión avanzada, y una figurita montable del constructor del canal. Todo hubiera cabido en una caja menor que la mitad que esta, pero toca aguantarse.

Ah, y el libreto de reglas, muy bonito, y muy bien explicado.

Riega tu patatita…

El concepto básico del juego es bastante sencillo, y las reglas realmente lo son, pero como tiene varias fases puede parecer lioso. La idea es colocar trabajadores en las losetas de plantación, intentando que estén en las plantaciones más productivas. Las más productivas serán aquellas que tengan losetas del mismo tipo de plantación adyacentes, de modo que los puntos que tendremos vendrán dados por el número de trabajadores que tengamos, multiplicado por el tamaño total de esa plantación. Por ejemplo, si tenemos dos trabajadores en un campo de tres losetas de patatas, serán seis puntos. El conjunto total viene dado por todas las que estén adyacentes.

Así que la primera fase consiste en pujar con dinero, para ver quien se lleva cada una de las plantaciones (losetas) que se ponen en juego. Lógicamente, quien más dinero ofrezca, escoge primero y se sigue el orden de puja. No se puede repetir puja, y el primero que pase, se convertirá en el constructor del canal.

Una vez colocadas las losetas (los trabajadores dibujados se colocan automáticamente, poniendo uno o dos cubitos sobre la loseta, según corresponda), viene el momento del riego. Y es que sin un canal que toque a la loseta por algún lado, mal asunto, ya que ese terreno se va secando… Así que toca sobornar. En efecto, por turnos, se va proponiendo una localización para el canal, y ofreciendo dinero al constructor para que efectivamente se coloque allí el canal definitivo. Una vez escuchadas todas las propuestas, el constructor puede aceptar alguna de ellas, colocar el canal y tomar el dinero ofrecido, o bien pasar de todos, y ponerlo donde quiera, pero pagando un escudo más que la propuesta más alta. Los jugadores pueden apoyarse unos a otros (una misma localización puede convenirle a dos o más jugadores), o putearse de la manera más simpática. Si conseguimos tener todo regadito, ya podemos estar contentos. Si no es así, todavía no está todo perdido, porque para eso tenemos un canal de emergencia (sólo uno) por jugador.

Y ahora sí, una vez puesto el canal, y quizá uno de emergencia (sólo se permite poner uno, así que si lo pone tu compañero y tú pensabas ponerlo, lo siento mucho), se observa, y se quita un trabajador de cada loseta que no tenga riego. Si hay alguna loseta que ya no tiene trabajadores, se le da la vuelta… y se convierte en desierto.

Y así se continúa, hasta que se acaben todas las losetas.

Puede que explicado así, como casi siempre, parezca un poco soso. Pero según el número de jugadores, y con el paso de los turnos, la escasez de agua es realmente terrible, y conseguir regar nuestros campos es muy complicado. Las pujas, los sobornos, los supuestos apoyos de otros jugadores, cada vez tienen más tensión, y el juego va constantemente in crescendo.

Conjunción de mecánicas

Santiago me llama la atención por su magnífica unificación de diferentes mecánicas, cada una tan interesante como las otras. En primer lugar tenemos la mecánica de puja para hacernos con una loseta que nos sea especialmente interesante. Una vez conseguida la loseta, hay que colocarla. Esto es mucho más intrincado de lo que pueda parecer, ya que por el sistema de puntuación, al colocar la loseta normalmente no sólo te estás dando puntos a ti, que colocas trabajadores, sino que le das puntos a todos lo jugadores que tengan trabajadores en el mismo campo, ya que aumentas la extensión del mismo. Esto hace que haya que estar constantemente viendo si interesa más o menos una loseta u otra, y dónde interesa más colocarla. Además, es obvia la posibilidad de cerrar campos de otros jugadores y chafarles el chiringuito. Tras la colocación de las losetas, tenemos el soborno-negociación, con esas mini-alianzas entre jugadores para apoyar una posición del canal, y el constructor intentando sacar la mayor tajada posible. Y por supuesto, escoger el momento adecuado para usar el canal extra propio, que puede darnos muchos puntitos…

Todo esto, con el dinero disponible de cada jugador oculto, con lo que las pujas pueden ser horribles, ya que no sabes si alguien posteriormente te va a sobrepasar, y vas a pagar un dineral por una loseta que realmente no te interesa tanto.

Santiago es un juego que, sin ser el más difícil, no es el más fácil con el que podemos empezar. El manejo de la situación es complicado, y no es fácil saber cuando pujar más o menos, y como llevar el tema del soborno, o cuando pasar para ser el constructor. Así que quizá no sea un juego especialmente indicado para comprar el primero de tu vida. Pero una vez que estamos más o menos acostumbrados a estos juegos, Santiago es una joya que nos puede proporcionar magníficos momentos.

El juego dura alrededor de una hora, y pueden jugar entre 3 y 5 jugadores. Obviamente, cuantos más hay liados, la escasez de agua es mayor, y mayor, y la angustia también. Pero para que negarlo, nos gusta angustiarnos…

Además, es un juego realmente barato, no llega a los 20 eurillos, y bajo mi punto de vista es una de las mejores relaciones calidad precio que podéis encontrar, así que contra el calor… regadío.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

MattDP — 2007-08-04T16:37:56+00:00

cymric wrote:
That is why I paid little attention to the score-recalculation. You have to do it from time to time, of course, but I have not found it to be a hindrance in practice.

Yep, it kind of lends credence to your title - the way this game is played is definitely group dependent. I'm not usually much of an analytical player but I've only played this game with analytical types, and it does help to recalculate every round.

With analytical gamers I've also found that all the fun interaction you describe tends to evaporate a bit in the face of min/maxing the various options possible in the bribe phase. I see this as a minor flaw in the game, but it does mean that it can kind of be all things to all people - an analysis game for those that want that, and an argumentative game for those that like that!

I'd love to try this with my usual AT-inclined group, but none of own a copy as yet, and I'm still not 100% convinced it's good enough to buy. Almost, but not quite

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

Sprydle — 2007-08-03T20:27:00+00:00

There is complete consensus amongst our gaming group that this is hands-down, the BEST, and the deepest, under-an-hour, 5-player games out there. It should be noted that we've only played it with 5 players.

Without looking at my ratings, I believe this to be the only eurogame I've rated a perfect 10.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

cymric — 2007-08-03T15:47:24+00:00

I find it interesting to hear that you try to re-evaluate the score after every move, because I generally don't. I guess I'm more of an intuitive player. I do a check every two rounds or so, perhaps a bit more once we approach the finish, or when someone begins to grow a very large stretch of land. For the rest I tend to use heuristics.

The reason is that unless your are truly very agile with numbers, you get bogged down in arguments as follows. I can derive that when I add a tile to a plot of land I'm not yet represented, all the other players get C more points, where C is the amount of their cubes already on it; and (in case of me adding a single cube) I'd get T points, where T is the amount of tiles now in the group. But to decide whether to make the move, even if T >> C, depends on my position relative to the other players. If I am in second place, and my main competitor is first, then it would seem that if T > C the move is advisable. If on the other hand the player in 3rd place now has an opportunity to surpass us both, then clearly my extension is suboptimal. If the 3rd player merely closes the gap to me to an uncomfortable degree, then I need to know what is still in the stock to assess the probability of him surpassing me.

And so forth, und so weiter. And this is without taking into account the problems of getting water to your crops, and fighting the shortage of money which inevitably sets in. Or, in light of my review, the way people behave: will they take a risk, or cooperate, or just be stubborn and put their foot down?

As a result, I don't play the game 'mathematically' as it is too difficult to predict the optimum move; in addition, it is not always clear what 'optimum' is. In other words, the decision tree I walk has some calculations in it but a good deal of heuristics too. Therefore there is no need to calculate the score after every move save for a reminder as to how well you are doing relative to the others. Obviously my heuristics are not bulletproof: sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. Sometimes I'm able to improve them somewhat---it's like a neural network learning the ropes (if this means anything to you .) That is why I paid little attention to the score-recalculation. You have to do it from time to time, of course, but I have not found it to be a hindrance in practice.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

MattDP — 2007-08-03T14:28:52+00:00

Nice review.

You don't talk much about the scoring. One of the big black marks I have against this game (I rate it a 7) is that to stay competitive you've got to recalculate the score after every move - the nature of scoring is such that you can't keep track of it on a score track. I find this massively irritating as it's not a trivial task.

Thread: Re: Is money hidden?

clearclaw — 2007-08-03T00:20:51+00:00

Drinkdrawers wrote:
JC, from what I've read of what you've said about the way you play games, I think that it's fair to say that you're a freak when it comes to keeping track of hidden information. Hardly human. None of us mortals compare.

I'm not good at it. Card counting or tracking takes a lot of effort for me and thus time (I also don't enjoy it). However if the game rewards keeping track then I'll usually track it, slowly, while y'all wait. Thus it is easier and faster to play open.

Thread: Re: Is money hidden?

Drinkdrawers — 2007-08-03T00:00:45+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
ManlyWan wrote:
Isamoor wrote:
Most games don't break one way or the other, so it's all up to you.

Open money + AP player = pain

I play games with closed hidden trackable information far far more slowly than I do games with open information...so I think your equation is the wrong way around.

JC, from what I've read of what you've said about the way you play games, I think that it's fair to say that you're a freak when it comes to keeping track of hidden information. Hardly human. None of us mortals compare.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

Ashitaka — 2007-08-02T22:34:27+00:00

Ditto. Thanks for the review.

Bob

Thread: Re: Is money hidden?

Isamoor — 2007-08-02T20:21:34+00:00

dcorban wrote:
Isamoor wrote:
But there can be a nice discussion on why it should and shouldn't be.

"Nice" is putting it far too kindly.

There have been many (too many) discussions on this aspect of gaming, most triggered by certain people evangelizing open holdings in any thread even remotely related to the subject.

I think I've only seen a couple, but I'll now know better to steer clear. Thanks for the warning.

Just play it how you want to play it. The point is to have fun.

Thread: Re: Is money hidden?

dcorban — 2007-08-02T20:08:09+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
But there can be a nice discussion on why it should and shouldn't be.

"Nice" is putting it far too kindly.

There have been many (too many) discussions on this aspect of gaming, most triggered by certain people evangelizing open holdings in any thread even remotely related to the subject.

Thread: Re: Is money hidden?

Drew1365 — 2007-08-02T19:48:10+00:00

I first played this on SpielByWeb, and there all the money is open information. So when we got it to the table, we also kept money open. I'm not sure if there would be that much of a difference in play.

Thread: Re: Is money hidden?

Barkam — 2007-08-02T19:31:54+00:00

I will also stand by Allen's equation. I find that clearclaw is the exception to the rule.

Thread: Re: It's all about the players

turtleback — 2007-08-02T19:30:58+00:00

I have been on the fence about buying this game, but after reading this review I think I will.