I agree - a good game. Something else I like is that the expansions add massively to the game - not just extra bits for a couple of extra players ???

One of my all-time favorites. A 10 all the way.

I love it when Chris's lists come back to life.



This kind of thing that Robert talks about is exactly the kind of game I like. Analysis paralysis is a gamer trait, not a game trait. If your gaming group has the ability to play game with overarching strategies to complement interesting tactical play, then this kind of game should be no problem.

I'm still not enamored of El Grande even with the action card order for all turns revealed at the start of the game, but at least that makes the game more interesting since you can actually plan ahead.

For a game with a very similar characteristic, see the base game for A Game of Thrones. Revealing all the event cards for the whole game at start makes it a much better strategic exercise.

If you want a more obviously strategic component, why not just use the King & Villain cards? These give each player their own deck of event cards at the beginning of the game, from which you to select what you're going to play with.
They give the players a lot more control over how and when the events come out, and of course the deck customization makes for some strategic choices. Not sure why I didn't think of this before.

I actually don't play King and Villain very often because it does make for a much more challenging game, and usually when playing El Grande the base game is enough for me. But for those of you who crave the longer view, it might be just the ticket.

As I mentioned, one of the other reasons El Grande is so great is because it has two great expansions, both of which make for almost new games.

This is an old thread but I'll throw in my two cents anyways...this is the Geek after all (where you can do or say whatever you like, whenever you like).

My problem with El Grande is that it is a very clever construct of mechanics but lacking any heart or soul, or whatever it is that pulls you into a game and keeps you there. I am in total agreement that the construction is flawless, but you are so immersed in those same mechanics that it is hard to remember what it is you are trying to accomplish (beyond manipulating two sets of cards to maximize your influence position in a number of areas where other cubes may also reside). Something about Spain? Troy (where the game is reportedly to have originally been set)? Does it matter?

I readily admit that the concept of theme in gaming is something I pay particular attention to and I am extremely sensitive to elements of a game that run counter to or detract from it, but here is an example where the theme itself is either totally absent or irrelevent to the actual play. This game is all about the game and how you manipulate it to outpoint your opponents. My idea of a great game is where the mechanics reflect and reinforce the theme in their very construction. Examples would be For The People, Hannibal, Dune, War of the Ring, etc.

People have compared We the People (and could by extension apply this notion to any of the CDGs that mark ownership with political influence counters) to Othello. While in pure analytical terms that may be an accurate observation, there is never a sense that you are playing an abstact game - the theme is everywhere in most CDGs. How good the games are is a question of taste and what your interests are in gaming. However, I would rather play a decent well themed game than a brilliant abstraction. That's just me.

El Grande feels more and more like a sterile exercise after repeated playings. I've given it a good rating for the undeniable quality of the design but I wouldn't miss not ever playing it again.

I don't like C&K. Found the game to be longer and boring, but that's just me.

Don't avoid the 5-6 expansion. We play regularly with 5 players, and we really appreciate the "extra" building option for all players at the end of each player's turn. This is an important modification for that many players, and it works very well.

I would be nice to find 'The One Ring' a little easier...

Not supported as it deserved? I seem to remember it getting five or six expansions, including a full-on 400 card second base set of all new cards. Frankly, for a game of its complexity, I think it was supported well enough. The fact is, it was just too burdened down by heavy concepts. Hey, it beat the 18-month kill cycle of most 'successful' CCGs...

It really needed a 2nd Edition rulebook. The eratta got out of hand late in the game's lifespan, and ICE had a hard time handling it. MECCG wasn't a hard game fundamentally, but keeping track of the CRF by the end was not a fun time, and the cards got more and more esoteric.

It was still a wonderful thematic game, and it's a shame ICE lost their license as the movies started to get off the ground. While they had their issues, they were a much more solid *game* company than Decipher.

My understanding was that it was the 2nd most successful CCG, after Magic (boosted by big international sales, especially in Germany & England). But as you say, CCGs do have a limited lifespan due to the complications created by the necessity of constant expansions.

I think in the end there were two base sets (The Wizards and Lidless Eye); METW has two expansions (The Dragons and Dark Minions); MELE had one expansion (Against the Shadow); then there were the two last and least-successful expansions, White Hand and The Balrog - both semi-standalone, both terrific ideas, neither of which quite worked.

I agree with this choice, Chris.

This is a game that provided a true sense of adventure and storyline. I officiated tournaments here in Montreal for 3 years and ICE's prize-support was fantastic. Although it was sad to see the dwindling support over time, they certainly could not be faulted with lack of generosity.

The artwork is superb and the game could be easily played thematically or competitively. In my opinion, it offered far more in terms of exploring Tolkien's world than the new Decipher game. Although the dice often reared its ugly head in many games I played, I'm always compelled to build a new deck and try something new. I love this game still.

If you enjoy Tolkien, this CCG is a must. It deserves to be mentioned as one of the very best Tolkien themed games, along with a handful of others. Geek List of best Tolkien themed games here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listi...

One of my friends also hates this game because he feels that this can be played Solitaire. However, I'm sure his mind will change once I get the Sauron expansion. Now there is an adversary.

"No point" is pretty strong. The randomness of the card and tile draws ensures that you will get into different situations each time you play, so it's not strictly a "puzzle". If the desire to win the game just once was the only thing that kept you playing, then I guess you would indeed stop playing it after you beat it the first time. But that's not going to be the only motivation for everyone.

It's rarely played in my group, but it's not a one-time-and-out.

I'm not sure calling LotR a "puzzle" is accurate, at least in my view. I think of LotR as more of a collection of "micro-puzzles" which vary a lot from game to game. The pace of the events is a fundamentally game-altering thing - it affects the weight you apply to the different tracks. The randomness of the corruption allocation and the distribution of action cards will affect how you play the game (how hard you work to keep hobbits alive to preserve cards in their hand, how you work out who needs to get the Ring next, etc). You also have to weigh the desire to set up your needs for future boards with the risks in the current board. All this is not trivial, and the randomness inherent in the system gaurentees you won't see similar games twice - so I think LotR is no more a puzzle than any other board game.

When Sauron starts on 15, or maybe even 12, I'll grant you the game can feel puzzle-like. Starting on 10, though, it's a real game. Lots of tough choices. You can't forsee all the challenges you will face.

My favorite of the "We The People" type games. Very strong repeat playability. I love the random entry of the Roman generals, and the naval rules work really well without too much added complexity. Someone should reprint this!

Along with Up Front, I hope this game is reissued at some point.

I remember taking off the shrinkwrap, setting it up, flipping through the rulebook, pushing a few pieces around, sighing, and then boxing it up and never getting it out or even thinking of it again.

Years later, I come here and find people selling their children for a copy.

Apparently, Valley Games (the company that brought back Die Macher and Big City) will be reprinting this game. So that means (a) you'll soon be able to buy a copy without having to sell off your children, and (b) those who were using their stockpile of games to slowly acquire great woggles of cash will no longer be able to do so.

As a further update, Valley Games ( www.valleygames.ca) in fact is reprinting Hannibal. As of 02/28/07 they are now charging credit cards and expect to have it released by the end of June, 2007.

In the art of negotiation, how is Quo Vadis compared to Traders of Genoa?

I could not agree more. Each time I think of my favourite Euro game ever, I secretly hold this one to be on top of the list. Esaily the game that I have played the most.

You are right, there are some inconsistancies, and I do actually mention this in my intro to the Knizia list. Part of it is the "slicing" factor, but part of it too is that these lists were created pretty far apart in time and I spent a lot more time on the actual ordering in the Knizia list than this one.

Anyway, you're right, Ra should probably rate above Quo Vadis here. Quo Vadis got rated higher originally because I like negotiation games, and good ones are few and far between, while auction games are more common.

This is not to defend my inconsistancy here, because I do try pretty hard to be consistant. My only defense is that amongst these great games, which one might be better today can change a bit and not be a world-altering thing.

90 minute? how do you do it??

Play fast?

It's also usually to someone's advatage to use the "choose a start space" tile to accelerate the end of the game (usually if someone is going after privledges), so we almost always see a turn or two chopped off this way.

I agree this game can drag out for up to two hours in some cases, and it can be very group-dependant. But I usually see about 90 minutes.

So did I do something stupid when I sold this after three games? Boy, I hated it. Unlike othe Alea games such as PoF or Taj Mahal, my rating for this steadily dropped rather than rose (they usually take a few games before you "connect" with them). Couldn't figure out why, but the third game envoked such a violent reaction I couldn't bare playing it again.

I think it is because of the total lack of control - you just didn't know what you were negotiating for. I give you a salt so you can, what, give me silk or run a message or make a large order? There was no feeling of control or prior knowledge.

It may come down to the fact I grow tired of negotations very quickly. I always gave up and just wanted to get on with the game. Same with Quo Vadis. Too much back and forth.

I'd like to know if anyone likes negotiation games but DOESN'T like Traders. If not, I'll steer well clear of negotiation games in the future.

Should I have given up on this so quickly? Its ratings are so good I have a feeling another few games may have sorted it out.

2-3 hours of interminable negotiations? No, I don't think selling it was a mistake. My mistake was buying it in the first place.

I just wish I had the right group for this game. One of the best negotiation games around. I love it for its complexity in negotiation levers.

I played this for the first time recently and I agree, a great game!

The older, more rules-problematic version of this game is pictured, but the reprint is terrific: one of the best marriages of the block system and gaming situation, in my opinion. The block approach is an excellent fit for the bluff and counter-bluff that typified the real North African campaign. Liberty and Hammer of the Scots are big favortes of mine using the same system -- again, because the system seems to fit the gaming situation like a glove.

Another great block gaming idea would be the Vietnam War.

Ah yes.

Occasionally I get the urge to simply get out the rules and re-read them. Kind of like a refresher course.

In fact, I just got them out now.

Of course, the only friend I ever played this with is now 400 miles away. But I've still got 2 big boxes, plus a few smaller, full of stuff for the system. >sigh<

I still think the original Squad Leader was a far, far superior game to this unholy monstrosity. A sad example of what happens when the rules lawyers and bullet counters aren’t kept in their cages. You roll 20 times as many dice, read 5 to 6 times as many rules, and you end up with generally the same results.

Well, there are a lot of rules, but the die-roll count is about the same as classic SL. The individual die rolls just tend to have more effects (ROF, ELR, etc). And some elements of ASL are actually cleaner than the original (like defensive fire and those unworkable penetration rules from SL that nobody I know ever used).

Think about it this way. You can learn to play a good-quality eurogame in 20 minutes by reading the rules, then play it under 5 times and get maybe 4 hours of fun out of it if you're lucky. So that's a 1:12 learning:fun ratio.

OK, so maybe it takes 12 hours of learning rules to figure out how to play ASL (although this leaves aside the Desert, PTO, etc., it is probably a high estimate for the core game). At eurogame rates, you would expect 144 hours of fun ... which is a lot, but ASL is good for way, way more than that if it's your game of choice. There is an almost incomprehensibly huge number and variety of scenarios available.

You have to actually play it that much, which means that you can't play much in terms of other games. But ASL is certainly amenable to it. And while the rules are lengthy, no question, they are also fairly good.

I'm not saying ASL is for everyone, not by a far cry. But I certainly do consider it one of the all-time great games.

Chris, you're right: the die rolls are about the same; it's all of the additional die roll modifiers that bring me down. But I still think that ASL is an unnecessarily complex hijacking of John Hill's original concept -- which he designed to give more of the "feel" of tactical combat rather than an attempt to realistically reproduce it.

2-4 Hours an episode? Good grief what do you do to speed play? I haven't tried it yet but I'm of the opinion that ditching the cards for everything but draws and using some sort of reference sheet would be faster. Is that what you do?

Just wanted to add that Kevin is looking at it all wrong. Once the kids can play with you, you will have plenty of time to play!

Agree. I love this game!

Chris,

2-4 Hours?? I guess it depends on the scenario. We've played the middle scenario three times and it was like 8 hours long. Maybe we just argue too much?

To play this game to completion takes anywhere from 20 minutes (Rome falls) to 8 hrs. The aspect that I appreciate the most about this game, is that it is, in reality, an open-ended "framework". The real "game" emerges from the players themselves, their choices, and their creativity. (moves like... sending out influencial senetors to govern the provinces who carry the most votes, placing other powerful senators in drawn-out battles away from Rome, then motioning that you be declared CHANCELLOR FOR LIFE!!!–That's a creative political move!) When you play RoR, it even FEELS like you back in ancient Rome: arguing, dealmaking, betraying, and maneuvering for power. What a great game!

I own two copies of this one and have literaly worn the pieces out of the firs one. Complete agreement but don't hope in the upcoming MG game. I was one of the playtesters and compare badly to BKN.

The high-water mark of the area-impulse gaming system, even if I thought the rulebook was a bit opaque at first. A wildly competitive game with lots of tension if both sides are of fairly equal playing experience/skill.

Monty's Gamble didn't turn out too bad, either (despite the prior message by a playtester I do not remember - must have been a very early version of the design).

I have a couple of comments on this one.

Why did GWchange the scale of the minis down from what is the 'norm' nowadays? The orcs and goblins looks so puny when fighting against my reaper heros.

My friend complains that there is no real challenge in the battles. The good side just has to expend their points to overcome the hoards of evil.

I really like the idea of an extended saga of related games, however.

My understanding is that they scaled the figs differently for exactly the reasons you say ... to make them incompatible with the cheaper, existing 25mm figs. GW is in fact a bunch of bloodsucking vampires, but at least they can back it up with a good game unlike some other game companies I might mention. That being said, we have used a very few of Reaper's figs with the GW LotR line - the Dwarves are very close in scale, and I have a DYO scenario that uses one of Reaper's excellent Dragon figures as a lesser Cold Drake.

Scenario balance was a serious issue in the Fellowship of the Rings version of the game. The showpiece scenario, Balin's Tomb, is dreadfully unbalanced against the bad guys. If you add up the points it's pretty obvious (even though the point values are often at best a wild guess) - the good guys outpoint the bad guys 2:1. I've found if you add a second cave troll, it's closer but the good guys are still significantly favored. A third might be in order. With two trolls I find the scenario fun, although the bad guys still haven't won.

The good news here is that things have gotten a lot better. The Amon Hen scenario that was in White Dwarf and the first compendium (the two-parter) was their first really excellent scenario, and I haven't played a loser from The Two Towers, the Saruman booklet, or Shadow & Flame yet. They've all been interesting, tight and reasonably balanced; I've especially liked all the Helm's Deep games. Lots of good stuff. Now if only I could paint figures fast enough to play them all ...

Actually, from what I understand GW was _required_ to scale the figures differently as a condition of the license. This wasn't a marketing choice by GW. For once.

BTW, nice choice for your list. These rules are the best I've seen for pre-gunpowder small-scale actions. We tweaked them slightly to do Samurai battles, and they worked very well. If you want gunpowder involved, get Brother vs. Brother.

I have too respectfully disagree. I found Starfarers to be completely banal. There was no game there, just dice-rolling. I agree with most of your assements to other games, but to anyone out there, please pass of Starfarers.

Having just recently revisting this title, I have to agree with your comments. I like Starfarers the most of any Settler variant I have played. Starfarers has a wider variety of choices to make each turn and it feels like the choices you make each turn will eventually impact the finish, much more so than in Settlers. At least I'd like to believe it does.

Your label of "ADVANCED SETTLERS" is most descriptive, more choices, more control, and (unfortunately) quite a bit more time.

Still Starfarers is a really solid game in my book, especially when compared to classic Settlers.

I have disagreed with you, I have agreed with you, I have put bite marks in my compuer screen and damaged my teeth because of you, but in this regard I am in total support - Starfarers is an excellent game that is hampered by an over-estimation of the effect of some encounter cards, and by it's differences with the original Settlers.
Starfarers is an excellent game that is well balanced, I have played many games of Settlers where one of the players has been in a very poor position from the beginning and hasn't done well throughout. I have only played one game of Starfarers where something similar was the case! This is a very clever version of the basic Settlers system, it plays well, is fun (key to any game), and looks great!
PS - It was probably my computer misbehaving again that caused the 'El Terrible' biting incident of 2005, after reading this Geeklist Item I realise you could not possibly be at fault.

Quite an unusal pick from the OCS series, right? I would go for "Guderian Blitzkerig", "Enemy at the Gate" or "Hube's Pocket" before considering this one. I love the OCS series. But Burma is just not my cup of tea.

Definitely not unusual, plenty of people like Burma.

GBII and Hube's are monumentally unplayable. They make World in Flames look like checkers, playing-time wise, and there are *no* good small scenarios; in GBII it's 250 hours or nothing. Enemy at the Gates is much better, but the playing time is still immense, the game requires 4+ people, and there is a lack of decent playable scenarios.

Burma has it all - a very playable campaign that works fine with only 2 players (although 3 help), a raft of good smaller scenarios, and an overall situation that is highly playable and doesn't have the same sense of "one slip sudden death" that the east front games sometimes have. And a great historical feel.

Korea is currently higher on my playlist since I've played Burma a lot, and Korea is itself a great game that might achieve classic status. But Burma *is* a classic.

I always enjoyed reading about games from The Gamers and admiring their nicely rendered maps and counters much more than actually playing their games -- many of the mechanics, while innovative, seem awkward and buggy. Still, I haven't played Burma.

I can't wait to get my copy... if I can teach my girlfriend to play this I'll... well... just do something freakin' nuts!

I am really fascinated by this game. I don't usually play long games like this (I've taken upon myself to play the 1939 campaigngame 3 times so far). My friends and I are in the struggling process of, slowly but more and more securely, getting a handle on the rules. I really like the stratego (read limited intelligence) effect the blocks give and the special actions rocks.

Together with A Game of Thrones (+Clash of Kings expansion) this is rising to be one of my most favorite games.

I'm also looking forward to play Wizard Kings wich I've just bought and plan that my next by will be EastFront and perhaps Crusader Rex. I've really fallen in love with the block concept.

By the way Chris. I thougth I would see EastFront or Wizard Kings on your list?

Ah, finally, someone else who gets it with this game.

My wife and I adore this game and look for opportunities to sit down to this. You've hit the nail on the head; one cannot play this game without some idea how you're going to hit 12 VP. My favorite strategies are with fleets and knights; my wife, OTOH, can't wait to build the Town Hall and the Mint. Both of us shy away from getting nasty with the Arsonist and the Black Knight, but we're not above throwing them into a strategy mix sometime (they work really well when you can spring them on your unsuspecting opponent late in the game - use a Spy first to make sure they don't have a Bishop or an Herb Woman). We LOVE LOVE LOVE this game - and all the other games in my closet but Cosmic Encounter and Lord of the Rings (Friends & Foes expansion in the box) can BURN -- if I've got those three, I've got enough.

We're still figuring out the expansions, though. Right now, we really like the Trade & Change one (especially that Toll House - too cool). Dang, the Knights and Merchants one is NASTY!!!

Perhaps there are also some of us who "get it," but simply don't like it.

I think gamers need to use the expansions and the tourneament rules to really appreciate it.
Non-gamers are more likely to enjoy the boardgame rather than this (if you have some experience of CCG, and you like them, you're definitely more inclined toward this).
Obviously you may simply dislike it (especially if you expected a 2-players Catan rather than a different game).

A friend and I still play this and it's usually enjoyable. We've kept track though, and I've even tried to intentially win other ways, but the person who gets 5 of the 9 villages has won about 80% of the games (getting up near 20 games played now).

The production advantage is part of it, the other part is more spaces for green cards. I've seen other people argue up, down, and sideways "good" players can win with only 4 of the 9, but both Mark and I are good players and have discussed strategies endlessly, and it usually comes down to 5 villages wins.

The expansions simply make it more fun watching the person with 5 villages win .

Solid game that falls flat. Sold.

I have to agree with your analysis of GCACW. It simply is a fantastic game. When I bought the first game in the system, Stonewall Jackson's Way, and got to the rules section on movement, I admit to being thrown back a bit because of its random mechanics (i.e. rolling a dice for MP's - hey! this isn't Monopoly). However, it works beautifully. I am surprised at the lack of attention that the entire series has received, actually. The games are of medium complexity, and the rules are very easy to follow. Every procedure is very clearly written and easy to follow. Definitely a must-buy, in my opinion.

Agreed -- GBACW is one of the most playable series ever, one of those rare games where the rules work so well together they seem almost intuitive. I recently broke out my copy of Stonewall Jackson's Way after a too-long hiatus (several years) and within no more than 10 minutes remembered exactly how to play.

And some of the loveliest maps in all of wargaming, in my opinion.