Stone Age | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Now on Yucata.de !

Moviebuffs — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:20:48 +0000

Shandazar wrote:
It's been on BrettSpielWelt for a while, and is by no means a beta version.

Yes, I know it has.

But Yucata is a play-by-email site, and I know a few people - myself included - prefer that kind of site, so I thought I'd let people know.

N.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Now on Yucata.de !

Shandazar — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:10:10 +0000

by Shandazar

It's been on BrettSpielWelt for a while, and is by no means a beta version.

Thread: Stone Age:: General:: Now on Yucata.de !

Moviebuffs — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 20:06:09 +0000

by Moviebuffs

Yep ...

This excellent game has just appeared at the also rather excellent www.yucata.de website.

Still in Beta at the moment, but there goes my evening ....

N.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Equal Turns as First Player

ArtEmiSa64 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 18:51:08 +0000

by ArtEmiSa64

With my game group we keep track of our games. As you can see in the following link in 6 games the 4th player ended 4-2-3-2-2-2

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/41962/item/928511#item...
(Each entry is: final position / name / points / starting position)

Despite of that I will prefer Kory’s solution

EDIT:
First player was: 3-1-4-1-1-4
Second player was: 2-3-2-3-3-1
Third player was: 1-4-1-4-4-3
Fourth player was: 4-2-3-2-2-2

New Image for Stone Age

josephc4 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 05:03:15 +0000

by josephc4

Houston Boardgames Meetup - Fuddrucker's - Meetup.com

]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

Stunna — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:08:27 +0000

by Stunna

I thought gold was pretty worthless as far as tools go, at least compared to stone, and only gained value later for its decorative purposes. I personally think copper (or some other metal) would have been best as the top resource, with the ingots appearing as some other metal. Although that might have clashed with the "stone age" concept, it would make more sense.

That being said, the rest of the theme seems fine to me. It would be fairly easy to paste on a different theme, but I judge themes by how well the pieces and rules interact with respect to the chosen theme, and it works well.

Minutes of fun is rather hard to quantify; I'd go with "Who will win?" as a better measure. Generally, games with a runaway leader that drag on after that point are problematic; Stone Age typically does not have that problem unless someone screws up in a major way.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Stone Age

ReinhartTR — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:28:10 +0000

by ReinhartTR

I'll further echo that I always look for a female perspective on games I find interesting. I'm a huge gamer (though only recently converted to board gaming) and my girlfriend (thank *insert deity of choice*) is receptive to playing them with me. So, I usually pick a game that I know my friends and I will like and then the next one I buy is a title that I know I can play with my girlfriend.

Ah, so thank you for your review. I loved the organization and presentation of it and found it to be quite education! :)

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Is there a place on Earth where I can get this??

kronic24601 — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:48:48 +0000

by kronic24601

You can also get it from Funagain Games in the US.

http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=019371

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

isawa_mo — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 07:25:40 +0000

by isawa_mo

I just bought a copy and yes, mine also smells horrible. I went ahead and removed it and started liberally putting Febreeze on it. If that does not work, I just will not worry about it. In the end its just a pretty accesory to the game.

I am going to let the cup dry now that I washed it and put the Febreeze on it. I hopefully did not ruin it, but man was the smell horrible! I cannot describe it any better than has already been.

Either way, I am still ecstatic to finally have a copy of the game!

New Image for Stone Age

funnytortoise — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 21:40:47 +0000

by funnytortoise

Gotta teach'em from a young age

]]>

New Image for Stone Age

dougbass68 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 18:13:17 +0000

by dougbass68

Dan and J.D. - Camel City Gamers - Winston-Salem, NC

]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce to much luck?

maxo-texas — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:56:45 +0000

by maxo-texas

Absolutely.
A perfectly good or bad roll on your first two turns changes the entire game.

A perfectly bad roll when you were set up for low average or better can ruin your game late in play.

If "Chess" were a "1" and "Risk" were a "10", I'd put this game at an "8" without the tools and a "7" when you roll the tools in.

Every game you see people getting incredible rolls and horrible rolls. Luck is a factor.

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: Rushin Cavemen

Brian Sinclair — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:16:23 +0000

by Brian Sinclair

settlerdave wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:
A couple of the Santa Clause cards came out and people bought them and the #3 player chose to breed instead of farm so I got a farm on his turn. Then he rolled two sixes for the Santa Clause card and I managed to pick up a second farm. On my turn, I picked a third farm.

I like the "Santa Claus" designation for the roll-for-everyones-resource cards. They are called the "Yahtzee" cards in our gaming group. Not entirely sure why, but the name has stuck.

Our group calls it Caveman Bingo!

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: Rushin Cavemen

settlerdave — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:12:59 +0000

by settlerdave

maxo-texas wrote:
A couple of the Santa Clause cards came out and people bought them and the #3 player chose to breed instead of farm so I got a farm on his turn. Then he rolled two sixes for the Santa Clause card and I managed to pick up a second farm. On my turn, I picked a third farm.

I like the "Santa Claus" designation for the roll-for-everyones-resource cards. They are called the "Yahtzee" cards in our gaming group. Not entirely sure why, but the name has stuck.

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: Rushin Cavemen

ohbalto — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:41:06 +0000

by ohbalto

Yes, you don't HAVE to buy a hut or card when you place a meeple on it. It's not a terrible strategy (especially if you spot someone trying to hasten the end of the game), but it does cost you a worker for the round.

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: Rushin Cavemen

etherton — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:52:12 +0000

by etherton

I'm pretty sure that actually taking a card or a hut is entirely optional regardless of whether or not you can pay for it.

Session: Stone Age:: Rushin Cavemen

maxo-texas — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:27:37 +0000

by maxo-texas

I recently got to play this face to face for the first time after a half dozen BSW games.

Two of the players were very experienced and another was new to the game.

I was 4th player and shut out of all upgrades the first turn.

I embarked on a misguided strategy of gather all the wood before checking the rules and noticing that resources were infinite. However, this did leave me with 10 wood.

Then on the third turn a couple things happened which caused me to gel on a strategy. A couple of the Santa Clause cards came out and people bought them and the #3 player chose to breed instead of farm so I got a farm on his turn. Then he rolled two sixes for the Santa Clause card and I managed to pick up a second farm. On my turn, I picked a third farm.

A this point the other tribes are breeding like crazy while I'm stuck with 5 people but I'm rarely having to hunt so my tribe is effectively bigger. I started buying huts from the first stack and developed a new plan.

Part of it was luck-- a santa clause card that gave me a gold-- another which gave me a stone. Part of it was having huge piles of wood.

On my turn I bought the hut VP cards (2x and 1x). They never came up again that game (ultimately, they were found to all be in the bottom of the deck).

The plan-- unnoticed by the rest was simple-- relentlessly buy from the shortest stack without regard to maximizing my VP.

It gave the illusion that I was doing well as I ratcheted up to 35, then 54, then 75 points fairly quickly. But then the big tribe people started coming on line-- but they were competing for resources-- both card sets and meeple multiplier cards.

I have the mistaken impression I could only buy 5 huts-- and secretly reread the rules to confirm and found out I could buy more-- but not until I'd pointed out to the new player (who was doing quite well for his first game) that the lead player had just scored at least 16vp that turn and was only going to get more and more points from that point on as he came on line. As a result- he purchased the 6th hut in the stack.

The next turn, I had a possible problem-- I was 4th player. The first or second player could have easily tossed 1 meeple to buy the hut and then arranged to be without resources. Fortunately it was a 1-7 (*) hut and also they didn't think of the idea (still not sure if you *must* buy a hut if you put a meeple on it).

In the end-- it was a close game and I was shocked that I had won. The scores were 134 126 123 and 112.

---

I can now see that two players, working together as "Rushin Cavemen", could severely crimp players trying the "Big Tribe" strategy by conceivably forcing an end to the game in as few as 7 turns.

This strategy severely impacts the "set collecting" strategy and someone impacts the "modifier card" strategy. If others focused on huts- it just makes it go faster.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

Barticus88 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:43:22 +0000

by Barticus88

maxo-texas wrote:
Hunting and eating make sense. I'm not so sure about cavemen panning for gold tho.

Actually it's pretty accurate for the theme. Gold was used in mesolithic, perhaps even paleolithic times. Gold nuggets were found in streambeds and other places. Gold could easily be hammered into any shape. Silver, copper, and lead came later. They started making copper alloys which we call brass. All this is considered the Stone Age.

Then somebody developed a furnace hot enough to work an alloy of copper with tin. That begins the Bronze Age.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

Barticus88 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:31:25 +0000

by Barticus88

maxo-texas wrote:
fun factor

The words that make grognards grogn. A game is not supposed to be fun. A game is a test of character. It's not a real game unless the pressure is so high that occasionally players are killed in boiler explosions.

Yeah, Stone Age is a lot of fun. :D :D :D

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

cbs42 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:58:56 +0000

by cbs42

maxo-texas wrote:
I don't have the card insert so that is part of the issue to.

Just print one out from here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/3c7t45v400/Domini...

maxo-texas wrote:
Not sure why folks feel the packup on Stonage is longer- it seemed trivial to me compared to putting away Dominion. Unless you are not including sorting out the cards from each player into the put away period.

I don't know how other game groups handle putting Dominion away, but in my group everyone sorts out their own deck and puts them in the appropriate piles. Tear-down time for the game from table-to-box (regardless of the number of players) is about 2 minutes. Even if you can put Stone Age away in less time, I wouldn't think that teardown for either game would even be a minor consideration. Now, if you're talking about a game like Tide of Iron then it's a notable factor.

(EDIT: I enjoyed your review. Sorry for continuing to derail the comments onto the Dominion comparison...)
:D

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

maxo-texas — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:34:13 +0000

by maxo-texas
I think you are right- that setup out of the box is about the same.

Put away / Set up for a subsequent games are longer. It often precludes a second game for my lunch group. And when we get in a second game- it's usually based on only changing out a couple cards or playing the same set of ten cards.

I don't have the card insert so that is part of the issue to.

Not sure why folks feel the packup on Stonage is longer- it seemed trivial to me compared to putting away Dominion. Unless you are not including sorting out the cards from each player into the put away period.

Thanks for reading the review and your comments.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Tommy_M — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:49:15 +0000

by Tommy_M
My CUP is normal, a little bit smell of leather but nothing more. I'm using it now even with other games with dices.

Thank's God i didn't get this stinky de luxe :zombie: version of Stone Age CUP!

PS. Maybe You can call or email to publisher to make some complain and of course to replace it with new one (not stinky)?

New Image for Stone Age

josephc4 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:18:37 +0000

by josephc4

Bay Area Games Night - Webster, TX - Cafe Express - Meetup.com
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

Jumpseat — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:29:12 +0000

by Jumpseat
I must concur, Dominion has a short set-up and Stone Age has a medium to long set-up and pack-up really in the scheme of things.

I do like Stone Age though. I agree its a good length and complexity, especially if you want a resource mangement type game, but dont want anything too over the top and more family friendly.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

elfrododumbo — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 03:09:54 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Dominion does not take long to set up. Infact, Stone Age takes longer, imho. :)

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

da pyrate — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:10:27 +0000

by da pyrate

maxo-texas wrote:

The caveman theme works well with the game. Hunting and eating make sense. I'm not so sure about cavemen panning for gold tho.

Think of it more as any process to extract minerals that may be helpful in the process of becoming civilized.

;)

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

liken@xtra.co.nz — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:05:18 +0000

by liken@xtra.co.nz

cferejohn wrote:
Stone Age sets up very quickly. A picture of the setup board is provided along with clear instructions. This is a critical area some games lack. For example, Dominion is hard enough to set up that there is a tendency to avoid a full "choose 10 stacks random" setup.

Dominion seems an odd choice to call out here. You need to make sure your cards stay fairly organized, but Dominion is pretty damned easy to set up. I could see this being a complaint with something like Puerto Rico or Agricola, but not Dominion.

Yes my thoughts as well - I think the first editions came without the helpful insert so perhaps more of a gripe for those without the insert.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

cferejohn — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 00:52:49 +0000

by cferejohn

Stone Age sets up very quickly. A picture of the setup board is provided along with clear instructions. This is a critical area some games lack. For example, Dominion is hard enough to set up that there is a tendency to avoid a full "choose 10 stacks random" setup.

Dominion seems an odd choice to call out here. You need to make sure your cards stay fairly organized, but Dominion is pretty damned easy to set up. I could see this being a complaint with something like Puerto Rico or Agricola, but not Dominion.

Review: Stone Age:: Fun Factor Review: Stone Age

maxo-texas — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:26:59 +0000

by maxo-texas
Lately, I've been focusing on the minutes of fun to play a game over the amount of time it takes to play a game. For example, I would choose to play a game that has 30 minutes of fun and takes 31 to 45 minutes over a game that has 30 minutes of fun and takes 91 to 150 minutes to play.

The fun is based on the theme (humor), the rules complexity, novelty, a heavy weighting on how long before the end that you can see who is going to win, and setup time.

rules
The rules for stone age are well organized with plenty of pictures. More importantly, the rules are well written. For example, a recent play of "Small World" lead us to the computer several times for FAQ's and rules clarification- mainly due to ambiguously english sentence structures.

setup time
Stone Age sets up very quickly. A picture of the setup board is provided along with clear instructions. This is a critical area some games lack. For example, Dominion is hard enough to set up that there is a tendency to avoid a full "choose 10 stacks random" setup.

The components are very distinct and not overwhelming in numbers.
theme
The caveman theme works well with the game. Hunting and eating make sense. I'm not so sure about cavemen panning for gold tho.

There is not a lot of humor in the theme. On BSW it has a few funny sound effects but nothing in face to face play.

So the theme fits, but doesn't add any temptation to roleplay or trashtalk.

novelty
The game has few novel new ideas. You gather resources, you buy things with them. You collect secret card sets for secret end game scoring and buy huts for visible end game scoring.
You can upgrade your tribe in various ways (better tools, farms, people).

who will win?
This is a strong point of the game. It is quite difficult to determine who will win. An apparent loser could gain enormous amounts of victory points at the end game. Multiple strategies for winning exist and all are viable.

fun factor
Stone Age plays in a variable but set amount of time. If you are losing without hope, there are ways to force the game to end fast. Competition is light- but above "parallel solo" level.

I feel that Stonage has 45 minutes of fun in it. It takes about 45 minutes to play. So that's about a 100% fun factor. As a result, I'd be happy to play it if someone asked-- even wasn't in the mood to play it. I would be likely to play it multiple times per year and perhaps 2 or 3 times in some gaming sessions.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Rico of Catan: a Comparative Review

megasycophant — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:45:24 +0000

by megasycophant
Wow, this is hands-down the most well written review I've read. The way you illustrate and contextualize your view of the game is refreshing, something many reviews lack. While it's informative for a reviewer to say "a lot of strategy and some luck as well" (or whatever), such a review seldom gives a broader insight into games in general, as yours does. My only criticism would be that perhaps you went a bit far off the beaten path, but it was a journey I enjoyed. Kudos!

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

pepex82 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:22:08 +0000

by pepex82
My cup is funky too, very much so. My girlfriend, demanded I take it outside. hopefully, after some time I can use it.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: First turn advantage?

monkeyboy157 — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:39:33 +0000

by monkeyboy157
Yeah, it is nice to have that first field right off the bat, but there are other ways to get fields. In fact if there is a card out there that lets you roll the dice, you know the one die per player card, I'd almost prefer taking that anyway. Especially with 4 dice to roll I almost always get a 6 on one of them, so I'll get a field as well as the multiplier underneath it. Another fun thing to try from the 4th spot is the starvation strategy. Ignore fields, ignore hunting, get 10 people as fast as you can and with those people collect resources and build at least one building every turn. Getting a lot of the shamans and builders helps out a lot as well. This is one of my favorite strategies to try. Although my group has seen it enough times that they know all the choke points and it doesn't work as well. Try it out on a new group a couple of times though, you'll probably win one if you do it right.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: First turn advantage?

gische — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:56:50 +0000

by gische

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
If the 1st three went into the 3 village spots, I'd put all 5 of my guys into the woods, not take the 1st card.

That is of course an option. Then P1 probably takes the first card, leaving himself 3 workers to go on clay (or 2 on wood and one on food, if the other players both go on clay.) That strikes me as giving the first player an even bigger advantage.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: First turn advantage?

UnknownParkerBrother — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:10:24 +0000

by UnknownParkerBrother
If the 1st three went into the 3 village spots, I'd put all 5 of my guys into the woods, not take the 1st card.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Make them earn their food.

keighleyrob — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:30:52 +0000

by keighleyrob
I understand your concerns but it gives players a choice.
Do they take a tool or wood or a cv card, do they take -10 or use resources to buy food etc.W ehave played about 15 games like this and every one has been more (in our opinion) thoughtfull from the start.

I guess that as long as the people playing the variant like it,then it doesn't really matter

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: First turn advantage?

AstroLad — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:29:48 +0000

by AstroLad
I agree with the food provision, and I'm kind of surprised it wasn't suggested by the rules.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: First turn advantage?

gische — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:02:36 +0000

by gische
My sense is that players 1/2 are pretty equivalent, but player 4 definitely starts at a disadvantage in a 4p game.

Let's say that the first 3 players take the village spots. Then P4 can take the first card. By the time they get to place their next worker, the wood slot is practically guaranteed to be full, so now they'll need to gather clay to buy the card. Not dire, but not efficient.

On turn 2 it's a little better, but they're still not in great shape.

Has anyone tried to alter the start positions to even out this inequity? I figured a simple adjustment would be that players 2, 3, 4 could start with 1, 2, 3 additional food. Any other ideas out there?

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Make them earn their food.

gische — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 16:49:28 +0000

by gische
Doesn't that just make everyone spend most of their actions on food right from the start?

Besides sounding uninteresting, I think that might exacerbate the start player advantage of being able to get a field first. When everyone starts with enough food for 2.5 turns, the other players can use their placements to actually accomplish something. If they started with no food, then I doubt it would make sense to do anything other than hunt after P1 takes the field.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Make them earn their food.

elfrododumbo — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 11:11:27 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Glad to hear the workforce did not end up feeling hungry and tired :D

Good idea, might try this variant tonight.:)

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Make them earn their food.

keighleyrob — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:27:35 +0000

by keighleyrob
We didn't starve them, we just started without the 12 food.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Make them earn their food.

elfrododumbo — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 10:19:27 +0000

by elfrododumbo

You starved them ? :( :laugh::laugh:

Thread: Stone Age:: Variants:: Make them earn their food.

keighleyrob — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:50:58 +0000

by keighleyrob
When I first started out playing this game, I got a rule wrong.
We played the game without any food to begin with.After playing the game correctly, our game group finds the game better and more tactical early on, if we start with no food..Anyone else played the game this way.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Chart on Player Card?

eskmoe — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:38:20 +0000

by eskmoe

crambaza wrote:
Dugy wrote:
...In a case of "duplicated" Green Civ cards, you score in the same way, not 1 VP per each duplicated, but the multiplication of the cards by itself: 2 duplicated Green Civ cards = 2 x 2 = 4 VP at game end....

According to the rules I have, this part is exactly wrong.

On page 8 of the Rio Grande Games rule book it says the following about scoring the green background cards.

Stoneage Rulebook Page 8 wrote:
Multiply the number of different civilization cards with the green backgrounds by themselves. If a player has duplicates, each of these is worth just 1 extra point. The player does not score a second set.

The bolding is straight from the rulebook.

Have fun!

My rulebook does not have that wording in it. I've always played and taught it the way Dugy described. That is also the way it is played on BSW.

I will say though,that the wording in the rulebook that I have is not clear at all and I can see it interpreted either way. I believe there are other threads on here that convinced me that the correct way to score is to square each unique set. Then seeing it scored that way on BSW just solidified it.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Chart on Player Card?

Sungarden3 — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:27:31 +0000

by Sungarden3

crambaza wrote:
Dugy wrote:
...In a case of "duplicated" Green Civ cards, you score in the same way, not 1 VP per each duplicated, but the multiplication of the cards by itself: 2 duplicated Green Civ cards = 2 x 2 = 4 VP at game end....

According to the rules I have, this part is exactly wrong.

On page 8 of the Rio Grande Games rule book it says the following about scoring the green background cards.

Stoneage Rulebook Page 8 wrote:
Multiply the number of different civilization cards with the green backgrounds by themselves. If a player has duplicates, each of these is worth just 1 extra point. The player does not score a second set.

The bolding is straight from the rulebook.

Have fun!

You can really play it either way.

For us, we've made the decision to square the second set too since this seems to be the official ruling and original intention (see this thread).

The score sheet we subsequently created for ourselves reflects this as well.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Chart on Player Card?

wyldeoak — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 03:09:28 +0000

by wyldeoak
crambaza -
Thanks for your additional comments. Your quote from the Rio Grande rules was exactly how I remembered it and the stuff about a second set of squares was confusing me.

Thanks again.

File: Stone Age:: Variante Solo_PT

Abruk — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:05:54 +0000

by Abruk
Variante Solo_PT for Board Game: Stone Age ]]>

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Looking for this expansion

commandwolf — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 17:13:28 +0000

by commandwolf
Looks like Funagain is all sold out. It now says the Spielbox issue is back-ordered. :(

ColtsFan76 wrote:
http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=019371

New Image for Stone Age

josephc4 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 06:00:25 +0000

by josephc4

Bay Area Games Night - Cafe Express - Webster, TX - Meetup.com
]]>

New Image for Stone Age

josephc4 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:45:30 +0000

by josephc4

Bay Area Games Night - Cafe Express - Webster, TX - Meetup.com
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Equal Turns as First Player

Carmilla — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:53:02 +0000

by Carmilla
I would agree; control of the end of the game is a key part of strategy that's completely negated by this change.

I'm not convinced there's enough of an advantage to make this necessary; I'd want to see a lot of hard numbers. But I agree that extra resources or something would be a better fix than screwing with the endgame, if you truly think one is needed.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Barticus88 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:32:58 +0000

by Barticus88

ohbalto wrote:
I love it when y'all say, "Maths".

I find it interesting that where we say "math", Brits say "maths", yet where we say "sports", Brits say "sport".

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

ohbalto — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:30:29 +0000

by ohbalto
I just want to throw out something completely non-helpful in this very provocative thread:

I love it when y'all say, "Maths".

:M::A::T::H::S:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

fusag — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:59:11 +0000

by fusag

settlerdave wrote:
(Cheryl’s lumberjacks were not okay!)

They sleep all night and play games all day. :D

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

settlerdave — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:02:03 +0000

by settlerdave

denverarch wrote:
a thumb for the title easily!

I have to give credit to the wife for coming up with the title. ;)

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

denverarch — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:57:13 +0000

by denverarch
a thumb for the title easily!

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

Philip Thomas — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:22:59 +0000

by Philip Thomas

Echtalion wrote:
settlerdave wrote:
The initial turns saw Amy, Cheryl, and I emphasizing card purchases.

I thought you needed resources other than food to buy civ cards? How come you had resources on the very first turn? Maybe I've been playing it wrong...

Possibly. Remember that once the workers are placed each in player in turn can activate his workers in any order he likes. So if you put a meeple on a card and some meeples in the forest to gather wood you could roll for the wood before purchasing the card with (hopefully) the wood you just obtained. So it is possible to buy a civ card on the first turn (more than one civ card is also theoretically possible, but not easy).

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

Echtalion — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:55:13 +0000

by Echtalion

Echtalion wrote:
settlerdave wrote:
The initial turns saw Amy, Cheryl, and I emphasizing card purchases.

I thought you needed resources other than food to buy civ cards? How come you had resources on the very first turn? Maybe I've been playing it wrong...

Ahhh...I get it. You said 'initial turnS'. :p

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

Echtalion — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 07:52:55 +0000

by Echtalion

settlerdave wrote:
The initial turns saw Amy, Cheryl, and I emphasizing card purchases.

I thought you needed resources other than food to buy civ cards? How come you had resources on the very first turn? Maybe I've been playing it wrong...

Session: Stone Age:: Sessions:: A comeback so simple a caveman could do it!

settlerdave — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 03:16:02 +0000

by settlerdave
Stone Age is still a big favorite in our house, and so it was brought out to finish up a recent night of gaming at our house. Playing the game were my wife Cheryl, our neighbors Amy and Mike, and I (Dave). Cheryl has been nearly unbeatable at Stone Age over the last few months, and so the rest of us were eager to take her down a notch.

The initial turns saw Amy, Cheryl, and I emphasizing card purchases. Amy was able to procure three cards with hut multipliers, and so set off on a hut-building strategy that she would follow for the rest of the game. Cheryl was able to pick up several different artifact cards, but she was hindered by two early disastrous resource rolls—including a first turn five-dice roll that netted her only 2 wood. (Cheryl’s lumberjacks were not okay!) I bought two cards with tool multipliers and therefore started acquiring tools with abandon.

However, the biggest early game development was Mike’s monopolization of the farms—he had 5 of the 7 total farms that had been acquired by turn 4. Freed from the need to send meeples hunting, Mike rapidly took the lead in both resource acquisition and hut building.

In the middle game, Mike took advantage of his favorable food situation by quickly increasing his meeple population to nine—a red horde of meeples were now seemingly everywhere. When Mike was then able to buy three cards with meeple multipliers, the situation definitely looked bleak for the rest of us.

Amy was diligently trying to keep pace with Mike on hut building, and she also managed to purchase all the remaining hut multiplier cards. However, she had two consecutive turns of not being able to build a selected hut, once when she was shut out of the woods by Cheryl and Mike, and a second time by an exceptionally bad dice roll for gold. Cheryl was able to obtain a complete set of eight artifact cards, and she was also doing an excellent job of keeping the farm multiplier cards from Mike. However, she wasn’t able to get enough points from her huts, and her winning streak would come to an end.

My initial tool strategy had been effectively thwarted by Mike rudely buying all of the remaining cards with tool multipliers. I had also built only four huts, but fortunately they were huts with variable resources that were all worth over 20 points. Later in the game, I began acquiring the remaining artifact cards; the food rewards on these cards freed me from hunting for the last four turns. However, I was still well behind Mike when we started a turn with only a single hut in one stack, with the last artifact card I needed still in the draw pile. Fortunately, no one built the hut, and the game continued for one more turn. I was then able to buy my last artifact card (to increase the value of my set from 49 to 64 points). The 2 stone reward from this card also allowed me to build a 5 stone hut for 25 more important points. I had one more meeple that I used to block Mike from picking up a card with a 2x farm multiplier, which was just enough for me to squeak ahead of him in the final reckoning for the win!

At game’s end, there were only three huts and one card left unclaimed. This was also our first game where two players were able to complete a set of eight artifact cards. The final game stats are given below:

Dave: 207 points
6 meeples, 3 farms, 5 huts, and 8 tools
Cards: a set of eight artifacts, 3x tool multipliers

Mike: 204 points
10 meeples, 6 farms, 8 huts, and 5 tools
Cards: 6x meeple and 5x tool multipliers

Cheryl: 170 points
5 meeples, 6 farms, 5 huts, and 3 tools
Cards: a set of eight artifacts, 1x meeple and 5x farm multipliers

Amy: 169 points
5 meeples, 3 farms, 7 huts, and 1 tool
Cards: 9x hut multipliers

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: What scoring range is required to WIN at Stone Age - Some random thoughts

Shandazar — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:01:51 +0000

by Shandazar
Here's the scores of games I've won at Stone Age (all on BrettSpielWelt)

2-player

278 v 268
245 v 239
232 v 228
276 v 176
313 v 269

3-player

186 v 181 v 141
189 v 180 v 154
161 v 132 v 58
160 v 147 v 129

4-player

188 v 164 v 142 v 105

This unscientific sample would seem to back up your hypothesis.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: What scoring range is required to WIN at Stone Age - Some random thoughts

keighleyrob — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:27:22 +0000

by keighleyrob

joshp wrote:
I think there are way too many variables to create a realistic range, since the end of the game is determined by the players and not a set number of turns. I have seen games where the winning player has anywhere from 90 to 280 pts. In each game, you have to look at what individual strategies were used. Were the hut piles depleted evenly or did one or more people focus on ending the game as fast as possible? Did anyone skip huts altogether and focus on massive civ card collecting?

I agree, you could be playing a 2 player game against a new or fairly new player and win with,140 pts or you could score 300+ against them , with 2 good players in a 2 player game there are still many variables like civilization card deprivation(run through 1 stack of huts to end the game quickly).There are also tactical plays to block people from gaining what they are going for.

In summary,

Depends on the tactics and capabilities of the people playing the game.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Barticus88 — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:36:20 +0000

by Barticus88

Wesleyc wrote:
]]>
Interesting chart. I immediately spot so me numbers that look wrong, and two of them definitely are. Wood with three workers returns exactly 3 1/6 which is exactly 9.5 pips. Similarly Gold with three workers returns 1 1/3 which is exactly 8 pips.

I expected each additional worker to be worth exactly 3.5, but for clay and stone that may not be precisely true. I can't quite do this in my head, so let me write this down:
[c]
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Sum
1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 3 2 1 Chance
0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 Clay
0 0 3 4 5 6 10 8 6 4 3 Clay*Chance
0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 Stone
0 0 0 4 5 6 5 4 6 4 2 Stone*Chance
[/c]
So for clay I get 49/36 = 1.361 * 4 = 5.444. Yeah that's what you got. For Stone I see 36/36 which is exactly 1 which is a surprise with 1 worker being 1 2/3 pips.

Wesleyc wrote:
From the information in this table its possible to infer the following strategy tips:

1) Group your workers to maximize efficiency.

I didn't need a chart to figure that out.

Wesleyc wrote:
3) Don't overvalue extra meeples - they are (usually) worth less than 3.5 pips each.

Adding one more meeple gives exactly 3.5 pips more on Food, Wood or Gold, and pretty close to 3.5 pips on Clay or Stone.

Wesleyc wrote:
An average worker will most likely be used on wood, food or clay and rates to generate around 3.25 pips of value, whilst eating 2 pips of food. Therefore an average worker generates a net gain of around 1.25 pips per turn.

Fallacious. The first worker on a resource gets a disadvantage. All additional workers are 3.5. You are analyzing the value of the additional worker, not the first one.

See my analysis of Farm vs Tool vs Hut. I cover a lot of the same round you cover. The important points are:

1) Splitting your workers increases pip wastage. Tools recover pip wastage, so the more you split up your workers the more tools are worth.
2) The first tool is worth more than the second which is worth more than the third, etc.
3) In the early game, Farm > Tool > Hut. The apparent crossing of the Meeple and Tool lines in Kyralia's graph is actually beyond the end of game. Tools are variable and the graph shows the minimum Tool value.

Wesleyc wrote:
6) If you have enough workers to efficiently collect multiple resources, you should consider diversifying to increase the values of your tools.

You are looking at this backwards. By spreading your workers you increase waste. Tools recover waste. It's having the tools that that makes diversifying efficient.

Wesleyc wrote:
I hope at least someone else finds stone age maths as interesting as I do!

:p :p :p

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Werbaer — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:14:59 +0000

by Werbaer

Wesleyc wrote:
Interestingly, if you roll 4 dice you will roll an odd number exactly 50% of the time!

easy :)
After you rolled the first three dice, you will always need either an even or an odd roll to get an even total. And the odds are 50% in each case.

New Image for Stone Age

Wesleyc — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:46:39 +0000

by Wesleyc

Average resource production (fixed)
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Wesleyc — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:31:53 +0000

by Wesleyc

crambaza wrote:

Hmm... I have a feeling that your numbers are wrong.

As you said, that distribution of multiple dice is non-linear. With 2 dice, 7 is the most common. Also though, with 4 dice, 14 is the most common number. (which is even reflected in the link you provided)

With rolling 4 dice, and getting 14 most often, then that would give me 7 food, not the 6.75 food in your chart.

The numbers in the my resource production table give the average food production (not the most common amount produced). You're right that if you roll 4 dice, 14 is the most common total. However it also makes complete sense that the average food production is less than 7 (as there is wastage on every odd roll).

Interestingly, if you roll 4 dice you will roll an odd number exactly 50% of the time! This translates to a 50% chance to waste 1 pip. 0.5 pips of wastage is equivalent to 0.25 of a unit food. Which neatly proves that the average amount of food produced is 6.75.

I've attached the probability distribution for 4 dice below in case you'd like to check it out for yourself.

Mike

Total Probability
4 0.08%
5 0.31%
6 0.77%
7 1.54%
8 2.70%
9 4.32%
10 6.17%
11 8.02%
12 9.65%
13 10.80%
14 11.27%
15 10.80%
16 9.65%
17 8.02%
18 6.17%
19 4.32%
20 2.70%
21 1.54%
22 0.77%
23 0.31%
24 0.08%

File: Stone Age:: Stone Age chinese rules pdf

victorywt — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:56:06 +0000

by victorywt
Stone Age chinese rules pdf for Board Game: Stone Age ]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

crambaza — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:54:11 +0000

by crambaza

Wesleyc wrote:

/snip/
2) The total on 2 or more dice is not linear (this is a smaller factor)

The other issue which complicates the calculations a bit is that rolling more than 1 dice doesn't give you a linear total. For example, on 2 dice you're more likely to roll a 7 than any other number.

At the bottom of the Mathworld dice page ( http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dice.html) there are 4 graphs showing the probabilities for different dice totals. The more dice you roll, the more the distribution of numbers approximates a bell curve (normal distribution). That can affect how many resources you are likely to earn also.

Hope this clears things up a bit for you :)

Hmm... I have a feeling that your numbers are wrong.

As you said, that distribution of multiple dice is non-linear. With 2 dice, 7 is the most common. Also though, with 4 dice, 14 is the most common number. (which is even reflected in the link you provided)

With rolling 4 dice, and getting 14 most often, then that would give me 7 food, not the 6.75 food in your chart.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

erinwolth — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:30:34 +0000

by erinwolth
It does a bit, though I still feel a little thick.

Anyway, thanks for the great analysis in the post.

New Image for Stone Age

edmeadows — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 21:19:24 +0000

by edmeadows

Little E says, "You two play, and I'll give you the dice when you need...
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: quick question for the 2 or 3 player changes

lottysnake — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:54:58 +0000

by lottysnake
also, the huts decks are two when there are only 2 players; three for 3 players.:)

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Wesleyc — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 05:05:17 +0000

by Wesleyc

erinwolth wrote:
Wesleyc wrote:
I hope at least someone else finds stone age maths as interesting as I do!

But I'm confused: isn't the average roll on a six-sided die 3.5? And wouldn't the average number of goods collected increase linearly as the number of dice rolled increased?

I.e., shouldn't the average food collected when rolling one die equal 1.75 (not 1.5), and increase linearly to 3.5 with two dice, 5.25 with three, etc.?

I did not study math, so please alleviate my confusion if I'm just being a dunce.

You're certainly not a dunce - probability analysis is often very counter intuitive (even after years of maths study). There are 2 issues that make resource production a bit more complex than you're assuming.

1) Pips are often wasted (this is the biggest factor)

Take your food example, with 1 dice you have a 1/6 chance of rolling each number from 1 to 6. Each number gives you the following amount of food:

1 = 0
2 = 1
3 = 1
4 = 2
5 = 2
6 = 3

On average you rolled 1 dice for food 6 times you would expect to end up with 9 total food or 1.5 food per roll. Another way to think about this is that whenever you roll an ODD number you waste 1 pip.

2) The total on 2 or more dice is not linear (this is a smaller factor)

The other issue which complicates the calculations a bit is that rolling more than 1 dice doesn't give you a linear total. For example, on 2 dice you're more likely to roll a 7 than any other number.

At the bottom of the Mathworld dice page ( http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Dice.html) there are 4 graphs showing the probabilities for different dice totals. The more dice you roll, the more the distribution of numbers approximates a bell curve (normal distribution). That can affect how many resources you are likely to earn also.

Hope this clears things up a bit for you :)

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

MasterDinadan — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:51:44 +0000

by MasterDinadan

erinwolth wrote:
Wesleyc wrote:
I hope at least someone else finds stone age maths as interesting as I do!

I do! I lost sleep after my first play doing the math in my head.

But I'm confused: isn't the average roll on a six-sided die 3.5? And wouldn't the average number of goods collected increase linearly as the number of dice rolled increased?

I.e., shouldn't the average food collected when rolling one die equal 1.75 (not 1.5), and increase linearly to 3.5 with two dice, 5.25 with three, etc.?

I did not study math, so please alleviate my confusion if I'm just being a dunce.

If you roll two dice on food on two different turns, you end up getting 1, 2, or 3 food from each. If you roll both dice on the same turn, you get the same amount, but in the 1/4 chance that both dice came up odd, the "spare" pips aren't getting thrown out, but instead adding up to one extra food. Rolling more dice at the same time means less wasted pips.

After many edits - Trying to use a symbol reserved for HTML tags killed my whole post... Anyway, just imagine with gold. Every time you collect gold, without using tools, up to 5 pips are "wasted" because you always divide by 6 and round down. You lose the remainder.

If you roll 1 die on gold over three seperate turns, you can end up with as many as 15 wasted pips. If you roll all three dice on the same turn, you can't possible end up with more than 5 wasted pips. The expected number of pips is the same in both cases, the difference is in how many pips got used.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Wesleyc — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 04:11:15 +0000

by Wesleyc
Werner's numbers are completely correct. I changed that example at the last minute and didn't go through and check the results. Sloppy maths is punished again :(

I might have to include a better example with actual numbers!

Many thanks for checking my working :P

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Werbaer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:50:44 +0000

by Werbaer

Wesleyc wrote:
Example 5: You've got 2 tools but only 2 workers to place. You need clay and also only have enough food to last 1 more turn. In this case putting 1 worker on clay (an INEFFICIENT number) and 1 on food would be a big mistake. You are much better off putting both workers on clay this turn and then worrying about food next turn.

Really?
Sure, if i really need 1 clay this round, i need to place 2 workers there, to get 1 clay even with the worst roll.
But on average?

If i have 2 workers, place 1 on clay and 1 on food, and have 2 tools, then i produce on average 1 clay and 2.08 food. If i do this in both rounds, i have 2 clay and 4.16 food.

If i place both workers on clay in one round, and have 2 tools, i get 1,89 clay on average. Next round, with both workers on food, i get 4.25 food on average. A total of 1.89 clay and 4.25 food for both rounds.

It looks to me that scenario 1 is better - trading 0.08 food for 0.11 clay.
Or is there an error in my calculation?

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

erinwolth — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 20:49:21 +0000

by erinwolth

Wesleyc wrote:
I hope at least someone else finds stone age maths as interesting as I do!

I do! I lost sleep after my first play doing the math in my head.

But I'm confused: isn't the average roll on a six-sided die 3.5? And wouldn't the average number of goods collected increase linearly as the number of dice rolled increased?

I.e., shouldn't the average food collected when rolling one die equal 1.75 (not 1.5), and increase linearly to 3.5 with two dice, 5.25 with three, etc.?

I did not study math, so please alleviate my confusion if I'm just being a dunce.

Thread: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Maths in Stoneage (Resource collection efficiency)

Wesleyc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:03:11 +0000

by Wesleyc
Although at first Stone Age seems to be heavily dice dependent, in every game there are countless opportunities for players to eek out a small advantage. These small edges usually result in a win for the more skillful player.

Having studied maths for a number of years I sometimes feel compelled to use my knowledge to ruin perfectly fun board games. I've spent a bit of time analyzing the resource gathering mechanics in Stone Age and present some of my findings below.

Resource Gathering Probabilities

The first thing I did was calculate the probability of each dice roll for 1 through 4 dice and then used those numbers to calculate the average resource production with 1 to 4 workers on each good.

The columns in the table below show (in order): Number of workers, average number of goods produced, average VP value of the goods produced, average VP value produced (per worker).

]]>

From the information in this table its possible to infer the following strategy tips:

1) Group your workers to maximize efficiency.

Although this applies to all resources, it is most important on Clay/Stone/Gold. For efficient resource collection you should aim for at least the following number of workers on each good:

Food - 1 Worker
Wood - 2 Workers
Clay, Wood & Stone - 3 Workers

2) Wood is Good!

Not only does wood provide by far the largest # of goods per worker (which is critical for buying civ cards) but it is also the most efficient resource for generating VPs with buildings (ignoring the workers that are required to actually convert them).

Example 1: You are about to build a '1-7' building, having no resources in your stockpile but with 3 workers to place.If you place them on gold your expected score is 8.25 points. Placing them on Wood nets you an average of 9.79.

Example 2: Its the first turn of a 2-player game. After Farm/Tool, its common for both players to end up with 3 workers on either wood or clay and one each on the 1 and 2 cost civilization cards. The player with 3 workers on wood rates to produce 3.26 units, while the clay player only makes 2.32 - almost a full resource less. At this early stage in the game (where bulk resources are more important than their VP value) the wood player can afford to take the 2 cost card (assuming it is stronger than the 1c) and still almost maintain resource parity.

3) Don't overvalue extra meeples - they are (usually) worth less than 3.5 pips each.

Kyralia's excellent graph (part way down this thread http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/368020) compares the relative pip value of farms, tools and meeples under the assumption that a farm is worth 2, a tool worth 1 and an extra meeple 1.5 (3.5 of value for the meeple minus 2 pips of food required to feed him). Breeding a meeple starts a long way behind because costs 2 workers to activate and the new worker needs to be fed immediately - 9 pips spent before any benefits are realized.

My probability table above suggests that the value of a worker actually depends on how he's used. For example, in the unlikely situations that having the extra worker lets you place a 3rd worker on stone (rather than just 2) you are 3.8 pips better off. However the 3rd worker on stone is an extreme example.

An average worker will most likely be used on wood, food or clay and rates to generate around 3.25 pips of value, whilst eating 2 pips of food. Therefore an average worker generates a net gain of around 1.25 pips per turn. This means that unless you have an excess of food (or already have a huge number of workers that you don't plan on feeding) the tool-maker is going to be a better option than the love hut.

Adding Tools Into The Equation

When your workers are collecting only 1 kind of good, the value of each tool is (usually) around 1 pip. Things become more interesting when you start collecting multiple goods at once.

Firstly a note regarding the order that you should roll your dice.

4) You should (usually) order your rolls from highest valued good to lowest.

I'm sure anyone reading the Stone Age strategy forums has already worked this out. Using a tool to pick up an extra gold is better than using it to get an extra wood. In fact when you have only a few tools, your rolling order doesn't effect the total number of resources you pick up at all, it just means you'll end up with more of the expensive goods. Most of the time that's a good thing.

You should make an exception to this rule if you desperately need a particular kind of good, if you've got a lot of tools (4 or more) and are looking for bulk cheap resources to buy civilization cards or if there are +tool civilization cards that you want to use your cheaper goods to buy so you can then use them on your other rolls.

5) The more you diversify your resource collection, the more powerful your tools become.

Example 3: You have workers on both gold and wood and own 1 tool. You roll the gold first. 1/6th of the time you can use your tool to receive a whole extra gold (pip value of 1/6 * 6 = 1). The 5 in 6 times that you don't use your tool bumping up gold, you can use it to boost your roll on wood (adding 5/6 * 2/6 * 3 = 5/6).
In this case your first tool is actually worth 1.83 pips.

The problem with diversifying your workers is that (unless you have a lot of workers) diversifying them tends to reduce their efficiency. This can often result in a larger loss than than the gains from diversifying.

I spent some time comparing different strategies and while there is no simple solution, i can summarize an effective general strategy here.

6) If you have enough workers to efficiently collect multiple resources, you should consider diversifying to increase the values of your tools.

Keep in mind that you should only diversify if you actually need a variety if resources. If all you only need resources to buy civ cards, you are best just throwing everyone on wood.

Example 4a: You've got 1 tool and 4 workers to place on resources. You need clay but also only have enough food to last 1 more turn.

Consider 2 strategies:

a) Diversify by placing 3 on clay & 1 on food for 2 turns
b) Specialize by placing 4 on clay & 0 on food, then 2 on clay & 2 on food.

Strategy a) gives an average of 5.14 Clay & 3.75 Food.
Strategy b) gives an average of 5.01 Clay & 3.61 Food.

In this case diversifying results in a GAIN of 0.79 pips.

Diversifying your workers increases the value of your tool and doesn't significantly reduce their efficiency resulting in more production overall.

Example 5a: You've got 1 tool but only 2 workers to place. You need clay but also only have enough food to last 1 more turn.

Consider 2 strategies:

a) Diversify by placing 1 on clay & 1 on food for 2 turns
b) Specialize by placing 2 on clay the first turn then 2 of food.

Strategy a) gives an average of 1.33 Clay & 3.83 Food.
Strategy b) gives an average of 1.64 Clay & 3.75 Food.

In this case diversifying results in a LOSS of 1.06 pips.

The pips gained from diversification (which increase the value of your tools) aren't enough to compensate for the inefficiency of putting only 1 worker on clay.

*** Many thanks to Werbaer for pointing out that my initial example was actually incorrect. I've carefully doctored the numbers to make it work now :P ***

7) The more tools you have, the more you should be willing to diversify your workers.

Example 6: You've increased to 2 tools but still only have 2 workers to place. You need clay but also only have enough food to last 1 more turn.

Diversifying (1C, 1F each turn) averages 2.00 Clay & 4.17 Food.
Specializing (2C and then 2F) averages 1.89 Clay & 4.25 Food.

In this case diversifying results in a GAIN of 0.28 pips.

*** Thanks to Werbaer again ***

8) The possibility for resource diversification means that tools are worth a more than 1 pip in value.

While their exact value is hard to determine and depends on your srategy a reasonable approximation would suggest that a tool has a value of around 1.2 pips per turn.

So to tie everything together, I'll finish with an updated version of Kyralia's graph which compares the long term value of tools, meeples and farms, using the values I've suggested in my analysis.

Tools: 3.25 outlay + 1.2 per turn.
Meeples: 8.5 outlay + 1.25 per turn.
Farms: 3.25 outlay + 2 per turn.

]]>

I hope at least someone else finds stone age maths as interesting as I do!

As always any comments are appreciated,

WesleyC

New Image for Stone Age

Wesleyc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:59:39 +0000

by Wesleyc

Investment In Pips (Updated)
]]>

New Image for Stone Age

Wesleyc — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:57:48 +0000

by Wesleyc

Average resource production
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Stone Age AI

cheryladay — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:46:23 +0000

by cheryladay
One input that no one mentioned is on each turn the number of resource spaces available for each resource may change. This can change which resource you choose to go for next.

Also, the number of tools, fields and food (fields and food in relation to number of meeples you have to feed) that you already have will be a strong determiner of your next action.

New Image for Stone Age

Gelatinous Goo — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:17:25 +0000

by Gelatinous Goo

Baby food containers for storage
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Tool use clarification

UnknownParkerBrother — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:23:02 +0000

by UnknownParkerBrother
After. That's what makes it a strategy game, and not a luck game. :)

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Tool use clarification

OpT1mUs — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:06:25 +0000

by OpT1mUs
Do you decide to use the tool before the roll or after?

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Alexfrog's Ultimate strategy guide to Stone Age (long)

misanthrope — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:13:26 +0000

by misanthrope

Alexfrog wrote:
Roll
a
lot
of
sixes
.

I received my copy of Stone Age this week and plan to play it tomorrow.

I will try your RALOS strategy and report back.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

e_nichols — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 03:22:43 +0000

by e_nichols
I just opened my brand new copy of Stone Age and my cup has a nasty funk to it too. Arrrrgggghhh!!!!!!!!

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: quick question for the 2 or 3 player changes

PThron — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:08:47 +0000

by PThron
You've got it right. In the 2 player game, only 1 player may make a placement of workers in any of the 4 places that produce building resources, ie., forest, clay pit, quarry, and river. Once placed...no matter the number...no player, including that player, may place again for this round of play (until workers have come in with resources and you begin a new round).

Both players, of course, can place workers for food.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: quick question for the 2 or 3 player changes

dkeisen — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 19:07:08 +0000

by dkeisen
That is precisely what it means.

Thread: Stone Age:: Rules:: quick question for the 2 or 3 player changes

keighleyrob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:59:05 +0000

by keighleyrob
Ok I have just read through the rules and set the board up.I am reading the changes section at the end of the rule book.

With 2 players, on each of the places.forest,clay pit quarry and river,only 1 player may place people in each round.

Does this mean 1 player may place say 3 people in the clay pit and player 2 may not place any in the clay pit that round,but may place say 2 people in the river?
By round this does mean phase 1(place people on the board).

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Ambrose — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:26:21 +0000

by Ambrose

senorcoo wrote:
I don't even use my cup. Honestly, I think it was a bit of silly thing to throw in.

Blasphemy!

Mine is divine, and I use it all the time.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

keighleyrob — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 16:43:59 +0000

by keighleyrob
Yes my cup smells like it has just been killed on the hunting grounds.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Quickly becoming a thing of the past....

schmanthony — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:06:36 +0000

by schmanthony
Last night I played my first game with 2 experienced players. Couldn't have taken much more than an hour even with the rules explanation.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Teeaniknik — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:37:01 +0000

by Teeaniknik
My cup now holds the Family Jewels! :blush:

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

irishman — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:36:45 +0000

by irishman
Put a tube sock on before you wear it. It should cause the smell to go away. And the rash, for that matter.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

grafikchaos — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:10:06 +0000

by grafikchaos
Mine just had a very faint leathery smell, which is all but gone now. I wonder if the one's sent to the UK were treated or manufactured differently.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Barticus88 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:57:18 +0000

by Barticus88
Did someone put liquid in that cup then put it away wet? I haven't noticed much smell from the leather cup in my set or anyone else's.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Stone Age Loophole?

NoDicePlease — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:27:03 +0000

by NoDicePlease

NoDicePlease wrote:

I was buffed and waxed by someone who did not grow and made no attempt to grow from the initial 5 meeples and just drilled through one of the hut stacks.

jumpseat wrote:

Tried it.

Got creamed.

Must have been doing it wrong. :p

Seriously, relatively few of the roll for resources cards came up. Perhaps that affected it.

It is situational as I have tried in later games. If 3 huts have been taken from 1 stack then it is totally doable. I have announced that I am going to "do this" and been successful but also the opposite was true although I lost by only 2 points due to a poor roll on a critical 1-7 hut.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: SoloPlay Variant for Stone Age is now available

GameRulesforOne — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:13:34 +0000

by GameRulesforOne

Joe Salamone wrote:
Question about final scoring:

At the end of the game when you deduct points for cards that were not purchased and discarded, do you also deduct points for cards remaining on the board at the end of the game that were not purchased?

Answer: No, the cards left on the board are not counted against the player.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: SoloPlay Variant for Stone Age is now available

joe_salamone — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:41:19 +0000

by joe_salamone
Question about final scoring:

At the end of the game when you deduct points for cards that were not purchased and discarded, do you also deduct points for cards remaining on the board at the end of the game that were not purchased?

Thanks!

Reply: Stone Age:: Sessions:: Re: Liking it less

Bustoffson — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 02:17:36 +0000

by Bustoffson
This is pretty close to the reason I am not as impressed with this game as I was at first glance. I feel like food is not important enough. It's a much bigger deal in Agricola when you don't have enough food. We played tonight, and the other players were just "eating" wood, which they were collecting in sizable portions. I feel like you should be forced to use 2 resources per unfed piece rather than 1 (or something other ratio) that encourages players to get food more often.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

mudshark_baby — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:24:41 +0000

by mudshark_baby
I just got a copy this weekend at UK Games Expo in Birmingham and that cup honks!

How yours smells like heaven I do not know. Yes, it is a leathery smell, but it is more than that. It does have a chemical tinge and suspect leaving it on the windowsill is a good idea... :laugh:

:M: :B:

Mr_Nuts wrote:
My cup smells like heaven.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Solitaire Rules (first attempt)

elfrododumbo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 16:27:05 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Thanks. Exactly what I was lookig for.
Certaintly makes for an exciting and tense game....love it. :)

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

senorcoo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 15:02:44 +0000

by senorcoo
I don't even use my cup. Honestly, I think it was a bit of silly thing to throw in.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Mr_Nuts — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:06:28 +0000

by Mr_Nuts
My cup smells like heaven.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Boogers — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:53:59 +0000

by Boogers
You serious? Stop using it in your games of cricket... :gulp: Perhaps you have a very damp storage area for your game or someone has misused the cup.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Guantanamo — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 02:27:42 +0000

by Guantanamo
Maybe your father in-law was covering something up?

No unusual smell for me to report.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

Walt Mulder — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 00:07:22 +0000

by Walt Mulder
Well since you brought this up I had to go check mine since it's new and purchased within the past month and I haven't played with it yet. Nothing unusual to report. Just a bit of a leathery smell and maybe a bit of chemical smell but nothing of the sort that you're describing.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

ackmondual — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:20:17 +0000

by ackmondual
hmmm, sounds like whomever packaged the game decided to use it for something it wasn't intended for. A cheese cup :what::wow:

jpat wrote:
Maybe it's actually FROM the Stone Age?
Don't be ridiculous. I doubt our ancestors were sophisticated enough to use dice cup.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

dedbob — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:34:40 +0000

by dedbob
A couple puffs of Gold Bond medicated powder keeps my cup smelling clean and fresh even after the most intense, sweatiest game activities.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

jpat — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:51:40 +0000

by jpat
Maybe it's actually FROM the Stone Age?

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

elfrododumbo — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:42:47 +0000

by elfrododumbo

Mine does not smell at all...thank goodness :laugh:

Thread: Stone Age:: General:: My leather cup stinks to high heaven. Does yours?

archivists — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 18:39:30 +0000

by archivists
There was a horrific mouldy cheese smell in our living room, initially we thought it was my father-in-law's feet, but realised upon closer inspection, and protestations of innocence from said gentleman, that it was the leather cup that comes with Stone Age - pervading its awful aroma through the closed box.

To prevent the offending item from continuing to stink out the house we have placed it on an outside window edge with the hope that it will fade away with time.

Has anybody else had a similar problem - how was it resolved? (I'd rather not chuck the cup as I might put this on the trade list and people tend to like their games complete).

Cheers.

Update: After one week on the windowsill in rain and shine, the smell has faded from rancid to merely dubious. It smells strangely sweet and cloying, particularly at the bottom of the interior - it might have been the glue used, possibly compounded by the unseasonal and short lived warm spell in the UK. I'm going to keep it in a plastic bag at the back of a cupboard.

Update 2: My S.O. smelt the cup back in the house, and has just informed me that it went in the bin. If I ever decide to trade Stone Age it will be sans cup. Oh well, better out than in.

New Image for Stone Age

dougbass68 — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 05:17:11 +0000

by dougbass68

Doug and John appear to be sleeping, but they're actually in deep thou...
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: What scoring range is required to WIN at Stone Age - Some random thoughts

joshp — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:36:08 +0000

by joshp
I think there are way too many variables to create a realistic range, since the end of the game is determined by the players and not a set number of turns. I have seen games where the winning player has anywhere from 90 to 280 pts. In each game, you have to look at what individual strategies were used. Were the hut piles depleted evenly or did one or more people focus on ending the game as fast as possible? Did anyone skip huts altogether and focus on massive civ card collecting?

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: What scoring range is required to WIN at Stone Age - Some random thoughts

Bilben04 — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 20:12:44 +0000

by Bilben04
My thoughts are that your numbers are probably low as a threshold for winning. For those games I have recorded scores, most of my 3-player games had two or three players scoring higher than 180 points. In fact, the most recent game ended with scores of 320, 210, 188.

In the one 4-player game for which I have scores, every player scored higher than 140 points (209, 206, 150, 147).

Admittedly, I only started keeping track of game scores fairly recently, so I don't have a lot of data, but my sense before checking the numbers I did have was that losing scores in my games tended to be higher than your numbers would suggest. This could be a factor of playing style; many of my games end with the card deck running out, while games that end by emptying a building stack tend to be shorter and would presumably be lower scoring.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

elfrododumbo — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:04:48 +0000

by elfrododumbo

At least my box closes ! :laugh: I bagged all the items and they all fit in the box without any problem.
Meeples can sure multiply quickly and when you allow them to so , "let them eat cake" , I am not to sure they all deserve to live :devil: Cavemeeples...like that :)

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Equal Turns as First Player

sabaki — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 00:34:21 +0000

by sabaki
You say that you don't keep record, how about you try? I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you, I feel first player does have an advantage, but I would be surprised if it wasn't completely blurred out by the inherent luck of the dice.

Honestly, I think that adding extra turns to the game might hurt the endgame feel of it, you will have as many as three extra turns where you don't have enough building stacks or possibly cards. Seems to me it would be simpler to just give the people not going first some extra food (like, 12,13,14,15 instead of 12 all around). Maybe I'm wrong though, give it a shot, who knows.

Thread: Stone Age:: General:: What scoring range is required to WIN at Stone Age - Some random thoughts

gdj685 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 23:49:29 +0000

by gdj685

First of all there is no statistical basis to these thoughts, other than around 20 games played.Also I am assuming normal skill level.

However my feeling is that basically to be a chance of winning you need to achieve a score range. My thoughts are as follows:

2P - Under 230 - You would need to be very lucky.
230- 260 Your a better than 50% chance
260 Plus your on a winner

3P - Under 150 - You would need to be very lucky
150 - 180 Your a better than 50% chance
180 Plus your on a winner

4P - Under 120 - You would need to be very lucky
120 - 140 Your a better than 50% chance
140 Plus your on a winner.

Anyway I'll put this out there for comment or ridicule?

Happy Gaming

Thread: Stone Age:: Variants:: Equal Turns as First Player

Thrylos — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:47:05 +0000

by Thrylos
I really enjoy this game. The only thing I change in the game when we play it, is the ending.

The end of the game is triggered normally as the rules suggest. But the game ends when all players have an equal number of turns where they are the starting player. You need to note who was the starting player at the very first turn.

As an example, there are 4 players A,B,C,D. A was the starting player at the very first turn of the game. The end of the game is triggered during a turn when player C was the starting player. The game will have one more turn, so all 4 players will have the same number of turns playing as the starting player.

This variant balances the game. It is a small adjustment, but I have found it necessary for tight games. I don't keep record of games, but player D ("last" player to become for the first time starting player) is in a disadvantage to the other players. I have found that is unlikely to win when all players know well the game. With this variant, player D can win as well (at least this what I have observed in our games).

Enjoy,
Paul

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

ackmondual — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:31:05 +0000

by ackmondual

revengeisnotjustice wrote:
You only start with five meeples and then you can choose to use the sex hut to expand your supply to ten meeples.

The civilization cards will cost different amounts of resources based on where they are placed on the board. Above the civilization cards spots on the board there are wheels that signify any one type of resource. If the card is in the spot with one wheel, it takes one resource of any type to buy that card. You can put your meeple on any of these spots but can only buy it if you have enough resources to pay that card's cost. This means that the cost is not on the card, it is on the board.

Technically, they're "cavemeeples", but I'm no boardgame/terms lawyer, so we'll let those slide :p

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: About the hut tiles...

eskmoe — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:23:24 +0000

by eskmoe

Echtalion wrote:
Can I place meeples on the hut tiles on my board? The ones I have already acquired.

Cheers.

No you can't. You can only build a hut, and score the points for it, once.

Thread: Stone Age:: Rules:: About the hut tiles...

Echtalion — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:15:33 +0000

by Echtalion
Can I place meeples on the hut tiles on my board? The ones I have already acquired.

Cheers.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Bartering in Stone Age

railbaron — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 21:09:31 +0000

by railbaron
I haven't tried bartering in Stone Age, but I don't think it would work. In settlers, players typically have access to only 3 or 4 of the resources, especially early in the game. They could trade 4 or 3 for one, but that is inefficient. Therefore, it makes sense to barter with people. In Stone Age, depending on the turn order, everyone has the same opportunity to collect all four of the resources. Therefore, bartering isn't really needed in the same way that bartering is needed in Settlers.

Another reason is that resources in Stone Age have a different set value, wood=3, gold=6, etc, while in Settlers the resources are basically the same (although some may be more scarce, and therefore more valuable, you get my point).

Finally, I think bartering would just slow down the game in Stone Age.

Despite these points, give it a try and see what you and your group thinks. It'll definitely change the game away from what the designer intended, but who cares :-).

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

elfrododumbo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:52:21 +0000

by elfrododumbo
Y:laugh:You are right again,GR !

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

GSReis — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:31:26 +0000

by GSReis

elfrododumbo wrote:
Is it just stupid me, or are rules getting more convoluted the simpler the game is ?:shake:

The former. :devil:

Seriously, if you didn't even get that you start with five people, you probably didn't read with much attention. Just read the rules again, paying attention this time. They are very clear (with the sole exception of the scoring of a second set of green cards, depending on the edition you have).

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

elfrododumbo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:26:51 +0000

by elfrododumbo
Very grateful for the video.....makes more sense seeing this, too.
Regards,
Gordon :)
PS; Oooops !Bill, I missed that completely :blush: Much too eager to get started, methinks !

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

Bilben04 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:24:25 +0000

by Bilben04

elfrododumbo wrote:
I did not read 5 meeples anywhere

If it helps, this info can be found on page 2 of the rules, in the setup instruction box numbered 11, where it says each player gets a board with 5 people and 12 food.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

Bilben04 — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:17:59 +0000

by Bilben04
If you having trouble getting into the game from the rules, I thought perhaps a video might help. Here is a video review that includes a brief description of game play:
Youtube Video

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

elfrododumbo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:12:52 +0000

by elfrododumbo
Thank you Tiffany and Jake for a very concise and clear explantion. Phew ! I think that the rule book is well illustrated, but it may well be me (as I have already said). The different actions confused me. I did not read 5 meeples anywhere :blush:
Regards,
Gordon :)

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

revengeisnotjustice — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:02:04 +0000

by revengeisnotjustice
You only start with five meeples and then you can choose to use the sex hut to expand your supply to ten meeples.

The civilization cards will cost different amounts of resources based on where they are placed on the board. Above the civilization cards spots on the board there are wheels that signify any one type of resource. If the card is in the spot with one wheel, it takes one resource of any type to buy that card. You can put your meeple on any of these spots but can only buy it if you have enough resources to pay that card's cost. This means that the cost is not on the card, it is on the board.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

trippercook — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:56:23 +0000

by trippercook
You start with 5 people in your tribe. You then take turns placing a person or persons on one of the available spots on the board. The next person does the same untill you have all placed all of your people. You then do the action (Roll dice/pay for cards or huts) that your people are on. The colours above the cards tell you how many resources the card will cost. It's realy not that hard....Read through the rules again and I'm sure everything will start making sense.

Thread: Stone Age:: Rules:: Just admiring the board but stuck with the rules

elfrododumbo — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 16:51:02 +0000

by elfrododumbo

The game came today. Opened the box, stared in delight at the board, components and simple-looking rule book. The latter, howeve, was not the case
Sure, the basic idea is clear enough (the long term choices you make etc), but it gave me the impression that ALL 10 of my people the people can be used in the first stage....now I read somewhere that ,initially, only five are needed. Makes sense because how else would they multiply !
The Civilization cards and huts: these still confuse me. I take it that I place my "person" on the civilization card (first , second or which of the four cards ?) and then another on one of the four "Hut" cards. How much do I initially pay for this "privelege" of the Civilization card? What I mean is, which part of the civilization card tells me the cost....all I saw was fish I place, for example, the remaining three of my people in the forest and that is the end of part 1. Right ? The other people are there to replenish the growing population ?
Is it just stupid me, or are rules getting more convoluted the simpler the game is ? War gaming seems simpler ! I liked Agricola and want to play this one now
Anyway, I apologize for not expressing myself well (that has been made quite clear by someone on another forum....but nevermind). Being disbled may have impaired my mental faculty somewhat But my sense of humour is still working well.
Thanks in advance

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Quickly becoming a thing of the past....

Sprydle — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 19:07:10 +0000

by Sprydle
You'll also find that generally the more games you've played over the years, the quicker even learning games go--not because the rules explanation takes less time, but because strategies become evident more rapidly. You'll still have that uncertain first couple turns but once you grasp the process the strategies should present themselves.

Anyway, 3 hours for 4 players is simply insane for this game. it takes less than an hour, unless ALL the players but one are trying to extend the game. Learning games with experienced players should take about 90 minutes at most.

For an hour game, we've found the game to be a great time.

New Image for Stone Age

thdizzy — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 16:01:42 +0000

by thdizzy

A game of Stone Age
]]>

File: Stone Age:: Stone Age Greek Rules - Revised Edition

Zoula — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:24:44 +0000

by Zoula
Stone Age Greek Rules - Revised Edition for Board Game: Stone Age ]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Stone Age as a 2 player game

senorcoo — Sun, 31 May 2009 13:08:31 +0000

by senorcoo
This is easily my most favorite game I've played recently. It is one of only 2 games I've rated a 10. It is such a wonderful experience. I've played with both 2 and 4 players and while the experience is a bit different, my strategy tends to lean towards getting as many cheap cards as possible. I usually go for a civilization advance tactic, but I love the cards where you roll and everyone gets something, tho I tend to give everyone else just as good as I get. This game even got one of my wargame-only type friends to say, "Put this one on the list. This is a good one." 'Nuff said.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: It Rocks!

Pling — Sun, 31 May 2009 07:14:18 +0000

by Pling
Have read reviews or comments from several people who suggest that this game can make decisions for you. Things such as if you are the first player your move is to farm or make a tool... This game is so much more nuanced than that.

I have found it to be kindof a risk/reward type game in my plays. For me it is a game of:

1) How close can I cut the food supply?
2) How thin can I stretch my tribe and still get the most accomplished?
3) How many civilization cards can I possibly get?

Last game we played, I was third player. My son and wife locked up the farmland for 4 turns of the first six. But only on one of those turns did I decide to first-player the farmland. Every turn out of the first six I attempted to get 2 civilization cards. Then when they cooled their jets a bit on vying for the farm, I was able to easily scoop it up, most times not even using first player privilege to do so.

This game is a lot about doing the most important stuff that your opponents AREN'T doing.

At least that is my two cents.

This game is very good, and not nearly as indirect or needlessly analytical as Puerto Rico (no offense to the PR fans)- making for an excellent family game!

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: IS IT OR IS IT NOT.

danman — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:04:42 +0000

by danman
Stone Age is an excellent purchase to get introduced to Euro's.

Agricola and Puerto Rico are both good games, but the whole #1 on BGG thing should be treated like an interesting distraction. People like lists and rankings, and gamers are more susceptible than most to their allure.

If you bought books or songs by their rankings, you'd end up with solid products that are likely not anywhere near the best for your tastes. God help you if you buy alcohol that way.

In my case, Agricola is too fiddly with the constant maintenance, and Puerto Rico is a bit dry and pre-programmed for good players. I don't play either these days. But a lot of people love them. Agricola provides different goals every game, so a lot of replay and variable strategy. Puerto Rico is elegant and has a low luck factor.

If you new to the Euro scene, investigate El Grande and Pandemic. You'll also get past the "Euro" labelling anyway, because there's a lot of good games that don't neatly fit there.

The best advice is to try different things and pay close attention to your gaming group's reactions.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce too much luck?

krainer — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:56:35 +0000

by krainer
Question: Do the dice introduce too much luck?
Answer: No

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce to much luck?

Barticus88 — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:19:24 +0000

by Barticus88

drunkenKOALA wrote:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/384823

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
That post does just what it says on the tin.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Rico of Catan: a Comparative Review

Barticus88 — Sat, 30 May 2009 01:17:20 +0000

by Barticus88

drunkenKOALA wrote:
the fat naked lady

The proper term is "fertility fetish" or "fertility idol" (though the latter usually refers to the idol in Raiders of the Lost Ark).

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce to much luck?

the1jugg — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:31:42 +0000

by the1jugg
When I dont get the numbers I need in Stone Age, I know its my fault. I should have assigned more workers, or built up more tools first. It never feels like the dice's fault.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce to much luck?

Sagrilarus — Fri, 29 May 2009 14:13:40 +0000

by Sagrilarus

The wind is shifting . . . Risk Management is the new Worker Placement. You heard it here first.

Sag.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce to much luck?

drunkenKOALA — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:35:31 +0000

by drunkenKOALA
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/316088
Start with the two paragraphs immediately before the water picture.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/384823

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Do the dice introduce to much luck?

DavidM — Fri, 29 May 2009 13:02:23 +0000

by DavidM
I played for the first time last night, with two experienced players and another beginner. I won comfortably because I rolled better dice than anyone else - it did not feel very satisfying or engaging.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Stone Age Loophole?

Jumpseat — Fri, 29 May 2009 09:44:56 +0000

by Jumpseat
That's actually pretty much how we play the game. Personally I almost never expand my tribe until a handful moves before the end, once food is no longer an issue amd I can just chew through it.

It seems to me there are two major strategies. Huts and tools and chew through the game fast, or people and food production and take it slow. In my experience huts and tools with a small tribe tends to win most games, but you need to roll with the punches also.

My theory is if you build up people then you also need to build up food production, so you spread your opportunities thin in terms of adding to each. Whereas tools and huts can be built up independantly and directly as the opportunities present themselves.

That said, I still think you can win well with a slower method, but you need to take a more even handed approach and not overstretch. I think ultimately thats the best winning strategy, to know all the strategies and then work the opportunities that you are presented with to your best advantage. I think going in with any one blinkered strategy against a player who is working with what is presenting itself (re the cards, huts and available slots)and adapting their strategy to suit is probably going to come undone over numerous games. Perhaps some games the dice and cards will fall for you, but just as often they wont, and then being aware of other ways to win will come into play.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Stone Age video review - all in under 7 minutes!

OpT1mUs — Thu, 28 May 2009 23:03:25 +0000

by OpT1mUs
Great review.

On the side note I wanted to comment that the reviewer looks exactly the same as the Sniper from TF2, and he's Aussie to boot :D

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Looking for this expansion

Rubia — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:58:43 +0000

by Rubia
Wow, I'll look up the magazine. :)

Thanks all!

Rubia

New Image for Stone Age

toniemn — Thu, 28 May 2009 15:36:31 +0000

by toniemn

Stone Age FIN+SWE+NOR
]]>

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Looking for this expansion

ColtsFan76 — Thu, 28 May 2009 04:12:37 +0000

by ColtsFan76
I ordered mine from Spielbox as well, along with a few other back issues to maximize shipping. Much cheaper than FunAgain (I just couldn't find the link in English to the Spielbox site!)

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Looking for this expansion

Quarashi — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:50:44 +0000

by Quarashi

Sungarden3 wrote:

Also, here:

http://www.spielbox-magazin.de/smspecials.php#p2higalm

I ordered mine directly from Speilbox for cheaper than what you would from Funagain and it arrived in about a week from purchase.

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Looking for this expansion

Sungarden3 — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:33:14 +0000

by Sungarden3

Also, here:

http://www.spielbox-magazin.de/smspecials.php#p2higalm

Reply: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Re: Looking for this expansion

ColtsFan76 — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:18:29 +0000

by ColtsFan76
http://www.funagain.com/control/product/~product_id=019371

Thread: Stone Age - The New Huts:: General:: Looking for this expansion

Rubia — Thu, 28 May 2009 03:00:26 +0000

by Rubia
Hi all,

I'm looking for this expansion set for my Stone Age game that's on the way. Is there anyone who has a copy of the tiles that they'd be willing to trade or pass along?

I would appreciate it!

Thanks,

Rubia

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: First turn advantage?

4Corners — Thu, 28 May 2009 02:26:58 +0000

by 4Corners

drunkenKOALA wrote:
First player is disadvantage.

It depends more on the cards.

In the end it doesn't matter.

First player is a disadvantage? Wow, I want to play with you, and you can let me go first every time. I only play this as a 2-player, in large part due to the disparity of going 3rd or 4th compared to 1st or 2nd. Plus the game is too long for what it is (very light strategy) with 4-players. With 2, there is alot more room for planning/strategy, as not only is the farm a good option, but even taking wood is great because no one else can take it.

In the few times I played with 4-players, the other players who were 4th or even 3rd didn't want to play it again because of this food disparity.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Stone Age - Tuckbox for civilization cards.

Echtalion — Thu, 28 May 2009 00:05:42 +0000

by Echtalion

Flashing wrote:
That particular box holds the entire set of Civ cards for Stone Age, however many that is. Sorry I don't know how many that is off-hand.

It cost only the one sheet of card stock paper and small amount of ink used to print.

No glue to hold it together? Or...being the Stone Age... some sort of sewing with a bone needle? :p

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Question on the 1-7 Hut?

jdub2027 — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:32:33 +0000

by jdub2027
I agree with the rule on this hut, but does anyone else feel this makes this hut just a little too powerful? Essentially you can convert ANY seven of your resources to VP? Why wouldn't the first player snatch this up every time?

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Maybe this is a silly question, but

smithhemb — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:41:55 +0000

by smithhemb

Eeeville wrote:
Would you rather sit through the remainder of a game where you know you had no chance at winning or one where you could still have a possibility of winning?

Actually, my preference is for a game where it's not over til it's over, but where I know what (perhaps unlikely) task I need to accomplish to win and the question is just how/will I do it?

But your point re AP on the last turn is well-taken, especially where my husband and daughter are concerned. On the other hand, it could backfire if they refused to admit defeat re their ability to do the complex calculations necessary to compute who is where and who could end up where depending on what happens in the final round.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Maybe this is a silly question, but

smithhemb — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:36:01 +0000

by smithhemb

GamerAtom wrote:
I guess you can always assume that in order to win, you need as many points as you can get.

Where I imagine the calculation issue to come in is offense vs. defense decisions (and vis-a-vis whom in 3-player games).

But, yeah, maximize my own points is where I'm at now and certainly it's enough to keep me busy at the moment!

I'd forgotten that the civ cards were supposed to be hidden -- you're right, that could be an inherent limit on calculability. I can probably remember number for each player, but not types.

And I'm glad to hear it'll become more second nature to keep track of who's where as I get more familiar with the game. My daughter loves this one, so there may be a lot of 2 player games in my immediate future.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Maybe this is a silly question, but

Eeeville — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:26:51 +0000

by Eeeville
I think that's one of the great things about the game. You never know who will win because of the huge swing of points at the end. Compare this to something like Pillars of the Earth. In this game you firmly know who is winning and sometimes you may be able to pass the leader but sometimes the leader is just way too far head. Ask yourself this:

Would you rather sit through the remainder of a game where you know you had no chance at winning or one where you could still have a possibility of winning?

I personally would much rather not know how much I'm winning by and see how things unfold in the end. After you play a game enough, you can generally get a feel for who's in the lead, but you can never be sure by how much. So even if you feel like you're going to lose there is still a curiosity of how well you did. Another benefit is that it doesn't make the end game bog down in AP. If you look at Agricola, people can look at what any given player has on the last turn of the game and calculate their score and then try to optimize what their next best move could be.

Hidden VP seems to be something that's happening a little more often these days (Small World, Galactic Emperor and Supernova) though some older games have it too (Tigris & Euphrates, Puerto Rico). I wonder if some older games would be better served with hidden VP instead of open (such as El Grande, Alhambra , etc.).

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Maybe this is a silly question, but

the1jugg — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:19:54 +0000

by the1jugg
yes, I find in the second half of the game I am always comparing myself to my opponents (oh, he has 4 toolmakers and 3 tools, so I need more than 12 points somewhere to compete). Its one of the things I enjoy about the game.

But dont let it get you down. The more you play, the more you will likely start to think that way without even knowing it.

Enjoy

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Maybe this is a silly question, but

GamerAtom — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:02:44 +0000

by GamerAtom
I think after some more plays you'll have a pretty good idea of what your score is. However, due to your oppenents Civ cards being hidden, you'll never really know what their score is unless you have a very good memory. I guess you can always assume that in order to win, you need as many points as you can get.

Thread: Stone Age:: General:: Maybe this is a silly question, but

smithhemb — Tue, 26 May 2009 12:39:02 +0000

by smithhemb
Are people really able to calculate where they are/what they need to win in this game. The final scoring seems so convoluted, yet so crucial that even in a two-person game, I feel as if I'm guessing. Can't imagine what it's like with more than 2. Or is this a game where, over time, you have a sense of how many points it takes to win and/or if you pursue a particular strategy what it'll take to put you over the top and you aim for that external mark rather than try to keep a running tab re where the competition is at? Or do people just do what they can and hope for the best?

It's funny. The dice-induced luck aspect of this game doesn't render it less strategic for me, but my (current?) inability to calculate what it'll take for me to win sure does. It hasn't gotten in the way of my enjoyment of the game in my first two plays (where, frankly, I expect to be guessing), but I can see where it might, over the longer-term.

Anybody else have this reaction? And, if so, does it go away or get more pronounced with more experience?

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: Stone Age as a 2 player game

UnknownParkerBrother — Sat, 23 May 2009 20:19:50 +0000

by UnknownParkerBrother

sarah_elton wrote:
We play a lot of 2-player games, and virtually always end with the Civilisation cards running out.

Really? We always burn through a building stack first.

Only in our first learning game where we were hoarding resources instead of buying stuff did we run out of cards.

Session: Stone Age:: Second time playing & I still love it!

Shadow Dragon — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:26:21 +0000

by Shadow Dragon
Stone Age is a lot fun, I am really glad I bought! It has a great balance of strategy and luck. Luck is present in the form of dice rolling for resources, drawing civilization cards and available huts. Some people might not like this much luck but I think it balances the game quite nicely. The game board and pieces are high quality and have very beautiful and detailed artwork. Stone Age is also very scalable. I've only played it as a two player game so far and it's great. The rules include instructions for 2-players, 3-players and 4-players. I'm looking forward to playing with some friends in the near future and seeing the differences when it's played with four people.

This was mine and my wife's second time playing Stone Age. Having played only one time previously, we had a very quick rules refresher before starting. Last game I went first so this time she went first. In the last game my wife had a decisive victory. So, for this game I decided to try something different from our last game. In the first few rounds, I tried as much as possible to focus on moving my food production marker up the track. And I used the rest of my people for other tasks. Once I got my food marker up to 3 or 4 I immediately grew my tribe. From there, on each round I intentionaly planned just enough food to feed everyone, most rounds only having 1 or no food left after feeding everyone. By doing this I was able to maximize the use of the other people in my tribe. Then I continued to increase the size of my tribe every few rounds. During the whole game, I typically had 1-3 more people in my tribe than my wife. And each round I tried to calculate how much food I would need at the end of the next round from the one we were in. At least 3 or 4 times I saw that I was going to fall short of being able to feed my tribe in the following round and had to dedicate 1 or 2 people for hunting that round. By the end of the game I had my max of 10 people and got up to 9 or the food track, all the while barely having enough food. This strategy allowed me to use my people to their full potential and in the process I bought a lot of civ cards. The end of this game was triggered by, coincidently, running out of civ cards and huts at the end of the same round.

This is what my barely fed tribe was able to accomplish:
Huts built = 6
Tools = 8
Food track = 9
# of people = 10
# of Civ Cards = 30 (you can see that me people were hard at work!)

Here's the final points breakdown for the two of us.

Me:
End of play position on scoring track = 114 pts
Resources left at end of game = 8 pts
Total # of unique Green civ cards = 64 pts (I got all 8!)
Duplicate green civ cards = 1pt
(# of Huts) x (# of Hut Builders) = 6x3 = 18 pts
(# of Tools) x (# of Tool Makers) = 8x7 = 56 pts
(# of Food Tracks ) x (# of Farmers) = 9x4 = 36 pts
(# of People) x (# of Shaman) = 10x7 = 70 pts (I got all the Shamans!)
Grand Total Score = 367 pts

My wife:
End of play position on scoring track = 102 pts
Resources left at end of game = 13 pts
Total # of unique Green civ cards = 49 pts
Duplicate green civ cards = 0 pts
(# of Huts) x (# of Hut Builders) = 6x6 = 36 pts
(# of Tools) x (# of Tool Makers) = 6x1 = 6 pts
(# of Food Tracks ) x (# of Farmers) = 10x3 = 30 pts
(# of People) x (# of Shaman) = 7x0 = 0 pts
Grand Total Score = 236 pts

To be fair, there were a few times in the game I played some defensive moves (like taking a duplicate green civ card to prevent my wife from getting all 8 and buying up all the Shamans which netted her 0 points for her people).

So, after playing Stone Age twice my wife and I stand tied 1 game a piece. I'm really enjoying playing this game. I just hope she'll be willing to play again after this last game. (I'm sure she will.)

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: IS IT OR IS IT NOT.

crambaza — Fri, 22 May 2009 17:17:58 +0000

by crambaza

Demo_Boy wrote:
It is not typical euro because it uses dice which introduces a lot of luck.

Sweet, final proof that Settlers of Catan is not a Euro.. it has dice!

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Bought Stone Age today!!!!

pacman88k — Fri, 22 May 2009 15:28:13 +0000

by pacman88k
Oh...okay, thanks.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Bought Stone Age today!!!!

schkff — Fri, 22 May 2009 07:03:01 +0000

by schkff
As noted above, the poster of this thread has reneged on at least six trades of this game alone.

*The remainder of this post has been deleted to comply with the BGG Common Courtesy policy*

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: Bought Stone Age today!!!!

pacman88k — Fri, 22 May 2009 06:22:54 +0000

by pacman88k
I just wanted to second your preemptive praise for the game (even though I'm sure by now you've played it a bunch of times). I just got my copy in the mail today and had myself a good time going through it, sorting it, bagging it, etc. It's BEAUTIFUL! I was immensely impressed by the little detail that they give you an insert to "construct" in order to partition the inside of the box for even more convenient storage. And the rules! Oh my god! I can't believe a game with that much "play" to it can be explained to simply, clearly, and straightforwardly. On top of that, a lot of the rule book is pictures! And the game *smells* like "new game". Just love it! Simply amazing!!

Review: Stone Age:: Stone Age - Italian review - Recensione in italiano

Chromaline — Wed, 20 May 2009 20:05:29 +0000

by Chromaline

Struttura di gioco semplice e intuitiva, meccanismi flessibili, differenti strategie da perseguire, grafica accattivante e ambientazione piacevole: ecco gli ingredienti per un gioco davvero riuscito. Non sono molti i progettisti che riescono nell'intento, ma quando la miscela convince, il passo per il successo è breve. Questo quanto capitato a Michael Tummelhofer con Stone Age, autore di una delle novità più interessanti del 2008, un gioco che avrebbe senz'altro meritato di più che una semplice nomina all'ambito Spiel des Jahres e di più di un magro 2° posto come miglior gioco tedesco dell'anno. Ma, si sa, competere con Keltis, Dominion o Agricola non è cosa da poco, anche per chi abbia già scalato il successo con un gioco geniale come Sankt Petersburg.

Un gioco dal fascino preistorico

La struttura di Stone Age costituisce una variante del classico gioco di gestione delle risorse secondo la migliore tradizione tedesca. La differenza è l'utilizzo della forza lavoro e del procacciamento delle risorse, che si basa su un sistema di lancio di dadi abbastanza innovativo. Innovativo, ma non sconosciuto, che si colloca in ogni caso nell'alveo di una tendenza seguita da diversi progettisti: da Sébastien Pauchon con il suo Yspahan, fino ai nostri Chiarvesio e Iennaco con il loro riuscitissimo Kingsburg.
La gestione dei dadi è comunque tutta particolare e, si vedrà, il fattore fortuna viene in realtà ridimensionato pesantemente (entro certi limiti, naturalmente).
In ogni caso: uomini, risorse, evoluzione tecnica e culturale stanno alla base della struttura del gioco; il resto lo fa l'abilità dei giocatori.

Ambientazione e materiali

Come dice il titolo, siamo nell'età della pietra o, in ogni caso, in quella età che segue direttamente il passaggio dal nomadismo alla civiltà stanziale. C'è tutto da costruire e da scoprire. Si creano le specializzazione tecnologiche ed economiche, ci si evolve culturalmente ed economicamente. In Stone Age tutto ciò è illustrato con particolare cura, con una grafica che dire spettacolare è poco (secondo il nostro parere è questo - insieme a The Pillars of Earth - il più bel boardgame attualmente in circolazione), con una serie di dotazioni in legno classiche dei giochi tedeschi e corredato da segnalini e carte che graficamente ben si integrano con l'impatto estetico totale. Insomma, per i cultori del genere, è questo un gioco che viene acquistato anche e soprattutto per l'impatto visivo, che naturalmente trova un suo pari riscontro nel indubbio piacere di gioco che Stone Age garantisce.

Meccaniche innovative

Come si fa a progredire? Naturalmente il gioco si basa sulla raccolta di materie prime che servono a costruire edifici e acquisire competenze tecniche, scientifiche e culturali. Ogni turno i giocatori decidono dove mandare gli uomini della propria tribù e ottenere risultati economici. Cinque aree, presenti sulla parte superiore del mappa, permettono di ricavare altrettante risorse (cibo, legno, argilla, pietra e oro). Nella zona centrale sono raccolte le attività eseguibili entro lo spazio del villaggio (creazione di attrezzi, miglioramento agricolo, riproduzione degli abitanti); infine vi è l'area posta alla base della mappa, in cui trovano posto i quattro spazi per altrettante carte di civilizzazione e quattro per la costruzione di capanne. Il fine del gioco è quello di creare quanti più edifici sia possibile e/o accaparrarsi quante più carte civiltà siano disponibili, sempre chiaramente considerando certe particolarità: a seconda della strategia impostata si preferirà infatti ottenere il massimo numero di carte "attrezzi", o di carte "costruzione" o, ancora, di carte "evoluzione culturale".
Come si è detto, il vero nucleo portante di Stone Age risiede nel particolare conteggio per l'accapparramento delle risorse di base. Il giocatore può dedicare un numero a scelta di uomini da dedicare a determinate raccolte (entro un massimo di sette) che corrisponde al numero di dadi da gettare. Più forza lavoro viene impiegata, maggiori saranno naturalmente le possibilità di ottenere risorse. Chiaramente la difficoltà intrinseca di approvvigionarsi di certi materiali rispetto ad altri è stata debitamente conteggiata dal progettista: per fare un esempio, basterà lanciare un 2 per ogni punto di cibo, mentre ci vorrà come minimo un 6 per ottenere un lingotto d'oro. Si capisce quindi che più uomini si dedicheranno alla raccolta, maggiore sarà il numero di dadi, maggiore il numero di risorse ottenibili. Il fattore fortuna esiste a questo livello, ma viene mitigato dalle possibilità intrinseche di moltiplicazione dei dadi lanciati.
Una volta ottenute risorse queste serviranno, come si è visto, ad acquistare carte (che consentono di ottenere punti vittoria finali o vantaggi immediati) o segnalini di capanne (che permettono di accumulare immediati punti vittoria).

Pro e (pochi) contro

Partiamo dai pochi difetti di un gioco di cui non riusciamo a parlare in modo negativo. Forse il fattore fortuna - limitato comunque dal gran numero di dadi lanciabili - potrebbe in certi casi interferire con l'andamento del gioco. Lo slittamento calcolato della posizione dei giocatori all'interno del turno (che passa al giocatore di sinistra ogni turno), potrebbe anche in questo caso creare problemi di casualità. Il meccanismo di gioco potrebbe infine infastidire giocatori più "esuberanti", così come il conteggio finale dei punti, forse un po' troppo macchinoso e complicato. Altro non sapremmo che dire, se non che Stone Age è certamente uno dei giochi più belli mai apparsi negli ultimi dieci anni, splendido per grafica, equilibrato per meccanismo di base e che sfrutta esempi collaudati integrandoli con trovate geniali e funzionali, abbastanza profondo come strategie percorribili, veloce da giocare e dal costo tutto sommato contenuto.
Per concludere, lo consigliamo vivamente anche a chi non sia un esperto e che voglia passare un'ora traendo da questa piacere e soddisfazione (chi lo volesse provare on line può trovarne una copia identica al gioco da tavolo presso il sito tedesco www.brettspielwelt.de).

New Image for Stone Age

meskue — Tue, 19 May 2009 05:17:44 +0000

by meskue

Final board - first time playing (RandomCon 2009)
]]>

New Image for Stone Age

meskue — Tue, 19 May 2009 04:55:59 +0000

by meskue

My cards/stuff at the end of the game - first time playing (RandomCon ...
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: How to modify the box insert

p2me1a — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:48:23 +0000

by p2me1a

tonetonitonyrussell wrote:

(The hardest part was finding a ruler with cm's on it.:D)

you could have just use the player boards as a guide :D

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Obtaining Huts

mcdrunk — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:22:53 +0000

by mcdrunk
Thanks for the replies. I was curious esp. on the 1-7 Hut as I scored pretty good with that Hut and clinched the game with the points.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

Barticus88 — Mon, 18 May 2009 16:53:02 +0000

by Barticus88

MattDP wrote:
The game is called "Stone Age".

The players run around collecting iron and gold.

No, you're damn right I don't "get it".

That's right, you don't get it. In this game you gather wood, clay, stone, and gold, all commodities that were used in the Stone Age. You also invest in agriculture and tools, which people also did during the Stone Age.

Unrepresented in the game are silver, copper and other metals which were used in the Stone Age. Eventually sumbuddy made an alloy of copper and tin which was harder than mere copper. This is the start of the Bronze Age.

There is no bronze or iron in this game. Everything in this game existed during the Stone Age.

[pedant]There are also the new world bronzes. These are copper alloys which are harder than copper, so paleontologists call them bronze, yet have no tin so metallurgists call them brass. Fortunately there is no brass in the game, so this isn't an issue.[/pedant]

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

MattDP — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:59:03 +0000

by MattDP

drunkenKOALA wrote:
I just read your rating comments. I don't disagree with any of it. This article wasn't targeted at you, insofar as I can tell. Unless you start whining about the luck of the dice...

Oh of course. I was just amused by the co-incidence between the title of the article and the way I felt about the game. For what it's worth, in my limited experience of playing Stone Age, I don't disagree with any of what you've written :)

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

Drew1365 — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:53:38 +0000

by Drew1365

franklincobb wrote:
The game is far from luck-driven, but what's funny is that the randomness it does use is really, really bad.

That's exactly what I'd say about The Pillars of the Earth, and the reason I won't play it.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

drunkenKOALA — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:30:14 +0000

by drunkenKOALA

MattDP wrote:
The game is called "Stone Age".

The players run around collecting iron and gold.

No, you're damn right I don't "get it".

I just read your rating comments. I don't disagree with any of it. This article wasn't targeted at you, insofar as I can tell. Unless you start whining about the luck of the dice...

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

drunkenKOALA — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:21:39 +0000

by drunkenKOALA

Jambo wrote:
drunkenKOALA wrote:
And when two players of exactly the same skill face off in Chess, whoever is luckier to be more awake that day will win. Of course luck will determine it if both players are of "equal skill levels." But that's true of any game. And Stone Age isn't any more luck based than T&E, Ra, Race, Power Grid, etc. In fact, I'll say it's less luck-based than T&E, among other games. I'll also say it's much less luck-based than Catan.

"Less luck-based than T&E" - what makes you come to that conclusion?

Check here for current 2009 T&E league standings:

http://www.ebu.co.uk/non-ebu/tigris/?id=1

Then check here for overall 4-player T&E stats:

http://f8d.com/etstats2.shtml

Now, tell me there's not a direct correlation between players at the top end of the league and players who have a good record for playing 4-player games...

Back on Stone Age - I think you are very correct in your assessment that it's the cards and not the dice which are the determining factor between equally matched players.

The point was that Stone Age is comparable to T&E when it comes to luck. Never meant strictly, definitely, less luck than T&E, etc. But thanks for the correction.

Top T&E players have win rate of around 50% in 4ers. Top Stone Age players have the same win rate in 4er. I have 45% in 4er Stone Age myself, and I am sure there are players with better win rate than that. I am also 55% in 3er, and 77% in 2er.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Alexfrog's Ultimate strategy guide to Stone Age (long)

drunkenKOALA — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:11:33 +0000

by drunkenKOALA
There are a lot of things to bitch about in Stone Age. Like when that shaman times two, roll two for wood card pops up at the third slot in a round where your opponent goes first in a 2er game. Or when the wild hut pops up on the last round. Poor dice rolls for resources is one of the last things I'd bitch about though.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

selwyth — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:34:03 +0000

by selwyth
Collecting iron? I don't get you.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

MattDP — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:28:39 +0000

by MattDP
The game is called "Stone Age".

The players run around collecting iron and gold.

No, you're damn right I don't "get it".

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Alexfrog's Ultimate strategy guide to Stone Age (long)

selwyth — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:12:11 +0000

by selwyth
Man, I think I'm supposed to find it funny and I really want to laugh, but I just can't because Stone Age is one of my favorite multiplayer strategy games, with very little luck (less luck than Pillars, less luck than Agricola, more luck than Agricola family game). Having a crappy roll on the first turn of the game and failing to buy a card is unlucky, but hardly the end of the world, as it's so early in the game, and bigger deficits have been made up on.

The only situation worth bitching about in Stone Age is when somebody keeps rolling 6-1-1-1 on those free-for-all dice, and gets up to 7 farms while all of you are struggling to feed.

Reply: Stone Age:: General:: Re: You Do Not Get It

Jambo — Mon, 18 May 2009 12:11:46 +0000

by Jambo

drunkenKOALA wrote:
And when two players of exactly the same skill face off in Chess, whoever is luckier to be more awake that day will win. Of course luck will determine it if both players are of "equal skill levels." But that's true of any game. And Stone Age isn't any more luck based than T&E, Ra, Race, Power Grid, etc. In fact, I'll say it's less luck-based than T&E, among other games. I'll also say it's much less luck-based than Catan.

"Less luck-based than T&E" - what makes you come to that conclusion?

Check here for current 2009 T&E league standings:

http://www.ebu.co.uk/non-ebu/tigris/?id=1

Then check here for overall 4-player T&E stats:

http://f8d.com/etstats2.shtml

Now, tell me there's not a direct correlation between players at the top end of the league and players who have a good record for playing 4-player games...

Back on Stone Age - I think you are very correct in your assessment that it's the cards and not the dice which are the determining factor between equally matched players.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Alexfrog's Ultimate strategy guide to Stone Age (long)

drunkenKOALA — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:27:33 +0000

by drunkenKOALA
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/384823

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Alexfrog's Ultimate strategy guide to Stone Age (long)

Garf — Mon, 18 May 2009 11:15:35 +0000

by Garf
best. thread. ever!

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Obtaining Huts

liken@xtra.co.nz — Mon, 18 May 2009 04:53:27 +0000

by liken@xtra.co.nz
As the first reply said - absolutely you can. Most of the games I play I operate it this way - I call it the "just in time" method. It might not be good strategy, but it seems to work for me. As the other poster said, the order you resolve your placements is entirely up to you. Other games are not quite as forgiving (if you've played Caylus you will know what I mean).

Some people like to build big stockpiles of resources, and then cash them in on huts, but I tend to prefer gathering what you need in the same round you place your meeple on the huts, especially if you are trying to grab a lot of hut-builder multipliers.

The 1 to 7 huts can be a bit of a source of tension when you operate in this fashion - people get a little hacked off when you grab the 1 to 7 hut and shove anything you can grab on it that round (perhaps 3 wood or something), especially when they were building up a pile of big pile of stone or gold to cash in with 30 points plus on the 1 to 7 hut.

Reply: Stone Age:: Rules:: Re: Obtaining Huts

Philip Thomas — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:35:15 +0000

by Philip Thomas
You can place a meeple on a hut without the necessary resources even when you have no intention at all of building the hut (this tactic can delay the game a turn or two if you stand on the last hut of a pile).

You can always spend the resources you have on the hut at the time you build it. Remember, you choose which order your meeples do stuff in, so you can gather resources first and spend them last. If you are going to get a resource from a card, you can buy the card before building the hut and use the resource from the card on the hut...

Thread: Stone Age:: Rules:: Obtaining Huts

mcdrunk — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:26:44 +0000

by mcdrunk
My GF and I played Stone Age for the first time last night and one question came up.

Can you place a meeple on a Hut Card even if you don't have the necessary resource(s) to obtain it AND place meeples on the resource(s) that you need for the Hut, roll to (hopeful) obtain the necessary resource(s) and then pay for the Hut with those resources?

If this is allowed then could you place a meeple on the 1-7 Hut and then place the resources you acquire during your turn onto this Hut also to bump up the points?

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Caveman tactics ~200 plays later

Juggalo — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:25:04 +0000

by Juggalo
Thanks for the info ! :)

In fact, I've just bvrowsed over all the topics in this section and I have more knwledge about the terms and basic strats. Should have done it prior to posting. :(

Good explanation for the starve strat...makes sense.

New Image for Stone Age

SeanXor — Sun, 17 May 2009 04:16:44 +0000

by SeanXor

A Candid picture of my brother in law playing Stone Age for the first ...
]]>

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Caveman tactics ~200 plays later

kusinohki — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:50:48 +0000

by kusinohki

Juggalo wrote:
Just bought Stone Age and I think your post would be useful....however, you're using terms that doesn't exist in the "official" game, so it's hard for new players to understand you.

For example, there's no "set" in the game. Confuses me. :)

When he's talking about sets, he's referring to the green bottomed civ cards. At the end of the game, you will form a "set" of unique green cards. The number of cards determine how many each card is worth (effectively giving #cards^2 points, ie 5 cards = 5*5=25 pts). Any duplicates form a 2nd set that is scored exactly the same way.

What other terms confused you?

Wild guess at 'starvation strategy'. It's not mentioned in the rules, only on BGG forums. Basic idea, get a lot of meeples (I suggest 8 at least) and ignore food and farms. You will lose 10 pts a turn, but you can make up for it with shear mass of dudes. Personally, I hate the term since my meeples never starve. I rather call it the "point eating strategy", but no one listens to me.

Reply: Stone Age:: Strategy:: Re: Caveman tactics ~200 plays later

Juggalo — Sun, 17 May 2009 03:15:48 +0000

by Juggalo
Just bought Stone Age and I think your post would be useful....however, you're using terms that doesn't exist in the "official" game, so it's hard for new players to understand you.

For example, there's no "set" in the game. Confuses me. :)

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Bartering in Stone Age

dougbass68 — Sat, 16 May 2009 15:04:31 +0000

by dougbass68

jrajesh wrote:
In the natural economics of life and history, bartering has been played out not as a separate factor, but as a co-existent of competition.. If a player can get his opponent to part with resource A (wood/clay) in order to get resource B (gold), it brings in new elements to play and actually forces a player to revise strategies. I like the idea of trying something different, and see how bartering wood/clay/gold/food works out in few play tests.

I agree, and this is what I was driving at. When I said that competition lends itself to bartering, what I should have said was that scarcity lends itself to bartering. Competition and bartering are both natural outcomes of scarcity. Resources in both Settlers and Stone Age are scarce, but the way they are acquired is different. In Settlers, the elements of luck, competition, and bartering are all at play. In Stone Age, it is competition and luck only, but I was suggesting that maybe bartering could be added. I do not disagree that lots of play testing would be needed.

Reply: Stone Age:: Variants:: Re: Bartering in Stone Age

jrajesh — Sat, 16 May 2009 06:40:47 +0000

by jrajesh
In the natural economics of life and history, bartering has been played out not as a separate factor, but as a co-existent of competition.. If a player can get his opponent to part with resource A (wood/clay) in order to get resource B (gold), it brings in new elements to play and actually forces a player to revise strategies. I like the idea of trying something different, and see how bartering wood/clay/gold/food works out in few play tests.

Reply: Stone Age:: Reviews:: Re: A Girlfriends Perspective on: Stone Age

Halfbat — Thu, 14 May 2009 08:28:52 +0000

by Halfbat
I'm a lurker rather than a regular contributor, but I have to echo Doug Acker's point: I, too, regularly look for games in which my wife may be interested, so such prefix's are useful in a (sadly) male-dominated hobby (ime, disclaimer's, etc).

So thanks for the review, and the title. I'm making an assumption that the action claims are somewhat similar to Agricola: is that valid?