Acquire | BoardGameGeek

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Shareholder's Bonus?

Malacandra — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 07:05:38 +0000

The game would make absolutely no sense and be something else entirely if the merging player had to pay that! :cool:

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Shareholder's Bonus?

ogermino — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:27:55 +0000

I'll second that. It's the way we've been playing.

Also, though it's from an older edition, I believe the rules are the same: https://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/acquire.pdf (see page 4).

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Shareholder's Bonus?

lot_49 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:02:56 +0000

by lot_49

I think it's the bank too, but just to be safe anybody want to back Pasta Batman up?

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Shareholder's Bonus?

lot_49 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 04:01:16 +0000

by lot_49

Cool, thanks for the help. That's what I thought, but the rules are phrased weird and makes it kinda seem like it's part of your turn.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Shareholder's Bonus?

pastabatman — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:11:10 +0000

by pastabatman

The bank.

Thread: Acquire:: Rules:: Shareholder's Bonus?

lot_49 — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 03:09:56 +0000

by lot_49

So maybe I'm just tired and missed it or maybe it's something that will be obvious when I play my first game, but who pay the shareholders bonus? The bank or the player performing the merger?

Reply: Acquire:: Strategy:: Re: Comprehensive article on basic strategy

kenlee18657 — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 03:22:02 +0000

by kenlee18657

One of the subtle strategies is the need to work cooperatively with other players. Having two players who are interested in seeing a chain merged doubles the likelihood that it will happen. Often one can force another player to cooperate. For example, one can take control of a chain of a player who is strapped for cash knowing that they will still likely work for a merger in order to get the second shareholder bonus and cash for their shares. In the end game, the chains that grow the fastest are the ones with many large shareholders. The key is to be just one share larger than everyone else in the end. Dominating control of a company wastes resources that could be used elsewhere and reduces the likelihood that others will help grow or merge the company. Many players like to maintain four share leads in their chains in order to ensure the majority bonus. However, I think that in some instances a three share lead is appropriate since it is more likely to entice the second place player to cooperate if they can tie for the lead. Of course it can often become impossible to control the situation if one faces competition in more than one chain. All these subtle variables are what makes this such a great game.

Thread: Acquire:: Variants:: Market Share Variant

cptwacky — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:11:20 +0000

by cptwacky

Each time stocks of a certain chain are purchased, one share of that type of stock is set aside as a market share. When a merger occurs the market share total of the chain acquired counts as an additional player (without money), eliminating or halving a majority or minority pay out for another player(s). When available shares for a chain run out market shares are sold.

Credit the old DOS PC version of the game from the 90s.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

slaven41 — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 16:51:33 +0000

by slaven41

At the end of the game majority and minority stockholder bonuses are paid for all remaining chains, and shares in those chains are sold back to the bank for the current price.

Incidentally, you'll probably find the payoffs a little bit clunky in the real game, since you have to look up in a table what the computer figures for you automatically. But it's not too bad and you probably shouldn't let this deter you.

--Dave

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

ReggieMcFly — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:41:30 +0000

by ReggieMcFly

TVis wrote:
I think if you look deeper, a thread may already exist withinin this game's forums that debates both sides of that argument.

Thanks. I hadn't really considered that there might be different ways of playing. I suppose I wouldn't want the game to become a test of memory, but at the same time I wouldn't want it getting too bogged down with stock-checks. I'll go and read some of those threads!

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

DaviddesJ — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:18:40 +0000

by DaviddesJ

TVis wrote:
I think if you look deeper, a thread may already exist withinin this game's forums that debates both sides of that argument.

Or maybe 27 of them.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: When placing tiles at the beginning of the game...?

yamasaki — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:55:33 +0000

by yamasaki

My, this question popped up during our game today as well! Thanks for the help :)

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

TVis — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 14:46:38 +0000

by TVis

ReggieMcFly wrote:
I'd like to know whether the money/stock that players own is information that is available to all players. I found that I could make nice quick decisions about what stock to buy because I could see all this info displayed on the screen next to each players name.

Yes, known info makes it nice on the computer.

So how do your face-to-face opponents feel? Not just here, but pretty much with plenty of other games also you can make your own choice about the question of open/hidden by agreement within your group.

I think if you look deeper, a thread may already exist withinin this game's forums that debates both sides of that argument.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

Excalabur — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 12:26:51 +0000

by Excalabur

All the remaining companies pay off as if they were merged at the end of the game.

I'm a big advocate of open holdings, as it saves me having to remember exactly what everyone has (that I care about).

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

ReggieMcFly — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:23:42 +0000

by ReggieMcFly

Thanks for the reply - that seems like a sensible way to play. I was thinking that the game would slow down terribly otherwise.

Could you also clarify what happens at the game end? All I can establish is that all players seem to get a load of cash dumped into their account once the end is declared and then somebody ends up being the winner. :what:

I don't seem to be able to find the answer in any of the rule summaries that I have found.

cheers,
Steve

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

Barbarossa — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:01:10 +0000

by Barbarossa

The Avalon Hill rules say that "Stock and money of all players must always be on the table (ie not hidden) but can be piled (squared up) so as to conceal exact amounts. No player is allowed to examine another player's holdings or to keep written records of transactions. It is up to the players to remember who owns what and how much.
[Variant: Instead of the above rules for concealing holdings, players may agree to place all money and stock on the board open to inspection by all players. This variant can increase game duration considerably."

So it's up to you! For what it's worth, the WBC tournaments use the "squared up" rules.

Thread: Acquire:: General:: Okay, so I've played a few games online....

ReggieMcFly — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 08:14:04 +0000

by ReggieMcFly

....and I like it. I seem to have a reasonable understanding of the rules (at least I've beat the computer a couple of times) but that might be more luck than judgement.

The thing is that I have a few questions about how the game is implemented as a boardgame. In particular, I'd like to know whether the money/stock that players own is information that is available to all players. I found that I could make nice quick decisions about what stock to buy because I could see all this info displayed on the screen next to each players name.

Does anyone know if I can find a full copy of the boardgame rules online? I've found summaries of how to play, but I'd really like to read an original version of the game rules.

thanks,
Steve

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: When placing tiles at the beginning of the game...?

pastabatman — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:33:18 +0000

by pastabatman

No chains are founded in the initial tile placement. The first tile placed next to two (or more) initially adjacent tiles will cause a chain to be founded in the normal way.

Thread: Acquire:: Rules:: When placing tiles at the beginning of the game...?

BlueDagger — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 06:58:45 +0000

by BlueDagger

What happens when two tiles are placed next to each other in the initial tile placement? Is a hotel founded? If so who gets to chose which hotel is started, and who gets the free share?

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

RedArmyIan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:17:51 +0000

by RedArmyIan

I have the avalon hill versions of diplomacy and acquire, and I like them both. Sure, its just cardboard, but it has a sort of classic look to it. Would be nice if they gave bags for the tiles or some sort of holding compartments in the box, but oh well.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

RedArmyIan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:12:58 +0000

by RedArmyIan

yamasaki wrote:
Barticus88 wrote:
If the rule says you lose the chance to buy stock, the rule is wrong.

Is there a rule which says that if you have 6 temporarily unplayable tiles, you don't play a tile but you do buy stock?

In the FAQ in the rulebook:

"What happens if a player has no legal plays left in his or her hand?
That player may reveal his or her hand, set it aside in a face-up pile, and draw 6 new tiles. The player may then play one tile from his or her hand and continue with the turn."

Sorry, I was replying to this post.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

RedArmyIan — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:11:55 +0000

by RedArmyIan

That means that if you only have tiles that would merge two safe chains. That's a whole different case.

File: Acquire:: Acquire 3M version Colorful and Easy-to-Read Information Card

EgorjLileli — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 02:08:17 +0000

by EgorjLileli

Acquire 3M version Colorful and Easy-to-Read Information Card for Board Game: Acquire ]]>

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

EgorjLileli — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:54:26 +0000

by EgorjLileli

sisteray wrote:
It's a really good game, right? Sid Sackson was a genius.

Hey Morgan.......you KNOW it is!!

Thanks!!

:kiss:

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

EgorjLileli — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 17:50:34 +0000

by EgorjLileli

tmredden wrote:
Jubii2 wrote:
If you can get ahold of a copy, an interesting game that has a very similar feel is "Union Pacific" by Alan Moon.

When you begin playing it isn't obvious why the two games are alike, but after you see how the scoring takes place you will understand.

I think I like Union Pacific better because it allows you to play defensively. You can block off parts of the map with well placed trains.

Of course the other game most similar to Acquire is SHARK. I've played Shark a couple times and have had great fun with it, though I have 7 editions of Acquire plus a couple pc and palm versions, and have long considered it to be my most favorite multi-player game, if not for its quality of play then generally because of its history (Sid Sackson, 3M, Hasbro, etc.) I have the earlier 3M edition with embossed wooden tiles which is very nice to play. I don't mind, and have always played with, paper money. It just seems to be "the way." I've never played with the bonus cards that came with a couple editions, either.

Thanks Todd!! I'll look into it!!

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

sisteray — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:17:16 +0000

by sisteray

It's a really good game, right? Sid Sackson was a genius.

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

tmredden — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 02:19:53 +0000

by tmredden

Jubii2 wrote:
If you can get ahold of a copy, an interesting game that has a very similar feel is "Union Pacific" by Alan Moon.

When you begin playing it isn't obvious why the two games are alike, but after you see how the scoring takes place you will understand.

I think I like Union Pacific better because it allows you to play defensively. You can block off parts of the map with well placed trains.

Of course the other game most similar to Acquire is SHARK. I've played Shark a couple times and have had great fun with it, though I have 7 editions of Acquire plus a couple pc and palm versions, and have long considered it to be my most favorite multi-player game, if not for its quality of play then generally because of its history (Sid Sackson, 3M, Hasbro, etc.) I have the earlier 3M edition with embossed wooden tiles which is very nice to play. I don't mind, and have always played with, paper money. It just seems to be "the way." I've never played with the bonus cards that came with a couple editions, either.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

TDRandall — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:00:38 +0000

by TDRandall

Aha - I see in another thread that the particular rule evidently disappeared in the 2008 version of the game, so that answers that.

Although we'll continue to play by the previous rules, which would mean for the discussion here that we would still allow the buying of up to three available stocks as part of the turn here too, whether or not the current ruleset is intended to block that. Which I hope not, because again that inadvertantly punishes the locked-out player due to bad luck in most cases.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

TDRandall — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 01:48:55 +0000

by TDRandall

Huh - so we house-ruled the tile ditch and replacement? Or is that a change in the rules?

Could be either, because our original rules had been lost long ago (pre-BGG days for us) and so we've just played according to how we remembered.

But we've never had six unplayable tiles at one time.

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

EgorjLileli — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:06:02 +0000

by EgorjLileli

Jubii2 wrote:
P.S. Poker chips make the game go quicker and are more fun than the paper money. :laugh:

Thank you Randall!!

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

Jubii2 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:52:09 +0000

by Jubii2

P.S. Poker chips make the game go quicker and are more fun than the paper money. :laugh:

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

Jubii2 — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:50:45 +0000

by Jubii2

If you can get ahold of a copy, an interesting game that has a very similar feel is "Union Pacific" by Alan Moon.

When you begin playing it isn't obvious why the two games are alike, but after you see how the scoring takes place you will understand.

I think I like Union Pacific better because it allows you to play defensively. You can block off parts of the map with well placed trains.

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

EgorjLileli — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:43:35 +0000

by EgorjLileli

Fred Minard wrote:
You don't have to use all 7 corporations in a 2 player game. You wrote that you were starting them, that gives you 1 free stock. If you don't concentrate on just 2 or 3 corporations, you'll be crushed.

I suggest if you play as a 2 player game again, go with the lower amount of Hotels.

I like that player aid card.

Well it's funny you mention that Fred. By the end of the game we only had 2 corporations on the board!!!

Thanks for your input!! I'll try that next time! :D

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

kendahlj — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:27:44 +0000

by kendahlj

This is the game that provides tons of tension and I always enjoy it, yet it's the one I never suggest and am not too interested in playing when it's suggested. Weird...

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

Fred Minard — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:25:25 +0000

by Fred Minard

You don't have to use all 7 corporations in a 2 player game. You wrote that you were starting them, that gives you 1 free stock. If you don't concentrate on just 2 or 3 corporations, you'll be crushed.

I suggest if you play as a 2 player game again, go with the lower amount of Hotels.

I like that player aid card.

Review: Acquire:: Reviews:: I am in LOVE and where have you been ALL my Life??!!

EgorjLileli — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:00:10 +0000

by EgorjLileli

Introduction/Background
Acquire is a long-standing, respected, and highly regarded board game that has seen its share of re-printings and re-publishings. This 90-minute game plays from 2 to 6 players. I was fortunate enough to find an almost complete and basically unplayed box at a charity thrift store. It was complete except for the 1-D tile which was generously mailed to me by BGG user Guantanamo. The only other thing missing was the sleeve part of the cover—this is a 1966 3M bookshelf version. This gem was designed by Sid Sackson and is an economic game of mergers, stock purchases, acquisitions, and payouts. Mystery Bob and I embarked upon the hotel business last weekend and I do warn you that my review is after that one and only game! ]]>BGG image courtesy of zackdale - My missing sleeve/cover (on left)

Goal of Review
In trying to provide a fresh review, and not a restatement of the rules and gameplay, I will focus on what we found enjoyable and not enjoyable based on our 2-player game. If I were researching this game, I would like to find a review that provides helpful information on the attributes of the game instead of a play-by-play description (which has already been posted ad nauseum here on BGG).

What we Like
Components:
The components are old-fashioned plastic and simple cardstock; while not gorgeous by any stretch of the imagination, they are functional and sturdy. The stock certificate cards are not shuffled and if handled carefully should stay in good shape. I might be tempted to create my own stock certificates and perhaps sleeve them if I find the original ones to begin to deteriorate. The board is grooved and works really well to hold the tiles and withstand jostling and table movement. The rules are printed on the inside cover of the box top, are adequately produced, and very easy to follow. There are lots of player aids, rules summaries, charts, and lists here on the BGG files that are helpful as well. We followed the rules for 2-players where the “Bank” competes for shareholder bonuses after a merger and at the end of the game.

Gameplay:
Looking over the board and your hand of six (6) tiles quickly gets very interesting. Should I start a new corporation? Should I add tiles to an existing corporation or buy stock first while it is cheaper? Should I merge 2 or more corporations now or after acquiring more stock? Lots of fun and thinky challenges are presented in this game. I must say I didn’t overthink too much on this first play as it was a learning game. I enjoyed making things happen and seeing how the money would fall. I was the only one who triggered mergers the entire game. Mystery Bob seemed to focus on diversifying and increasing his stock portfolios.—COUGH, COUGH (more on this strategy later….) ]]>BGG image courtesy of kristiefix

The game offers the option of playing with secret or open information. We played with open information as we were learning and did not want the added burden of guessing how much the other person had (or worse, keeping a mental track of their money and stocks). I think it is great that it allows this option; I do feel that in any game with equally good players that this “memory” element detracts from the fun as the person who better tracks what everyone else is doing will have an advantage. Personally, I don’t think this game needs anything to make it more interesting or fun.

We also liked being able to turn in our unplayable tiles at the end of our turn. This happened more frequently as the board filled up. I also enjoyed the risk-taking of spending all my money to buy stock and playing against the bank for shareholder bonuses. The challenges, risks, wins, and failures were all exciting, engaging, and fun!!

With seven corporations to keep track of, you are always busy planning and predicting your future plays and turns. As the board fills up, you can begin to predict when to best end the game and get the final payouts. I also want to add that this medium-weight game is complex and a bit brain-burning, but has such simple and elegant rules and gameplay that it is very easy to understand and play well from the first!!

Winning Conditions and End Game:
The winning conditions are simple: the person with the most money at the end of the game wins! The end game is triggered by 2 different conditions: 1) A corporation with 41 or more tiles on the board, or 2) All existing corporations are safe (i.e., have 11 tiles or more). This alone does not end the game; each player has the option to call the end of the game on his/her turn once one of the two conditions have been met. Of course, I called the game end on my turn because I wanted to have the ability to purchase as much stock as possible before the final payouts. Again, the bank competed against us in the final shareholder bonus payouts, but we both had a good amount of stock and beat the bank each time!! We sold our stocks back at the current price and totaled up our cash to determine the winner. ]]>BGG image courtesy of Joanna Olsen

Replayability Factor and Number of Players:
I would venture to say that this game has staying power because of the randomness of the tile draws and the competition against the “bank” (in a 2-player game). It plays 2 to 6 and I could see a really tight and more challenging game with more players as it would require you to think on your feet and make almost every decision count. The luck and risk-taking factors tie in to the stock market theme perfectly!

What we did NOT Like
Components:
Well the paper money is beginning to crinkle after just one play and I could see it become annoying with more plays. I am almost tempted to go pencil and paper, but I will probably invest in poker chips which take up less space. Also, the “Information Card” is tiny and not too easy to read. I already made my own larger and more colorful “Information Card” on MS Excel and submitted it to the files here on BGG. The printing on the tiles is not always perfectly centered and the tiles, while very functional, are pretty ugly. I may be tempted to “pimp” out the corporation tiles in some way. However, I must emphasize that the game is so enjoyable and good that you forget about how unattractive it is altogether. It does NOT detract from the fun and enjoyment at all!! ]]> My homemade “Information Card”

Gameplay:
Well, the competition against the bank is a bit difficult, especially when the bank might draw 12 stocks against you. I believe that with more than 2 players you have a better indication of whether a merger will benefit you with a bonus or not. A couple of times the bank won bonuses that were devastating, because we had invested heavily in that corporation’s stock. I do think a house rule is in order here, especially when both players have purchased all or almost all the stock in a corporation. How can the bank win with 12 stocks if I have 10 and Mystery Bob has 12? There are only 25 stocks per corporation, so in reality there are only 3 stocks left for that corporation. I think the bank should not play if the number of stocks left for a corporation are less than what the two players have individually. I might try that out if Mystery Bob agrees with me.

The beginning of the game before the board starts filling up and corporations are formed is a teensy bit boring and tedious, but changes quickly enough.

Winning Conditions and End Game:
No negatives for us so far in this category.

Replayability and Number of Players:
Also no negatives for us so far in this category. I would love to play with more players (that’s how I feel about almost every game—sigh)

In Conclusion
We were really blown away by Acquire and I was totally and pleasantly shocked by the game. It is engaging, challenging, elegant and easy to learn and play, brain-burning, and fun!! I rated it a solid 10, only my second one thus far!!

Embarrassing Confession
I kind of knew Mystery Bob was raking in the money during the game and I called the end to well, end it. However, it was NOT a blowout; when the money was counted I lost $32,300 to $50,100. Not as bad as I originally thought!!

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Selling stock after a merger

Quertzacoalt — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 17:51:40 +0000

by Quertzacoalt

Thanks Eric!

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Selling stock after a merger

esok — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 15:54:14 +0000

by esok

Quertzacoalt wrote:
Jay will receive the majority bonus, right?
Question: Will the minority bonus be split among Jules and May?

In the example you cited, Jay would get the majority bonus, and Jules would get the minority bonus. The minority bonus goes to the second-highest owner of stock in a company, or split among the second-highest if there are more than one. If there are multiple owners tied for the highest, the combined majority and minority bonuses are split among those, and any having less gets nothing.

Example 1:

Albert 5
Beth 4
Carl 3
Dennis 2

Albert gets majority, Beth gets minority.

Example 2:

Albert 5
Beth 5
Carl 4
Dennis 4

Albert and Beth split the combined majority and minority bonuses, Carl and Dennis get nothing.

Example 3:

Albert 5
Beth 4
Carl 4
Dennis 4

Albert gets majority bonus, the others split the minority bonus three ways.

Does the minority stock holder mean the player who's got the second highest amount of stocks of the acquired company (ignoring all the others)?

Yes.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Selling stock after a merger

Quertzacoalt — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:11:09 +0000

by Quertzacoalt

Anyone?

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

yamasaki — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 10:28:25 +0000

by yamasaki

Barticus88 wrote:
If the rule says you lose the chance to buy stock, the rule is wrong.

Is there a rule which says that if you have 6 temporarily unplayable tiles, you don't play a tile but you do buy stock?

In the FAQ in the rulebook:

"What happens if a player has no legal plays left in his or her hand?
That player may reveal his or her hand, set it aside in a face-up pile, and draw 6 new tiles. The player may then play one tile from his or her hand and continue with the turn."

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

TDRandall — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:33:38 +0000

by TDRandall

I'm with Randall on this part. If the newest version of Acquire prohibits you from buying stock when you don't affect chains in some way then that seems to be a drastic change from previous versions. That would punish you from either bad luck or a potentially strategic play (play a dud to enable you to buy more stock elsewhere). The only possible good that I can twist myself into imagining is that it would likely remove the lull(s) where everybody is out of money and waiting to see which chains merge next to free up the flow again. (At least one occurrence of this seems to happen in the earlyish part of the game for us.)

I'm a bit foggier on the claim about having 6 temporarily unplayable tiles. It may not be impossible, I suppose, but it certainly seems very unlikely. A tile is unplayable only if the two chains it would merge are already safe (above 11 tiles each, in which case I believe you are supposed to toss it out - we place it upside down on the board in our "plastic tray" version) or if all chains are on the board already and the only option of play would require the creation of another chain. One or even a couple maybe, but all six?

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: 2 players?

The Abstractionist — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 18:13:05 +0000

by The Abstractionist

Although I generally prefer 2-player games, and am also rather fond of Acquire, in my experience, playing this with only two seems somewhat inadequate. I think you need at least one more player to give it the proper dynamic, though I'm not sure what the optimum # is, having not sampled enough combinations. My guess, however, would be 4.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: 2 players?

whac3 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:29:46 +0000

by whac3

I think with 2 players it's a more strategic game in some ways but in in other ways I think the more players the better.. Generally, I'd say it works well both ways but is just a very different game with 6 players vs. 2.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: 2 players?

TVis — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 17:25:49 +0000

by TVis

It can be disconcerting when figuring the merger bonuses. A tile is randomly drawn to determine whether a phantom third player owns more stock than you do. You may think you have a majority bonus coming and suddenly you don't get the big reward afterall.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: 2 players?

Barticus88 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:47:37 +0000

by Barticus88

It's okay. Some like it better.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

Barticus88 — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:21:11 +0000

by Barticus88

If the rule says you lose the chance to buy stock, the rule is wrong.

Is there a rule which says that if you have 6 temporarily unplayable tiles, you don't play a tile but you do buy stock?

Thread: Acquire:: General:: 2 players?

ReggieMcFly — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 14:41:43 +0000

by ReggieMcFly

Hi

Can anybody comment on the playability of Acquire with 2-players? I'm struggling to find reviews that comment on this.

thanks,
Steve

Thread: Acquire:: Rules:: Disjointed tile ends the turn prematurely?

yamasaki — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 13:32:01 +0000

by yamasaki

Hi,

I have the latest version of Acquire, and in page 4 of the rulebook, it says when you place a tile doesn't let you found, grow, or merge a hotel chain, then nothing happens and then it's the next player's turn. Is this really the case? Does that mean that the player will not get a chance to buy stocks anymore and draw a new tile? Please enlighten me. Thanks!

File: Acquire:: The Amazing One-Page-Only Acquire Size/Value Track (3M / AH version)

tafkapao — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:59:14 +0000

by tafkapao

The Amazing One-Page-Only Acquire Size/Value Track (3M / AH version) for Board Game: Acquire ]]>

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

out4blood — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 14:17:01 +0000

by out4blood

Gamegrunt wrote:
I love my 1999 Hasbro Edition and was very fortunate to snap it up at a Toys R Us for $20 back in April of '04. It's gotten a lot of play and everyone raves about it. However, I've played the game using a friend's '08 Edition during the last few months and it does have some advantages. The stock cards are gorgeous and the board positions are a bit easier to survey - the plastic buildings of the '99 Edition do create visual blindspots. I don't like the tile racks but the Scrabble cannibalization idea mentioned above would be a nice fix.

If all I had was this newest version, I'd be happy with it, and afterall, isn't happiness finding contentment with what we have?

Gg

Nothing's easier on the eyes than the old AH version with the plastic tiles. The big city AH version is pretty, but over-produced. I have both, and prefer the smaller footprint.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Gamegrunt — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:46:59 +0000

by Gamegrunt

I love my 1999 Hasbro Edition and was very fortunate to snap it up at a Toys R Us for $20 back in April of '04. It's gotten a lot of play and everyone raves about it. However, I've played the game using a friend's '08 Edition during the last few months and it does have some advantages. The stock cards are gorgeous and the board positions are a bit easier to survey - the plastic buildings of the '99 Edition do create visual blindspots. I don't like the tile racks but the Scrabble cannibalization idea mentioned above would be a nice fix.

If all I had was this newest version, I'd be happy with it, and afterall, isn't happiness finding contentment with what we have?

Gg

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

tmredden — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:30:41 +0000

by tmredden

Goldenturkey wrote:
...what are you saying? I'm wrong to want my games made of solid gold...? That's it. I've heard enough! My myopic world view is shattered. I'm gonna play Monopoly till my brain melts!

CHRIS

You have the solid gold Monopoly edition?! How much on ebay?

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

tmredden — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:29:18 +0000

by tmredden

King Friday wrote:
Such a lot of crying over so small a thing. The 2008 version is far from the worst version (that would be my 1995 version -- cheap components and oh-so-ugly). At least in this version they put decent graphic artists on the job. You may disagree with me (that's why it's called an opinion), but I think the new version has a lot going for it. In fact, the more I look at it the more I admire the skill of the designers in putting together the package. They had to make some tough choices about where to spend their restricted production budget (the bean-counters always have the artists by the short hairs) and I think the decision to put the money into stylish art and decent cards was a good one, given the task at hand. If you think about the $25 price point, it's the same as, say, FFG's Citadels which is, what, a deck of cards and a handful of plastic chits? Acquire has almost three times the number of linen-finish cards alone.

As I see it, the cons of the components are really in the cheap tile racks (buy a couple of yard-sale Scrabble sets, crib the racks and spray 'em black) and the cardboard tiles. Pros include affordability, great art, good cards with front and back art, attractive layout with clear, easy-to-understand design (notice how the chain markers fit over exactly two tiles so newbies have a good visual reinforcement about when to place them?), a compact box (I don't need yet another monster box in my game closet, thanks), and a very easy to swallow price point. Add to this not dinking up the rules in the name of "improving" the game and I think you've got a winner of a release even if it's not actually made of solid gold. What's to hate?

KF

Decent cards? At least they could have cut them all the same size! Geez.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Goldenturkey — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:08:48 +0000

by Goldenturkey

...what are you saying? I'm wrong to want my games made of solid gold...? That's it. I've heard enough! My myopic world view is shattered. I'm gonna play Monopoly till my brain melts!

CHRIS

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

King Friday — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 12:00:40 +0000

by King Friday

Such a lot of crying over so small a thing. The 2008 version is far from the worst version (that would be my 1995 version -- cheap components and oh-so-ugly). At least in this version they put decent graphic artists on the job. You may disagree with me (that's why it's called an opinion), but I think the new version has a lot going for it. In fact, the more I look at it the more I admire the skill of the designers in putting together the package. They had to make some tough choices about where to spend their restricted production budget (the bean-counters always have the artists by the short hairs) and I think the decision to put the money into stylish art and decent cards was a good one, given the task at hand. If you think about the $25 price point, it's the same as, say, FFG's Citadels which is, what, a deck of cards and a handful of plastic chits? Acquire has almost three times the number of linen-finish cards alone.

As I see it, the cons of the components are really in the cheap tile racks (buy a couple of yard-sale Scrabble sets, crib the racks and spray 'em black) and the cardboard tiles. Pros include affordability, great art, good cards with front and back art, attractive layout with clear, easy-to-understand design (notice how the chain markers fit over exactly two tiles so newbies have a good visual reinforcement about when to place them?), a compact box (I don't need yet another monster box in my game closet, thanks), and a very easy to swallow price point. Add to this not dinking up the rules in the name of "improving" the game and I think you've got a winner of a release even if it's not actually made of solid gold. What's to hate?

KF

Thread: Acquire:: General:: Acquire Corporation Size Track 1999 AND 2008 by Liumas

Liumas — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 05:07:13 +0000

by Liumas

I've uploaded here 2 new versions of my Acquire Corporation Size Track.

Justin Bost (DraperyFalls) asked me to update my 'Acquire Corporation Size Track' to match the names and colors of the latest Hasbro version (2008).

Acquire Corporation Size Track 2008 by Liumas

It looks great! I'm very happy with the result. So much so that I decided to also upload the original in a PDF file and clean it up slightly for printing.

Acquire Corporation Size Track 1999 by Liumas

Don't bother reprinting this if you already have. I didn't reprint mine.

For the later 2008 version... I forgot that the new edition does not use 'corporations'. No problem with this game aid file since the word 'corporation' only appears in the name of the file, not in anything that would be printed out. Still gets to me since I'm a perfectionist.

Enjoy

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Selling stock after a merger

Quertzacoalt — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:42:58 +0000

by Quertzacoalt

A bit off-topic, but here it goes: considering that a company has just merged and 3 players own stocks of the acquired company (Jay has 4, Jules 3 and May 1). Jay will receive the majority bonus, right?
Question: Will the minority bonus be split among Jules and May? I know that if they were tied with 2 stocks each, the bonus would be split. But what about if on has less then the other player (that isn't the majority). Semantically, everyone who's not the main stock holder is a minor stock holder. Does the minority stock holder mean the player who's got the second highest amount of stocks of the acquired company (ignoring all the others)?

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

tmredden — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:44:11 +0000

by tmredden

wargamer55 wrote:
MScrivner wrote:
Hasbro did the same thing to Diplomacy - the other classic of gaming, ruined by overly dark colors, cheap cardboard chits, and irrelevant art.

Hasbro: Game Murderer.

Still, I own this most recent version of Acq, and we get by well enough. Using nice, linen-finish cards for the stocks (instead of thin, cheap paper stocks like many of the previous version, especially the classic versions) is actually an asset. The only asset. But an asset.

On the other hand, when there's a future reprint of either game it will have to be nicer, because it can't get any cheaper.

Now, I wouldn't count on it.

File: Acquire:: The Amazing One-Page-Only Acquire Size/Value Track

tafkapao — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:59:40 +0000

by tafkapao

The Amazing One-Page-Only Acquire Size/Value Track for Board Game: Acquire ]]>

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

BrenoK — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:49:03 +0000

by BrenoK

Winsome Games, anyone?

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

out4blood — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:35:38 +0000

by out4blood

Sagrilarus wrote:
MScrivner wrote:

Hasbro: Game Murderer.

Hey, at least Hasbro published it and made it available at a great price in tough economic times. I'll take a cheesy-ass copy of Merchant of Venus next if you please.

Sag.

You're so picky. I'll take ANY version.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Sagrilarus — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 00:17:33 +0000

by Sagrilarus

MScrivner wrote:

Hasbro: Game Murderer.

Hey, at least Hasbro published it and made it available at a great price in tough economic times. I'll take a cheesy-ass copy of Merchant of Venus next if you please.

Sag.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

wargamer55 — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:45:45 +0000

by wargamer55

MScrivner wrote:
Hasbro did the same thing to Diplomacy - the other classic of gaming, ruined by overly dark colors, cheap cardboard chits, and irrelevant art.

Hasbro: Game Murderer.

Still, I own this most recent version of Acq, and we get by well enough. Using nice, linen-finish cards for the stocks (instead of thin, cheap paper stocks like many of the previous version, especially the classic versions) is actually an asset. The only asset. But an asset.

On the other hand, when there's a future reprint of either game it will have to be nicer, because it can't get any cheaper.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

MScrivner — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:48:19 +0000

by MScrivner

Hasbro did the same thing to Diplomacy - the other classic of gaming, ruined by overly dark colors, cheap cardboard chits, and irrelevant art.

Hasbro: Game Murderer.

Still, I own this most recent version of Acq, and we get by well enough. Using nice, linen-finish cards for the stocks (instead of thin, cheap paper stocks like many of the previous version, especially the classic versions) is actually an asset. The only asset. But an asset.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

unixrevolution — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:13:37 +0000

by unixrevolution

Goldenturkey wrote:

My car drives quite well but its riddled with rust - so does that mean my cars perfect?

No, this just means your car lives in England.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Gilby — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:54:43 +0000

by Gilby

Barticus88 wrote:
Rygel wrote:
$20 vs. $60 or more is how.

What? A 3M or AH copy of Acquire in pretty good shape can be had on eBay for $20 including shipping. You can save several bucks if you buy a set missing a tile or two.

Of course, it's a boring looking plastic board and tiles with rather poor stock certificates, but they can be had.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

tmredden — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:34:17 +0000

by tmredden

Randy Cox wrote:
Goldenturkey wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:
You know, the ruleset is quite good. You should consider playing it.

My car drives quite well but its riddled with rust - so does that mean my cars perfect?

A lovely game reduced to a 'cheap' rerelease.

What makes you think you were going to get a perfect game? What makes you think you deserve a perfect game for that price?

And by the way, the 3-D Acquire, with those silly buildings atop the over-large plastic tiles is probably worse than playing with cardboard. Yuck.

To each his own I guess, but we've always LOVED playing with the 3D set. It looks great and the big colored buildings make it real easy to see what's going on from any vantage point. The quality of the board, tiles, buildings, cards, and rules is first-rate. I can't imagine what anybody would complain about. The tiles aren't so over-sized that they won't fit into a smallish randomizer bag. It's one of my favorite editions of any game.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

tmredden — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 03:26:53 +0000

by tmredden

Goldenturkey wrote:
I read up about Acquire on the geek prior to playing with distant friends on holiday. Loved it with all the plastic buildings and non slip slot over tiles.

...So I bought it... Oh yeh, you know what's coming...

A box stuffed full of bent cardboard and no character - I am incensed.

How can someone kill such a lovely looking game with such dud components!

Grrrr!

I remember when Hasbro pretended they were asking us what WE WANTED in the new Acquire version. They must have had their fingers stuck in their ears because the new edition has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING we asked for. It's cheap and poor quality with no improvements over previous editions WHATSOEVER. In fact, my copy had 2 card decks for packaging, where one of the company's stocks were split between the 2 decks. The 2 decks were actually die cut slightly different sized, so the cards for that company's stock don't pat down to the same size. CAN YOU BELIEVE a company could be that careless with its production of a game that gamers tried to tell them WE REALLY CARED ABOUT!!?? Hasbro really pisses me off! :angry:

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Sagrilarus — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:36:22 +0000

by Sagrilarus

Goldenturkey wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:
You know, the ruleset is quite good. You should consider playing it.

My car drives quite well but its riddled with rust - so does that mean my cars perfect?

A lovely game reduced to a 'cheap' rerelease.

    I think all games should be made of bronze and priced at $200+ so the riff raff can't afford them.

    And you should take better care of your car.

    Fundamentally it comes down to this -- a game forty years into its lifecycle is going to be released in different packages in order to grind a few more dollars out of the property. Part of that is producing a package that will appeal to the bottom end of the market (which I picked up for $15 at Barnes & Nobles -- one truly fantastic price for such a legendary game.) You can see its peers from the same era going through this process as well. You can also see them being rereleased in more refined packages, and it is very likely the same will happen for Acquire.

    Set a few dollars aside for when that happens. It won't be fifteen dollars.

             Sag.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Randy Cox — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 22:43:23 +0000

by Randy Cox

What makes you think you were going to get a perfect game? What makes you think you deserve a perfect game for that price?

And by the way, the 3-D Acquire, with those silly buildings atop the over-large plastic tiles is probably worse than playing with cardboard. Yuck.

File: Acquire:: Acquire Corporation Size Track 1999 by Liumas

Liumas — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:25:08 +0000

by Liumas

Acquire Corporation Size Track 1999 by Liumas for Board Game: Acquire ]]>

File: Acquire:: Acquire Corporation Size Track 2008 by Liumas

Liumas — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:25:08 +0000

by Liumas

Acquire Corporation Size Track 2008 by Liumas for Board Game: Acquire ]]>

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Goldenturkey — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 20:09:19 +0000

by Goldenturkey

Sagrilarus wrote:
You know, the ruleset is quite good. You should consider playing it.

My car drives quite well but its riddled with rust - so does that mean my cars perfect?

A lovely game reduced to a 'cheap' rerelease.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Barticus88 — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:27:45 +0000

by Barticus88

Rygel wrote:
$20 vs. $60 or more is how.

What? A 3M or AH copy of Acquire in pretty good shape can be had on eBay for $20 including shipping. You can save several bucks if you buy a set missing a tile or two.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Sagrilarus — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:27:42 +0000

by Sagrilarus

You know, the ruleset is quite good. You should consider playing it.

Sag.

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Barticus88 — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:18:56 +0000

by Barticus88

Goldenturkey wrote:
A box stuffed full of bent cardboard and no character - I am incensed.

How can someone kill such a lovely looking game with such dud components!

:yuk::cry::yuk::cry::yuk::cry::cry:

Reply: Acquire:: General:: Re: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Rygel — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:03:59 +0000

by Rygel

$20 vs. $60 or more is how.

Or if want the ever elusive 1998 version get ready to pay $200.

Thread: Acquire:: General:: OMG why do I hate the new version so much!

Goldenturkey — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:47:58 +0000

by Goldenturkey

I read up about Acquire on the geek prior to playing with distant friends on holiday. Loved it with all the plastic buildings and non slip slot over tiles.

...So I bought it... Oh yeh, you know what's coming...

A box stuffed full of bent cardboard and no character - I am incensed.

How can someone kill such a lovely looking game with such dud components!

Grrrr!

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Question on mergers

lairdcj — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:09:36 +0000

by lairdcj

Thanks,
I missed that you stack the hotel marker onto the new chain.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Question on mergers

ManchotPi — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:08:45 +0000

by ManchotPi

The marker itself doesn't take up a space on the board. It merely sits on top to label the chain, as in the following image:

]]>

It seems that you were mistakenly placing it next to the chain and using it to determine connectivity. With the marker on top of already laid tiles, removing it can't disturb the connectivity of the board.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Question on mergers

vorchan — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:08:40 +0000

by vorchan

the hotel marker is place "on top" of two tiles when they form to be a corporation. It seems to me that you think the hotel marker is placed directly on the board, it is supposed to be placed over two of the original tiles that formed the company.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Question on mergers

Gelatinous Goo — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:06:20 +0000

by Gelatinous Goo

When you place the building (or hotel, as you call it) marker, you place it on an existing tile. So if you have 2 tiles touching in the beginning, you put the building marker on top of one of those 2.

Therefore, whenever a building marker is removed after a merger, there should still be a standard tile underneath.

Does that answer the question?

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Question on mergers

Normandy — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:05:40 +0000

by Normandy

The tiles merge onto the larger hotel. If the hotels have equal number tiles, then the person initiating the merger decides the remaining hotel.

The connecting tile also becomes apart of the hotel. ie. Festival has 3 tiles, Worldwide has 2. Worldwide merges into Festival. Festival is now a 6 chain hotel.

Hotel markers go on top of 2 adjacent tiles to form a hotel. The hotel markers are used for distinction.

Thread: Acquire:: Rules:: Question on mergers

lairdcj — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:55:30 +0000

by lairdcj

I just picked up a copy of Acquire and have a question on the rules regarding a merger. Specifically, what happens to the tiles of a smaller chain that are only connected to the larger chain through the hotel marker?

I know that the marker is removed at the end of the merger, so are those tiles now not connected to any hotel marker not part of any chain?

Thanks for the help.

Reply: Acquire:: Strategy:: Re: Comprehensive article on basic strategy

bombcar — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:35:08 +0000

by bombcar

Our rules state that you can do "one or more" when merging (selling stock, trading, holding) and I find it can be nice to hold 3 or 4 shares and trade or sell the rest. Our recent game had a player hold large amounts of shares in Worldwide and American; I simply didn't start a new chain until Continental merged out (because I didn't want to start a chain I wouldn't control).

Of course a very early merger of Continental when I was the only holder lead to pulling away early. I was surprised that no one had picked up an additional share of Continental, but I knew I could merge it in two turns total - one turn to create it, the very next turn merge it.

This game is great.

Reply: Acquire:: Sessions:: Re: Playing with the '97 Board

CortexBomb — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 15:48:54 +0000

by CortexBomb

Thanks for the session.

I've been intending to make up an Acquire 97 of my own for some time. I plan to make mine out of a combined Terra Turrium / Big Boss set using the Big Boss stock certificates and company toppers but utilizing the extra needed pieces from Terra Turrium. This SR is just reminding me that I need to get off my duff and draw up a board.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: rules pdf for pre-1968 game?

cgmoren — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:47:32 +0000

by cgmoren

Oops, found it here on the geek after all -- didn't see that there were 6 pages of downloadable files! Thanks.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: rules pdf for pre-1968 game?

Prodromoi — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:39:58 +0000

by Prodromoi

Is it the 3M green/teal box version? For mine, the rules are inside the lid if I recall correctly. (It's round a mate's place so I can't check or scan them, however...)

Thread: Acquire:: Rules:: rules pdf for pre-1968 game?

cgmoren — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:37:54 +0000

by cgmoren

I have a pre-1968 3M copy of Acquire that is complete -- except for the rules! Can anyone provide a pdf file of the rules? We'd like to try playing it, but it's a little difficult at the moment . . .Thanks!

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Special Powers Question

soltan gris — Fri, 29 May 2009 07:38:13 +0000

by soltan gris

Here's a link to the Special Powers rules:

[url][/url] http://www.gamecabinet.com/rules/AcquireVariant.html

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Fri, 29 May 2009 04:11:07 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Fri, 29 May 2009 03:50:28 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:13:57 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:13:10 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:12:04 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:10:45 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 22:07:10 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 21:29:20 +0000

by eiphay

Do it by myself

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:42:12 +0000

by eiphay

Do It by Myself

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:34:30 +0000

by eiphay

Do it by myself

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:33:16 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:33:08 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

eiphay — Thu, 28 May 2009 20:32:41 +0000

by eiphay

]]>

New Image for Acquire

chaosbreaker — Thu, 28 May 2009 01:07:29 +0000

by chaosbreaker

free Acquire pc game implementation -- http://freshmeat.net/projects/...

]]>

Reply: Acquire:: Reviews:: Re: Video review of Acquire

zendonut — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:59:34 +0000

by zendonut

Dan, I'm a Maine expat (UMaine 1996!) so this may be even less of a leap than that.

New Image for Acquire

huber — Wed, 20 May 2009 23:11:38 +0000

by huber

Cake my wife made for Bernie Norton's birthday

]]>

New Image for Acquire

dsmeyer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:59:58 +0000

by dsmeyer

The full board 2008 version

]]>

New Image for Acquire

dsmeyer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:56:43 +0000

by dsmeyer

Page two of unpunched tiles 2008 version

]]>

New Image for Acquire

dsmeyer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:56:34 +0000

by dsmeyer

Page one f unpunched tiles 2008 version

]]>

New Image for Acquire

dsmeyer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:56:24 +0000

by dsmeyer

The seven stocks and card backs from 2008 version.

]]>

New Image for Acquire

dsmeyer — Tue, 19 May 2009 01:44:43 +0000

by dsmeyer

2008 version money

]]>

Reply: Acquire:: Sessions:: Re: First Play AND WIN of Acquire!

fuzzyfife — Mon, 18 May 2009 23:43:22 +0000

by fuzzyfife

Glad you liked the game. I have been a fan forever.

It indeed is a game ahead of its time. Sometimes it is hard to believe that it arrived in the early 60's.

It certainly could have arrived during the early German Type Games outbreak and fit right in.

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Open or closed money and stocks?

garygarison — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:28:14 +0000

by garygarison

Open stocks, closed money. Just like in real life.

Session: Acquire:: First Play AND WIN of Acquire!

kilroy_locke — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:15:26 +0000

by kilroy_locke

This was my first ever play of Acquire, which I consider to be quite an event in my gaming life! Now, I’m not exactly sure how I had missed playing this game before now, except for the fact that, for some reason completely unknown to me, I was barely aware of its existence and/or significance until relatively recently. As most of you probably know already, Acquire is a true classic among modern boardgames, designed by the great Sid Sackson some 12 years before I was born (which would be in 1962, just in case you aren't intimately aware of my age, which is 34 by the way), is currently ranked in the top 100 games here at BoardGameGeek (current ranking is #58), and was decades ahead of its time.

And what’s more important is that, in my first play of the game, I totally decimated all the other players despite having no experience with the game at all.

Oh screw! I just gave away the ending, so now you're probably all going to skip over the rest of this report and go read something else about that hot, young Small World slut that everybody's panting after. If that's how you are, then go on, I don’t want you here anyway! I'll just stay here and discuss the maturity and sophistication that only a true classic game can offer.

     ]]>          ]]>

So where was I? Oh yes... how I beat the ever-living crap out of Alton, Chris and Josh in Acquire. Of course, maybe it wasn't all that special that I won the game, because only Chris had any real experience with the game before, and even that had been a while ago. But still, I did win... and it was by a pretty good margin... even if the difference was because of only one extra stock. But that really is getting ahead of myself.

After Chris and I explained the game to Alton and Josh, we got right into the action. Over the first few rounds, most all of the hotel chains hit the board. The American and Worldwide companies dominated the center of the board, with American being the first to become "safe" by getting up to 11 tiles. Acquire is so engaging and intense that I really can't remember much about the specific actions that any of us were taking. But in general, we were all buying stock in anything that we founded, as well as trying to manipulate control of smaller companies that we though would be eaten soon by one of the two "big boys".

     ]]>          ]]>
Starting off the game, and then American is safe at 11 tiles!

Pretty soon, it all started to hit the fan as the mergers began. Josh and I got an early boost when Tower was consumed by American. I had the majority in Tower and held on to my stock, planning to get it started again as soon as possible (which Josh actually beat me to). A few other acquisitions happened, being overall pretty balanced amongst all of us and keeping the money flowing. American was becoming a behemoth, and the tiles just weren't coming up to push Worldwide past the 10-tile mark to make it safe. Instead, the tile was played to link up Worldwide and American in a merger that would determine the course of the rest of the game. As it turned out, I had managed to build up a majority in Worldwide as well, getting the big bonus all on my own and, more importantly, having the first shot at trading in my stock. I picked up 3 of the last 4 certificates for American, which, though we didn't know it at the time, was the deciding point in the game.

The rest of the game was consumed with us all trying to posture the chains we controlled to be assimilated into the American collective to get a big payout. In an attempt to give the game away, I foolishly caused the merger of American and Continental, thinking that I would head it off before Continental got any bigger (which I though would somehow hurt Chris). But I didn't realize how much stock he had in the company, and he got a huge payout that put him in a great position to make some big endgame moves. Fortunately, American grew even more in the coming turns, and topped the 41-tile mark a little later, allowing us to end the game.

We then went through all the smaller chains left on the board, paying them out and settling everything up. In the end, we all revealed our shares of American and the ginormous payout that went along with it. Chris, Alton and Josh all had six shares, and I had seven. So while they split the $5,500 for second place, I alone took the majority payout of $11,000 and the victory that went alone with it.

     ]]>          ]]>
Those I destroyed... and the board that was my instrument of destruction.

Time: 65 minutes
Score: Me $51,200; Chris $41,200; Alton $40,700; Josh $24,100
Ratings: Me 8, Chris 8.5, Alton 9, Josh 9

You can definitely see some of the old-school flavor of Acquire, especially in how it has a somewhat clunky table that you have to reference all the time to calculate the values and bonuses for each hotel chain. And in the first few turns, I was afraid that the random tile draw was going to ruin any sense of control over the direction of the game, but in the end I didn't think that it was detrimental at all. Frankly, I was pretty blown away by the experience.

First of all, there is a real hand-management mechanic in the game, which allows you to plan ahead, either in how you're going to play tiles to the board or in how you're going to purposely hold them back to prevent the expansion of chains that you're not involved in. And then there's the elegant flow of play, which requires that you always play a tile before buying stock. So, especially if you have a few tiles that can expand a chain, you're always having to make tough decisions about whether to expand it now and pay more for additional stock in it, or to hold off on expansion in order to get it for a better price.

]]>
But the coolest thing is how wonderfully the stocks are handled. Sure, you get one stock in a company that you found, but for the bulk of the game, everyone has the same free choice in which stocks to buy each turn. And then there's the many options that you have in what to do with stock when a company is taken over - whether to sell it all for profit, trade it 2:1 for stock in the acquiring company, or to hold it in hopes of restarting the company later. All are equally viable depending completely on your situation and your long-term, strategic plans. Like I said, it's a little fiddly to make all the payouts during merges and especially at the end of the game, but overall it's very thematic and only a minor irritation in an otherwise elegant game.

Our game took just over an hour, but felt like it was only 15 or 30 minutes because of the speed of play and how engaged you are in watching other people's plays and thinking ahead about your own. Overall, Acquire way exceeded my expectations, and I can't wait to give it another try soon!

This report originally appeared mostly as is on www.gamerchris.com

Reply: Acquire:: Rules:: Re: Open or closed money and stocks?

JeffyJeff — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:04:48 +0000

by JeffyJeff

Magnus the Blue wrote:
I prefer Closed. It's more strategic & it speeds up the game, especially if you're playing with APers.

I have to strongly disagree that closed (stocks at least) is more strategic... I've played almost exclusively w/open stocks but this past weekend played with a group that plays closed stocks (and open money though as they use poker chips which are hard to hide) and the strategy for me at least was sucked right out of the game.

My memory isn't what it was 20 years ago so strategic decisions on if/when to merge companies, as well as how many and which shares to buy seemed to be turned into whether I was lucky or not in trying to keep a mental note of how shares outstanding were distributed.

One thing I can say though is that it definitely went fast when you didn't have to really think... 4 player game took us a little under an hour... but I can think of plenty of other games that could have been played in an hour with more strategy if that was the goal.

The key to playing with open shares is to make sure everyone has their shares layed out so it's easy at a relatively quick glance to see how many they have of each company.

New Image for Acquire

herman_the_german — Mon, 18 May 2009 19:12:58 +0000

by herman_the_german

Some game accessories borrowed from Srabble - tile holder and cloth ba...

]]>

New Image for Acquire

kilroy_locke — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:50:08 +0000

by kilroy_locke

Stock Certificates

]]>

New Image for Acquire

kilroy_locke — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:50:02 +0000

by kilroy_locke

My hand, money, and stocks!

]]>

New Image for Acquire

kilroy_locke — Sat, 16 May 2009 00:48:43 +0000

by kilroy_locke

American is SAFE!

]]>

Reply: Acquire:: Variants:: Re: simultaneous turns -- conflict resolution.

Zacratorax — Thu, 14 May 2009 16:03:47 +0000

by Zacratorax

Here's how it works:

Basics - All players conduct each phase of the turn simultaneously. First, everyone selects a tile to place and reveals them simultaneously. Then everyone decides a number of stocks to purchase and reveals the decision simultaneously. All conflicts are resolved by auction.

I would recommend conflicts be resolved by something else. Tile placement. either A1 or (H9) has priority. Easy to understand,
or more complicated. Center out has priority. I suppose I suggest A beats B beats C etc. And 1 before 2 before 3, etc.

But then it significatnly changes the nature of the game. (not that simultaneious placement and Share bidding are not)