Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
What are you, like 80?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
-
The following applies to the 2-player game, specifically the family version of the game. However, since the issue being discussed concerns the acquisition of wood it also applies to the regular game, as long as no occupations or minor improvements allowing the acquisition of extra wood come out.
In the 2-player game there is only one action yielding wood, the standard "3 wood accumulates every turn" action.
My argument is that wood is vital to one's development, and that therefore the game degenerates into taking wood at every opportunity, as follows:
1. If the initial start player (let's call him player A) is allowed to take wood as his first action every round of the game, he will win the game in a landslide, since his opponent will be unable to ever build either extra rooms for his wooden hut (so no extra familiy members, unless one goes the long way of upgrading to a clay hut straight away), and no fences or stables (so no keeping animals beyond the one pet allowed).
2. Player B can of course counter by taking the start player action, becoming the start player next turn and getting in first on the wood.
3. Now, however, the roles are merely reversed, and player B can keep taking wood every turn, forcing player A to take the start player action right away.
4. Therefore, the game degenerates into a fixed pattern, where the current start player takes wood as his first action, whereupon the other player takes the start player action.
Will the game, when played competetively really degenerate into the pattern described in 4) above? If not, at what point does my argument fail? Does an alternative strategy that doesn't require wood exist, does it become less interesting to monopolize wood by the mid-game, or is the pattern described in 4) above just part of the 2-player game?
Opinions/input appreciated. 
-
Fraser
Australia
Melbourne
Yep that was 12 Power Grid maps back to back over two days. Worth doing, but possibly not in such a concentrated burst.
Ooh yes, now a little to the left - my nose is itchy. No, no the other left! Now what colour is 12 supporter badge going to be I wonder?
-
I have found wood is important but clay can be a killer.
-
-
I had once a nice game of agricola where one player did everything the opponent will never get enough wood and the other player revenged by collecting all clay - it was e very neat result...
Fluxx
-
Cameron McKenzie
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
-
You can't eliminate the need for wood, but you can lower your dependency on it.
Focus on growing crops and taking occupations and you won't need as much. Building fences takes a lot of wood so minimize the number of pastures.
-
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
-
jens_hoppe wrote: The following applies to the 2-player game, specifically the family version of the game. However, since the issue being discussed concerns the acquisition of wood it also applies to the regular game, as long as no occupations or minor improvements allowing the acquisition of extra wood come out. In the 2-player game there is only one action yielding wood, the standard "3 wood accumulates every turn" action. My argument is that wood is vital to one's development, and that therefore the game degenerates into taking wood at every opportunity, as follows: 1. If the initial start player (let's call him player A) is allowed to take wood as his first action every round of the game, he will win the game in a landslide, since his opponent will be unable to ever build either extra rooms for his wooden hut (so no extra familiy members, unless one goes the long way of upgrading to a clay hut straight away), and no fences or stables (so no keeping animals beyond the one pet allowed). 2. Player B can of course counter by taking the start player action, becoming the start player next turn and getting in first on the wood. 3. Now, however, the roles are merely reversed, and player B can keep taking wood every turn, forcing player A to take the start player action right away. 4. Therefore, the game degenerates into a fixed pattern, where the current start player takes wood as his first action, whereupon the other player takes the start player action. Will the game, when played competetively really degenerate into the pattern described in 4) above? If not, at what point does my argument fail? Does an alternative strategy that doesn't require wood exist, does it become less interesting to monopolize wood by the mid-game, or is the pattern described in 4) above just part of the 2-player game? Opinions/input appreciated.
You actually don't need wood at all.
If one player spends all his actions taking it, then let him waste his actions. Renovate to a clay house. Then use clay to build out. It's less efficient, but you can still get by. Also, since he'll have all the animals, monopolizing the clay prevents him from getting fireplaces or cooking hearths, so no animal food for him. Meanwhile, you can max out on farming, and get food that way or by baking bread.
Also, if you want to directly screw over a wood hoarder, get the reeds. IMO, reed are much more vital than wood. You can't build on OR renovate if you don't have reeds.
But overall, I don't think there is a way to completely monopolize a resource and still manage a good game. It's too easy to get around a blocking action and get start player.
-
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
What are you, like 80?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
-
Thanks for the replies so far. Glad to see that my paranoid suspicions seem to be unfounded.
out4blood wrote: If one player spends all his actions taking it, then let him waste his actions. Renovate to a clay house.
That's an awful lot of clay however, given that the game only supplies one new clay per turn...
Quote: Also, since he'll have all the animals, monopolizing the clay prevents him from getting fireplaces or cooking hearths, so no animal food for him.
Good point! I hadn't thought of that.
Quote: But overall, I don't think there is a way to completely monopolize a resource and still manage a good game. It's too easy to get around a blocking action and get start player.
True, and my worry was not that one could monopolize a resource, but rather that the threat of doing so would force a lot of the players' moves, making the game less interesting. Your reply is certainly food for thought, however.
-
-
All of the mentioned was one of the main reasons why we changed the Day Labo(u)rer for the FAMILY version.
-
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
What are you, like 80?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
-
Hanno wrote: All of the mentioned was one of the main reasons why we changed the Day Labo(u)rer for the FAMILY version.
I had completely missed that change, but yes, it sounds as if it would open up the family game a bit.
-
Michelle Z
United States
Mesa
Arizona
-
out4blood wrote: Renovate to a clay house. Then use clay to build out. It's less efficient, but you can still get by.
I don't see that as a very effective strategy, unless you have something (or multiple things) giving you clay on the side or a huge discount on building/expanding with clay. In a 2-player game, the game generates a total of 14 clay. So if you need 2 clay to renovate, you're limited to a maximum of 2 additional rooms -- and you can't build your first room until at least round 7 and your second room until at least round 12. That assumes, of course, that your opponent doesn't get a single clay and that you don't use clay for anything else. Even in a solo game, I rarely expect to build more than one clay room, and that only with extra clay or clay discounts.
-
-
Hanno wrote: All of the mentioned was one of the main reasons why we changed the Day Labo(u)rer for the FAMILY version.
Can someone please explain this?
I have returned the game so I cannot check it out.. what was the change exactly and how did it affect gameplay?
-
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
What are you, like 80?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
-
baba44713 wrote: Hanno wrote: All of the mentioned was one of the main reasons why we changed the Day Labo(u)rer for the FAMILY version. Can someone please explain this? I have returned the game so I cannot check it out.. what was the change exactly and how did it affect gameplay?
For the family version, the day labourer has been changed from "Take 2 Food" to "Take 1 Food and 1 Building Material (Wood, Clay, Reed, Stone)".
-
-
I don't remember this being on the german board I played with...
I like it though. Will the english version be shipped with this change?
-
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
What are you, like 80?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
-
It's not on the published boards. It's errata, if you will, and the PDF for the changed space can be found on the Lookout Games webpage.
Hanno or someone else in the know might want to chime in, but my impression was that the various changes would be incorporated into the English edition.
-
-
jens_hoppe wrote: Hanno or someone else in the know might want to chime in, but my impression was that the various changes would be incorporated into the English edition.
It will be incorporated in all 8 laguage editions of the 2nd print run.
-
Alan Kwan
Hong-Kong
Hong Kong
Unspecified
-
The question is, while a player would be very restricted if he is totally shut out of wood all game, is the game otherwise won easily by the player who gets more wood?
Your argument is logically invalid somewhere: it is not the case that, if the second player doesn't grab the start player this round, then he cannot do so on any later round and is doomed to no wood for the rest of the game. What happens if the second player just let the first player get more wood for a few more rounds, before taking the first player and ending the monopoly? Will he very likely lose just because he gets less wood?
-
Jens Hoppe
Denmark
Frederiksberg
What are you, like 80?
It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage.
-
Alan Kwan wrote: What happens if the second player just let the first player get more wood for a few more rounds, before taking the first player and ending the monopoly? Will he very likely lose just because he gets less wood?
Good question. Do you know?
-
Fraser
Australia
Melbourne
Yep that was 12 Power Grid maps back to back over two days. Worth doing, but possibly not in such a concentrated burst.
Ooh yes, now a little to the left - my nose is itchy. No, no the other left! Now what colour is 12 supporter badge going to be I wonder?
-
Alan Kwan wrote: What happens if the second player just let the first player get more wood for a few more rounds, before taking the first player and ending the monopoly? Will he very likely lose just because he gets less wood? It entirely depends on what you are trying to do. If the second player uses the opportunity of not getting wood to monopolise clay and take other actions that require no wood then why should s/he lose?
-
ackmondual
United States
Virginia
-
dunno about 2p, but in a 4p game, I had tons of clay and not enough wood. Wish I got more so I could make more enclosures with fences or just make more of other stuff requiring wood
-
-
i have not played 2 player games often, but we soon decided to add the 1-wood each turn from the 4 (i think) player game).
taking start player is still very important in 2 player games. IMO you should always take it if you can play any improvement and don't have it. after you ran out of (useful) improvements its a hard decision, but i think its still best:
- you either have it until the end of the game, which definitely pays off, or
- you force your opponent to take it too, wasting an action as well.
the other way round, if you do not take it your opponent has it until the end of the game, which will make him win.
-
|
|
