Hi Tom. I generally enjoy these short video reviews. This time I have a few comments.
1. At the beginning of your review you mention that Steam can be used with "all the old Age of Steam maps." This is simply a false statement which I think has lead to much confusion. Some, but not all, of the designers of expansions maps have issued rules changes that will allow their maps to work with Steam components and rules changes.
A number of maps have not and will not receive such suggested changes for a number of reasons. The fact that the components and/or rules changes in Steam make the reimplementation of the expansion maps impossible is the big one cited.
Even when rules changes are provided these modified expansions will play differently than original intended (for good or for ill) because of the differences between Age of Steam and Steam.
2. You refer to Steam as a "re-themeing" (sp?) of Age of Steam. Since they are both still pick up and deliver train games, that might not be the best word choice.
Having played AOS, RT and St, I would think the easiest was to describe RT and St is fully playable variants of AOS. RT and St both change a number of rules (a few more than the average expansion map though there are some pretty divergent expansion maps out there), but it still seems to me to be the easiest and cleanest way to communicate the relation between the games.
3. There is quite a bit of debate which can be readily found here about whether AOS or St is better. I haven't really paid much attention to this debate as it seems it is likely to come down to personal preference about what you want from the game. That said, you make the statement toward the end of the review that St makes AOS "obsolete." While I don't doubt that this is true for you, it is almost certainly not true for many (most?).
And, as a matter of personal preference, when a reviewer makes a strong statement like that I would like to hear/see some supporting rational for why the reviewer feels that way so that I can determine whether I am likely to agree or disagree. I realize you intend on making a separate review, but within the context of this review that statement seems unsupported.
My copy of Steam should get here any day this week and this review couldn't have come in a better time. I wish the game would have plastic trains instead of discs too, but I guess it's not that big of a deal.
Great review, Tom. I haven't played AoS and so I really wanted to see what the game was like from a fresh perspective. I liked that the review focused on describing how the game plays, showing examples of what happens in the game turns and what are some of the options available.
Now, I wonder how AoS fans will respond to the closing statement
Hi, Tom! I am interested in your opinion which game is better and more fun for you - Steam or Railroad Tycoon? I hesitate between these two for my first train game
Hi, Tom! I am interested in your opinion which game is better and more fun for you - Steam or Railroad Tycoon? I hesitate between these two for my first train game :)
Even when rules changes are provided these modified expansions will play differently than original intended (for good or for ill) because of the differences between Age of Steam and Steam.
Yeah. That's what different is. If Age of Steam and Steam played the same they wouldn't be different.
Interesting comment on game length, Tom. I've only played the game once, but my group also found the game longer than it needed to be. By turn six, most of the goods were gone, the infrastructure was very well-developed, and we could already determine who was going to be the winner. A little more time pressure would have been appreciated. Still, awesome game and spot-on review.
Niceley done! Tom your observation on the base game vs advanced game mirrors my own. It's really a matter of taste as to whether a gamer wants more difficulty or a more merciful game with more leeway. I think many of the more serious (read: less concerned about notions of fun and more concerned about the intricacies of rules and systems and the satisfaction derived therefrom) gamers of this site who have yet to discover these games will be really looking forward to the future comparison between Steam and AoS that you mention.
Personally I believe there is room for some people to appreciate each of these games (base Steam, standard Steam, and AoS) for what they they are because I know I myself will play each with different audiences who will probably prefer(maybe even insist on) one over the other.
Personally I believe there is room for some people to appreciate each of these games (base Steam, standard Steam, and AoS) for what they they are because I know I myself will play each with different audiences who will probably prefer(maybe even insist on) one over the other.
Very good point, and i couldn't agree more.
Ive played steam a couple times, and its definately a great game. Has a lot of what i like about AoS, i like AoS better at this point.
Why is Age of Steam better than Steam? Well, because AoS was the first game my girlfriend genuinely liked, and still is one of her favorites.
3. There is quite a bit of debate which can be readily found here about whether AOS or St is better. I haven't really paid much attention to this debate as it seems it is likely to come down to personal preference about what you want from the game. That said, you make the statement toward the end of the review that St makes AOS "obsolete." While I don't doubt that this is true for you, it is almost certainly not true for many (most?).
And, as a matter of personal preference, when a reviewer makes a strong statement like that I would like to hear/see some supporting rational for why the reviewer feels that way so that I can determine whether I am likely to agree or disagree. I realize you intend on making a separate review, but within the context of this review that statement seems unsupported.
May be you want to listen to Tom's review again... a hint: 7m45 to 7m52
Quote:
.. that for me, blows Age of Steam out of the border...
I was under the impression that all maps worked. If some don't, I apologize. But most do, so it's no big deal. For example, Ted Alspach's do - and that's a lot.
"Re-theming" was the wrong word, you're right - I should have said "re-imagining".
But as to the last part, I DO think that Steam makes AoS obsolete to everyone except the die hard gamers. That's my opinion, and that's why I said it. I'll explain more in the future, but I don't have any strong support for it other than that's what I think. I'm not proving a dissertation here, just stating my opinion.
But I imagine that numbers will back me up in the long run. Watch and see!
I'll be the third to state that I would greatly appreciate a comparison between Steam and Railroad Tycoon/Railways of the World. The only "train game" I have played (and I'll likely be lynched here for using that term) is Ticket to Ride. I'm ready to move on to what the others would call the true "train games" but don't know whether to purchase Steam or wait till later this year and get Railways of the World. There seems to be more and more material contrasting Steam and Age of Steam, but very little contrasting it with the Railroad Tycoon series. Perhaps in your upcoming video you can discuss it as well--especially since you favor both Railroad Tycoon and Steam more than Age of Steam. It sounds as if I"m not the only one that is curious what your verdict is between the two most recent "re-implementations"/"re-imaginations" of Age of Steam.
Thanks Tom. I wanted to play a demo of the at Gen Con, but I never got the chance. There was only one ore resource (most days) in the hall, so there was some serious demand to play Steam.
I was under the impression that all maps worked. If some don't, I apologize. But most do, so it's no big deal. For example, Ted Alspach's do - and that's a lot.
Your welcome.
While I have generally stayed out of the AOS vs St. fray, the compatibility of maps issues is one that I think it is important to be very clear about. I do think this is a big deal and that reviewers and commenters can do a great service to the community by being precise about it. Let me cite a few reasons why:
1. Some AOS expansion maps such as Age of Steam Expansion: Eastern US & Canada are not and cannot be made physically compatible with St. There has already been one thread by someone who purchased this map to be played with St because they were under the mistaken impression that all maps were compatible. While it is admittedly the buyer's fault for not doing due diligence about the expansion, I think reviewers and commenters would do a great service in helping prevent such mistakes by using terms like "many" or "some" rather than "all" when discussing compatibility.
2. I know players personally who made their decision to purchase Age of Steam based on their desire to play certain of the expansion maps which they had enjoyed. If the particular maps you want to play are not compatible then you need to be aware of this information. (One case I am thinking of in particular is Age of Steam Expansion: Sun / London which lead a friend to get his copy of AOS. The designer has been very clear that that expansion will not work properly with the St tile distribution).
I know that Ted Alspach's maps have rules changes to make them compatible with St and I hope and expect that some future expansions are designed specifically for St. So, you would be correct in so far as there are many expansion maps available (and likely to be more). Still there are many that are not compatible (all the Winsome maps, JC Lawrence's, etc.) (I don't know about the early Warfrog ones, any of Alban Viard's or any of the Steam Brothers. I haven't seen anything, but I might have missed it.) I happen to be of the opinion that since reviews like this can have a large impact on an individual's buying decision, it is really important to be as accurate as possible and the word "all" can be very misleading to someone who is new to St. I am pretty sure (though I have not done a formal count and could easily be mistaken) that at this point even the word "most" is probably false.
Still there are many that are not compatible (all the Winsome maps, JC Lawrence's, etc.) (I don't know about the early Warfrog ones, any of Alban Viard's or any of the Steam Brothers. I haven't seen anything, but I might have missed it.)...
...
I am pretty sure (though I have not done a formal count and could easily be mistaken) that at this point even the word "most" is probably false.
My two published maps do not and cannot support Steam. The two maps I expect to publish later this year (no details available, sorry), will also not support Steam, nor will the maps I've tentatively scheduled for mid next year. Outside of any personal choice or preference, all the above maps cannot support Steam due to physical limitations (tiles, other components, etc); they simply won't work with Steam.
The eight maps from the Steam Brothers are Age of Steam-only. So far they've made no sign of having any interest in Steam. FWIW these are the most consistently high-quality and rigorously designed maps from any of the Age of Steam map designers (caveats of personal taste aside).
Alban's maps (Holland, Chile, Moon, Mars etc) also don't support Steam.
Michael has talked about supporting Steam with his maps, but I don't think has actually done anything in that direction.
All of the Winsome Games maps (about a dozen of them now?) only support Age of Steam.
Ted Alspach has retro-fitted all his maps to Steam. With the modest exception of Michael's thinking about it, he is the only Age of Steam map designer I know of to also support Steam.
At this point considerably less than half of all the published Age of Steam maps support Steam. For reasons which are largely outside of this thread, I expect this trend to remain true. Tom's statement that he likes games ...that give you a bit of leeway; that are bit more merciful... suggest part of why. Designing good maps requires lengthy and rigorous analysis and Age of Steam's more focused and already-calculating players seem more likely to invest in that laborious rigour than Steam's more casual set.
Since Richard has been specific in these concerns, here's some related comments -
First - Martin Wallace, the designer of both games and a number of expansions, flatly contradicts the assertion here that Steam is not compatible with AoS maps in general. I realize not everyone agrees, but that's a pretty significant datapoint.
Anyway, let's consider the only specific counterexamples so far -
thorndor wrote:
1. Some AOS expansion maps such as Age of Steam Expansion: Eastern US & Canada are not and cannot be made physically compatible with St. There has already been one thread by someone who purchased this map to be played with St because they were under the mistaken impression that all maps were compatible.
My reading of that thread is that Winsome/JB refused to support the game for Steam play, not that it didn't play (eg, in 'Classic' mode). Be careful to take Winsome's representations on this at face value; they're hardly unbiased about Steam and AoS.
[edit - if this particular extension requires the Rust Belt map, then obviously it wouldn't play without that map. this isn't generally true with AoS extensions, whether from Winsome or anyone else.]
thorndor wrote:
(One case I am thinking of in particular is Age of Steam Expansion: Sun / London which lead a friend to get his copy of AOS. The designer has been very clear that that expansion will not work properly with the St tile distribution).
Yes he has, and it's been clear that clearclaw doesn't want people to play this map with Steam. (It's not been entirely clear why he feels so strongly about it, but that's moot.)
Nevertheless - JC's comments notwithstanding - whether London is playable remains unclear. The complex tile distribution was the most cited difference by clearclaw, by far - especially wrt 4-exit towns; this has been covered in detail in a thread in this forum ('complex tile canard') - the fact is, if you want maximal compatibility all you have to do is remove a couple of Steam tiles. (I think clearclaw tacitly acknowledged that Steam's 2-sided pool wasn't as different as he originally thought.)
thorndor wrote:
There are many that are not compatible (all the Winsome maps, JC Lawrence's, etc.)
Again, it's not that they're not compatible - it's just clear that Winsome and JC don't want them played with Steam.
Both designers are quite correct in saying that AoS and Steam are different games - and if you're really wanting to play AoS most, you should buy it.
But that's, again, a different question of whether you can buy one main train game base - eg Steam - and play most of these expansions just fine.
Even Montreal - which uses classic supply and income reduction - has Steam play notes here by the designer. The differences are simple to overcome if the designers want to help; some, quite simply, really really don't.
So, no universal support for AoS maps. No big deal to me - there's still plenty of AoS maps to keep me going for a loooooong time. And (repeating myself from another thread) Mayfair has made it very clear they intend to come out with Steam-specific expansions and provide support for the 3rd party map makers. I wouldn't be surprised if some Steam-specific maps are available by the time I tire of the two base maps.
Nevertheless - JC's comments notwithstanding - whether London is playable remains unclear. The complex tile distribution was the most cited difference by clearclaw, by far - especially wrt 4-exit towns; this has been covered in detail in a thread in this forum ('complex tile canard') - the fact is, if you want maximal compatibility all you have to do is remove a couple of Steam tiles. (I think clearclaw tacitly acknowledged that Steam's 2-sided pool wasn't as different as he originally thought.)
It is the shortage of simple track, straights and broad curves that kill both Sun and London for Steam. As you note, the complex track can be handled. The simple track can't be. The secondary aspect that Steam's split income/VP tracks do bad things to the changed economic models of both Sun & London seals the deal. Neither game allows that flexibility without breaking its own economic model. FWLIW Steam's final track manifest is actually smaller than I'd expected. The result is that the problems are worse, not less.
Quote:
Again, it's not that they're not compatible - it's just clear that Winsome and JC don't want them played with Steam.
I can't speak for John or Winsome. My publisher asked me to devise Steam-rules for Sun & London, and as I have obligations to my publishers (yes, we have a good contract), I spent many hours on it before determining that the effort and invasiveness of any address would exceed its value (ie I'd have to redesign from scratch). At a personal level I have no interest in supporting or not supporting Steam as I've no personal value for either designing maps for Steam (a game I find uninteresting) or having my maps played by the Steam audience (ie players of uninteresting games). Conversely I do have value for those things for Age of Steam.
Quote:
But that's, again, a different question of whether you can buy one main train game base - eg Steam - and play most of these expansions just fine.
I believe I've addressed that above. There's also the secondary issue of even those maps which support Steam, producing very different games under each ruleset. In short a game of (say) map-foo under Age of Steam is (largely) not equivalent to the same map (adapted as necessary) under either of Steam's rules.
Quote:
Even Montreal - which uses classic supply and income reduction - has Steam play notes here by the designer. The differences are simple to overcome if the designers want to help; some, quite simply, really really don't.
There's an assumption here that there is value in overcoming the differences, and that overcoming the differences is somehow inherently beneficial or at least better in some way. That's not a given, not even slightly.
My sole disquiet over the area is the tendency for the respective publishers (multiple) to avoid or seek out specific map-designers specifically because those designers do or don't support both Age of Steam and Steam. While I understand the aspects of brand management, product differentiation and the resulting business competition, I don't like the resulting personal implications.
I think people should be very clear when they use terms like "support" and "compatible". I would think most creative-minded gamers might simply be looking for maps that are "adaptable", hoping to adapt rules to their own liking. Unless it's just physically impossible to use a map, there might be very little standing in the way of making an AoS map "adaptable" to Steam for gamers who are determined to make it work.
Since Richard has been specific in these concerns, here's some related comments -
First - Martin Wallace, the designer of both games and a number of expansions, flatly contradicts the assertion here that Steam is not compatible with AoS maps in general. I realize not everyone agrees, but that's a pretty significant datapoint.
I'm not sure in what way that piece of information is significant wrt my point. "in general" "some" "many" and "enough (in a particular reviewer's opinion)" are different statements from "all" and "most."
Since my original post, I went looking for the data that clearclaw supplies above. For the most part, it appears that at this point Ted Alspach's maps make of the bulk of those that support both games.
jimb wrote:
Anyway, let's consider the only specific counterexamples so far -
When providing a counterexample to the word "all" only one is needed.
In any case, I was not trying to provide some sort of exhaustive list of what will and won't work well with Steam, but rather provide examples I was personally aware of where the confusion engendered by statements made by Mayfair / Martin Wallace as well as reviews like this one and comments like yours could or did lead to buyer confusion.
jimb wrote:
thorndor wrote:
1. Some AOS expansion maps such as Age of Steam Expansion: Eastern US & Canada are not and cannot be made physically compatible with St. There has already been one thread by someone who purchased this map to be played with St because they were under the mistaken impression that all maps were compatible.
My reading of that thread is that Winsome/JB refused to support the game for Steam play, not that it didn't play (eg, in 'Classic' mode). Be careful to take Winsome's representations on this at face value; they're hardly unbiased about Steam and AoS.
This particular expansion is an expansion (in the literal sense) of the Rust Belt map (the one that original came with AOS). You put it next to the Rust Belt map. There is no way one could use this map without the original AOS map which AFAIK as not been released separately from the game.
Winsome / JB and others accurately stated that this expansion cannot be used with Steam. I suppose (in an effort to be 100% accurate) if one owned AOS and Steam then one could use it with Steam (to what effect I don't know), but in that case one could also use the map with AOS and I would be less concerned about buyer's error.
My concern and the reason for my posts in this thread is purely out of concern for buyer confusion which could be (at least partially) alleviated by more precise language.
jimb wrote:
thorndor wrote:
(One case I am thinking of in particular is Age of Steam Expansion: Sun / London which lead a friend to get his copy of AOS. The designer has been very clear that that expansion will not work properly with the St tile distribution).
Yes he has, and it's been clear that clearclaw doesn't want people to play this map with Steam. (It's not been entirely clear why he feels so strongly about it, but that's moot.)
Nevertheless - JC's comments notwithstanding - whether London is playable remains unclear. The complex tile distribution was the most cited difference by clearclaw, by far - especially wrt 4-exit towns; this has been covered in detail in a thread in this forum ('complex tile canard') - the fact is, if you want maximal compatibility all you have to do is remove a couple of Steam tiles. (I think clearclaw tacitly acknowledged that Steam's 2-sided pool wasn't as different as he originally thought.)
thorndor wrote:
There are many that are not compatible (all the Winsome maps, JC Lawrence's, etc.)
Again, it's not that they're not compatible - it's just clear that Winsome and JC don't want them played with Steam.
Both designers are quite correct in saying that AoS and Steam are different games - and if you're really wanting to play AoS most, you should buy it.
But that's, again, a different question of whether you can buy one main train game base - eg Steam - and play most of these expansions just fine.
Even Montreal - which uses classic supply and income reduction - has Steam play notes here by the designer. The differences are simple to overcome if the designers want to help; some, quite simply, really really don't.
Regardless, the fact is that most AOS expansion maps do not currently offer rules changes that would make them compatible with Steam. Some, for whatever reason, will never offer such. So, the claim of "all" is certainly false and the claim of "most" is currently unfounded.
Claims like yours that the differences are simple to overcome have, as yet, no evidence (i.e. playtesting of specific suggested changes) to support them. I'm not arguing that your wrong but rather stating that at this point the claim is premature and can create buyer confusion.
It is the shortage of simple track, straights and broad curves that kill both Sun and London for Steam. As you note, the complex track can be handled. The simple track can't be. .. FWLIW Steam's final track manifest is actually smaller than I'd expected. The result is that the problems are worse, not less.
I think you exaggerate this too - and I find the 2-sided simple track in Steam more flexible than AoS's manifest. It's refreshing that your final position is that Steam is too constrained, compared to AoS.
clearclaw wrote:
The secondary aspect that Steam's split income/VP tracks do bad things to the changed economic models of both Sun & London seals the deal. Neither game allows that flexibility without breaking its own economic model.
I think this was simply addressed in Montreal with a merged track ... many expansions have tracks on the board, including some of yours. Most likely, a Steam player should use them - whether that's 'more like AoS' or not becomes somewhat pedantic (whether for VP's, supply, whatever).
clearclaw wrote:
At a personal level I have no interest in supporting or not supporting Steam as I've no personal value for either designing maps for Steam (a game I find uninteresting) or having my maps played by the Steam audience (ie players of uninteresting games). Conversely I do have value for those things for Age of Steam.
You're most certainly entitled to your opinions, and an audience too, I suppose.
But I do recall this discussion, during your earlier months broadcasting disinformation here about Steam, pre-release:
clearclaw wrote:
Rob in Richmond wrote:
Can't imagine wanting to hang out in a thread for one of my "4" games. I guess this one's different for you since it's so related to your love of A.O.S.
I'll happily discuss any game I find interesting. The games I find the most interesting are rarely if ever discussed on BGG.
Top 100 Games of all Time
Dice Tower Convention, July 2012!!!!
