Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
1.Introduction
Whenever I consider reviewing a game, the first question I ask myself if it already has a significant number of reviews is what I have to say that is sufficiently different than what everyone else has said in order to be worth the effort of writing and to others of reading. Acquire is such a classic that it has been reviewed numerous times and we all agree this is a great game. My answer for this question arises from the fact I am a newly-wed. I spend a lot of time alone with my new wife and one thing I am much enjoying doing is introducing my wife to all the various games in my collection. (She crochets and the deal is tat she shan't complain about my games collection and I shan't complain about her yarn stash.) The upshot of this situation for purposes of this review though is that we are playing the games as two-player games except for those which simply can't be played by two players. (My wife does want to find others to game with, but in practice we will more often than not be playing each other for many long years to come IY"H.) Admittedly, the box says 3-6 players but we decided to give the game a try. I understand some sort of official two player variant exists, but I don't know it and so we have played with the standard rules. The game does play differently with two people, but it does work; indeed it works very well. So, I am reviewing Acquire as a 2-player game. to explain how.
The edition I own is the 2008 edition. Many posters here on BGG have commented unfavorably about this particular edition, and so I intend also to address such comments. I like this edition. My familiarity with this game began in 2005. At the time, I was unaware of the existence of BGG, but I did discover WotC while researching Avalon Hill on-line. I downloaded all the rules sets I could, read them and decided which games I wanted. Although Acquire made the cut, especially since copies were being sold for US$10 at the time, I decided for financial reasons to order the games in two batches. I decided to schedule this game for the second batch, but by the time I did (only one month later) Acquire had gone out of print and so was no longer available. I've switched computers since then but still have the rules set I downloaded then. Quote: These are the same as are currently incorrectly identified in the links section of the Acquire page as being the rules to the 2008 edition; as of this writing, WotC have not updated the rules on their site from the 1999 edition. For gameplay itself, this is not a problem, as I compared the rules when I bought my set to look for any rules differences and found none save that the 2008 edition does not explicitly state that players ought agree before play where stocks and/or money are open or closed. This edition is smaller (a big plus for me and many other people as well), has the original theme (a minor point but if one is getting a class then its classic form seems best) and taken on their own (versus comparing them to previous editions) the components and nice and functional. I would even go so far as to say that in retrospect I am glad of the delay in purchasing this game except that I did not get to play it sooner.
2. Overview of the game
Acquire is fundamentally an economically themed tile-laying game, but the theme is well worked into the mechanics such that the game effectively has intrinsically linked two parts: tile-laying (thereby expanding or founding hotels chains or mom-and-pop operations) and buying or cashing in of stocks. What keeps the tile-laying part of this game from being workably re-themed to, say, empire-building (which on the surface might work especially well for the original world map edition) is the trading in stocks. Generally, I find theme irrelevant and indeed prefer abstracts (as does my wife), but those of you who disagree with me in this respect shan't have a problem with this game. The game strategy must entail both strategic choice of how to play one's tiles (e.g., founding, building or merging corporations or doing none of these), when to buy stocks and which ones and during mergers when to not cash in stocks.
That's the game itself, for further details on which one is referred to the rules set linked above. The components are simple but functional. I'll note here that my copy did indeed come with a bag (again a plain and simple but perfectly usable one) for the tiles, although apparently many other people's copies did not. In general however, the components can be seen in this
Image below:
Many have complained because the tiles are cardboard, the board does not have inset ridges for locking tiles in place and generally that all components lie flat and involve no plastic (hard or otherwise) at all. For me, this is all to the good. The box is small and light. I can conveniently take this game anywhere and will fit lots of other things in my rucksack as well; certainly that cannot be said of the 1999 edition. I know from my onyx Scrabble set what nice wooden tiles, inset ridges on a board and nice wooden tile racks are like, but that Scrabble set does not travel anywhere and takes up a huge space on my games shelf (or one of several such shelves anyway). Yet, the board is small enough to put well away from the edge of even the smallest
table and is also flat enough to minimize the possibility of bumping the board when laying a tile so that in practice I have had virtually no trouble with tiles moving out of place. The stocks and the card are both made out of the same high quality laminated card stock; these things are made to last and be played with. I will admit that I disliked the fact that the reference charts came as perforated pages to be torn out at the back of the rules booklet, but this is because I am fanatical about keeping books-- any books-- in good shape as only a life-long bibliophile can be. Those rules however are short, clear and precise-- much more than the 1999 edition's are-- and they come in highly durable laminate paper. I admit also that I like the fact that this game will probably last my lifetime but in the end will be entirely biodegradable. (I'm still keeping my Ameritrash games though.) This edition has a simple elegance of its own which appeals to minimalist tastes like my own. Lovers of luxury will still find plenty of copies on this game on ebay and elsewhere, even if they may pay luxury prices. The relatively low cost of this edition makes this edition attractive too; the price doesn't beat the US$10 I might have paid at the right moment but this edition will be affordable for the long haul, not just when a manufacturer decides to unload its last few copies.
3. Gameplay for (especially) 2 players
Quote: Reminder: We use the same rules for 2-6 players in this game.
In my opinion, the more purely strategic a game the better. That's why I mostly prefer abstracts and wargames. So, not surprisingly I play this with both money and stocks strictly open to minimize hidden information in play. The trade-off in playing this game with two players rather than more lies in the fact that players will get more turns in which to play and will have greater control of what goes on in the game than with more players, but on any given turn a player will also in principle tend to have fewer options to choose from than in, say, a six-player game. The greater control lies in the facts that each player will draw exactly half the tiles played in the game and that between each turn one and only one tile will be played. This combination greatly strengthens the strategic ability of players. Even the reduction of options in a turn is more theoretical than actual because although one won't have multiple new tiles played to possibly respond to on each turn, overall more of the tiles will pass through a player's hands during a game and each play of a tile will receive as direct a response as one is able to make.
The only truly random element of this game consists of the drawing of tiles, although what other players choose to do can be construed as an effectively random set of changes on the board between turns. The latter element is clearly minimized in two player games. The former element, i.e., the actually random aspect of tile drawing, is also minimized because one will get half the tiles that come into play during the game; in essence, statistics takes over and one really gets to go toe to toe with an opponent with two players. This view is not to disparage gameplay with more than two players, but a definite trade-off does exist. That's why I recommend one play with game either with six players or with two.
-
Andrew Rae
New Zealand
Wellington
-
If by 'works' you mean it is mechanically possible, then sure. But with only two players most of the strategic richness is gone and it is a boring uninteresting game. So IMO it does not work well for two players.
I am pleased aquire didn't put 2 - 6 on the box, it would be misleading. Just because you can play with a particular number doesn't mean you should, and more companies would benefit from not putting two players on the box of a game that really doesn't work for two. There are some short term sales , but ultimately long term it erodes the fan base IMO.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
-
Sheamus Parkes
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
Personally I really enjoy the Broker variant for 2-players. That way the brokers are fighting just about even with you for majorities.
Still a great game 
-
Brian Cherry
Canada
North Bay
Ontario
Obligitory Smart-Ass Comment Here
Shhhhhhhh!
-
citylife wrote: If by 'works' you mean it is mechanically possible, then sure. But with only two players most of the strategic richness is gone and it is a boring uninteresting game. So IMO it does not work well for two players.
I am pleased aquire didn't put 2 - 6 on the box, it would be misleading. Just because you can play with a particular number doesn't mean you should, and more companies would benefit from not putting two players on the box of a game that really doesn't work for two. There are some short term sales , but ultimately long term it erodes the fan base IMO.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Being a fan of non-variant 2-player Catan, I'm always wondering about this for +3 player games.
Citylife, are you speaking from experience with Aquire as a 2-player game? Can you explain a little more what is missing? I am trying to decide whether I want to get it, and the 2-player perspective could help me make up my mind.
Thanks for the review whac3. Its always nice to hear new opinions.
Jugg
-
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
I like to exchange ideas but I have no interest in a pissing contest.
If you want me to review your game, just GM me and send me a copy. Abstracts, wargames and euros equally welcome. No party or dexterity games please.
-
citylife wrote: If by 'works' you mean it is mechanically possible, then sure. But with only two players most of the strategic richness is gone and it is a boring uninteresting game. So IMO it does not work well for two players.
I am pleased aquire didn't put 2 - 6 on the box, it would be misleading. Just because you can play with a particular number doesn't mean you should, and more companies would benefit from not putting two players on the box of a game that really doesn't work for two. There are some short term sales , but ultimately long term it erodes the fan base IMO.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I find this response ... odd. It contains no specifics but only venom. Never did I say the box ought list 2-6 players but rather I explain that I play with 2 players and thoroughly enjoy the game due to the strategic aspects of play.
Why the venom?
-
Richard Skinner
United Kingdom
Southend-on-Sea
Essex
-
whac3 wrote: Why the venom?
I wouldn't call his response "venomous". Maybe there's a hint of unpleasant body fluids, but hardly venom.
-
Phil Sauer
United States
Willow Street
Pennsylvania
-
whac3 wrote: citylife wrote: If by 'works' you mean it is mechanically possible, then sure. But with only two players most of the strategic richness is gone and it is a boring uninteresting game. So IMO it does not work well for two players.
I am pleased aquire didn't put 2 - 6 on the box, it would be misleading. Just because you can play with a particular number doesn't mean you should, and more companies would benefit from not putting two players on the box of a game that really doesn't work for two. There are some short term sales , but ultimately long term it erodes the fan base IMO.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I find this response ... odd. It contains no specifics but only venom. Never did I say the box ought list 2-6 players but rather I explain that I play with 2 players and thoroughly enjoy the game due to the strategic aspects of play. Why the venom?
I didn't find any venom in his post, just the expression of his opinion as an aside -- that's all.
Ask why you took it in that spirit. That may be a more telling question.
Personally, people should have fun with games -- as you've pointed out. The poster you're referring to was merely commenting on how "2" is a number that can be disappointing in some games if placed on the box for sales, is all. It's one reason Martin Wallace never creates games for two... his mechanics clearly don't work -- nor are designed to work -- with two. Thus his "3-5" most of the time.
Acquire is a great game. Glad you're enjoying it the way you wish to... as that's what is important.
-
Todd Redden
United States
Manchester
Connecticut
-
Just the fact that all (rather, both) players benefit from all mergers alters game play radically. Of course more workable 2 player variants are out there, but the game really isn't the same with 2 players using standard rules.
-
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
-
whac3 wrote: The only truly random element of this game consists of the drawing of tiles,... This makes me wonder what rules you are using for 2 players. If your 2008 box proclaims 3 as the minimum then it may not include the 2-player rules I am familiar with from my 1976 version: at the time of a merger a tile is drawn for competition in the majority bonuses *.
That randomness is the root of my own disillusionment playing with only 2.
* the number drawn indicates how many shares an imaginary 3rd player owns. The drawn tile is then placed on the board.
-
Sheamus Parkes
United States
Indianapolis
Indiana
-
TVis wrote: whac3 wrote: The only truly random element of this game consists of the drawing of tiles,... This makes me wonder what rules you are using for 2 players. If your 2008 box proclaims 3 as the minimum then it may not include the 2-player rules I am familiar with from my 1976 version: at the time of a merger a tile is drawn for competition in the majority bonuses *. That randomness is the root of my own disillusionment playing with only 2. * the number drawn indicates how many shares an imaginary 3rd player owns. The drawn tile is then placed on the board.
Yea, that variant sucked the time we played it. Coin toss on majority payouts. In the broker variant you can track what the fake players are collecting and have plenty of warning when they are going to cream you in a certain company.
-
John Cobb
United States
Conway
Arkansas
-
Thanks for the review. Answered a lot of questions I had about the versions and 2 person play.
-
|
|
laminated card stock; these things are made to last and be played with. I will admit that I disliked the fact that the reference
charts came as perforated pages to be torn out at the back of the rules booklet, but this is because I am fanatical about keeping books-- any books-- in good shape as only a life-long bibliophile can be. Those rules however are short, clear and precise-- much more than the 1999 edition's are-- and they come in highly durable laminate paper. I admit also that I like the fact that this game will probably last my lifetime but in the end will be entirely biodegradable. (I'm still keeping my Ameritrash games though.) This edition has a simple elegance of its own which appeals to minimalist tastes like my own. Lovers of luxury will still find plenty of copies on this game on ebay and elsewhere, even if they may pay luxury prices. The relatively low cost of this edition makes this edition attractive too; the price doesn't beat the US$10 I might have paid at the right moment but this edition will be affordable for the long haul, not just when a manufacturer decides to unload its last few copies.
