Claudio Campuzano
United States
Portland
Oregon
-
Now that my brain is no longer glowing white-hot, I’ll take a moment to write up the session report for our game last night. This was Michael’s and my second game and Chris’ first. We were playing first edition rules on the Z-Man board. When Michael and I first played, it was with one other newbie. We had no sense of how to the game would unfold, and, as it turned out, we sprinted up the tech tree, ran out of gas, lost some dudes, regrouped, built more food-makers, learned to protect our food like a mama-bear protects her young, and worked a bit more methodically toward the VP-makers. With this knowledge, we played this second game VERY differently.
We started out building very densely (with everyone building a second food-maker early) and trying to protect everything we built. That was the lesson learned, right? But of course, with the number of actions available, the long climb up the tech tree, and the dying off of the sleeping dudes, there is no choice but to leave buildings open. Still, protect your darned food! Eventually, dudes were crisscrossing the board, going every which way. Here was my ah-ha moment: Determining which buildings your opponents DON’T need so that you can leave them open is where the game is. Lesson #1.
I got out to an early lead picking up a 1VP and a 2VP building. Michael was on my heals with 2VP. Chris was slow out of the gate, but quickly ramped up. We stayed pretty close together all game, leapfrogging over each other as people vacated the high-level buildings to use them as inputs for the VPs, leaving them for others to get that next, higher VP.
Then my first misfortune happened (i.e. my first big screw-up): I realized that I needed 4VP to win and there was only one building that fit the bill – the sword/food/rug building. I targeted it, swiped the sword (which Chris needed to get his final 3VP btw), got on some food and a rock (to build the building) and ran out of actions. But I felt good. All I needed was the rug. And no one needed a rug, right? The wool-makers were open and should stay that way, right? Freakin’ idiot. In comes Chris, takes both wool-makers and makes my sword worth nothing. Zip. Nada. I could hear the sucking sound as all those accumulated actions were whisked off into the void.
Lesson #2: Lesson #1 was totally wrong. The game is not in knowing what your opponents won’t need, it’s in protecting yourself from the pillaging of your mean-spirited neighbors. If you need something REAL BAD, your opponents will throw themselves on the bomb. This ain’t no multi-player solitaire. This is screwage, but big-time.
Then came my second misfortune. And this one, I can at least blame partly on the game. Now that I had been effectively knocked out of the win, I was trying to get second. But the only VP building left was too much for me on my next turn. So, I ran out of gas. Then, in steps Michael and TAKES A 3VP BUILDING THAT IS ALREADY ON THE BOARD! Now, how did that get there? More importantly: how did I not see it? Here is where I scream, “The information design in this edition is total B.S.!” Yes, I should have known it was there, but come on people: the game end board with all the tiles down in the new edition is just a big technicolor blur. So, there went second. Chris got his final VPs. Game over.
So here is my take: The game is fiddly, but with a payoff if you are into brain-melting logistics games with the complex dynamic of other players trying to achieve similar ends using the same resource set. Think Age of Steam. These are, in fact, not my favorite kind of games. I call them ‘competitive logistics’ games. They are truly interactive and in no way MPS. But they don’t jazz me the way a good shareholding game will. I prefer games where manipulating situations and incentives is the focus, not planning complex operations (regardless of the abundant opportunities for screwage). That said, this is a good game. Even a really good game. But I’ve got to say, it needs a redesign. I mean, really, what were they thinking trying to make this more appealing to a broader audience through the artwork. The subtitle says it all: “Produce. Transport. Optimize.” That doesn't sound like a game for a broad audience. (I think my wife even laughed at me when she saw that.) The graphics need to be spartan (I hear they were in the first edition). Some ideas:
-The building display should have brown or grey backgrounds depending on the resource type needed to construct. This would allow the tiles to lie the other way round so that players could see the input/output of the building itself.
-The tiles should have a border color that corresponds to the appropriate terrain. Within that, divide the tile background to two contrasting colors so that the input is always on one background, the output on the other.
-Simplify the input/output icons. They are just too darned busy.
-Eliminate all unnecessary graphic clutter (e.g. all the shading an whatnot on the tiles)
-Put a border color around each item on the player aid so that players know what terrain type the different VP buildings go on.
-
David Short
United States
Tucson
Arizona
-
Great session report. And you're right on with your comments regarding the artistic design. This game art is muddy and distracting. I like you're suggestions too.
-
Nicole Yuhase
United States
Royal Oak
Michigan
-
I know I'm late commenting here, but we just got the game and played for the first time yesterday. I agree with you completely about the art. It sure does LOOK pretty. Before we played the game, I knew I was going to like it because I'm a sucker for games that just look nice. But after having played it, I have for the first time ever wished it was not as pretty. The player aid should show what terrain each of the points buildings can be built on - that is key in your decision making. And there is no reason to make the buildings double sided. If the art was simplified, and through use of color coding the tiles, all of the information could be available on one side of the tile.
Basically, I think your suggestions would really help the game. It is a great game, but it is so heavily planning oriented, they should make the known information as easy to see as possible. Nothing sucks worse than to spend that hour and a half building towards something then only to lose the game just because you didn't notice something that was open information.
-
Tony Bosca
United States
Warren
Michigan
-
nyuhase wrote: I know I'm late commenting here, but we just got the game and played for the first time yesterday. I agree with you completely about the art. It sure does LOOK pretty. Before we played the game, I knew I was going to like it because I'm a sucker for games that just look nice. But after having played it, I have for the first time ever wished it was not as pretty. The player aid should show what terrain each of the points buildings can be built on - that is key in your decision making. And there is no reason to make the buildings double sided. If the art was simplified, and through use of color coding the tiles, all of the information could be available on one side of the tile.
Basically, I think your suggestions would really help the game. It is a great game, but it is so heavily planning oriented, they should make the known information as easy to see as possible. Nothing sucks worse than to spend that hour and a half building towards something then only to lose the game just because you didn't notice something that was open information.
We'll have to play with the uploaded to BGG tile sheets until we get a little better at identifying all of the building no matter which side is up, and also the building differences between the Prestige Buildings that are stacked underneath the exposed ones. That should help until they send me the re-graphic'd version based on complaints here. 
-
|
|
