The Buffalo Boardgames Meetup Group Message Board › Recently Played Games

Recently Played Games

Bob T.
user 2281115
Grand Island, NY
Post #: 131
It's more involved then the others because you can
torture people in the game biggrin

You can't really help it since playing the game is already torture. shock tongue wink
Mike S.
camel_gamer
Buffalo, NY
Post #: 718
Crude: I enjoyed this game. It reminded me of the first time I played Aquire, and not just because it's a heavily abstracted economic game with a grid in the middle of the board. I kept thinking, "I like this, but I have no idea what to do." The end-game/victory condition is a little wacko, but it was the 70's, so I'll let it slide. Looking forward to giving it another go.

Africana: Load of crap.

Kruez-n-Quer: Fun, 15-minute puzzle game. I dug this one too. Works the "spacial relations" section of the brain. The only people who wouldn't like this are the ones who need to put their Carc tiles on the table and rotate them 90 degrees at a time at every available spot on the board before making a play. You know who you are.

The soda machine on the second floor charges $2.05. Two dollars and five cents. I can't figure out if that sucks so hard it rules, or if it just sucks.

Rodney
Candyman
Elma, NY
Post #: 1,897
My guess is Africana will at least be nominated if not win the Spiel des Jahres next year. I guessed it right with Kingdom builder last year.

Crude was better than I thought it would be. This game released in the early 70's was 20 years ahead of its time.
Andy
user 7490358
Tonawanda, NY
Post #: 415
No review of Ringo Flamingo?

Dorn seemed like a game where they were pressed for time and didn't get around to writing rules that allowed the Dornkeeper to win. I hope the advanced rules buff up the Dornkeeper a lot, since from our playing it seemed the heroes were extremely overpowered. I found something on BGG claiming the Dornkeeper shouldn't attack until they have 15 monsters (or something like that). I'm not entirely sure Jenna had that many the entire game. The "Friendly Werewolf" being able to nearly destroy the final boss in one turn by itself can't be a good design decision.

I would try the game again with advanced rules in the hope that they add some abilities for the Dornkeeper. Or, they should add dice for combat and require Don to be a hero...

One note, there were a few references on BGG to drawing a strong monster when an artifact was picked up. Is that an advanced rule, or something we were missing? Though, once the Werewolf levels up once, more strong monsters seem like they just become more food to get it to three attacks.

I liked the concept of doing damage to the heroes being what gives the Dornkeeper power. Unfortunately, the rules don't seem setup to allow the Dornkeeper to do damage, and if the heroes start leveling up, it seems the Dornkeeper has no shot. When one of the main strategy tips is "you need to kill the wizard", with no discussion of how to accomplish such a feat, it makes me worry about the long term viability of the game.
Jenna
user 2324423
Grand Island, NY
Post #: 1,178
I just totally forgot about getting an additional strong monster when you guys got an artifact. Though I doubt it would have made much of a difference in our game.
Andrew L
user 23699931
Buffalo, NY
Post #: 194
Clash of Cultures is a new 4X Civ game I had a chance to try last night. The game puts equal focus on expanding and combating on the modular game board and then also truly developing your society on a personal tech tree board. Over the course of the game our board presence increased from the starting 2 pieces to on average about 2 fully developed cities, 3 or 4 minor cities, and 5 to 10 warriors/settlers/ships per player. Our Tech boards went from the starting abilities of Farming and Mining to more than 20 new abilities or benefits out of the possible 48 upgrades. We found some indispensable and others were mainly ignored. The game consists of 6 rounds of 3 turns of 3 actions per player, with each round interrupted by a phase where some free bonuses are paid out and player order shifts. That adds up to 54 actions per player and given our near equal footing on both board presence and number of tech upgrades each player basically spent 1/3 of his actions gathering resources, 1/3 building cities or units, and 1/3 advancing the tech board. These of course are the core actions, the other less oft used actions being to "influence" a rival city to have it score you points end of game and then to improve the happiness of a city so it produces more.

I was very impressed by the game as a whole. It stayed engaging the entire time even with an extreme downtime of 10 minutes between 2 of my turns towards the end of the game. I really appreciated the relation between the tech board and expanding on the game board. It was rarely the issue of not being able to do anything, but rather how you were going to do it. Trying to figure out that tempo of when to expand, when to advance, and when to gather resources is really what this game is about. For instance I might want to make my city larger so I can collect more resources from it, but maybe first I want a tech advance that makes building that city cost less or give me an additional resource but then to do both of those I would first need to collect resources from that city which makes it detrimental to also build their this turn. It really never came across as frustrating, except for the random element of non-player barbarians randomly attacking when you hit certain tiers of societal development. It never seemed to cripple anyone but it required a lot of rethinking and could set you back a couple turns.

So the little negative, playing time ended up approaching 5 hours. If repeated play couldn't get under 4 hours I don't see myself choosing to play this. I never really felt like my society evolved, it simply got more efficient at doing the same 4 things and required me to do them at the same rate. The components are alright but it becomes pretty difficult to keep track of all the stuff in front of you even over only 3 actions per turn. Unless other players are watching you it's terribly easy to forget to spend a resource or lose track of actions spent or to violate a city use rule. And I can't say with any certainty after a single play but I get the distinct feeling certain tech tree advances are significantly more optimal before others and that there may only be 2 or 3 good options for advancing your techs during the game.
Andy
user 7490358
Tonawanda, NY
Post #: 448
Thanks for the report.

Is there any comparison that can be made about Clash of Cultures vs. Eclipse for people who want to play a 4x game, or are they completely different animals?
Paul
user 9349172
Depew, NY
Post #: 203
Andy, I've played both, Eclipse many times and last night for Clash. They are very similar in many aspects. They have variable tech progression, you explore a hidden map, and there's the possibility for a game with no player conflicts or lots of battling. But most similar is the way they, and most Free-For-All 4x games, can play out. There can be a pile-on (many players on 1), kingmaking, player elimination, and collusion. I felt Clash had a lot less luck when exploring. Eclipse's hexes range from bad to good and a run of bad hexes can pretty much eliminate someone from winning without a miracle. This doesn't seem to be the case in Clash.

As with most 4x games played for the first time, we stuck to the unspoken etiquette rule of not attacking each other, ... too much! Just like Eclipse, you can easily be smacked around to the point where you can't recover. Clash has a neat mechanic that attempts to curb this, a rule that ends the game when any player is eliminated. This rule has a few subtle but interesting affects on play. You can attempt to eliminate someone if you feel you are leading in VPs. Others may notice this and come to assistance of the player close to elimination. This rule can also result in 1 player being beaten into a corner but left in a pathetic state because no one wants to end the game.

Unlike others, I did not like that every civilization was the same. The best part of Eclipse are the asymmetrical species and how they play differently and interact differently with other species.

In summary, they felt very similar to me but different thematically, which was good. The player mat in Clash should have been used in Eclipse. Clash has the best and worst components of any game I've played. Great idea with the punched out player mat, ... but all of them were warped, along with all of the cards, all of the references, and all of the tiles. The minis are good but the curled cardboard components was total crap.
Powered by mvnForum

This Meetup is community funded

$10.28/year

Member dues are used to:
  • Cover Meetup costs
  • Have a reserve fund

Voluntary

Members are not required to pay dues, but are encouraged to chip in.

Cancel dues at any time.

Dues are billed each year.

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy