Boardgaming 2021: minis are back, baby!

So it’s interesting. There is direct conflict, but that is not the only option. Basically there is one contested ‘area’. Sometimes it is literally an area on the map, others it is an abstract faction or supply one. So each turn at the end phase there is a combat that occurs. It’s strictly deterministic, how many troops did you deploy this turn (which are removed to your supply, and must be built back in future turns) plus any card/ intrigue bonuses. At the end of all turns, you compare scores. Highest score wins, and gets the reward. However the game also gives lesser rewards for second and (in 4 player games) 3rd place. So it is not winner take all, and investing in the combat usually provides some reward. Additionally most spaces that contribute to the combat have some kind of other effect. For example collecting spice in one of the 3 desert locations allows you to deploy troops. The primary benefit is the spice, but the secondary is allowing you to participate. So playing into combat doesn’t exclude you from other options. In fact you can acquire most resources while playing into combat from at least one space.

I hadn’t actually thought about that during the game, but it is a clever choice really. That way you rarely get locked out of some benefit from playing troops, and playing troops does not exclude you from accomplishing other goals. It’s pretty smart! Even if you came in second, and don’t get the headline reward, you never feel like you lost out by competing. I participated in every combat, but only won 3 I think? Yet at the end of the day even when Bruce pulled something out after my turn and took over a combat round, I didn’t feel like my turn was wasted. Only one of the combat rounds was really so critical, and it was the second to last one (turn 8) which had two victory points for grabs. Realistically the winner of that battle would win the game the next turn most likely. Both Bruce and I invested heavily, but I had the intrigue cards to overcome, and ultimately win on the next turn. That was the only time, of 9 turns, that I felt the combat victory was actually so critical. Otherwise playing for second was a totally viable option that I did several times.

Other than that there is conflict, but it tends to be of the ‘You just went to the space I really wanted/ needed to go to’ type. Which, you know, is very different than my dudes punching your dudes in the face. I may have screwed you over for this round by taking the fremen water space, but you can just go to the Bene Geserit instead. And, sure, if I am angling for that alliance token, you getting there before me may impact my strategy, but that’s what makes it interesting.

So even though your group may not be so into direct conflict, I think this probably has a good chance not to trigger those negative angles for you. At least that is my feeling from a 3 player game. @Brooski can talk more about 4 player, which is supposedly much more cutthroat it sounds, but mostly from a blocking actions perspective.

I’ll second (third) that. Dune: Imperium is nothing like old Dune or Game of Thrones in terms of conflict. There is zero backstabbing here, and the direct confrontation is basically a convoluted bidding game. Each turn, there are some rewards up for grabs, and whoever bids the most “troops” basically wins that price. What Dune:Imperium basically does is wrap the light deck-building, worker placement, and bidding game up in a very clever, thematic package.

It’s a good game. I’m still not sure how much staying power it will have, but it’s one of the most thematic games I’ve had the pleasure to play. And I just love that.

Awesome! You’ve played more games than I have now. :)

I’m still playing my non-campaign game on the default difficulty, as Persia vs Greece. I’m just playing a bit each night, and not worrying about trying to finish a game in one sitting. So that feeling of the game being overlong is not an issue for me, playing in this way.

I should be done tonight, as King of Kings has just been revealed. I’m not so sure things are looking good for a ‘home team’ win…!

It’s definitely a game I think I’m in love with too. Game of the year is still be a toss-up for me, since I got Dwellings of Eldervale this year and really enjoyed that. I’m going to have to play it again soon to make my mind up, but I am pretty keen to go straight into another game of this first!

I’d say it does direct player conflict better than most worker placement games:

  • Obviously you have the combat bidding. Super super important. You need 10 points to win. You can’t get that many even if you have the alliance token with every faction. The game forces you to get other points via intrigue cards, that market card that’s worth a point, and combat–combat is the easiest and most fecund.
  • Competition for spaces, which is pretty consequential, particularly with 4 players. There’s one space for selling spice. One space for getting a new dude. Only a couple spaces that give you water, etc. It’s easy to interrupt an opponent’s engine building for a whole round with a single play.
  • Competition for the alliance tokens. As big a deal as combat, since it’s one of the few ways you can score.
  • Competition for cards in the market. It’s not super unusual to go to the reveal phase early so you can get a first crack at the card market if there’s a particularly juicy card sitting there. (Going early also often gives you more persuasion to spend.)

There’s almost no backstabbing though and very little opportunity for kingmaking. It’s nicely balanced.

Oh agreed it does a good job of making an all too frequently known for multiplayer solitaire genre have player interaction. It does a good job of making it meaningful to pay attention to what your opponent needs to do and is likely to do.

But other than the abstract combat none of that is direct player conflict, which was the concern. Its all indirect competition mostly. Which is not a value judgement! In fact it is thematically appropriate that maneuvers and scheming are important, perhaps more so, than combat. But blocking spaces or buying cards to deny opponents isn’t what I would call direct player conflict.

But they are all part of the package to encourage and force players to respond to eachother.

Honestly the more we talk about the game, the stronger I think the design is. I for sure enjoyed the game when we played it, but I respect the design more now that we’ve discussed it.

I’ve got a complicated relationship with the Pax series of games. Reading the footnotes in the rules and on some of the cards puts me into a full blown cringe fest. And yeah definitely stay away from any Eklund essays included in the rules. But, as of Friday I will have Pax Porfiriana, Pamir, Renaissance, Transhumanity, and Viking in my collection. I do find what goes on in these games to be fascinating even if I have differing views on what the designer is putting forth here. I have the vague notion that a forum game of at least one of these had been attempted before. Is there any interest here in doing another one?

I would be in for that.

I’m in as well.

We’ve done Pax Por on Yucata and a few games of Pax Pamir on @Dave_Perkins’s Discord. And we’ve done John Company. But I’m not sure we’ve had a full blown forum thread game of any of these.

I have this belief that the most well designed Pax is Pamir. It happens to be the one with Cole Wehrle as the designer and I think he’s better at making games than the Eklunds are by themselves. But I would be happy to play any of them. Personally I would lean closest to Renaissance or Transhumanity. But I don’t have a strong enough opinion on that to try to strongarm people in that direction. Do we have any other preferences? It might be time to fork this into a separate thread for interested parties.

done here:

So how did that game of Imperium Classics turn out?

I’ve now lost two straight end-of-campaign games, the latest to the Olmecs, on Overlord difficulty. It was my closest game yet, 100-93, and I sensed as much all along. The Olmecs don’t use Glory and thus don’t seem to care much about expanding their territory. Instead they crank out their stone masks and cacao, and they acquire lots of Uncivilized techs. A deluge of cards like Art and Espionage buried me. It was awesome!

I’ll try a new bot for my third effort to close out this campaign. Not sure which yet. Also my son and I plan to play face-to-face tomorrow.

My Persians lost to the dastardly Greek! It was quite close though, 92 to 95. This was on the standard difficulty, where there are no modifiers and AI turns can be 4 or 5 cards long.

A better result than I had anticipated, once I hit Empire I was accelerating nicely but it wasn’t quite enough. I was occasionally taking advantage of Greece returning my pinned cards by playing some that benefited me by being returned (i.e. play them again next turn to generate even more materials). By the time I got King of Kings I had almost completed my developments.

This highlights an issue I have with these point-chase games in general - you have no real indication of how you’re faring against an opponent until the game is over, so you don’t get that excitement of just pulling off a close win at the last second, or just missing a last ditch valiant effort. Counting points is anti-climactic.

Still, the journey was great, i.e. the act of playing the game and seeing my empire increase in power!

Agree on all counts! I do think I’m getting better at sensing how close the game is. The bot’s VPs are one obvious hint. But it would be nice to have a running total. This might be the rare boardgame that improves when it’s ported to a digital format, since we could easily have a running score there.

But yes, building a civ in this game is so fun that I keep coming back for more. :)

I just had my first multiplayer session of Imperium Legends, against my adult son. I gave him the civ I know best, the Mauryans, and I played Qin, who I find very difficult. (What the heck does one do with Mandate of Heaven, Confucianism, and Legalism?) So far he’s ahead on the board and in VPs, but I reached Empire first and am building the first of my four levels of the Great Wall. He’s interested in Buddhism and early Indian history, so he’s loving it. We paused after about 7 or 8 turns. So fun!

He picked up the game very fast. It’s easy to explain, especially if you know the Mauryans as well as I do! Also, much as I enjoy the bot, a human opponent is just more engaging. He does all sorts of unexpected stuff, lol.

Really my only complaint is that playing any boardgame hurts my back. I’m not sure what to do about that!

Awesome!

I’m sticking solo only, I don’t really have anyone with whom I can pause after a few turns and resume, which is my prefered style too.

It’s actually a pretty simple game that flows well once you know what you’re doing hey! I’ll be starting up a new game soon, been having a small break… because of my back. ;)

There’s an online historical game convention next week. Badges are $10 for 4 days of gaming. Looks like it could be fun

Yes! Come see me talk about teh historeez!

Awesome! I’ll grab a slot. I might be having a birthday celebration then (mine!), but not sure about schedule for that right now.

What’s the consensus on the Dice Throne series? Eyeballing this Marvel version currently on Kickstarter.

It’s terrific. Fast, deeper than you’d expect from what is, fundamentally, battle-Yahtzee, every character feels distinct yet balanced against one another, super great production values. And they managed to make the Adventures coop campaign (which is a separate box compatible with any combination of Dice Throne characters including the marvel ones) feel like the competitive game but with loot and some interesting strategic wrinkles.

My only caveat? (other than don’t buy Dice Throne strictly for coop - it’s fun but it’s a big investment if you’re not playing PvP also) Those battle chests are big and three of those plus Adventures will take up roughly two Kallax cubes. Lotta space to dedicate to one game.

Great. Thanks! I’ll jump in. And, yeah, the Marvel box seems pretty hefty as well.