This is not an “advantage.”
I hate you
Dude, how much are you gonna do with 1 lumber? Decide between a sawmill, workshop, or recruitment center. Boom, you’re done. Put your other two actions on a gift certificate.
The same way they climb really tall mountains: a combination of endurance, suffering, and obsession.
This is my favorite recurring feature on the forum! That said, this feels like a pretty weak week.
I don’t know about you, but all other things being equal, I’d rather play three hour-long games instead of one three-hour game. Especially with multiple players where some of them get stuck playing a three-hour game knowing they’re not going to win. Or, worse, dropping them into the thankless kingmaker’s seat. Really, there’s no reason for most tabletop games to take three hours. That’s an important element of Good Boardgame Design that got invented about ten years ago.
-Tom
The catch is that “all other things being equal”. Because, sure, if I could get three awesome, deep, fulfilling game experiences instead of one in the same time, then I guess sign me up? But my experience has been that for the most part that three hour game will be much more rewarding than three one hour sessions of the sort of game you can actually fit into that timeframe. To the point where I am very unlikely to even play something that finishes in under an hour anymore.
I’m going to drop this on you here, Tom Chick, and say that I’d rather play a thirty-hour game than a three-hour game. Preferably one I can leave set up to look at the board as it develops. Especially if it has tanks, or hussars, and explores the infinitely interesting and complex history that we, as humans, have created in this planet, which will forever be more meaningful to me that whether the green frog meeple made more jumps than the mushroom man. I would rather lose after thirty hours than win after three, especially if the game gave me the privilege of watching the dance of history play out in cardboard and dice. The thrill of seeing the trench lines advance, the camp perimeter shrink, the ranked battalions launch forward as the defenders huddle in their strongpoints, with protective support barrages eating the precious ammo that the supply airlift has to drop into the citadel each turn, is so profoundly moving that I can hardly believe that we as humans who created this carnage can craft such evocative art out of mere colors and cardboard. The right thirty-hour game is such a pinnacle, a summit of the ludographic form, that I nearly cry to know that you, yourself, cannot experience this epiphany.
Yours,
Bruce
Why??
Surely there’s more to history than war…
This was a very nice paean to wargaming though. I wrote in the solitaire gaming thread about how surprised I was that Navajo Wars was able to capture the history it’s trying to depict.
Are you talking about the Altered Fates DLC scenario? That’s exactly how that one is set up.
I don’t think it worked very well though. It’s mandatory to have 4 or 6 investigators, there’s minimal interaction between the two maps, and they put 80% of the combat on one map with no indication which one it’s going to be so you’re screwed if you don’t put your well armed people there.
It’s still worth picking up, but I think it’s the weakest of the DLC.
The non-scenario stuff the box expansions add is mostly fluff. The difference between a deep one hybrid and a thrall is…? The most significant additions are new pictures on the cardboard board pieces.
Overproduced, unnecessary minis (“Do I really need this 3x3x3 Star Spawn?”) are a blight on the hobby and the sooner it dies off, the better.
Be nice to cats!!! :)
Yeah, I was going to respond to @Brooski with, “This all sounds wonderful, if the topic wasn’t boring old war. Give me a thirty hour game about the construction of St. Peter’s or Akhenaten’s heresy! Or even something obvious like the Space Race!”
As I see it, pretty much anything goes for game length in a 1 or 2-player game. Because if the game is obviously won or someone’s not having fun any more, it’s easy to concede and stop playing. That’s not so great when you have more players and there’s an interesting battle for first place plus some other people who can’t win going through the motions for hours on end. Even player elimination’s better than that.
(This holds just as true for computer games, incidentally.)
On 3-hour vs 1-hour boardgames, my primary goal is to maximise strategic depth per time played. Being quick into the bargain is an advantage because it allows more variety, but it’s difficult to keep a proportional depth in a shorter game.
I was impressed with Endeavour: Age of Sail recently. It played so quickly but seemed pretty deep. I’m hoping that impression holds up with more plays.
What about historical war cats?
CATS WILL MAKE THAT FIGHTAR THE WINNINGEST
Off to Pax Unplugged. All 3 days and the pre even hosted by the Philly Board Gamers. Anyone else going? Last year I was a board gaming know nothing. This year I am a genuine nit for Boardgames.
We got the new Fireball Island to the table last night. Fun but still working out the rules.
Agreed. I think I’m done playing as Woodland Alliance now that I grasped the faction. If I were to play WA again, it’s because there’s nothing more hilarious in Root to nuke 5-6 cat legions into the orbit.
That was when I understood why people related Root to Vietnam War because the Woodland Alliance play like the NRA whereas the poor cats are just there for nation building. Or Afghanistan’11 is more an apt comparison? Whatever, screw those pussies.
That being said, I’d like to play as the cats one day because it seems to be the most challenging to play. It’s quite easy to see what’s cat player trying to do on the map and the rest would foil the Cat’s plan easily.
Dude, you gotta try this game from GMT called Pericles. It’s not 1 or 3 but 8-10 hours of epic gaming experience with a few interesting mechanics to allow last in the race to catch up with the rest because your rival in the same team doesn’t want you to trail too behind the VP race and will do anything to ensure you to keep up in the game. On top of that, game is sandboxy to allow players trying out different strategies to win VP without feeling like a dry point salad game.
@Brooski could you do a Pericles winter wargaming with @tomchick to change his mind?
We may be playing Pericles next week. No joke.
And way to try and scare Tom off with that 8-10 number!
I don’t know what the mechanical difference between a deep one hybrid and a thrall is off the top of my head, but I can guarantee there is one, and it matters. But I agree with you re: minis.
I can remember all the mechanical aspects of pretty much every single monster from Arkham Horror 2 and Eldritch.
I can’t name a single difference between the monsters in Mansions of Madness, other than some might have one or two extra health or do 1 more damage. The star spawn is slow? The haunting horror automatically moves to the nearest investigator?
Not one single new monster, weapon, or spell has made us say, “Whoah! This is a game changer!”
The two times I’ve played physical Twilight Struggle, the games took longer than four hours. I still think about those games because Twilight Struggle is great, and I wouldn’t trade those hours for any number of other games I could have fit into the same amount of time.
I’m intrigued by this Pericles stuff, though – gotta check that out.