Does the game feel like the typical FFG Arkham game roll dice and see if you pass your test?
Got my copy of Pax Pamir. (I stopped doing KS pledges about a year ago, and after this one, I think I only have one more (Bios: Origins 2) before they’ve all either arrived or collapsed.) I almost didn’t open it–thought about trying to resell it instead. But I couldn’t resist. And it is, of course, lovely.
And I love the game dynamics of the Pax model: how every system interlocks neatly with every other system. I played a game against the AI, made a bunch of mistakes, but now have a general sense of how to play. Hopefully I can bring it to the table when my gaming uber-geek brother-in-law visits in a few weeks.
EDIT: I should mention, the AI won even though it seemed like I was dominant the whole game. She built up a collection of patriots in her court and I hadn’t focused enough on spycraft to do anything about it. It’s interesting that because the AI has no loyalty, she just accumulates influence. Since you can’t do anything about her gifts and prizes, you kind of have to spend effort turning her patriots.
Took a trip to Arcon yesterday (Oslo’s yearly board game conference).
Played a game of Vikingjarl https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/209225/vikingjarl, which is a great little Viking-themed boardgame; trading, combat, colonization, random events, and playable with 4 players in about an hour. Disclaimer: I consider the designer a friend and I remain undefeated in the game, so I might not be completely unbiased.
Got another chance at playtesting Europa Universalis: The Boardgame (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/254127/europa-universalis-board-game). Played England in the 1444 setup; got immediately into a war with France (who was basically just “screw this, I want some action”). Was able to repel his assault and captured Paris, leaving France pretty much in ruins (in addition to having lost Paris, I also wiped out the tax base of his two biggest provinces with a Plague event), but we only got that one turn done, so didn’t have time to see what would have happened next. Game mechanics seem solid (and have improved since last time I tried it). My main worry about this game currently is the play time which still seems daunting, but I like the basic gameplay. Disclaimer: The designer of this is another friend.
Finally, got to try Detective Club (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/256788/detective-club), which was a fun little game to round out the evening. It’s a deduction game (obviously), where you have to place down two cards (and later justify them) matching a word picked out by one of the players, with the tricky bit being that one player does not know the actual word. Seen it compared to Dixit, which I haven’t played, but this was definitely hilarious.
Was this kick-started or something? I watched a video on the rules for this game at some point and have no idea why I’d do that.
Yep. It failed in its first attempt on KS, but succeeded on its second try. They’re still accepting late pledges, if you’re interested: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1535378163/vikingjarl
The plan is to start shipping in November; based on my chats with Rickard, sounded like they were well on course to hit that target.
Anyone following the Company of Heroes KS? I’m not normally one to back boardgaming projects, but you know, it’s CoH,and a lot of minis, and it sounds intriguing. On the other hand, it seems like a textbook example of stretch goal and reward creep, and I hate putting down big money on something without knowing exactly what I’m getting.
You might have just cost me $500?
Sorry! I’m not considering that version. But I might swing for the $200 version, and am very likely to get at least the base version. Will watch the videos and do some more reading after work.
I was tempted by the CoH Kickstarter, until I read the rule book. Seems too simplistic overall, plus the dice-less, deterministic combat seems boring. Plus, it is telling that very few reviewers have gotten their hands on it, and the videos that they have taken don’t look great either.
The upcoming CoH (Conflict of Heroes) Storm of Steel reprint on the other hand…
I have so much affection for Company of Heroes that I think I will definitely back it, but you have successfully tempered my excitement down to the sub-$200 level, so that’s good. Gotta get that terrain pack for the buildings, though.
I actually like the simplicity, though I am also wary for the reasons you give. I’d like something that’s less luck-based than Memoir 44, but not a full grognardy wargame. That’s pretty much what they seem to be aiming for. Whether they make that fun or not is another matter.
I picked up Jaws today. It might be a terrible mistake, but it’s getting some good buzz. So is another game I really want to try, Detective: City of Angeles.
Ha ha, you buy boardgames from Target!
-Tom
Yep and 2 for 1 at that.
What besides Jaws did you find at Target?
I was on the verge of running to a Target to pick it up myself, but after reading the rules online, I’m concerned it’s just a gimmicky hidden movement game.
-Tom
Oh me too. I watched a bgg explanation and it seemed like there was enough to do and was still short enough. I’ll probably keep it sealed till some more reviews come out.
I think I’m ready to throw in the towel on Through the Ages.
I’ve been playing for a year and a half, dozens of games, and I don’t think I’m getting any better and can never quite tell why I ever win or lose.
More than that though, I think the way military conflict works in that game is busted. I’m seeing too many games that go on for so long, only to be completely decided by who gets the most ridiculous army in the final age. Now, you can say that’s part of the game and if you ignore military, you deserve to lose.
But that’s where the “busted” part lies. You can play perfectly smart, developing your economy and culture generation while getting a respectable army to defend yourself against the guy who goes all out military, but if there’s even one player who neglects military, they become a culture farm and the military player takes the game.
The rules even acknowledge this in a half assed way. A player can resign at the start of their turn to drop out if they just become a hopeless culture battery. Except it’s totally optional, which once again goes back to the problem of the punching bag deciding the game. It doesn’t do any good if it’s not an forced rule. The game really needs another new edition that smooths out the way military works.
Well, lots of games include ‘king making by skill differential’. I’m not fond of it either.
A lot of conflict/conquest games though, you can only gain so much by attacking someone before they’re gone with nothing left to take. TTA you can just farm someone for huge gains over and over.
Hmm. Are you playing the new edition? That version has tweaked the military game quite a bit, and my own experience (not very many games, admittedly) is that it’s much better now than before - wars don’t drain the defender as badly (no sacrificing) and tactics being possible to copy help the defending players(s). Also, there’s always the peaceful game variant (which I’ve played a couple of times with conflict-averse gamers).
The “surrender rule” is rubbish, though - completely agree.