I was really disappointed with GOSU, myself. Looking at the cards, reading the rules, and reading reviews, everything about it looked amazing. Actual play was a let-down. Awkward, much longer than claimed, and too high of a chance that someone will have to sit there without playing for extended periods of time. (I found the “tournament” rules–AKA necessary errata – later and haven’t tried them. I suppose I should…)
Am I nuts?
Meanwhile, 7 Wonders has turned out to be the last minute hit of the year. Just brilliant, although with a hefty dollop of “Euro-ness.”
Kalle
1982
Game of thrones is a good game but you can have players knocked out of the game or become unable to affect the course of the game halfway through and then those players might not enjoy it so much. On the other hand, if they’re fine with Twilight Imperium then AGoT shouldn’t be too bad. Read the FAQ at Fantasy Flight’s website before you start though.
ckessel
1983
It’s also quite a bit better with the expansion that supports 6 players (Clash of Kings expansion?). Not because of the 6th player, but because of the other various optional rule changes. Particularly ports, fortifications, and siege towers, but there’s something like 10 alternate rules in the expansion all of which are optional so you can pick and choose.
Dean
1984
GoT usually goes like this for us:
Everyone fights for the neck, guy in the south wins.
or
Everyone fights for the neck, guy from Dragon Isle sweeps through the south and wins.
It seems like there’s one too many castles in the south, so you can win without getting into the general scrum in the middle. Still, a fun game if you can get 5 people. I haven’t played the expansions.
Agree completely with this. Some of the most fun I’ve had with games this year was running the zombies in a 5-player game. Now that I know all the Zombie cards and I know when certain survivors are going to be occupying the same spot and so on. I don’t just read the cards, I describe what happened as amusingly as I can, so it’s a little more like being a DM or GM than just a fifth player. With the right group LNoE a ton of fun.
Reldan
1986
I used to play AGoT quite a bit with my old board game group. We found that once the second expansion came out - Storm of Swords - we pretty much stopped playing the base game. Storm of Swords replaces the board and several of the mechanics with what we felt were all-around improvements.
One downside is that it turns it into a 4-player game, but the layout is such that all 4 players stand a reasonable and equitable chance of winning, which in itself is a huge improvement.
The most important thing is to get more people (and thus more actions) as early as possible. In pursuit of this you want wood/reed to expand your house, and food generation more efficient than the typical 2 or 3 you can get from an action space.
The easiest food generation is from livestock, as once you have a herd and a fireplace you get free food without spending any actions.
Actual farming on the other hand is rather difficult, as it takes more effort to get started and needs sow/bake actions to keep going. Farming really wants Occupations or Minor Improvements that make it better – barring a hand of good farming cards (difficult to get unless you draft cards), I’d stay entirely away from farming early on.
Farming becomes easier to get going with the Moors expansion, but you’re not likely to get that until you’ve played a fair bit. It definitely improves the variety and balance of the game, but also makes it more complex and difficult to learn.
Skinner
1988
How is Twilight Imperium with four people? I’ve played with 6 and 5 before but not 4.
I’m curious - my impression of train games in general has been that they’re mostly pretty Euro-style mechanics-over-theme. Are there any out there that might have more to offer to someone who leans heavily Ameritrash?
The 18xx series, Steam, and Railways of the World (formerly Railroad Tycoon).
In the 18xx games, you calculate income each turn based on the number of cities your trains can reach that turn. Each city has a dollar value, and trains can visit a limited number of cities. You can run as many trains as your company can afford, but trains become obsolete and cease working during the course of the game, which means you can lose cargo capacity.
The 18xx games also have a stock market model where stock price depends on share demand (buying increases it, selling decreases it) and company health (paying a dividend increases it, retaining profits for the company decreases it).
In Steam and Railways of the World, your income is simpler. You have a single train, which again can visit a limited number of cities, but you can upgrade it. Each turn you can deliver a new good to a city that demands it, and that permanently increases your income based on distance. Thus “delivering” a cube represents a regular delivery of goods, rather than a one-time event.
All of these games fit the theme pretty strongly. The 18xx games in particular often feel like business simulations.
dogbert
1992
But would you recommend them to an Ameritrash gamer as asked? I wouldn’t, particularly the 18xx that can be pretty damn hardcore even by Eurogamer standards.
I’m not even sure what “Ameritrash” means. I’ve heard the term, but I didn’t get much out of it beyond it usually involving a lot of dice and frequently involving combat. Does it mean simpler than Eurogames? I thought it was the other direction.
And “hardcore even by Eurogamer standards” seems like saying something is “really hard to read even by 10th grader standards.” “Hardcore” to me means wargames with 50+ pages of numbered rules. I.e. something like Advanced Squad Leader or Starfleet Battles. Eurogames are more complex than Risk or Monopoly, but they’re pretty simple compared to even the $3 microgames (like GEV) that I grew up with.
Granted, the 18xx series is pretty complex. Not as complex as most computer games or games by Avalon Hill or SPI, but significantly more complex than most Eurogames.
I define it as:
Euro = little or no luck/randomness
Ameritrash = moderate to a lot of luck/randomness
Well all the games (18xx, Railways of the World) are very low randomness, so I guess they don’t qualify.
Of course, really high numbers of die rolls, if there aren’t any particularly critical ones, also tend reduce the effects of luck as the bell curve gets more pronounced.
dogbert
1996
It means heavy on combat, heavy on theme (often fantasy), heavy on confrontation & usually lots of thematic cardboard/plastic. Think FFG or Last Night on earth, Munchkin, etc. Often lots of luck.
Compare to the usual economic engine & cube pushing that’s the style for modern Eurogames.
SlyFrog
1997
This, but I do think a big, big difference that you touched on briefly or implied (and someone earlier mentioned) - Ameritrash games have a larger luck element.
As you noted, when I think Eurogame, I think of someone sitting there counting beans, formulating the perfect strategy, and having luck be 5-10% of the result. When I think Ameritrash, I think of games that can have big swings, where luck might be 30-50% of the game even.
By that definition, wouldn’t it be impossible for a strongly-themed rail game to be Ameritrash? Because railroads aren’t about combat, and any rail game pretty much by definition is going to be about economic engines. It can have nice bits (I like bits), but it’s still going to be about pushing those bits around even if they’re plastic miniatures instead of wooden cubes.
Hmm. I wonder what a more a boardgame version of RRT that is more true to the original source would be like. Oh sure, the cube-delivery in Railways of the World captures much of the feel, but they are still cubes, and there’s no cargo conversion.
SlyFrog
1999
Bare in mind that there is not a clear dividing line that says Ameritrash versus Euro. The railroad games, as I understand it (not having played many) are not about combat but are very much about conflict. You are trying to cut off other people, block their routes into cities, etc. They are in their own way very aggressive games. That stuff leans, I think, to Ameritrash.
But other elements lean Euro for the 18XX. There is a strong “engine optimization” component to them from what I understand. In fact, I do not believe the bits are very good (in that they are not flashy models and other chrome laden Amertitrash type bits).
So with some things, you can’t clearly label something one way or the other.
Oh, I agree with that. The 18xx games don’t even have the plastic locomotives used to mark rails in Railways of Europe.
