3441

Agreed. I want to like it, but it’s just too damn busy for too little payoff, and I increasingly feel like there’s surprisingly little variety in its gameplay.

3442

Not that I fully agree with BGG’s ranking system, but I’d say making it to #28 on BGG means it’s done something great for a lot of people, including me. The majority of reviews have also been very positive. Frankly, I think it’s a wonderful adaption of the video game.

3443

I guess. The culture win is an all or nothing play since it’s so hard. Culture in general, unlike everything else, tends to be all or nothing. If you’re not going for the culture win, it barely moves. But Tech always moves for everyone, so does gold. Culture is a lost part of the game for multiple players because of this. Terrain was completely pointless. There’s land and water, nothing else, as far as units are concerned. There were other things that made it meh.

It’s not a bad game, but there are better games in the same niche.

3444

Like what?

3445

Through the Ages
Chaos in the Old World
Conquest of Newarth (maybe, played twice, liked it)
Runewars (which has issues, but I like it better than Civ:TBG)
Olympus (played twice last weekend, short mini-civ game, but it scratched civ itch)
Rise of Empires

There aren’t a huge number of Civ-like games and Civ:TBG isn’t a bad game, so I wouldn’t turn down a game if it came up, but looking in my game closet it’s just not going to come out much.

3446

That is a brutal number of people to work with. Let me preface with I would not play Chaos with less than 4, but that’s because I have that luxury. So bearing in mind your situation and that I’ve only test-played partial teaching games with 3 players, I think it can end up being a balanced game if you pay attention and the crucial 3rd player knows what he’s doing. In a Tzeentch, Slaanesh, Khorne game, that would be K. In a T, S, N game that would be Nurgle. In a K, N, T/S that would be T/S. I think the ideal would probably be using the new powers and the rat god from the expansion along with T & S, and I have a number of reasons for that which aren’t even all that interesting to me so I’ll leave it at that for now except to say that I think the new powers and the rat can keep things humming in a 3 way that can otherwise feel a bit predictable.

So yeah, I guess it really comes down to playing with no patsies or ragequitters just like 4-5 p Chaos, and if you have that fundamental covered you’ve got a potentially good game ready to go.

M&M seems to me a game that would benefit from playing with 3, if only because downtime is so pervasive in that game. Speaking of which

Are you saying that you don’t know of other games in the same general genre or that you disagree there is anything better?

3447

Dean and I finished our game of Washington’s War last night. I can’t say it was a satisfactory conclusion, but overall I had a great time playing the game over all three nights.

We only had to play two turns to finish the game, but since the endgame of Washington’s War is a territory control puzzle, we took our sweet time figuring out what the hell to do.

In the first (1782) of the last two turns, I had the superior hand. I was able to bring in Howe to replace Burgoyne, strengthened his army to full strength, and was then able to move him three times during the turn.

Dean chose to send Greene to Canada, easily defeating my general in the north. But with Howe on the move I was able to drive Greene out without catastrophic losses. I could have chosen to attack from the West, cutting off Greene’s escape route, which would have been a severe blow to Dean, but I played it conservatively, allowing Greene to retreat. To finish the turn I placed Howe in Albany, which is the gateway to New England from the West. And picking up Albany also allowed me take control of New York. Dean had three event cards of mine, which while depriving me of their usefulness, do not allow him to move his generals. It was a bad turn for him because of those cards.

In the last turn, Dean had the superior hand. I did have one excellent card though, a Royal Amnesty Offered card that would allow me to remove four of Dean’s political control tokens. Otherwise my hand was weak, while Dean’s was filled with an excellent event, a bunch of useful ops cards, and a minor campaign card that allowed him to move two generals.

Wisely, Dean gave me the initiative. My plan was to sit back in Fortress Albany and wait for Washington to march north. I was protected by being deep within my own territory. If I could defeat Washington here he would be captured and hung. My entire defense was based upon the idea that I would wait for George to make his move and then I would squeeze him to death. I used my first card to move Howe to pick up a stray regiment and then went back to Albany.

But Dean’s event card (the Marblehead Regiment) allowed him to bypass my defenses and attack from the West (Fort Stanwix, which he controlled). Even with my nasty Hessians combat card in play, Washington won and pushed Howe back to Springfield.

I wanted to wait to see what Dean would do next, because I knew he would have to spread out his forces to take enough control spaces away from me to win. But I couldn’t skip my action, so I played a card to bring Cornwallis to Canada to keep Greene from invading again.

Dean next sent Lafayette, who had sat uselessly down in South Carolina for years, down to Georgia, giving him control there.

My cards were horrible at this point because they were too weak to move Howe. I had to play one to a queue and wait for my next turn to add another that would let me move Howe.

I think Dean then brought Rochambeau up from Norfolk into Philadelphia, in striking distance of New England.

Running out of options, I sent Howe against Washington in Albany. With a victory I would once again close the door to New England to both Washington and Greene. I played an American event card to help me in combat and I won. The door was closed.

I think Dean then reinforced Greene.

With my last card I played the Armistice offer which allowed me to completely flip North Carolina, and weaken New York.

Dean had two remaining cards. With the first he moved Rochambeau, with 2 troops, up to New Jersey, dropping off one unit and then settling the other in Rhode Island.

His final card was a minor campaign. With the first he broke open Albany, pushing Howe out and opening the door. Greene then scooted through and settled in New Hampshire.

The game was nearly over. The only two phases left were winter attrition and political control. The Frenchmen in New Brunswick, New Jersey, had no winter quarters, and thus suffered a roll of the die: 1-3 death by smallpox, 4-6 life. Dean rolled a 2.

During political control it came down to New Jersey. I retained control, and thus won the war with six colonies: Canada, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and North Carolina.

Dean groaned. I couldn’t blame him. We both felt like he had won. And to make it worse it didn’t take much analysis for us both to see a way he could have moved Washington around Howe to the South and win the game without a single winter attrition roll.

But overall it was a great experience and a lot of fun to play. I love the card driven games and WW is a great version of it to play. I can’t wait to give the Americans a shot.

Good game Dean!

3448

That’s some useful information. The guys that were over tonight are great, aggressive players, but never whiny and always willing to let someone take moves back or whatever while we’re learning. I’m glad I finally found some players who cutthroat without being rules lawyers as that’s an exceedingly rare combo.

M&M seems to me a game that would benefit from playing with 3, if only because downtime is so pervasive in that game.

We tried it tonight, which was stupid as I didn’t realize they could only play for a few hours. We ended up barely scratching the surface as the game is far more fiddly and text-heavy than I had anticipated. We all enjoyed it, though, and next time I’ll get it all set up before they arrive. I will never, ever play it with four, because it was already going a bit slow with three and I don’t think adding more downtime and chaos to the mix would help things.

I like how nearly everything is handled in the game, but it seems to have a long fuse before the Caribbean explodes with neutrals and pirates. Maybe we were doing something wrong but there wasn’t a lot of conflict during the first several rounds.

Thanks again to everyone for the advice. I love BGG but it’s nearly impossible to figure out who I should listen to over there. I have a much better feel for the types of games people like and how they match up with my tastes on this board, so I appreciate the excellent signal to noise ratio over here.

3449

woot, I am now down to one game in my collection that hasn’t been played. Tonight was our first play of Space Alert. We had five people and did all of the training but not any of the actual missions. I was already in love with the game before we started and had spent a ton of time reading through the (totally friggin’ awesome) handbook and rulebook and setting up then playing around with the pieces by myself because I’m just that much of a dork. My friends, well, I think they liked it? They all seemed pretty frustrated when we lost the second and third training missions (I’m not even sure if you can lose the first one) but afterward we spent a lot of time talking about how we could do better next time so I think they’re into it enough to give it another try. At least I hope so.

Space Alert is awesome! I guess the biggest problem you could have would be adding new people because nobody will want to go through the training missions again. I think I actually have enough friends to put together a new crew and train them separately, though, so that might not be so bad. One thing I love is how much the game gets you talking to each other. It’s not that my friends have nothing to talk about but in some games you get so caught up in planning your strategy that you’re all sitting around in silence. Definitely not the case with Space Alert.

Man, I can’t wait until we play that again. I’m already looking for a day to get a second group of cadets together. Everyone who hates stupidface aliens is invited to my place on Thursday nights!

Nice recaps, Rob and Dean. Our first game was also very close and came down to the last card. My friend won it for America. Afterward he declared that the secret to his success was to have Washington hide in Canada for most of the game. So we’re probably not so great at it.

3450

Neither, really. I’ve played FFG’s Civ boardgame once, and we only played a partial game of it at that time. I have been unable to convince anyone at my usual gaming group to return to it since then - I don’t think it’s because the people who tried it disliked it, and I for one thought it had potential…but it hasn’t come out, even so. But in general, I feel like statements like “there are better games in the same niche” should be followed by examples, for several reasons. For one, it helps give some idea of that person’s tastes. If I am familiar with several of those games and either disagree as to their relative quality or don’t feel they actually fill the same niche (for example, I liked Through the Ages fine but would consider it a very different game despite a similar theme), then I can adjust accordingly. For another, it gives avenues of exploration. I may like Civ (again, I don’t know yet), but maybe those other games nonetheless are even better.

3451

I like the FFG Civ boardgame, and so does my regular group. We played a bunch when it first came out, and I almost got it back to the table on Tuesday. It didn’t happen (and hasn’t happened so much in the last few months) not so much from lack of interest, but a few other random reasons. I’m pretty sure if I brought it again next week, it’d get played.

Instead, we played Mansions of Madness- the Season of the Witch scenario, which worked very well, and a game of Power Grid on the France map (with the revised plant deck), which I actually won! I’m usually pretty good at economic snowball sorts of games, but PG eludes me for the most part. My timing is just all off. This game, I really nailed it. Made me happy.

3452

Once players wrap their minds around the mechanics and the abilities of each Sea Zone, the downtime is minimal, so don’t dismiss 4-player games. Besides, the more players on the map, the more conflict!

I’m assuming you and your friends are new to the game. If so, it’s common for new players to play as merchants and conclude they’re the easiest path to victory. Don’t be fooled! Choose the roll that best fits your pirate’s stats. Once players embrace the roll of a pirate, you’ll be wishing for an even longer fuse. :-)

3453

Age of Empires III.

3454

So in the genre of boardgames that are just shy of being role playing games, stuff like Talisman and Descent and even Thunderstone to a degree, where you make a character (or are given a character that can be customized) and then go on an adventure and fight dastardly monsters and there’s a thematic goal and things aren’t always the same and often there’s a person running the game who definitely isn’t a dungeon master but just happens to be the guy who is master of the dungeon … er … in that genre, what would people agree is the best game?

3455

I’d say Arkham Horror.

3456

Thunderstone? I don’t think so. :)

There is no best game, as there’s so much out there that ultimately it depends on the taste of your gaming group, but there are plenty I enjoy playing.

A friend and I have had a lot of fun with Runebound. The problems with it are that there are a wallet-nuking number of expansions, and downtime is immense and sucky with more than two people. For an adventure game where you can go from being a miserable weenie to killing the Malicious McGuffin Monster in a few hours, though, I think it’s a blast. Plus, there’s no need for a dungeon master.

Similar but more streamlined is Prophecy, which I liked but sold because I’d always rather play Runebound. Also doesn’t require a dungeon master.

A more recent game I really like is Tomb. There are dozens (and dozens and dozens) of pre-made characters that you recruit into a party before raiding a crpyt and trying to get more loot than your opponent. There are also a lot of ways to screw with said opponent. The base game is great, the standalone expansion is better, and you can combine them both into some mega-greatness. This game won’t work at all with a lot of groups because it’s too random and you can get some really broken combos, so check the reviews closely to see if it’s up your alley.

Getting farther afield, Duel of Ages rocks. Each player has a team of characters culled from throughout history (and the future) who equip themselves with all manner of ridiculous items and try to complete a number of different goals, respawning when they die. Ugly, but an absolute blast. A new version is in the works.

Finally, I haven’t played it, but Earth Reborn fits your description nicely. I can’t wait to give it a try, but others will have to weigh in on its merits.

3457

Earth Reborn certainly, but it may not fit your genre description. It has no DM player and is usually team vs. team instead of coop vs. The Dungeon. The depth of the ruleset and tactical options will surpass many real RPG games while remaining intuitive and compact enough for a board game.

Second to that, I like Mansions of Madness for its reasonable play time and awesome storytelling. It makes great use of puzzles, locks, and has a good sense of exploration and immersive theme.

3458

Sorry to intrude on game recommendations. I suppose Rob and I should have done our “Rob vs Dean” AAR in its own thread.

Anyway, I wanted to cry over how this game turned out. It just seems like the victory conditions for the Americans are this huge hill to climb. First off, the British win of they control 6 or more colonies, the Americans need to control 7 or more, BUT if both those conditions are met, then the British win.

Canada counts as a colony for the British but not for the Americans, so as the Americans, I have to actually control 8 colonies (or at least deny the British control of one and control 7), AND stop the British from controlling Canada.

That effectively means that I have to deny the British control of 9 of 14 colonies, BUT one of those colonies doesn’t count towards my win. It just seems like a very high bar toget the American win. We played the longest game possible, with the war ending in 1783, which should give all the advantage to the Americans, and the last two turns I did feel like I had it in the bag, and I STILL managed to lose over one die roll.

Fucking French, can’t stay healthy for one lousy winter in New Jersey. I blame the whores. It wasn’t smallpox, it was syphilis that killed those Frenchmen.

Vive’ la Revolucion

3459

Mansions of Madness for me.

Wendelius

3460

While Arkham Horror is indeed excellent, it doesn’t actually fit the bill here. AH is a purely cooperative game. It’s not at all one vs many like Bahimiron inquires about. AH is a fantastic game, though. I really enjoy it, and it fits just about everything else you asked… Characters, customization, running story, etc. However if you’re bent on looking for a 1vMany game, Mansions of Madness is essentially Arkham Horror, but in that format.

Also glad to hear Earth Reborn get a mention here. I’ve been reading through the manual online while waiting for Amazon to get around to shipping it to me! It should be here in 3 - 5 days, though! :D