I must say that HistoriCon offered many more lecture opportunities than I've seen at my favorite boardgame conventions, WBC and PrezCon. After the "Battle for Manila Bay," I turned my sights to a series of presentations by historians on topics of interest.
Ridere, ludere, hoc est vivere.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
HistoriCon 2012: High Noon and the Battle of Manila Bay
High Noon
Friday morning at HistoriCon opened with a demonstration of High Noon (designer and self-publisher Leo Walsh), a home-grown 19th Century Western skirmish game. Leo had a large, elaborate Western landscape set up in 25mm scale - right down to gullies that descended below table-top level and bald eagles that graced some of the rock formations. The rules were pretty detailed, and I particularly liked the wounding mechanism (example to follow).
Image (c) Leo Walsh Used by permission |
Sunday, July 22, 2012
HistoriCon 2012: Borg Attack
Thursday afternoon at HistoriCon 2012 saw me in command of Star Fleet's task force at Wolf 359, assigned to stop the approaching Borg cube that threatened Earth. The task force consisted of approximately twenty capital ships and perhaps ten interceptors. The fleet focused nearly all firepower on the Borg propulsion systems to slow its progress toward Earth. The Borg destroyed a number of Excelsior-class and other major starships with its torpedo missiles and did considerably damage to the fleet with beam weapons and collisions, but our unrelenting focus on propulsion turned out to be successful, as we rendered the cube dead-in-space outside weapon range from Earth.
HistoriCon 2012: A boardgamer's reflection
HistoriCon came to Virginia this year, and though miniatures gaming takes a distant second to my boardgaming preference, I couldn't let the opportunity pass to spend at least a couple of days in the world of scratch-built terrain and tape measures. Inexcusably, I forgot to bring a camera both days that I attended, a virtual crime at a miniatures convention.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Games for a family of three (or four)
Monday, July 16, 2012
East India Company playtest
While on vacation, I arm-twisted my family into playtesting my work-in-progress "East India Company" again. I'm not proud of it, but it was necessary, and it was fruitful.
In this round, I incorporated a number of notes from our previous playtest. I drastically - and successfully - simplified the process for declaring dividends for bonus points. Also, since the previous game ended just when it seemed to get going, I lengthened the game from a minimum of 11 to a minimum of 15 turns. I made this adjustment despite my general concern about the overall playtime.
In this round, I incorporated a number of notes from our previous playtest. I drastically - and successfully - simplified the process for declaring dividends for bonus points. Also, since the previous game ended just when it seemed to get going, I lengthened the game from a minimum of 11 to a minimum of 15 turns. I made this adjustment despite my general concern about the overall playtime.
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Ethics in gaming: Reflections on the WBC seminar
[While on vacation in North Carolina, in anticipation of going to the World Boardgaming Championships in Pennsylvania in a few weeks, I scheduled a re-post of one of my most popular articles, a reflection on the "Ethics in Gaming" seminar from the 2011 WBC convention. Originally appeared 15 August 2011]
Last week at the World Boardgaming Championships, Joel Tamburo led a fascinating seminar on ethics in gaming. I had no idea what to expect and was pleasantly surprised at the directions that the conversation took. Right away, the group explored the question of whether it is ethically acceptable to lie in the course of a game. The immediate example that came up is Diplomacy, a game only half-facetiously blamed for ruining good friendships. A consensus emerged that there is an understanding that in a game like Diplomacy, lying is an expected part of negotiation. Although success requires alliances, winning sooner or later requires betrayal. So as long as it is understood among players that lying is - or can be - part of the game, then that becomes part of the game's acceptable code of ethics.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Tumbling through Troyes
[I'm on vacation, so I scheduled this post on my early impressions of Troyes to publish while I'm away.]
I put Troyes (designers Sebastien Dujardin, Xavier Georges, and Alain Orban; artist Alexandre Roche; publisher Z-man Games) on my Christmas wish list based largely on Ender Wiggins' description as "perhaps the best medium-weight game for Euro gamers that emerged in 2010." So far I've only had three sessions, all of them two-player with my wife. We only got through one or two rounds the first time, and I don't think we finished the second time either, but one recent evening we got all the way to the end, despite ourselves.
I can see the appeal of this game to the Euro crowd. Players are dealing in dice in three colors, influence points, deniers (money), meeples, and victory points. Actions involve frequent exchanges among the different elements - spending influence to modify dice, using dice to obtain influence, using dice to acquire money, spending money to obtain dice, spending influence to obtain meeples, spending money to move meeples to take actions ... The astute reader will have caught on by now that Troyes is steeped in the Euro practice of resource optimization among disparate parameters. As a dice placement game, Troyes adds dice luck to the mix.
The activity cards in three categories - clerical, military, and civil - provide the primary engines for converting dice (the workforce) into money, points, influence, or even modifications to other dice, with varying degrees of efficiency. We are still new to the game and trying to grasp the activity card symbols relative to their actual functions; as it is, we refer to the Appendix page every time a new card is turned up to be sure we understand how it works.
One source of confusion to us early on is the pricing for purchasing dice from other players or from the neutral district to use in your own activity. The important thing to remember before buying any dice is that for any given action, a player may opt to use one, two, or three dice.
I can see the appeal of this game to the Euro crowd. Players are dealing in dice in three colors, influence points, deniers (money), meeples, and victory points. Actions involve frequent exchanges among the different elements - spending influence to modify dice, using dice to obtain influence, using dice to acquire money, spending money to obtain dice, spending influence to obtain meeples, spending money to move meeples to take actions ... The astute reader will have caught on by now that Troyes is steeped in the Euro practice of resource optimization among disparate parameters. As a dice placement game, Troyes adds dice luck to the mix.
The activity cards in three categories - clerical, military, and civil - provide the primary engines for converting dice (the workforce) into money, points, influence, or even modifications to other dice, with varying degrees of efficiency. We are still new to the game and trying to grasp the activity card symbols relative to their actual functions; as it is, we refer to the Appendix page every time a new card is turned up to be sure we understand how it works.
My orange meeples executing my strong military strategy - three in the castle plus the Diplomat and Troubadour |
One source of confusion to us early on is the pricing for purchasing dice from other players or from the neutral district to use in your own activity. The important thing to remember before buying any dice is that for any given action, a player may opt to use one, two, or three dice.
- If one die will be used, the price of buying a die is two deniers.
- If two dice will be used in the action, the price for each die purchased will be four deniers. Note that purchased dice may be combined with a player's own dice to complete an action.
So for example, if I want to use two dice to conduct an action - one of my own, and one that I purchase from a neutral district - then I have to pay four deniers for the die that I purchase. (That one die would only have cost two deniers if it was the only die that I used in my action, but the fact that I am using it as part of an action involving two dice means that the price for the purchased die is four deniers.)
If I want to purchase two dice to perform an action, the price of each die is four deniers, and so the total cost is eight deniers. - If three dice will be used in the action, the price for each die purchased is six deniers.
If I'm only buying one die and combining it with two of my own to complete a three-die action, then the cost of the die that I buy is six deniers.
If I'm using one of my own dice and buying two more, the price of each is six deniers, and so the total cost to me is 12 deniers.
If I'm buying three dice to use in a three-die action, then the total cost is 18 deniers.
An aspect of Troyes that I've really come to appreciate even in the few games that I've played is the great potential for replayability. In any given game, there are nine actions available by the third round - three clerical, three military, and three civil. But the first, second, and third actions in each category can be very different from one game to the next, so the combinations of options (and the interplay among the options) make for many different possible decision spaces. Unlike Agricola, in which you can anticipate the same 14 action spaces to come out in roughly the same sequence every game, Troyes offers the numerous possibilities of multiple combinations. That random configuration makes for a game requiring fluid strategy and flexible approach to make the most of available options.
So while my wife has developed something of a dislike for dice-placement games (another being Roma), I'm hoping to get an opportunity to explore Troyes further and understand how it comes together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)