July 20, 2007 - Game Night

Friday 7-20-2007 - Justin Easley's House
This Friday night was originally "scheduled" at the Game Shoppe, but Justin's wife made plans to attend one of the Harry Potter all night events at Borders and Justin had their son Finn to watch, so he invited us over to his place. In all there ended up being five of us - Justin Easley (JE), Justin Kosek (JK), Mike Garrett, Greg Fuller and myself.

The two Justins and I had wanted to give Age of Empires another shot, so I quickly went over the rules and flow of the game. Greg seemed a bit confused/overwhelmed, but we assured him that after the first turn, he'd see that the game wasn't terribly hard to pick up. JK set out from the start to become the merchant master and went for the trade ships. Greg started shipping three guys to the new world right of the bat while also grabbing the capitol building which gave him $5 a turn. Mike, JE and I seemed to just sort of feel our way along for the first couple rounds before settling down. Mike ended up with a fairly strong colonization and discovery push. JE and I also started sending a number of colonists over and in the end, we were also the only two that sent over soldiers and fought. For myself, I ended up grabbing a building to give me an extra colonist each turn and was trying a mixed discovery, colonist type strategy. This seemed to be paying off as I was tied for the lead through the first two ages. Unfortunately for me, I think JE mis-judged who the threat was and in the last turn of the game, he went to war with me, killing a number of my guys and costing me a large number of points. Mike grabbed a third age building that gave him bonus points for each region he had a colonist in, which easily pushed him to the win.

After playing this with five players, I have to say that I really like this game, and that its much better with five players than three. After about the third turn, the colonist dock was filled every turn and competition for the slots was quite contested. I also like that you have a number of option in trying to win, score points, get money, etc. I had no real trade goods for most of the game, but I managed to keep a steady income shipping merchants to the colonies. If I have any complaint, its that the last round of buildings can really swing the game. If you have a large fleet of ships, the navy is a must at the end of the game, however, if it doesn't come out, you are at a severe disadvantage. This minor luck swing is the only flaw that I have with the game thus far - the rest of the luck can be mitigated, even if it means a change in strategy part way through the game. This one is one of the better games I've played in a long time.

After that, I pulled out QJet, which is a space-themed, Japanese re-release of the original Ave Caesar. I had wanted to get a copy of the original, as the new version screwed with the tracks. Though a different theme, this is basically the same as the first release play-wise. I explained the rules and we started it up, and the others quickly saw why this game is a gem - screwing with everyone else. Though we only played one race, it was a good time, with only three of us finishing. JE just beat me out for the win, as he had two 6's to finish with.

We had a little time left, so I pulled out Ra, which I knew the Justins had both wanted to try. This Knizia games is by far the easiest of his auctions to get a handle on for new players. It what (for me) was a strange turn of events, the board filled with Ra tiles in the first round before I could win a second auction. missing two sets of tiles put me in a hole from which I could never recover. Mike managed to jump all over monuments and Pharaohs and pretty easily won this one.

Sad really

Its sad, but this comic is probably all too true. I hope not. I love video games, and I think they scratch a certain itch for me. Boardgames scratch a different one. I hope that as I raise my children, they aren't sucked into the digital age such that they think the only fun thing to do is play video games. Its really too bad that children in this country only think playing games means video games. That a "game store" means EB, Game Stop, or whatever place buys and trades games that come on CDs and DVDs. It doesn't help that the mainstream toy industry here doesn't even bother trying to put out new games. The shelves now days have about 5 games in different themes. Looking at the game shelves at Target and you'll see: 5 different Risk games - Transformers, normal Risk, Bookshelf Risk, LOTR Risk, Starwars Risk; Operation - Shrek, Spiderman, classic. Candyland - classic and Dora the Explorer. Sorry, some laser game like Khet, maybe Hi Ho Cherry-o, Trouble, Battleship, yahtzee, some trivia game and possibly a 6-in-1 set with checkers, chess, backgammon, etc. When I was growing up, I remember loads of Parker Brothers, MB, Hasbro, etc games lining the shelves. I don't think they were all that great - like everything else in the US, its thrown out the door with a bit of marketing. Yes, there used to be tv ads for boardgames. I remember seeing adds for Bermuda Triangle and wanting that game very badly.

I have no real expectation that boardgames will become mass market like that again. The sad reality is that video games make a lot of money. A lot. Parents these days want their kids to get up and do something instead of sitting in front of the TV, not find a replacement for their kids sitting around. Unfortunately I think this stems from the lack of family commitment. If parents truly wanted to bring their family together, they'd find time for a family activity where the family actually interacted together. Parents just need to stop thinking about "their" time and thinking in terms of family time.

July 15, 2007 - Samurai

Tammy Smolka started a game of Samurai on MaBiWeb, which Matthew Frederick and I joined. Interestingly enough, Tammy and Matthew took random starting hands, so I joined them (didn't want to hear any excuses). Luckily for me, I had a good run of tiles pretty much the whole game and nailed down a lot of pieces. Interestingly, I never used my 3-Samurai. I don't think I've played it the last couple of 3-player games. Its like I don't want to waste it...
Final scores (majorities - others - total)
Charles: 1 - 6 - 10
Matthew: 1 - 4 - 9
Tammy: 0 - 4 - 4
Winner: Charles

July 15, 2007 - Twilight Struggle

Jason Maxwell and I started a game of Twilight Struggle on Vassal, so I thought I'd log it

<SNIP>

WTF - that was the most boring post I ever read. I'm playing the game and that post made we want to fall asleep. If I read that, I wouldn't ever want to play Twilight Struggle. I'm sorry for anyone that read that...

July 14, 2007 - Memoir 44 Charles vs Jason

Had a little time this afternoon and fired up Memoir 44 over vassal to get beat on. The first scenario was exactly that - a beating I lost 5-0 on a damn beach assault. We started with DIEPPE - YELLOW BEACH and it was never good. Bad rolls on my side and good for Jason combined with dumb beach assault = BAD. Makes the war 126-111
Next up was TUNISIA. This looked better, until I read that my tanks can only move 2. The dice never came around either and Jason thrashed me 6-2 bringing the sad total to 132-113. I may never catch up.

Atolla Trade List

I've had a number of inquires into Atolla Modulis making. I've finally decided on a rough value for my time in producing a copy and put together a list of games I'm willing to accept in return for a copy of Atolla. Be warned, I will consider offers in the order that people have contacted me and reserve the right to reject an offer if I feel like stopping my production. Once I had committed to a trade, I will finish that copy, but have no obligation to continue accepting offers.

The games do not have to be in shrink, but do need to match editions and should be in very good condition (some box wear in some cases might ok if the contents are like new). Obviously some of the grail games are not expected to be new. For the letter items list, I would of course consider adding sweeteners on my end to balance things out.

These are in no particular order of preference:

A) Chinatown
B) Antiquity (splotter)
C) Indonesia
D) Princes of the Renaissance

All the sets below here can be purchased new online for roughly $50-55 (with the exception of We the People, which is close, but typically used on ebay.

#1 = Age of Steam: Northeastern USA & South Africa, China & South America (SteamBrothers) (Boards and Bits exclusive)
#2 = Age of Steam: India, Mexico, Spain & Austria (SteamBrothers) (Boards and Bits exclusive)
#3 = We The People
#4 = C&C:A - Exp1 + Epic BattleLore exp.
#5 = Winds of Plunder + Zooloretto
#6 = Torres (RioGrande ed, not Rav.) + Blue Moon City
#7 - Imperial + Arkham Horror: King in Yellow
#8 - Himalaya + Yinsh
#9 - Pillars of the Earth + BL:Call to Arms + BL: Epic BL
#10 - Descent Well of Darkness + Arkham Horror: Curse of the Dark Pharaoh + Mystery Rummy Card Game - Case No.3
#11 - Shogun (Rio Grande) + Battleline

Math Trade Results

Well, the results are in and I did ok. As expected, LOTR traded. In exchange, I'll be getting: War! Age of Imperialism (NIS - love the Eagle games, even if they blow), Age of Mythology and the Target Risk! bookshelf classic edition (yea for wooden bits) - you know, this one: Some folks like AoM, some don't - I've never played, but the box is loaded with bits! I'll have to take a look to figure out if this one has any play value or if it just is going to take up space on the shelf (like War! is going to). I'm happy with the Risk! game too, as it gives me an excuse to get the other bookshelf games now. I don't mind having Risk, Stratego, Sorry, etc in these editions, as my children will play them as they get older.

I had one other game trade - Downtown (not Vegas Showdown - oh well). For Downtown, I'll be getting Warcraft: The Boardgame + Expansion. Downtown was interesting, but ultimately not quite fun enough in replays.

July 11, 2007 - Age of Empires III

Tonight, Justin Easley and Justin Kosek came over and I was able to finally get Age of Empires III to the table. This new game has been getting really good press as well as word of mouth. A number of the AZ Boardgamers were impressed with their single play (Jason M called this a likely top 10) as was I. I'm saddened that I'm not experiencing this with them, as their gamesmanship and reflections after the game were always welcome, and I imagine this will hit the table a lot in AZ.

At any rate, after going over the rules with Justin and Justin, we jumped in. I was randomly chosen first (which as HUSKER red, was befitting) and decided to grab the first capital building which would pay me $5 a turn. JK ended up heading to the new world right away as well as starting some discoveries. JE set himself up for the next round with a number of specialists and a capital building that gave him and extra colonist each turn. The first turn also saw me try for a discovery first. I sent three guys. Three guys that promptly ran into four natives. Too bad for me and good for JK, who was able to then send 4 guys and make out like a bandit. After the first age, we had already settled into a few strategies - I was making money hand over fist with capitals and more capital buildings and a few trade goods. JK had a commanding lead in colonization with JE slightly behind. JE had a lead in goods. The first scoring round didn't look promising for me as I barely scored points and the Justins pulled away. The mid game saw me grab a new capital building right away, which brought me more cash, which I turned into buildings for specialists. JK had grabbed a capital giving him soldiers in the discoveries and had also managed to grab all the sugar - which turned out to be huge, when early in the second age the Rum Factory came out - he was now pulling down $15 a turn from just that ($21 if you count the set too). I had hoped that cash was going to let me make up ground in the mid game with free access to buildings, but started to worry that it might not work that way. In response, I started sending a few colonists to the new countries to try and scrape out a few second place points. Though I had a load of cash each turn, the second age scoring saw me fall very far behind. Luckily the third age was mine. The last age saw the first building to come out be worth $30 a turn - I also happened to be first player this round! I grabbed it and JK and JE also grabbed another building to help their causes. When we replenished, the three new buildings we all meant for me! Navies (vps per ship), VPs for capital buildings, and Wealth - 1 vp for every $5. JE grabbed the navies to score his 3 ships and keep me from scoring my 4. I got the other two and proceeded to make my charge. My income on the last turn was $62, which shot me out into the lead. In addition, my 9 buildings scored me another 25 pts (18+7) and my total wealth scored me another 13. Add another 20 or so in discoveries (which was on par for the other guys) and I was out in front about 20 points or so when it was all said and done. The building we didn't see the last turn was the one worth VPs for each two colonists in the new world - had JK gotten that and one of the other buildings not been there for me, it might have been VERY close. So, in the end a slight bit of help from lady luck steered me to the win, but overall a tight game.

I can see already how this game tightens up with more players and look forward to trying this out with 5. Though it supports 6, I don't think I'll be ordering another set of pieces. I just don't see where it would be much fun when things are that tight. We'll have to see how 5 players is first.

**Update July 12, 2007
Bah! Of course, it being the first playing - we mis-played a rule. The last round scoring doesn't include income from buildings - which probably moves me straight to last. I'm not sure how that shakes out for the other guys as Justin K was given points for the Rum Factory.

Bah - Math Trade

The want lists were posted. Looks like it may be slim.
The two games I listed for Atolla Modulis turned in no want list. That's ok because I got an offer for a brand new copy of C&C:Ancients. I was starting to work on a new copy, so I've offered to give the guy his trade now or new.

Of the rest - Chizo ended up on one want list. That game didn't end up on anyone's list. Vegas Showdown might trade, but I'm going to predict not. Downtown had mild interest, but I'm going to doubt this goes either. Which leaves Lord of the Rings. This might just trade. Might, but overall, I'd be willing to guess I trade nothing out of this. Ah well...

That Giant Sucking Sound at the End of the Table

For those that don't understand the title, I'd like you to meet Jerry. Jerry is a fellow that I used to game with every so often. Nothing wrong with the guy - very nice and loved to play games. But Jerry had a problem. He was slow. I don't mean slow like mentally challenged (that would be a matter of opinion I'm sure ;) ). No I mean that when he played games, he slowed them down.

Analysis Paralysis is a term often given to games that give players so many options that they just freeze up trying to decide what action to take, because they are not sure that they aren't hosing themselves. With most of the gamers I've played with, we took the information and after a reasonable amount of time, would make the best play we could (and if you were Matthew, you would decide it was the wrong one the second the next guy started his turn - if you were Noah, you declared that you had just lost the game). Some guys (SCUBA STEVE) took longer than others. I personally was not the fastest player. Then there was Jerry.

The best description of Jerry was that he couldn't eliminate the null choices. In other words, given 10 choices of things that he could do, 6 might be just dumb. So dumb that most gamers wouldn't think more than half a second about it, or wouldn't even consider it a "choice". For most gamers, the analysis would be based on 4 options. Not for Jerry. He would work through all 10. He would also ignore EVERYONE at the table, not being sure if any advice being thrown his way was advice, or gamesmanship (it was always advice so that he would hurry the hell up). So for Jerry, games where he had lots of choices caused other people pain. He once indicated that he wanted to learn to play Age of Steam. I thought I'd have to burn my AoS collection to avoid having to gut myself with a Samurai sword later. He took a game of Java and turned it into nearly a 3.5 hour game (thankfully, I only heard about that one).

The one for which Jerry might be famous for though, was Settlers of Catan. See, at one point we had a lot of people coming to our game nights. One night, a couple came in (they were both Jerrys in their own ways, the boyfriend worse than Jerry himself). Anyway, they wanted to play Settlers. Jerry and a friend of mine joined them. I got in 8 games that night. My friend got in ONE. They played a single game of Settlers and it took them most of the night - 3.5 hours.

It got to a point where people in our group would play a game they hated to avoid getting stuck in a game with Jerry. People would plan to play 4 hours games that were so complicated that Jerry would avoid them to keep from having to play with Jerry. Because not only did Jerry slow things down, he didn't spend all that time coming up with the best move - no, he typically spent a lot of time coming up with a bad move. And that bad move meant a huge advantage to whomever was lucky enough to be able to take advantage (conversely, you were just as likely to be randomly bent over by Jerry when he did something that you couldn't have possibly accounted for in your strategic planning). In short, it was not fun to play games with the guy.

Ok, to be fair, it was not fun to play any sort of strategic games with the guy. Really light games were ok, or abstracts like Blokus or Ingenious were ok. Or games that were really really random were ok. But if there was any amount of tactics or strategy to the game (even a light game), he was going to double the playing time.

Ok, so how do you know if you are a "Jerry"?
- Do your friends suggest Blokus or Ingenious instead of your selection when you ask them to play games.
- Do you hear cheers and party poppers going off when you announce that the last seat in your Cleopatra and the Society of Architects game is full?
- Do your friends pretend not to like long drawn out games, despite having A Game of Thrones, Age of Renaissance, Civilization, Conquest of the Empire, and Diplomacy on their shelf?
- Do your friends need to shave after playing a game with you?
- Do your friends frequently snort lines of white powder when its your turn to play?
- Do you wonder when your friends decided to let their hair grow out?
- Do you wonder why in the world everyone at the table needs to go to the bathroom 12-13 times a game? Can't they hold it until you are done playing this hand of Poison?
- Do you frequently wonder why your friends fall asleep playing games. I mean WTF?!? Maybe they should go to bed earlier! If they'd wake up, maybe this game wouldn't be taking so long. I mean for crying out loud! Its just a game of No Thanks!

Game Trading

I've been game trading since almost the point I started hanging out on the BGG. Initially, I made a few trade offers that were just poor offers. I may have shafted myself on a few trades. After I started getting a better feel for the value of offers, I started making better trades, which allowed me to move things I didn't value to get things I wanted. Then I discovered Math Trades. Essentially, a math trade is when a load of users offer up a game they are willing to trade. Once all the games are listed, each user person turns in a list of the games they are willing to accept for the game they are offering. A computer program then sorts through the want lists to try and find a result in which the most number of games will get traded. The reason math trades have become so popular is that they allow you to find a game you'd prefer for one you don't, but you don't have to find a direct match yourself.

When I first discovered math trades, they worked almost exactly like I just described. Then the bargain hunters started getting involved. Barnes and Noble, Tanga, Tuesday Morning, etc provided a number of users with cheap copies of games. Suddenly, the math trades turned into a place where 5-10 users were continually trying to dump games they had purchased for $15 for games that normally ran at least twice that. And that would be ok, accept that it made getting involved in the math trade less worthwhile. Why bother putting in a good game in the trade when the only choices where going to be 20 copies of the new Roborally, 20 copies of Who's the Boss, 20 Copies of Niagra, 20 copies of Nexus Ops, 20 copies of the Ravensburger version of Torres, etc? (Note - I also offered some of these games, but stopped when 10 other people would do the same). Which is not to say that having multiple copies of a game is a bad thing, but it does limit the possibility of attracting other good games. At any rate, my trading slowed down for a bit. I'm in a new math trade no - one that ended up with 921 entries. I put a few games that I've been trying to get rid of forever (Chizo Rising, Lord of the Rings, and Downtown), a Tanga extra I have (Vegas Showdown) as well as one special - my copy of Atolla Modulis I made. There were a number of good entries in this trade, and I hope that by putting in a premium item (I hope its one) I might get a valuable game. So, what am I hoping to get?

Here is a list of the games that will probably end up in my want lists (KEY - FT=Future Trade, K=Keeper, O=Other):

105 Epic Duels (FT)
225 Warcraft + exp (K)
232 Ark+ (K)
246 Formula De exp (FT)
271 Union Pacific (O)
287 Doom + Exp (K)
290 Diplomacy (K)
337 Atlantic Star (K)
359 Roborally (wizards of the coast) (FT)
369 Roborally (wizards of the coast) (FT)
384 Thurn + Exp (K)
387 Railroad Tycoon (FT)
395 Warcraft + exp (K)
444 Formula De exp (FT)
471 Dungeon Twister +4 exp (FT)
493 Rum and Pirates (K)
521 On the Underground (K)
535 Acquire (AH/ Hasbro) (FT)
642 Heroscape Flagbearer series (undecided)
764 War! + extras (K)

What I'm mostly looking at in this list are games that are expensive. (The few cheaper games are things that will end up on the LotR game list). Most of the items on the list are a minimum of $50 to try and get. Now of course, in these trades, most traders are trying to do like me - trade up. In some cases (like me), a trader is just trying to get rid of something they don't want to have anymore. I have a number of things listed that are definitely an upgrade, but which I have no desire to keep. The odd ball of the group is UP. This game is a bit unique for me in that I work for Union Pacific, so I'd likely acquire that as a gift. Some of these items are eBay sellers and I'd happily sell them on eBay and turn the money into games. Mostly, I'd like to turn all of my trades into something else - period. If I can get an $80+ game for Atolla, I certainly will take that and make myself a new copy. Heck, after posting that in the trade, I had an offer for a new C&C:Ancients (2nd ed) for a copy of Atolla (which I'm going to make).

Must Stop...

Ok, here we are a week into July and I have to stop. I can't keep going on like this.

Hi, my name is Charles and I'm a game buyer. For a long time now I thought I had it under control and that my collection was about like I wanted it. Apparently not, as I've acquired more than I need to for the month (and there is still a pending math trade with four things up for trade). This last week I've grabbed: 4 more Heroscape expansions, Age of Steam Exp #1, Bootleggers, Descent, Gulo Gulo, No Thanks!, and To Court a King. I'm not playing games enough to warrant a buying pattern like this. I'm hoping I can get some more playing in to justify all my buying!

In other news, I'm going to make another copy of Atolla Modulis. I made two copies a while back and at the time I said no more! Well, its been a while, so I'm going to make at least one more copy so I have a copy to trade. The materials for the project (the way I do it) run around $30 plus a load of my time and patience to get the cuts all square. It should be a good trade interest item.

July 6, 2007 - Game Night at the Game Shoppe

Friday night I trekked on down to the Game Shoppe in Bellevue for a bit of gaming. The plan was to met up with Justin Easley and play some Twilight Struggle and perhaps then try out Age of Empires III with some of the other gamers who already were planning to play Zooloretto. I arrived at the Game Shoppe around 6:00, and ended up exploring the shop for an hour - it turned out that Justin's child had been sick and he was unable to come out. This was the first time I had been out to the shop and I was surprised and happy to see a really decent assortment of games (though they did not have Imperial nor BattleLore Call to Arms). Being the bored impulse shopper that I am, I grabbed Gulo Gulo and No Thanks! for my family. Though I had been looking at the selection for nearly 40 minutes, I somehow missed that they had Blue Moon City sitting there, which I would have grabbed instead of Gulo Gulo - oh well. The shop manager Becky was very nice and the store has a huge wall of "demo" games, which she told me I was free to browse through if I was interested in the rule or bits of various games. Though I've played or seen most of the stuff on their wall, I was impressed that they had so many games available for people to play - including Shogun/Samurai Swords. Overall, I was quite happy to find such a nice store, though I really wish they had a store a bit closer to my side of town.

After a bit, a few other gamers arrived and started setting up Zooloretto. One of the gamers asked if I wanted to join them, as their 5th player didn't look like he was coming, and since I wanted to try Zooloretto out, I sat in. The players were Mike and his significant other Janelle, Bob (Ashitaka) and his girlfriend Isabelle and I. None of us had played before, so Bob explained the game, which is in essence Coloretto with nice bits instead of cards and slightly different scoring. The first game was a bit cautious as the gals hadn't played Coloretto before and seemed to be trying to work out the game mechanisms. In the end, Bob and I tied, but I lost the tie breaker as I had no money. The scores were sadly low: Janelle 3, Mike 11, Bob 15(win), Isabelle 12, Charles 15. What we missed was the extra two points per unique market stand on your board. Nobody had any clue what the score might have looked like since we discovered that a bit into our second game. I also misunderstood a rule - I thought you had to have matching stands in the one zoo area that takes two concession stands, so I never placed another one in that area and lost points. Ah well. About halfway through the game, the other guy (Dana) showed up. After finishing our game, Mike and Janelle headed out so the new guy joined. After debating we agreed to play Zooloretto again. This time out the first tiles were really good to me, and I got two trucks with the same three animals on them. I also managed to grab a good number of coins and avoided extra animals. Bob was not so lucky ended up with nearly one of each animal time in short order. This game was not close as I pulled away with the win. Final scores were Charles 29, Janelle 18, Bob 12, Dana 11.

After that I suggested Attika (I hadn't brought a load of games, and it was a bit late to try Age of Empires). Note, the box says 1 hour (60 minutes) but apparently if the game is a teaching game and one of the players has to be told to take his turn EVERY time the game easily run more like 2 hours of excruciating boredom. At any rate I explained the game and tried to point out some of the important details - take advantage of the building chains and board resources while they are available. The game started out very slowly for me - my capitol city was the last of my black stack. After that, I couldn't get the ships to finish my harbor nor any of the white buildings to chain off my blacks that I had in play. The easy two-structure sets never matched available resources on the board or my hand. After a couple hours of reminding Dana it was his turn, I finally noticed that Bob was likely to build all his buildings in a couple turns and then pointed out that he could end the game due to Dana placing a tile that game Bob immediate access to connecting two shrines. The odd thing about having to remind Dana to go the whole game was that he professed to really like Attika and wanted to play it again sometime. In many ways, his play and inability to pay attention to the game reminded me too much of Jerry* - it was spooky.

*AZ Boardgamers know exactly what I mean.

July 6, 2007 - Hansa Changing Winds

I just finished losing four games of Hansa: Changing Winds on MaBiWeb to MBW Sirrus (Miguel Villaverde?), MBW Elminster, Paolo Porfiri, and Gary Libby in the tournament. Its more than official now, I hate this variant. I also hate playing Hansa two-players. Its terrible. The first player has such a huge advantage over the other - they can run around the board, grabbing goods and creating markets such that the second player will be hard pressed not to give the first player money when they go to buy goods - essentially, the rich get richer because they got to start. The other thing is the crazy scoring at the end. In a two player game, the extra scoring makes a huge difference. Ending the game alone is a 6 pt swing either direction. Maybe I just suck at this version and I hate it because of that, but I'm not really likely to keep playing to find out. After 10 games of this version, I'm ready to quit trying. I'd be willing to print the map to play as an alternate map and with the double cost move rule, but not the alternate scoring.

July 3, 2007 - Samurai

Matthew Frederick, Tammy Smolka and I finally finished our rematch of Samurai on MaBiWeb. This time out, I never got a chance to get comfortable. It always felt like I was getting jobbed or wasting pieces while Tammy and Matthew got themselves into good positions. I somehow managed to get ahead in rice, but had few enough other pieces that I didn't think it mattered. Then as things started to tighten, I noticed I might have a slim shot at tying Matthew for hats, to keep him out of the race. As luck would have it, we nearly finished the board, but I was able to play my wild 3 Samurai to grab two pieces - one hat to tie Matthew in hats, and another rice. The extra hat not only took Matthew out of his majority, it gave me enough pieces to pass Tammy for the win. A very tight and exciting game.
Final scores (majorities - others - total):
Tammy: 1 - 4 - 8
Matthew: 0 - 8 - 8
Charles: 1 - 5 - 9

Random thoughts

I won an auction on Ebay for the first expansion map for Age of Steam - Ireland and England still in the shrink. Cost me $45 plus shipping, which isn't bad - most of the listings I've seen in the last year or so have run from $65-90 plus shipping. I didn't really want to spend $45 on a double sided piece of cardboard, but it'll never get printed again, and I think these two maps are a couple of the better ones.

I just started the second round of the tournament on MaBiWeb for Hansa: Changing Winds. I'm now 100% positive I hate this version. In the first round I was 2-2 and I'll be lucky to hit that again. The starting player has a pretty big advantage and unless luck goes against them, they are likely to get out in front and stay there. I don't want to play anymore, but I'm not going to just quit either. Bleh!

Still not happy with the look of the blog, but Blogger.com's new xml template system blows. I've been trying and trying to get it to look the way I want, but its just not happening.

Just when I thought I was nearly done with trading, there is YAMT (yet another math trade) going on. I was 100% sure it would be full of crap from the last two Tangathons. Surprise - its actually not. There is a surprising number of things I haven't seen before as a well a good number of things I'd be happy to acquire. I've already put in Lord of the Rings, Downtown, and an extra copy of Vegas Showdown. I'm pretty sure I now need to go back and throw a few more things out there. I'll for sure add Chizo Rising and maybe Ingenious (and then I can get a new copy - mine is used). Part of the problem? I'm running out of things to trade - I really have got my collection down to things I want to keep. I'm certainly willing to try and trade a game I can re-purchase, in order to get a more expensive game or out of print game. The other part is that I don't really want to list a game (like Niagra) that is already on the list three times. I might do it just to try and upgrade something.

Conversations of No Interest

I've recently met a new gamer that reminds me a lot of myself when I first started gaming. We started talking about about games, and we agreed to share the conversation as a post here on my blog.

Justin:
Let's start with a topic before we get to games. This will help me to understand your reasoning behind the games you like and the comments you make on future posts and likewise for you with me.

This has been a hot topic in my family and will mostly likely introduce me to games as you mention titles in defense of your posts - while there are many genres of games, if we boiled gaming down to very simple terms the gamer must figure out which end of the "luck" spectrum of he enjoys most. On one side, there are games that are all strategy and on the other end you have games that are driven by the luck of the die or the drawing of a card. the gray matter in between is where most gamers find themselves, though typically erring towards one side. Where do you find yourself? Closer to strategy or closer to luck? Does it change depending on who you are playing with or how many people are playing? Luck or strategy?

Charles:
I'm going to rephrase before I answer - "How much randomness are you willing to accept in a game?". The answer is - it depends. Nobody wants to simply play a game of chance - if so, game conventions would be a boring mess of people sitting around flipping coins and cutting cards and cheering. On the other hand, take for instance - card games like Hearts, Spades, Oh Hell!, Tichu, Frank's Zoo, etc. - All of these games have a lot of randomness. However, the randomness is mitigated by good play. Not 100% of the time, but far more often than not. That's part of the equation. Can my skill overcome my opponent and the randomness?

The other part, is how much do I invest in the game? If, for instance, I play a game for more than 30 minutes and in the end, it comes down to who drew the last special card, then why bother playing? Let's draw cards until someone gets a special card and go play something fun. My one experience with Killer Bunnies was like that - it didn't really matter what you did, because in the end it was a lottery. I'll happily play something like Parcheesi or Backgammon, where the game's outcome in a lot of ways depends on the dice, but also depends on the skill of the player AND when the investment in the game is not so great that you care when luck goes against you. So the answer is - it depends. It depends on the game and whom I'm playing against. When I play with my wife, I can take a bit more randomness, because I play against the system as much as her - this gives me some satisfaction when I win and I don't feel too bad when I lose. (wow, that sounded condescending. I meant that more along the lines of she will be the first to admit she just likes to play and not spend her time "strategizing". She can usually jump on a tactical opening, but she'll admit when she wins its not usually because she out gamed me.)

What about you? What is your gaming preference?

Justin:
In my family, there are three of us that love boardgames:

Darin (BGG - gamehaus), my brother-in-law. He introduced me and my wife to games. He loves strategy games, his favorite game is Go. 100% strategy - no dice or drawing cards. If you lose, it's because you didn't play as well as your opponent. He once said that he applied the strategies of Go to the way he makes decisions at work - there's always a constant forward thinking on what your opponent will do if you go here or there. He also introduced me to Puerto Rico - my first taste of euro games, and while there was still an element of luck (drawing the goods), it was very much strategy driven.

Jason (BGG - the gamebler), my oldest of three brothers, started out as a gamer that was in it to find games that would make everyone in the room either yelp in victory or hide their face in their hands as they just saw the dice roll a "one" to end the game - and he also enjoyed the shorter games. However, recently he's been playing games that involve more strategy and take a bit longer and I think he's changed his opinion.

I always thought I was a lot like Darin - but after playing games like Arkham Horror and Battle Cry, I realized I could have just as much fun with a game that involved more dice or cards. I'm typically a bit more of an analysis paralysis gamer, so it can take me a bit longer to make moves, but when you involve a little luck, I don't feel as much pressure and it seems to keep things moving along.

If I had to choose a side, I guess I would be more apt to enjoy the game that had as little randomness as possible. However, if the amount of luck in a game can be controlled by your strategy, I'm all for it. I am slowly losing some of my obsession with strategy. I haven't played many games I don't like, probably because I typically avoid most games that look like they'll be mostly luck-driven. I think I have a decent grasp on my interests at this point. Now that I'll start gaming with a group of people with varying interests, I'll be more willing to play games I usually wouldn't!!

Charles:
My collection sort of reflects my tastes, which is to say - varied. I have some lighter games that have a bit of randomness and some longer games that are pure strategy. I also have a couple longer ones with some randomness (Manifest Destiny and History of the World come to mind) and some shorter pure strategy games. When I first started playing and collecting, I'd grab anything that sounded fun, but I stopped that when I'd find out a game wouldn't get played by my group. At that point, I just started trying to round out my collection more and finding games that I liked, even if nobody else did. I think I've found a happy medium - I have games that real gamers will enjoy, as well as those that someone that would never think twice about playing something that wasn't as simple as Yahtzee. I'm also willing to guess that most people getting into this hobby are strongly influenced by the people they play with and their preferences as well. Luckily, the group I played with had wildly varying tastes and game collections. A number of them had been playing for years and I got to sample a bit of everything. I really grew to appreciate a number of different games from different genres.

About the only games I never played (and I just don't really care to) are true wargames - loads of chits with obscure symbols just don't excite me very much. I've had some curiosity about a few block games (Wizard Kings and Rommel in the Desert), but I'm not sure that they aren't just wargames with wooden chits ;). I like pure strategy games, as there is a lot of personal satisfaction in beating other skilled players. However, there doesn't seem to be too many games like that that are also short. Plus, as fun as they are, they can also be taxing. Sometimes its nice to play a lighter game that gives you a chance to be a bit more social. If I just wanted to play games to be playing, I could play online all the time and never really need to sit at the table with someone.

Justin:
You're right - you are influenced by those you game with. I think that's why I've found myself somewhere in between my brother and brother-in-law, Jason and Darin - enjoying mostly longer, strategic games - but quickly finding out that I need some of those shorter, lighter games to break up the slow, taxing sessions.

Charles:
When I first started playing games with the AZ Boardgamers, it took me close to 5 months before I played the same game twice. In that time frame, there was only one night where I played only one or two games. I spent one night playing Conquest of the Empire, and while I loved it, I was really upset that I only got that one game in that night. I spent the next month playing loads of games, trying to get as many in during a playing session as I could and avoiding anything heavy or long. After a while, the fluff got to me and I started to get a little more balance in. I'm going to guess you'll end up in the same area - it'll depend on what you've played recently and who you've played with.

My Top 10 June 2007

About every 6 months or so, I revise my top 10 list. As you can see (if you are really astute) there has been an update to the Top 10 games listed on the right side. Here are my thoughts about the rankings:

	1) Age of Steam. I've liked this one better than Power Grid for a while and finally just gave in and gave it my top spot. After not playing for 6+ months, I got to teach the game to a couple guys the other night. This is still my top game.
	2) Power Grid. I really enjoy Power Grid, because it incorporates a number of mechanism that I think are easy to understand (auction, supply and demand, jockeying for position) and have been mixed together quite well. This game plays equally well with any number from 3-5. I dropped it only slightly, because with six players, the randomness of the power plants negatively effects the game. Its also fiddly in managing the goods track and to a lesser extent, the power plants - though a single person can easily handle those portions of the game. The rest is easy enough for a beginner to quickly pick up and its still a great game. I'm looking forward to the new power plant cards coming out at the end of the year.
	3) A Game of Thrones (plus expansions). The third place is still the same. This is one freaking great wargame. Nearly no luck and all strategy makes this a nearly perfect. Everyone's house plays differently, yet the game is really well balanced. It also captures the flavor of one of the best fantasy series exceptionally well. This would be number one if it didn't take 5+ hours to play.
	4)Torres. Still at #4, still don't own this. I really really should. I should also play this more, as I really enjoy it. The action point system and the spatial system really connect with me (it probably why I also enjoy Java and Taluva).
	5)Twilight Struggle. New to the list this time around. I really like this one, despite the length. It just oozes theme and is really fun. I wish I knew how to make it play a bit faster. There are a few cards that can really unbalance the game, but they are there on both sides. Much as in the real Cold War, a little luck and smart play will usually win out.
	6)Tichu. This is my favorite trick taking game, and I like it with either 4 or 6. I have got to find some people to play this.
	7) Samurai. A great Knizia game that took me a while to understand the 3-player strategy. I still have no grasp on the 4 player strategies. Even the two-player game is fun. I've been playing a load on MaBiWeb. This one looks great when its set up and is entertaining no matter the number of players. I'm going to try working on some new maps for playing face to face.
	8) Carcassonne The Castle. Dropping down to #8 from 5. This is probably my favorite two player game. Knizia's take on the Carc franchise is very well done. Its pretty simple to learn and has enough to it to make you think a bit. I wish regular Carcassonne was this entertaining.
	9) Ingenious. Hmm, three Knizia's in my top 10? Well, there are a load of games that could make number 10 in my list depending on the day - today it moved up a spot. This one plays equally well with 2-4. The more I play it, the more I like this one.
	10) Antike. I miss playing this one. Fast and furious and good "lite" Civ style game. A lot of people claim the end game drags on, but I have yet to play a game where I found that to be true.

The Mystery is Revealed!

Ok, so I got my mystery 3-pack of games and I have to admit, I'm a little disappointed. Not that I was expecting a gold mine of games, but I was hoping for one gem in the bunch. As one Tanga-poster said - "I look at it this way - I got 3 games for $7 each, which is cheaper than going to three movies, and I'll probably get more entertainment out of the games even if I only play them once or twice."

Ok, that may be true. OR I might just not ever play those games, in which case, I wasted my $20. The thing that really bothers me is that previously, Tanga Mystery games had been decent games. The types of games we received were all things that would have gone out as a CHEAPER mystery pack. Unfortunately for Tanga, I will be among the many that will not go out on a limb for a mystery pack again.

The games I received were:
Double or Nothing - This is a nothing special Kniza game that should be ok with non-gamers.
Ostrakon - A light party game where the idea is to correctly guess the opinion of the group.
Ice Lake - This actually turned out to look like the most interesting of the bunch. Players write out their skater's movement plan (left, right, straight) in secret then take turns moving (ala Roborally), with the idea being that the ice is thin and where you go leaves a "crack" (marked with erasable pens) in the ice. The goal is to surround your opponent and make them fall in (I guess).

So, nothing terrible, but I wouldn't have purchased any of these on their own. These games average a 5.88 (just below - "Ok game, will play sporadically if in the mood"), with the high being Ostrakon at 6.1. If one of these games had been a solid 7 (even if I owned or didn't want to own) I, and I think most of the disappointed Mystery Pack owners wouldn't have been disappointed.

June 23, 2007 - Oh Hell!

My parents, Steve and Cathy Hasegawa, came over to play some cards. After my kids were in bed, they suggested we play "the bid game" - known to the rest of the world as Oh Hell! The seating was myself, my mother, then my father. We started with 16 cards each, planning to work our way down to 1 (I'm not sure why you don't go the other way, there is no tension in the last couple hands if you work your way down). As we reached the midpoint of the game, I had built up a good lead. We took a short break, at which point my dad asked to switch places with my mother. He was convinced that she had been hosing him with her bidding the whole game. Of course, we switched and dealt the hand of 8 cards. My mother (who is annoyed now), promptly bids 6 (as it turned out, she had no cards under a 10 in her hand, but she also only had a single trump). I was thinking about bidding 3, because of A-K-J in non-trump + 2 middle trump. Know that my mother would lead, I let her have her 6 bid, and bid 1. My mother lead a card and I end up taking the trick with a 7, giving me my one trick! I lead a low trump and won again, because my mother had no trump left. Frustrated, I said - why did you build 6!?!? At which point, my dad busts up laughing (which he did not stop for 10 minutes). My mother, not happy about being laughed at then quit. I'm not real sure I'd have bid 6 with her hand, maybe 4. My dad didn't care, he felt justified that his low score was my mother's fault. Me? I was winning, so I'm claiming the win.

Forgive the mess

I apologize as the look of this page jumps around a bit. I hated the way the page layout was and I want the display to be wider - I'm planning to expand the template to post to 1000 rather than 800. And if you still run at 600x800 or whatever, grow up and join the modern era of monitors bigger than 15" - the defacto should be 1024, not 800.

Hansa - Winds of Change review

As posted on the BGG
Overview
I've enjoyed playing Hansa since I discovered it - it plays quickly and while there are choice, its not a game that will cause a player to sit all night deciding on their move. When I heard there was an expansion map, I was excited, because I could see the limited replay ability of the first. At first glance, this map looks nearly the same - it not, its actually considerably different. A number of the direction arrows have been reversed, new lanes have been added and this map allows you to move against the direction of the arrow by paying double the move cost. There are also new scoring rules - the additional scoring also makes for much different considerations. The end scoring is ala Hansa Extrakarte, which after a few playings, I'm pretty sure is not all that great. In fact, the scoring seems to reward the leader more than it helps bring a player who is behind back up. Still, this is a worthy option for fans of Hansa. Its always nice to have a bit of difference in a game you enjoy.
Components
At this time, this is a print and play - I've not seen where this has been printed yet. It is available as an option in online play at MaBiWeb.
Highs
- New map with new options is a breath of fresh air to Hansa fans.
Lows
- The Extrakarte scoring can lead to a runaway leader.
- The first time you play this map, expect to make mistakes ;)
Misc.
As I said, if you want to play this, you need to print out the JPG image available here or go play online at MaBiWeb. I recommend the latter to get a feel for if you want to spend the time printing and putting together this new map.
Conclusion
I've downgraded my rating for this and Hansa to a 6/10. Luck drives this game far to much, and while its always been light tactical fare, the new scoring rules don't help mitigate that. If anything, I'd rate this map slightly below the original. I think the current rating (7.4) is only this high due to the newness and once that wears off, the ratings should come back down to earth.

June 23, 2007 - Hansa Winds of Change

Last of my pool games finished up with something of a lopsided win. I managed to get markets all over the board for ties or ownership and I never seemed to give up that position. Combined with a bit of luck and I snuck out to a lead that never was in Jeopardy. I finally wrote up a review of this map - I just don't care for it that much - it has a runaway leader problem and amplifies the luck. At any rate, the final score was:
R. N. Dominick: 43
Charles: 80

Game Night

Friday June 22, 2007
Tonight I hosted a small game night. I had invited a couple guys I had been in contact with from the boardgame geek as well as my friend Steve Wicklund from work. Joining us was Justin Easley. We started the night with a playing of Taluva, which Steve and I wanted to try with three players after playing a rash of two-players games of this. The game was definitely more interesting, and Steve surprised himself with a win.

After that, Justin wanted to learn Age of Steam. I pulled out the France map and set about explaining the game. Though a bit overwhelming at first, they dove right in. At the end of the first turn, we realized that we had overlooked the importance of Paris (Paris gets half of all the good production in the game, in addition to taking every color good, except black). We agreed that we should start over (besides, it worked out to be a good introduction to the flow of the game). Once we got going, it got interesting. Being new, Justin and Steve built a bit randomly at first (though Steve immediately took away what I was planning to do first turn out). Despite their initial hickups, the game stayed tight for the first few turns - Steve was the first to turn a profit. After 4-5 turns, I had setup and started running moves of 5 and then 6. This allowed me to pull ahead, though Steve and Justin stayed close. In fact, Steve started having to move 3s and 4s (he just ran out of options). Justin stayed close, moving a good number of 4s and 5s. With income reduction, I never pulled too far away. Then, towards the mid-end game, Justin and I started having to feed Steve a point or two each move in order to keep up with each other. On the last two turns, Steve clawed back in with multiple deliveries of 6, while Justin and I continued to get 5s (one point of which went to Steve). In the end, Justin's lack of track cost him second place, while Steve and I ended up being pretty close in track. My slim income lead allowed me the victory.

And I would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for those meddling kids!

Who doesn't love a good mystery? Well, whomever the mystery doesn't work out for, that's who. Last night's Tangathon finished up with me making two purchases - one being the long awaited Age of Empires III. A quick check of online retailers came up with this:

Time Well Spent 1 left, $42+shipping

Boulder Games OOS, $42+shipping

Fairplay OOS $42+shipping

Funagain In-stock $54+shipping

Thoughthammer OOS $42+shipping

Tanga Age of Empires III = $42 including shipping for me.

So, not only did I get a decent price, I actual am going to get the game (of course, then I found out you can get another color set of pieces, so I know I'll end up ordering those at some point.

Anyway, back to the title of the post. Prior to the long awaited AoEIII, Tanga put up the old Mystery 3-pack. Being the sucker I am, I got one. Last time around, people claimed to have received some really good games - Ra, Samurai, Amun Re, Ricochet Robots, For Sale, etc. Previous mysteries have been less than enthusiastically received, but they were also cheaper. Only time will tell if I got a deal or not.

June 20, 2007 - As Blogged on My BGG Blog

My Collection
Vegas Showdown
Cluzzle
Oasis
Monsters Menace America
Return of the Heroes
Die Macher
Under the Shadow of the Dragon
Notre Dame
Hoity Toity

What do all these games have in common? They are all games I picked up from Tanga. For those just joining us, Tanga is a site that offers a daily sale special of somewhat random things. Of special interest to the boardgame community is the fact that often the daily sale is a boardgame. Of all these, Vegas Showdown, Die Macher, Notre Dame and Cluzzle would have likely been purchased at some point, regardless. Possibly Return of the Heroes and the expansion. So why the others? They were fairly cheap. Oasis looked decent, MMA fit my AH/Hasbro collection, Hoity Toity might play ok with family.

What it really boils down to though is that I like buying games. I like my game collection. I like when non-gamers come to my house and see my wall of games. I don’t feel a crazy urge to own every game out there, but there are still games I desire to own. I feel “comfortable” with my collection. I have some good gamer games and good non-gamer “gateway” games. I have a few children games. I have abstract games and theme games. Near-wargames and Eurogames and Ameritrash games. I have dexterity games and card games and dice games (no, I don’t have Bunco, which is not a game at any rate). I have games that are good for 2-8 players (and a few that probably qualify as solo).

Despite my continued acquisition of games, my collection growth has slowed down quite a bit in the last 6-8 months. There was a point where I felt like there was a lot of gaps in what I owned. Now I don’t quite have the same compulsion. I have a lot of really good games in my collection. At one point, I started getting a lot of games that sounded good, without playing them. A lot of those have been traded away in math trades (to the point that I have very little I feel like parting with anymore). I still have some games that are only in my collection because they were on clearance – Niagra, Roborally, Who’s the Boss, etc that I plan to rid myself of at some point. My buying now seems more aimed at completing the gaps in my collection (a few Alea big box games are still missing from my collection), grabbing the really hot games that have gotten good feedback., grabbing things that are not likely to get printed again (Railroad Tycoon, Conquest of Empires, Formula De), and getting expansions (Age of Steam maps, Battlelore, Heroscape, etc) – my list of Games Acquired in 2007 supports this.

So why bother blogging about this? There currently is Tangathon going on. Normally, Tanga lists a single item each day and when it sells out, you wait till the next day. During the Tangathon, they appear to try and get rid of excess inventory by running multiple listings – when an item sells out, a new one appears (it also looks like a new one appears if a listing sits for a long time). Us game collectors love bargains – have no fear, we will usually spend the dough for a hard to get item or really nice game, but in the end we love bargains. That’s why there are so many thrift store lists on the BGG. Now, the argument goes that Tanga is not a bargain (at least its not cheaper than any of the other deep-discount online sellers), because you can’t get free shipping like you can with some online stores. True, but the online stores require you to purchase (typically) over $125 worth of merchandise to get the free shipping. At any rate, I’ve been spending too much time watching the listings at Tanga, trying to get a bargain or two. I was one of about 4 people to snag Notre Dame. I’ll be the first to admit I wouldn’t have normally grabbed this (despite it being an Alea /RG big box game), but I had spent the time and I felt obligated to myself to get something out of this .

The funny part about the whole Tangathon is that a lot of folks are just waiting for the primo listing – Age of Empires III. Apparently, the site “borked” up just prior to the Tangathon kicking off and a few folks got a glimpse at some of what was coming and the prices. Now everyone is waiting to see it (and I’m sure, getting a few things that they wouldn’t normally grab). Hopefully, I don’t give in and grab a few things I don’t really need.

June 18, 2007 - Hansa Changing Winds Tourney

Another pool game. My opponent this time was Corey Malczewski (hardcore). I went second again, but this time the luck fell on me and I was able to both cover the board with markets as well as scoop up a good number of goods, scoring in little blitzes. With a tight score, I was able to end the game (I counted correctly this time) and grab a few more points, pushing me out in front for the win. Final scores - Corey: 55, Charles: 65

June 18, 2007 - Hansa Changing Winds Tourney

Finished another game in my pool, suffering another loss. At least this game was closer, though I still was behind most of the game. At the end, I thought i had a chance, but I miss counted and when I tried to end the game, I came up 1 short, allowing my opponent - Justin Green (shumyum) to end the game after another turn. That alone was a 6-pt swing. Not sure if I could have won if I had ended it, but it would have been close. Final score:
Justin: 71, Charles: 62.

I'm getting a better handle on the new Hansa map, but I'm decidedly against Hansa as a two player game - the luck is far to prevailing. Three players is definitely the sweet spot for Hansa.

June 17, 2007 - As Blogged on My BGG Blog

Things I Just Don't Understand on the BGG
Why are some games split and others not. Why are there 354165432^2 editions of Monopoly and yet there isn't a separate listing for the Decennial edition of El Grande. There was, prior to the game coming out, but then they got merged. That makes no sense whatsoever. My version of El Grande is very different from someone with the original. Not a small difference, like German vs English printing. If I list El Grande in a math trade, what is the first thing that will get asked? Which edition?

There are all kinds of inconsistencies like this on the geek. How about Twilight Imperium? This has 3 listings - one for each version. This makes sense, since the versions are substantially different. Cosmic Encounter does not, despite the vast differences between the Eon, Mayfair and AH/Hasbro versions.

How about Ave Caesar? The original has different maps than the new release. QJett is essentially the same game as the original, but the pieces and theme make it really different - should it have a separate entry? Why not? Monopoly does.

What about Hoity Toity? It and Adel Verpflichtet are lumped together, despite different publishers, packages, and contents (including the fact that HT plays 6 players). It is a different game - why not allow it its own entry?

The new Age of Steam has a new entry (3rd ed), yet the first and second editions are still lumped together (ok I know, 1st and 2nd were really just printings with a few minor corrections, so this is ok). But if the changed rules etc for AoS3ed warrant its own entry, why not Conquest of the Empire? The re-issue of Conquest is pretty different (in nearly every way) from the original Milton Bradley Game Master version.

I guess if I had a choice, I would vote that editions of the game that are different (i.e. not a reprinting with corrected rules or including the scenarios on the internet ala C&C:Ancients or Twilight Struggle) should have their own entry. Let us list our collections correctly. As for the language question (is this the English, German, or Dutch printing of Union Pacific?) - maybe the entries should have a some sort of additional metadata so when I list C&C:Ancients, I can select 2nd ed, or I can select English on my copy of Traders of Genoa.

June 17, 2007 - Hansa

This game was part of pool play in the MaBiWeb Changing Winds tournament. My opponent was Lindsay Scholle and I got killed. I'm still figuring out a few things about the new map, and its hurting badly. This game saw me watching as Lindsay racked up points each turn. When I had a chance for points, it typically meant setting up my opponent for enough points to negate my turn. I finally ended the game and the scores were:
Lindsay: 63
Charles: 44

Friendless

No, that doesn't mean I have no friends. I ran across a post by Brian Bankler (of The Tao of Gaming) about extended BGG stats by John Farrell. My results are at here .

So here is some "analysis" of my stats. First the things that don't make sense. Time spent playing is bogus. This is based of the listed playing time. For example, A Game of Thrones is by no means a three hour game, yet this is how its listed. If everyone knows what they are doing, a 6-player game is at least 4+ hours. AT LEAST. Nothing wrong with that, its a super game, but I can't fathom how you'd ever play this in three hours. The time section is a little meaningless to me.

Favorite categories was interesting to me, but the breakdown was odd. It shows me having 9 war games (don't tell that to a GROGNARD, since nothing I own really qualifies as that in their mind). It also only shows 9 expansions (that's wrong, I counted 27, NOT including Heroscape).

The most unusual games I own is a listing of games that have the fewest user rankings (I guess). Not sure why someone would bother ranking something like Pitchcar Special Long Straights, but whatever.

Now the interesting stats. Starting with Most Played Games I Don't Own.

Name	My Rating	Plays	Used to Own?
Pickomino		4
Yinsh	7.0	3	Y
Backgammon	7.0	3
Byzantium	6.5	3	Y
C&C:Ancients		5
Torres	9.0	5	Y
Blue Moon	6.5	5	Y
Havoc: the Hundred Years War	4.0	5	Y

Of these, I would re-acquire Yinsh and possibly Blue Moon. Yinsh is a great abstract two-player game. Blue Moon was interesting, but I think it really needs a lot of playings before the fun comes out. At some point, I will own Torres, Backgammon, and C&C:Ancients. Torres is a super game and for the life of me, I don't know why I don't own this game. Backgammon is just one of those things I'll get in time. C&C:Ancients is one of those where I need to have a regular playing partner first I think. Pickomino was a gift for my mother, but I'm indifferent about owning it myself. Maybe when the kids are elementary school age and are working on their math. The others I do not want anything to do with. Byzantium sounded so good on paper, but wasn't as much fun when you actually played it. Actually, it was fun, but the endgame was disappointing especially after 3 hours. Havoc was just not good.

According to the list, here are the top 5 games I should play soon (all of which I own):

El Grande - yep, I do need to play this. I also need 4 other players first :(

Funkenschlag Atolla Modulis - Hey, I spent all that time making this didn't I?

Conquest of the Empire - this will probably stay in the shrink for a long time.

Vegas Showdown - this does need to get some play time.

San Juan - this needs some play time too (so do a lot of a games ;) )

June 12, 2007 - Samurai

Finished an interesting 3-player game of Samurai on MaBiWeb with Matthew Frederick and Tammy Smolka. Tammy is still learning the ins and outs of the game, so Matthew and I spent a lot of the game jumping on every chance we got to load up. In the end though, the best I could do was try for a tie. Tammy had the last move and ended the game with nobody having a one majority and Matthew and I tied with the same number of pieces.
Final Score (majorities, other, total):

Tammy: 0 - 5 - 5
Charles: 0 - 10 - 10
Matthew: 0 - 10 - 10

June 9, 2007 - Crokinole

We had some friends stop over for pizza after we all went to the circus and in showing off our new dinning room table, I also got to show off my Crokinole board. Jason Roewert showed some interest, so we sat down and I taught him to play. Of course, since I own the board, I should probably practice on the thing, as he soundly defeated me 100(+) to 45. Ah well - he really liked it and I'm sure we'll sneak in a game anytime he comes over.

June 9, 2007 - Hansa Wandering Winds

I wanted to try out this map again after getting crushed in my last outing. This time up, I played a 3-player game with Tammy Smolka and Matthew Frederick on MaBiWeb. I started out just grabbing goods and setting up markets until I ran out of markets, then I got lucky and had three turns where I was able to grab three goods tokens of the same color and sell those off. I also was in position to end the game and score additional bonus points. In the end, I scored 10 more bonus points than Matthew and Tammy and my lucky run of goods at the end of the game made the scores look more lopsided than I felt it was. That's the one thing with Hansa, there is a good portion of luck. If you are in good position to grab goods, but the markets are full of 1-barrel or mis-matched colors, there isn't much for you to do.
Final Score -
Tammy: 29
Matthew : 46
Charles: 63

June 7, 2007 - Samurai

Rubber Match between Matthew Frederick and I. Our previous head to head matches were split, as we figured out the differences in play for two-players. This time out, I tried for a cautiously aggressive game. After I few turns, I decided that unless Matthew changed the way he was attacking the board, I'd try to set things up such that I could end the game by eliminating one of the types from the board. This appeared that it might work, as I tried to feed Matthew pieces of the type he already had a majority in (buddhas). Near the end, I felt like I had a good shot at ending the game in two turns, unless Matthew had some move I couldn't see. Unfortunately for him, he tried for an extra hat and fed me another rice piece giving me majorities in rice and hats. My next move took the last two hats off the board ending the game. I've said it before, but I really like this game. I really enjoy that it plays quite differently for 2-3-4 players.

June 5, 2007 - Samurai

Back for more I tell you. After getting beaten by Matthew in our last two player game, I was determined to have a better showing in the re-match on MaBiWeb. This time out, I started very aggressively, trying not to allow Matthew to be efficient in the use of his pieces. I hoped that I wouldn't find myself at the end of the game without the ability to do anything. As it turned out, we burned through all the hat pieces in record time, and I was able to get the last piece off the table ending the game with each of us having one majority, but myself having more other pieces 5 to 3. The tie-breaker is coming.

June 3, 2007 - Samurai

In an effort to destroy my winning percentage in Samurai, I asked Matthew Frederick to play a two player game of Samurai with me. I wanted to get a handle on how this plays two-player. Matthew and I played the game out fairly evenly, however I made a mistake at the end of the game that cost me the win. My impression after playing loads of 3-4 player games is that a two player contest is likely to come down to the end game position. Its tense, but the "screwage" factor is more limited.

May 31, 2007 - Crokinole

I finally got to play my board last night (you know - this one):




At any rate, I don't even want to post the scores as my wife just killed me. It took me a little while to get the hang of flicking the disks around in the general direction that I wanted. Stephanie also managed to land in the center about 4 times, which I NEVER managed to do :(. She won easily 100-20. I think I'd rather play with the alternate scoring (basically you get 1 or 2 pts a round for winning that round and play to a set number like 8 or 12) so that you don't get those crazy runaway rounds.

I want to play this with four players, as I imagine that the team version is a blast.

May 24, 2007 - Samurai

Finished a 3-player game on MaBiWeb with Matthew Frederick and newcomer Tammy Smolka. This game played out fairly straight forward, though Tammy didn't play overly aggressively - leaving Matthew and I to attack each other. Near the end of the game, Matthew made a swap which allowed me to grab the last of the hat pieces and end the game.

Final scores: (majorities - other - total)
Matthew : 1 - 4 - 8
Charles: 1 - 5 - 8
Tammy: 0 - 5 - 5

May 25, 2007 - Taluva and BattleLore

Steve and I managed to get a few more games in tonight. We started with a couple games of Taluva. Taluva is a newer game that is probably best described as Java lite. The pieces are the same shape as the Java pieces - 3 hexes in a y-shape. Players take turns placing one of the pieces and then playing one of their hut, temples, or tower pieces. The goal is to rid yourself of two of the three types of pieces (or assuming that nobody does so, getting more of your temples placed). If you can't place a piece, you automatically lose. Having never played before, I had no advantage over Steve and we split our two games played.

We then went ahead and got BattleLore out and picked up where we left off the other night playing the third scenario of the game - Burgos, Castile. Neither of us had much luck under the Fleur de Lis banner as we split the games 6-4 each time. Both times the Banner of the Lion had the luck of the cards and was able to use the goblin cavalary to hurt the opposition.

May 22, 2007 - BattleLore

Well, I'm on a training excursion out of town for a few days, and I brought along a couple games - Taluva, Jambo, Hera and Zeus (all new), Twilight Struggle, and BattleLore. I had wanted to play Twilight Struggle, but there just isn't anywhere in the hotel that I think we can play. I talked Steve Wicklund into playing something with me, and introduced him to BattleLore. It'd been a while since I last played, and of course I had to try and remember all the differences between BL and all the other Borg-C&C games. So, the first playing we of course mis-played a number of rules. At any rate, Steve had a good time and we played the first two scenarios out switching sides after each for a total of 4 games.

The first scenario - Agincourt - I managed to lose as the Lion Standard 2-4 and then as the Fleur-de-Lis Standard 2-4. Steve had the charge card to start that second game and the fact that I scored anything was due to pure luck.

The second scenario for the night was First Chevauchee. Here the luck went my way a lot, as I managed an easy 5-2 win under the Lion Standard. I was really hoping for a shutout, but in pushing that hard I left two units vulnerable and Steve snagged them before I could finish him off. As we switched, luck didn't change and I won 5-3.

Neither scenarios offer anything more than the basic system, but since we have a few more nights I figured it'd work out easiest to let Steve get used to the system before we throw in the Lore. If we play again tomorrow, we'll likely jump ahead to the 5th scenario - Wizards and Lore to get a feeling for the additional complexities.

May 21, 2007 - Hansa: Wechselnde Winde (Changing Winds)

They introduced a mod to Hansa on MaBiWeb - the Changing Winds Map. While at first glance, there appear to only be superficial changes, the board has moved good stacks, and changed the directionality of a couple routes in addition to adding new routes and new scoring. You can also pay double if you want to go in the reverse direction of a route. The new scoring would be enough to consider, but all the changes were too much for my little brain. This game was with Seth Jaffee and Matthew Frederick. Seth is a gamer from Tucson that I met last year at the PhoenixConGames and an able gamer. I had mis-read the map and spent the first couple turns trying to adjust and keep up. Far too late I realized I had no idea what the strategy on this map was. Towards the end, I missed that I could have ended the game and Seth grabbed a huge 20 points on the last turn plus bonuses. End scores:
Seth: 64, Matthew 44, Charles 39 (booooo).

May 20, 2007 - Samurai

My streak of not winning 4-player games of Samurai continues. I checked my stats on MaBiWeb (where I just finished this last game) and I am now 1-9 in 4-player games. I've been really bad about being efficient with my tokens. I pulled down 10 pieces, but only 5 were outside my majority. This game was played with Kirk Bauer, Matthew Frederick, Mike Gingold and myself and was tight most of the way. Final scores (majorities - others - total):
Charles: 1-5-10
Kirk: 0-8-8
Matthew: 1-6-10
Mike Gingold: 0-8-8

May 12, 2007 - Samurai

We completed yet another game of Samurai on MaBiWeb. This was a three player game between myself, Matthew Frederick and Kirk Bauer. We choose our starting hands and the scoring was public. I played something of an opportunistic game, with most of my focus aimed at the big city. I did an effective job of grabbing pieces where I could and avoided helping the other guys get pieces when they had obviously wrapped up the influence. A little luck in my draws kept my hand full of pieces that were useful nearly every turn. I felt very confident that I couldn't get stopped, but on the last turn, Kirk grabbed two pieces and closed the gap.
Final Score (majorities-others-totals):
Charles: 1 - 6 - 10
Kirk: 1 - 5 - 9
Matthew: 1 - 3 - 7

May 10, 2007 Hansa

Finished another game of Hansa on MaBiWeb as well. This was a three player game with Matthew Frederick and Mike Gingold. One of the reasons I've found this game to be interesting, is that you have to balance 3 things - placing markets, getting and selling goods, and denying goods to the other players. This game was interesting to me in that the goods came out such that I almost always had a good selection of goods available to me such that I could get 5+ barrels of the same color each turn easily. What I've also found in the past held true for me this game as well - when I get goods greedy, I don't score well. For almost every good move I had, Matthew ended up having better ones on his turn. In addition, he was able to get markets down nearly across the board - I spent a lot of cash in places he held the market, so I fed him far too much money as the game went on. It also meant he had far too many cities to himself at the end of the game, as evidenced by the scores.

Final score:
Charles: 47
Mike: 36
Matthew F: 59

May 10, 2007 Samurai

Another game of MaBiWeb Samurai finished up! This time around, Matthew Frederick and Mike Gingold joined me. We decided to just play with scoring open, since you can go back and read the log at anytime to figure out the scoring. I set this one up to let us pick our tiles this time (since Matthew had a few games under his belt to remind him of how to play). The game started simply enough with my grabbing of 4 Buddhas. Matthew was grabbing rice, and Mike had a hat majority. about 2/3 of the way through, I made a bad play and ended up grabbing a Buddha that I was pretty sure I wouldn't need right after I did it. Bah! In the end, I was pretty sure that I was not going to be able to overcome Mike, but I mis-calculated the turns and Matthew ended the game (I thought Mike would get another turn). When the dust settled, Matthew and I tied. The game online proclaimed us both winners, though I believe the real rules say the opposite - no winners! Either way, it was well played and fun.
Final score (majorities-other-total):

Charles: 1 - 4 - 9
Matthew: 1 - 4 - 9
Mike: 0 - 8 - 8

The Continuing Saga of the Poker Chip

I was looking around and ran across some new chips - Samurai Palace chips. These are clay chips and are really really sweet looking. But at $1.10 a chip (or more) I'm inclined to say no. If I won some money, maybe.

I went ahead and ordered a sample of Nexgen River poker chips. These seem to be the chip of choice for the crowd that wants a decent chip, but wants to label the chips. I'm leaning towards these now (though it appears that it might be a wait or hard to get some colors - apparently red, green and black are popular colors).

May 4, 2007 Samurai

Another game of Samurai finished on MaBiWeb. This one was a three player game between myself, Mike Gingold and Matthew Frederick. One thing I really like about Samurai, the dynamics between the three and four player games are really different. Some people complain that the four player version is too chaotic, but I don't think the chaos is too much. At any rate, I've been playing so many 4 player games that I think I forgot how to approach the three player ones. At any rate the three of us each had a majority in an area, but Mike made one of the best tactical plays I've seen yet and stopped the game by taking the last Buddha (taking a majority from me). Matthew had a huge number of hats, but only 3 other pieces and Mike easily won. Final scores (majorities - others - total)
Charles: 0 - 8 - 8
Matthew: 1 - 3 - 8
Mike: 1 - 5 - 8

Happy Birthday to me!

Back in February, my wife offered to get me a Crokinole board for Valentine's Day / my Birthday. I finally found one and ordered it. Should be on its way this week. This thing will look awesome on my wall. Here's the one I got - Notorious




UPDATE May 10, 2007

I received this yesterday. Its truly pretty. It is also quite slick. I need to get some wire so I can hang it from my wall (which I need to paint, but that requires I clean up my office and so on...) I can't wait to play this thing this weekend.

Happy Birthday Meredith

Not gaming related, but truly belonging to Things of No Interest ;)

May 1, 2007 Samurai

I started another game of Samurai on MaBiWeb and had a different set of opponents than the standard group I normally see. This time around the other gamers were: Matthew Frederick (back to screw me again), Mike Gingold, and Rob Smolka. I set this game up with random starting hands for everyone to get a bit of a change in pace. I did not have to go first this time around, and when the others left the big city alone, I went in. Things were going well, until late in the game, when I made the mistake of trying to pad my numbers rather than ensure I had a majority in one of the three areas. I recognized I had screwed up almost immediately, but there wasn't anything I could do to recover. In the end, I had a load of pieces, but no majorities in anything.
Final score (majorities - other tiles - total):
Matthew: 1 - 2 - 7
Charles: 0 - 10 - 10
Mike: 1 - 4 - 8 (winner)
Rob: 0 - 8 - 8

April 30, 2007 Hansa

Finished another game of Hansa on MaBiWeb with Dion Garner and Mike Gingold. I had a fortunate set of goods available on the first couple turns which I used to build up an early lead that held me through the end of the game. Final score: mikeg: 34, dion: 42, charles: 53

More on Poker Chips

So, I ordered a sample set of Turf Club chips and they were pretty much exactly as described on Board Games with Scott - which is to say - nice heft and sound, and completely non-slippery. The ridge detail on the face of the chip doesn't interfere with stacking and neither do the chips interlock like the really cheap plastic bicycle chips you played with as a kid. However, they are incredible as far as non-slippery - I took the stack of seven chips and tried to squeeze them to get them to "slip" and they won't even budge the smallest amount. However, I have a couple issues that keep me from calling these perfect. First - the colors. I like that they have a lot of colors, and the colors are solid on the edge. Too bad they used some non-standard colors (the $10 chip is light purple, $25 is green, but not vibrant green, rather an army drab, etc). The other thing is the price - $0.60-0.70 each. Since the graphic on them is so-so and I don't care for the colors, I'm not sold on these yet. For this price, I'm leaning towards something else. I was thinking about some A-J chips. They come in a load of colors and are cheap and I could sticker/label them. However after reading a bit more, turns out they are some of the slickest chips around. Add to that the fact that the center is flush, not recessed. Now, my last set was like that, and that's ok, but I'm still going to look around and see if I can find better.
BTW, I think I've settled on what I want to do for graphics on the chips - games. Age of Steam will hit a chip for sure. The logo is perfect for a round chip - probably on the red $5 chip. I'm not sure about the rest - possibly curving the Ticket to Ride logo for the $1. Some of it will be based on my favorite games, but also there has to be a definitive logo or representation. I could do the Ra figure on a chip easily. Power grid would be cool, if I could figure out WTF to use (a city?).

April 25, 2007 Samurai

Another Samurai game on MaBiWeb. Sadly, the previous game I had been in was with Jason Sato and never got started. This was in memory of Jason. The opponents were Dion Garner, Kirk Bauer, and new comer Matthew Frederick (new in the sense that I hadn't played him online prior to this). I got stuck going first (which I hate) and made a play towards the three-token city. Everyone else promptly struck at the same place and I felt that I had pretty much wasted my tokens there. I was able to claw my way into a 4 piece hold on hat tokens, but Matthew and Dion started playing nasty with each other and I was forced to take a hat on a turn I really wanted to take something else (I've learned that you pretty much have to have at least 5 of one of the three types if you expect to have a shot at winning in a 4-player game). Because of that missed opportunity, I ended up one piece behind Kirk in the finally tally (ok, maybe not because of that, but that's how it played in my head). I enjoyed getting to play with Matthew and hope to see him around online a bit more.

April 23, 2007 Memoir Charles vs Jason

GALLABAT & METEMMA
Luck was with me on this one as Jason couldn't get a roll to save his life. He rolled a lot of flag, which never really put me in a bad spot. With a tank and multiple infantry, I was able to peck at him and pull out a 4-0 win. 121-111 in favor of the Axis for the war.

April 21, 2007 Battlecry Charles vs Jason

FALLING WATERS
Well, it didn't take long for Jason to wipe me out of this one. I tried to be aggressive and push his forces back, but Jason combined some early killer rolling with my lack of ability to counter where I needed. This one just wasn't going my way. Jason won 5-2 and the Confederates are now up 89-85 for the war.

Poker Chips

Once upon a time, I had some chips. Now, these chips were nothing special - 11.5g dice chips that are available at Target and Walmart. I ordered a set of stickers made up and applied them to the chips. The stickers had "AZ Boardgamers" on them, so when we moved to Nebraska, I traded them to Dion Garner. I don't know why, but I now feel like I want to get a new set of chips. I'm trying to decide if I want to get a nice set, or go back to an inexpensive set. I've been looking at the expensive chips out there and they run about $1 a chip. If I do decide on a nice chip, it will likely be: Turf Club or either Paulson's James Bond or Paulson's Pharohs.
The Turf Club chips are leading for a couple reasons - they have solid edge colors, loads of colors and denominations, and they are far cheaper (I've seen them in the $0.70 range). I've ordered a sample set to see how I like them and if I want to start getting them. If I go with a nice set, I'll likely have to spread out the order over time.
If I decide on a cheaper set, then I'll probably go back to the dice chips from Target, and start working on a new custom sticker set. I've been trying to decide what graphics I'd go with. Huskers, Dragons (I did dragons for the AZ Boardgamer chips), Railroad theme, etc. The biggest issue with the custom ones - the graphics are really much smaller than you think (than I thought any way). That, and the dice only come in 5 colors. I'd really like to be able to have 7. Ideally I'd like to have $1, $2, $5, $10, $25, $100, $500

April 20, 2007 Memoir Charles vs Jason

ARDENNES TWIN VILLAGES
Well, we finally got settled into our new house and I got VASSAL back into working condition. We fired up the games again, and it didn't take long for Jason to pull out another victory (oh how he must have been longing to win at something). The axis extended their lead with a 6-5 victory, and now lead the war 121-107.

More on The Magic Rat

I knew Jason Sato through the AZBoardgamers. He was a very enthusiastic gamer that enjoyed games of nearly every type - he often referred to himself as an old school wargamer, though he also enjoyed eurogames, the so-called ameritrash games, collectibles (he played a lot of Hero and Horror Clix), trivia, and lots of old school card and board games. Over the last couple of years, I often looked to Jason when considering picking up older games, as he would offer his opinion, but he understood that not everyone felt like he did about games, so he'd give you enough information that you could make an informed decision on your own. He'd often mention that he liked a game, but after a few playings, the game got repetitive or boring, so when I compiled my top ten list for the AZ Boardgamers I payed attention to what he enjoyed playing and made a point to try a number of them. Jason was almost always willing to play a teaching game and point out the tactics and strategies as you played that first game (and he let you flounder on your own after that ;) ). I also discovered that he enjoyed Backgammon and he and I played on and off during the course of the last year. I had hoped that we'd get a chance to play some online after I moved and I'm saddened by the thought that I will never get that chance.

Here is his list of top 25 games.

1. Puerto Rico
2. Princes of Florence
3. El Grande
4. Age of Steam
5. History of the World
6. Union Pacific
7. Through the Desert
8. Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers
9. Backgammon
10. Acquire
11. Liar's Dice
12. Empires of the Middle Ages
13. Up Front
14. Ingenious
15. Keythedral
16. Little Round Top
17. Power Grid
18. San Juan
19. Dune
20. Java
21. Fresh Fish
22. 1830
23. Age of Renaissance
24. Medieval Merchant
25. Hare and Tortoise

The Magic Rat is gone

I just found out that my friend Jason Sato aka The Magic Rat has passed away. Apparently he suffered a massive stroke on Wednesday night while playing games at the Game Depot and then left us on Friday morning. Jason was truly a great gamer and I enjoyed all the time I had spent with him the last year or two. It saddens me to see him go and my thoughts and prayers are with his family and his friends who I know already miss him terribly.