Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Unity_Games] B&N Gaming - July 31, 2000

Expand Messages
  • Dave Bernazzani
    ... You are right - only one game. When I asked you specifically about it, you said It s OK - it s Stratego... . Sorry if I make it seem more lukewarm for
    Message 1 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
      "pldr" <pldr@...> wrote:

      >To straighten out the usual errors in Dave's session report:

      You are right - only one game. When I asked you specifically
      about it, you said "It's OK - it's Stratego...". Sorry if I make
      it seem more lukewarm for you in my commentary. For the record
      you've stated that you think it's pretty good (7.5).

      If anyone has points to take with my session reports, please let
      me know and I'll try to correct them.

      --
      Dave Bernazzani
      dber@...
      http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
    • Dave Bernazzani
      ... Hehehe... yeah, I think we were all being somewhat kind but the game was not great. I ll be happy to downwards-adjust your rating to 4 for the report when
      Message 2 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
        Dan Cashmore wrote:
        > My thoughts on the games...
        >
        > > Lord of the Leprechauns [snip]
        > I think I gave it a 6 and on the way home
        > thought that was 2 points too many.

        Hehehe... yeah, I think we were all being somewhat kind but the game was not
        great. I'll be happy to downwards-adjust your rating to 4 for the report
        when I archive it to my site (with additional details) tonight.

        > > Aladdin's Dragons.
        > Now this is my kind of game. I know the blind bid thing isn't for
        everyone

        Good comments (can I include them in the report on my site?)

        Yes, my rating actually went up on this play. It's staring to grow on me,
        but I'm still not a big fan of the central mechanism of allocating your
        tokens face down. It's got such a nice looking board (by Doris of
        Doris&Frank fame) and great components that I want to really like the
        gameplay. Several people I've played the game with have really enjoyed it
        so I think it's got somewhat of a polarizing effect. Ben Baldanza in Counter
        Mag #9 has a favoriable review of it (where he draws comparisions to it to
        Keydom of which AD is a decendant).

        > > During our game of AD - the other three players sat for a
        > > game of Members Only.
        > Didn't play, but this looks fun.

        I really like Member's Only. It's not very deep nor very exiting - but it
        is a solid game that has some strategy and plays quickly. It happens to
        play fairly well with only 3 players - sometimes that's a hard number to
        match a good game with. And it will handle up to 5 without much downtime
        between turns. It's gone out of print with Blatz, but rumor has it that it
        might come back in a future lifetime.

        --
        Dave Bernazzani
        dber@...
        http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
      • Dan Cashmore
        ... Certainly. It does my ego good :-] (Feel free to use my session comments any time you like) -Dan
        Message 3 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
          > Good comments (can I include them in the report on my site?)

          Certainly. It does my ego good :-] (Feel free to use my session comments
          any time you like)
          -Dan
        • AndAgainMA@aol.com
          To add my two gem s worth on Aladdin s dragon... I liked the game. Although each turn is a journey up from the caves through the city to the palace, the
          Message 4 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
            To add my two gem's worth on Aladdin's dragon...

            I liked the game. Although each turn is a journey up from the caves through the city to the palace, the journey changes as the game goes on. It has an opening, a middle game, and an endgame, with the focus of the game gradually shifting up the board.

            It was me who discovered towards the end of the game that we should have taken out some of the artefact tiles, since we were playing with 4, rather than the maximum of 5. Disdainful hoots of "rules lawyer" were my reward.

            But I think it did make a difference to the game. First, it went on a bit longer than the designer intended. Second, it meant that there were more counterspell tiles out than there should have been; that's probably why very few spells succeeded.

            I can see that it might have a runaway leader problem. The artefact tiles are not only the victory points, they are provide you with extra options. When you play one, you get it back and so can play it next turn. So the first person to get a decent selection of tiles might find themself benefitting from a positive feedback loop.

            Apart from that, I like this game a lot. The bits are great. There are multiple mechanisms, but they are well integrated. I stand by my 8!

            Andrew.

            ps, Dave, feel free to include this if you'd like.
          • Dave Bernazzani
            ... Excellent. I hope everyone realizes that they can add something to any of the reports I post on my site. I also accept game related articles/reviews
            Message 5 of 9 , Aug 1, 2000
              Dan Cashmore wrote:
              > > Good comments (can I include them in the report on my site?)
              >
              > Certainly. It does my ego good :-] (Feel free to use my session
              > comments any time you like)

              Excellent. I hope everyone realizes that they can add something to any of
              the reports I post on my site. I also accept game related articles/reviews
              (which I'm behind on posting) to my site - so far most are from me but Eddie
              has contributed and Jenn has written something.

              I don't necessarily want the sessions to be a one-mans view - but they tend
              to be that way. I know Pete takes exception to some of my commentary as
              will happen when a person's views about something are made public. I hope
              people realize that when I write a session report, it's just trying to
              capture some sense of what went on during the game - mostly from my own
              viewpoint - but I welcome balancing viewpoints as well. If I've said
              something to offend anyone (Pete - speak up now since I can't remember what
              in particular you were unhappy with since the list has gotten long) I'll try
              to amend it on my website.

              To have another view is always nice - and tends to rounds out and balance
              the reports. Andrew, Craig and Eddie (did I miss someone?) have all added
              commentary in the past which is great.

              Maybe I should put in a disclaimer to state that any errors or omissions are
              my responsibility during the editing process when adding additional
              commentary. I wouldn't want the Mark-types to blast other contributors for
              grammar or spelling errors ;) I've spent plenty of school-years getting
              drilled on my lack of skill in both these areas...

              --
              Dave Bernazzani
              dber@...
              http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
            • pldr
              ... on me, ... your ... Interesting comment. I think the face down tokens make the game. It adds bluffing, planning, guessing, uncertainty, etc., to the game.
              Message 6 of 9 , Aug 2, 2000
                ----------
                > From: Dave Bernazzani <dber@...>
                > To: Unity_Games@egroups.com
                > Subject: Re: [Unity_Games] B&N Gaming - July 31, 2000
                > Date: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:44 PM
                >
                >

                > Yes, my rating actually went up on this play. It's staring to grow
                on me,
                > but I'm still not a big fan of the central mechanism of allocating
                your
                > tokens face down.

                Interesting comment. I think the face down tokens make the game.
                It adds bluffing, planning, guessing, uncertainty, etc., to the game.
                AL seems to have an interesting mix of mechanisms which makes
                it a part skill, part luck, type of game. ...my favorite kind.

                Pete
              • pldr
                ... they tend ... commentary as ... I hope ... to ... own ... said ... remember what ... I ll try ... It was a bidding game...had some kind of clock.
                Message 7 of 9 , Aug 2, 2000
                  ----------
                  > From: Dave Bernazzani <dber@...>
                  > To: Unity_Games@egroups.com
                  > Subject: Re: [Unity_Games] B&N Gaming - July 31, 2000
                  > Date: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 3:17 PM
                  > I don't necessarily want the sessions to be a one-mans view - but
                  they tend
                  > to be that way. I know Pete takes exception to some of my
                  commentary as
                  > will happen when a person's views about something are made public.
                  I hope
                  > people realize that when I write a session report, it's just trying
                  to
                  > capture some sense of what went on during the game - mostly from my
                  own
                  > viewpoint - but I welcome balancing viewpoints as well. If I've
                  said
                  > something to offend anyone (Pete - speak up now since I can't
                  remember what
                  > in particular you were unhappy with since the list has gotten long)
                  I'll try
                  > to amend it on my website.

                  It was a bidding game...had some kind of clock. Merchants of
                  Amsterdam?
                  You wrote that I consistently way overbid. As I pointed out, near
                  the end of
                  the game I bid 160,000 several times for things that other people
                  were bidding
                  150,000 for---hardly overspending, especially when the 160 bids
                  ensured that
                  I would get the items, which in turn generated about 500,000 more
                  than
                  my total bids.

                  Since I finished in 2nd, only 40 points behind you, (1230-1190)
                  who has played the game several times, and 70 ahead of Jenn,
                  also a MOA veteran, I think my strategy
                  worked fairly well. Keep in mind that you rely on experience with a
                  particular
                  game in SSG meets, while I'm usually playing for the first time, and
                  I have to
                  rely more on ability, skill, intelligence, and of course, humility.
                  After one has played a game a few times, you tend to think a certain
                  approach is best. It's always annoying to find out that someone
                  taking a fresh look at a game can come up with another reasonably
                  valid approach.

                  Pete
                • Dave Bernazzani
                  ... Yes, I remember. The point should have been made that most people were overpaying. In my 6+ games and reading lots of commentary there is a break-even
                  Message 8 of 9 , Aug 2, 2000
                    "pldr" <pldr@...> wrote:
                    >It was a bidding game...had some kind of clock.
                    >Merchants of Amsterdam?
                    >You wrote that I consistently way overbid.

                    Yes, I remember. The point should have been made that most
                    people were overpaying. In my 6+ games and reading lots of
                    commentary there is a break-even point which is much lower than
                    $150 - because the best any one area can generate for you is $100
                    except at the end when it's $200. If you take a tile for $160
                    and only get $100 for it, you lost money (yes, there are bonuses,
                    but overall there are other ways to get those). Of course if
                    everyone is bidding $150 then you can do well at that price
                    range. I have won more than half my games by only taking one or
                    two auctions for $130 (which again is too much except that
                    everyone else is paying $150). The last game I played at the
                    North Shore Group, I won by $10 and I *never* won a single
                    auction - not once. And I didn't play particular well - but
                    everyone else was simply paying too much for the auctions and
                    they were losing ground (in the $150 range).

                    But you are right, since everyone (except me) was bidding high,
                    your strategy was fine. It assured you 2nd place.

                    --
                    Dave Bernazzani
                    dber@...
                    http://www.gis.net/~dber (South Shore Gamers)
                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.