Board Games!

[zoraster]

race/power combinations vary heavily on where you are in the game (turn primarily), somewhat on how many people are playing (as this changes the map, potential attacks by turn, and most importantly number of turns). Sorcerers, for example, are amazing with 5 players but kind of suck with just two. Trolls can be pretty darn good opening race because they're so damn hard to get rid of. Seafaring is another good opener because you can take a sea tile that will never be taken from you. The spirit ability is an awesome, awesome second ability if you can plan for it and get it before anyone else. it works as a first ability too, but you're inflexibly put in a corner of quick declining, and other players will gang up on your declined race.

Abilities like wealthy are terrible except in the end game where they're amazing.

going first in small world is a significant advantage.

[xRECKONERx]

We realized Spirit Trolls would be retarded since they'd NEVER GET REMOVED unless conquered and you could just reinforce everything with the troll villages or whatever and have permanent defense.

Sorcerers are GREAT. Absolutely fantastic race, not first turn, but if you pick a shitty early combo (like I did with Merchant Orcs lolwut I'm dumb) then have to go into decline early game, you can pick up Sorcs right when everyone else is spread thin and get three automatic territories each turn with good placement.

Also can I just say flying Amazons are BULLSHIT

[zoraster]

I don't suppose anyone is going to the Austin Board Game Bash this weekend?

[Plum]

Smallworld is awesome. Try Pillaging Orcs or Skeletons (heck, when I had Pillaging Orcs I cleared out most of my territories at the start of my turns just to get the maximum bonuses). Stout Ghouls are awesome. Try Berzerking Amazons (or Commando). Sorcerers are - wait zoraster covered that; in any case if enough people keep their territories held by more than one tile you get nothing for your trouble. And try changing things up by going into decline more or less frequently during the game.

Is going first really that big an advantage? Yeah, getting first pick is nice, but I've had games where I built strategies around that (I play it with my boyfriend, who owns it, and his ears are a bit pointy so he always goes first . . . but I think my winning percentage is pretty high). We've played with Be Not Afraid, an expansion with five extra Races and Special Powers, making strategy interesting. For instance, Pixies have huge numbers but can't leave more than one tile in a territory at the end of your turn. I've exploited the poor choice of another to take a combo with them first round with a Skeletons combo available and forced them into decline after getting some feeding done, and also taken them for the last few turns and together with the remnants of two in decline races (Spirit rocks!) boosted my per-round total super-high. And Leprechauns are allowed to place one pot of gold per territory for whichever territories the hold that they want at the end of each turn. If they're still there by the next turn, the player keeps them, if not, whoever conquered it from them keeps it, and each is worth one Victory Point. Now think about combining it with Fortified . . .

[hitogoroshi]

I've only played Small World once but going off of general theory I'd guess that the fp advantage is a lot smaller in specifically two player, if you're playing with ONLY your boyfriend. The problem is Small World lets you choose your starting zone, so when first player goes down they get the best spot and race/power combo, and jumping all-in down their throat isn't intelligent for the other players because then they're super vulnerable. In 2p though going super aggro is viable turn one since your enemies loss is directly your gain. It's also possible to pick a race/power SPECIFICALLY to mess up the other person in 2p, whereas it's necessarily more of a transitive 'general goodness' property you're picking for in ffa.

[zoraster]

No no no no no no no. Going first advantage is about the LAST TURN advantage. Picking first is fine, whatever. Maybe it's a big advantage if a huge power combination comes up, but that's context dependent whereas the last turn advantage exists in practically every game you'll play.

But it's a BIG advantage to go first the last turn because every time someone conquers your territory, YOU DON'T LOSE A POINT because you've already gained all the points you're going to get from the game. Compare that to if you're last in a 5p game where every time EVERY OTHER PLAYER conquers your territory, you are placed at a disadvantage. In a close game, that's really very significant. Furthermore because everyone knows that their advantage in targetting you versus the already scored players, they will pick your territories to go after all other things equal.

Think about it. You've got two people to attack. One if you take them out will gain you a point. The other one will get you a point AND take away a point from the other person. No brainer.

And there's really nothing that offsets that. I mean, yeah... technically in the first round people could conquer your territories when they couldn't conquer someone who went later, but that's a pretty negligible thing given the way the board is set up unless someone manages to get a super power combination and people feel the need to immediately gang up on them. And whereas final turn you likely have some races in decline (i.e. races that can only give you points if they aren't conquered), the first round doesn't carry that risk.

[hitogoroshi]

Huh. Hadn't thought of that. It feels like it's a really easy fix (score for the last turn at the end of the game, not at the end of your turns), but again, only one game of small world so I don't know if that'd work.

edit: the real answer is to play Runewars instead. >_>

[Plum]

Hm. I've played a fair number of games of various sizes, and I've never felt much of a disadvantage to any spot in the order. I feel that first-player advantage is compensated for even in larger games because they do get attacked first - by the end of any one of the first few turns, they've been vulnerable longer (in a five player game, the last player has had noticeably fewer chances to be attacked than the first) and had less moves with strategic preparation for the evolving gamestate.

And the first player's last turn can mean giving other players points too - it has to do with how you redeploy and how much you spend trying to hurt opponents instead of helping yourself. Going first in the last round can be an advantage, admittedly, but not a big or consistent one, and certainly doesn't consistently outweigh the potential disadvantages of going first at the beginning. My feeling is that with a decent grasp of strategy there's no strong or consistent advantage to a specific place in the turn order. So, good balance, moderate but significant swinginess on that count, though I appreciate the arguments.

[zoraster]

How is it not a consistent advantage?

And I feel fairly certain that, like chess, the more strategy, etc. involved, the more likely the first person advantage is. I think the truth is that if you treat Small World as a fun game, but not really a tournament worthy game, you're in the right place mentally.

[Plum]

I've never played tournament anything, so.

But I feel that the options to successfully counter first-player last turn advantages are available. It's not a consistent advantage because of that. Getting attacked first, if it goes badly in the first couple of turns, in any size game, can be a major setback, and that's something the first player can only prepare for with a defensive Race/Powers choice, which signals to the next player(s) how to respond . . . And last-turn losses can be strategically minimized as well. It depends partly on the Race/Powers choices available initially and the degree to which the first player has the potential to avoid getting hit hard early, which vary and are partly randomized. I might be wrong, here, but I do think there's truth to this.

[Andrius]

Firstpick Imperial Barbarians is pretty awesome until Troll convinces everyone you need to die. >______>
Merchant Hobbits and Spirit Barbarians are also solid.

Firstpick depends on what you get. Mounted Pixies was a good idea until the Gypsies happened. Barbarians are always a strong start, and anything that's high in numbers and has SPIRIT.

Anywho I love Smallworld and while I don't think I'll ever win a game I love it greatly. All the race/role combos etc.

[StevieT92]

Diplomacy nicely solves the problem of turn advantage by making everyone move at once. That's why it's the best game.

[zoraster]

yuck

[xRECKONERx]

Anyone know much about Agricola & Puerto Rico?

I keep getting to the edge on buying them then chicken out because I just don't know enough.

[Claus]

I played agricola once... it felt like a nice "deck building" kind of game, but it took a huge amount of time (I was the only newbie at the table, and I didn't take long to play even then). I would definitely buy it if I found it cheap somewhere.

[Elmo TeH AzN]

Anyone know much about Agricola & Puerto Rico?

I keep getting to the edge on buying them then chicken out because I just don't know enough.

Lots of people like Puerto Rico..

[zoraster]

If you like Euro games, Agricola and Puerto Rico are both pretty solid buys. Have you ever played a "worker" game before?

[Zorblag]

Troll picked up Puerto Rico something like three months ago and has played it probably 5 times since then. Each time it has felt pretty smooth in that all the players could understand the rules without too much confusion, but Troll really no feels Troll has a great grasp on the strategy yet. On the whole that be a nice combination for a game you will play with the same people over and over, but Troll would guess that newer players would have very little chance of winning their first few games if others were experienced. With a game group that be often in flux Troll could see that being an issue to some degree.

Actually, the other game most similar to Puerto Rico that Troll has be Race for the Galaxy. The differences be that Puerto Rico takes longer to play, be easier to understand the rules right from the start and the strategy seems a fair amount deeper (though perhaps Troll simply no has played enough Race for the Galaxy to appreciate the depth of strategy; that one Troll just rolls with the cards Troll be dealt for the most part.)

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[Zorblag]

Er, and to be clear, everyone Troll has played Puerto Rico with has come away thinking it was a fun game (being able to understand it but having it be deep be something people who play games tend to enjoy.) So that be something to recommend it.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

[zoraster]

If you like games where interaction is limited (but by no means unimportant), and the focus is to build your own stuff up in the most optimal way, Puerto Rico is a good choice. If you want more interaction on every move of the game, Agricola is a better choice.

By the way, if you like interaction heavy territory games, I love El Grande. I don't think it gets enough love. Agricola uses a somewhat similar turn order design as El Grande.

[Ythan]

I just played Rail Baron for the first time. And won!

[Andrius]

Puerto Rico is great fun and pretty easy to learn. Definitely not as confusing as RftG.

Never played Agricola, heard it can take HOURS to play out.

[zoraster]

Agricola doesn't take that long. Last time I played at my board game group we played with 5, 3 of whom were new and it took us no more than 3 hours. 2 hours with fewer people who have played before is probably the norm.

I mean, if you're used to Dominion or something, it's long.

[mykonian]

agricola has very little luck, lots of planning. Personally I love it but it's not for everyone.

If I have a little idea of who you are I don't think it's for you. It's more of a game game then a fun game.

[zoraster]

I don't know. I think if he liked Puerto Rico, the chances of him liking Agricola are pretty good.