Larry Levy: Coming Up for Air, Part 1

Well, hello again. It’s been a while, hasn’t it? When Eric and I agreed that I would go to At Large status, I wasn’t planning for my output to drop to the level of the other ”Comets," but one of the reasons I wanted to be relieved of regular column duties was that I knew that I’d be entering an unusually heavy period at work and wouldn’t be able to devote the amount of time to writing that I usually do.

Well, the prediction was true and then some. It was a very frantic time at work, with late hours, weekends, and lack of sleep. Kind of like your typical gaming con, without any of the benefits. There’s been limited free time and to be honest, the last thing I wanted to do when I got some was more thinking. So no articles from me for the last two months. Thankfully, things are finally easing up and I’m able to devote some time to the work that I actually enjoy. With luck, I’ll be able to contribute some pieces in the weeks ahead, including (I hope), my usual rundown of all the new and old delights I’ll get to sample at the Gathering.

Of course, overtime or not, I wasn’t a total hermit these last couple of months. I was able to sneak in a few gaming sessions, if only to restore my mental health for my work activities. (Hey, no sacrifice is too great for my job!) Sadly for my adoring fans, given the choice between writing about games and actually playing games, I’ll choose the latter every time. But that does mean I have some items of interest to fill you in on. Just a short take on each of them, but hopefully enough to give you an idea of how I was spending my time when I wasn’t slaving away at the Company Store. Here they are, in alphabetical order:

Colosseum

This was a surprise choice of one person in our group as the game hadn’t come out in several months, but it played well. I’ve now enjoyed the game the two times I’ve played it with three players and had mediocre to poor experiences when I’ve played with more. So I’m unlikely to agree to a game with four or more. It’s not too hard to figure out why it might play better with fewer folks. The game is certainly brisker with three (it usually overstays its welcome with more); trading is much quicker (since there’s a lot fewer trading pairs to check with – this can be a big problem with four and particularly five); and it’s easier to see what everyone is doing with that number (so the auctions and trading go even faster). This is a game with some flaws, but those flaws seem to be minimized in the three-player game, letting the strong points of the design shine through. Anyway, a good thing to know and I’m glad Colosseum has found at least a small niche in my collection.

Container

This is a strange one. We played with five and we all agreed there was some potential in the design, but no one particularly enjoyed the game. Judging from the ratings, this seems to be a love it or hate it game, but our reaction was one of puzzlement more than anything else. You’re faced with a three-stage process where the payoff is contained almost entirely in the last stage. But it’s hard to figure out what you should be doing in those first two stages to let you succeed in the last one.

Yes, you need to take actions that will encourage your opponents to help you out, but how? They have no more idea than you do what they “should” be doing. So the game feels like a big roller coaster of undercutting here, raising prices there, and lucking out occasionally when another player decides to pay your premium prices for no particular reason you can fathom. Someone compared it with Uwe Rosenberg’s Klunker, which is also based on setting attractive “prices” so that opponents will assist you, but the process there is much more straightforward (and I consider Klunker to be a pretty subtle and opaque design). You get the feeling that Container might have the seeds of greatness sowed deep under its many layers, but none of us really had an overwhelming desire to put in the necessary work to dig that deep. It may very well come out again (most likely because someone who hasn’t had the chance to play wants to see what it’s like), but if it never does, I don’t think too many tears will be shed.

Unfortunately, we got the most fun out of ridiculing the components. Everything has this gritty, industrial look which is kind of thematic, but not too attractive. Still, that’s not really an issue. Well, except for the central island, which is this ugly amorphous thing – I don’t know what they were thinking about there. A far bigger problem was that two of the player colors were almost exactly alike, even in good light. You could distinguish them when they were side by side, but otherwise, it was a huge struggle. Yet another case of a publisher trying to avoid having player pieces and neutral counters be the same color, which leads to the far greater problem of indistinguishable player colors. Will someone please tell me who it is who gets so confused when there’s a red playing piece and a red resource? How can it possibly take more than ten seconds to accept this and move on? Meanwhile, two player colors which can’t be distinguished plagues you the entire game. I’ll give Valley credit for trying to do the right thing, but sometimes common sense has to prevail and you need to sacrifice the small things in order to get the big ones to work.

Cuba

Finally got a chance to play the published version of this for the first time. (I had played a pre-production version last April that was probably very close to the final one.) It’s a good game. One thing I was pleased about was how quickly it moved; in my game last year, there was a good deal of AP and the turns dragged a bit. If anything, it might be too quick; six turns isn’t much time to implement a strategy, so you need to get your engine set up quickly. I also suspect it might be hard to catch an early leader who continues to play well.

Even though Cuba feels a bit derivative, I don’t really think it is. Sure, the “turning cubes into VPs” mechanic is nothing new and it’s done rather directly here (at least in places), just as in the other Rieneck/Stadler collaboration, Pillars of the Earth. But the “rows and columns” activation is different, the “buildings replacing production fields” is unusual, if not downright innovative, and the voting on laws is clever, distinctive, and might very well be unique in a game of this weight. (There are “laws” in Keythedral, but those are actually individual player powers. I can think of heavier games where the players vote on changing the rules of the game—such as Republic of Rome and Warrior Knights—and lighter ones—such as Schmiel’s Das Regeln Wir Schon and Democrazy—but none at Cuba‘s level.) Even the variable VPs you get from shipping puts a different spin on the “ship goods to get VPs” mechanic. It’s true that the gameplay doesn’t make you think, “wow, that’s different!”, but the overall effect of the different mechanics gives the game a different feel than the other games it’s often compared with.

I’d like to give Cuba at least a few more plays, as the game plays well and there’s clearly a number of strategies to explore. But while I think it’s a good design, I wonder if it’s lacking that spark that could make it be great. It’s too early to say, but my feeling right now is similar to how I feel about Age of Empires III, a very good game that’s having trouble distinguishing itself from all the other very good games that came out last year. But I’ll have a better idea about this once I play the game some more.

Darjeeling

Played once. There’s enough in the design that it looks as if it might appeal to hardcore gamers, but a lack of control and the high potential for accidental screwage puts this firmly in the family game category. It’s also pretty fiddly. Timing the end of the game is important, but again, that can be tough to arrange. Still, it’s a pleasant enough game. The theme is different and appealing enough to masquerade the rather abstract mechanics. I think more casual gamers who don’t mind a somewhat rules heavy design will enjoy this, but I suspect it will be “one and done” for my group.

In the Year of the Dragon

For a while, I thought I had developed some seriously bad karma, possibly through my abuse of fortune cookies (I favor the practice of following each fortune with the words “in bed"), because it took me forever to get to try this out. Even when it got played by my group, it would happen when I was in the midst of another game, which was most frustrating. Finally, I got in a game about three weeks ago and have now played it a total of three times, twice with three and once with four players.

The reason I was anxious to try this is that it looked as if it would hit most of my hot buttons. Brutal, unforgiving system? Check. Open information available from the very first turn? Check. Lots of choices and strategies? Designed by Stefan Feld? Published by Alea? Check, check, and check. Thankfully, my expectations have all been realized and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed all of my games. Dragon already ranks as one of my favorites from last year and I can see it climbing into the top 5 of what was a very strong year for games.

My group is still in the training wheels stage with this one. The game definitely seems harder with more players, so I think folks will opt for three-player games until they get more accustomed to the system. I wouldn’t mind mixing in a few four-player contests, but I still have plenty to learn, so a somewhat less brutal game won’t be such a bad thing. And even though I’m going to eventually want to try this with five, I don’t think I’m ready for that yet! It’s funny to be so frightened by a game, but that’s the kind of a system this is. It’s nice to know that when we start to get better at Dragon, there’s an easy way to ramp up the difficulty.

I hope the five-player game doesn’t wind up taking too long to play. I was surprised at how much snappier this is with three as opposed to four. Of course, the interleaving of the actions means there’s little downtime with any number, but I think this plays better at around 90 minutes than at two hours. Presumably, the duration will come down as we get more comfortable with the decisions to be made.

I tend to like tactical games, but I think I need to work on my long-term strategies in Dragon more. I’m too easily swayed by the need of the moment and can sometimes bounce around like a ping-pong ball (appropriate for China, but not for this game). I also need to become less attached to the people in my entourage – I always give that warning when I teach the game, but I’m falling victim to it myself. Two points per tile is a nice endgame bonus, but sometimes a single Scholar or Fireworks action can yield more, not to mention the continuing point givers, like privileges or the Ladies of Questionable Morals. For some reason, it seems to be easier in Dragon to lose sight of what really scores you points than it is in most Euros. Finally, I need to realize that my opening two tiles should not only reflect the beginning crises, but should also take into account which tiles I’d like to have two or three of over the course of the game. I have a long way to go before I can feel I’m even competent at this game, but I’m looking forward to traveling on that Slow Boat to China!

Well, that’s only about half of the gaming adventures I’ve had over the past couple of months, but this looks like a good place to stop for now. Hopefully, I’ll be able to contribute more in the future and will move from the rarity of a shooting star to the constancy of a full moon. Keep watching for Part 2 of this article at a website near you, along with (I hope) another brief piece within the next few weeks.

© 2008 Larry Levy

---

Comments:

You must register with BGN in order to comment. Registration is free!

Nice to see you back in “print”, Larry. -- Kevin Whitmore Posted by Kevin_Whitmore on Mar 24, 2008 at 01:44 AM | #

Good article! Posted by Kevin Wood on Mar 24, 2008 at 08:15 AM | #

In regards to In the Year of the Dragon’s playtime. With five experienced players, we are able to complete a game in 40 minutes. I don’t notice any decrease in performance, either. I think it is similar to Puerto Rico in that, at first you kind of bumble around, then synergies appear and the next thing you know, you can pound out a game during a lunch break. Posted by Dan Corban on Mar 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM | #

Not sure I’d agree on YitD playing time. I usually see about an hour, and that hasn’t changed a whole lot. The systems aren’t that complicated, but the fact that each game has a different texture due to the different event ordering makes each game different. In my experience the time isn’t spent learning the system, it’s spent in figuring out what to do given a different set of circumstances each time. So I don’t know that I’d expect to see big decreases in play time, for the most part anyway. Re: Colosseum, I’d have a lot more interest in playing the game again if the Emperor’s Loge wasn’t so obviously broken. If you don’t buy one on the first turn you will lose. Or at least not win. I think a lot of the bits are interesting, but the overall game balance simply isn’t there. Posted by Chris Farrell on Mar 24, 2008 at 04:08 PM | #

Whether comet or full moon, your contributions are always welcome constellations in our skies, Larry (sorry, I couldn’t resist extending such a poetic metaphor). As for 5-player Year of the Dragon, believe me, the only thing to fear is… Posted by Jeff Allers on Mar 24, 2008 at 04:27 PM | #

Chris, do you really think buying a Season’s Ticket on turn 1 is such a losing play?  I agree that it and the Emperor’s Loge are just about the only viable choices on the first turn.  But gaining an extra 5 spectators (and possibly a much desired Podium) is certainly worth thinking about.  I usually look at where I stand in relation to the nobles (as well as my initial draw) to decide which of the two I start out with. Posted by Larry Levy on Mar 24, 2008 at 05:29 PM | #

That’s very nice of you to say, Jeff.  However, I’d better lose some weight before the Gathering, or I’ll even have trouble getting into my Ursa Major clothing! Posted by Larry Levy on Mar 24, 2008 at 05:31 PM | #

Colosseum is all about staying out of first place during the whole game then blowing your load on one huge event in the final round. The medals are the key to doing this and the only way to get medals consistently is with the loge. You want as many medals as possible, therefor a loge on turn one is essentially required. Posted by Dan Corban on Mar 24, 2008 at 06:32 PM | #

I am completely convinced that you absolutely have to buy a loge on turn one, for reasons Dan mentions. Medals are power. You need them to win. The way to get them is via the loge. The game is about income on the last turn, not game-long performance. I think there are other things that are out of whack too, though. The bidding seems very stultified, even with the “advanced” optional. The base bid is just too expensive, players get locked into tracks which mean they aren’t interested in many things, and the bidding and trading seems boring. All of which is kind of odd, because these doesn’t seem like the sort of mistakes Kramer makes. He’s one of three best-known game designers for a reason. So I don’t know what went wrong here, if Days of Wonder fiddled the design, or what. Posted by Chris Farrell on Mar 24, 2008 at 08:34 PM | #

I’d back up that point on avoiding landing in first place.  If you’re not careful you’ll be in first place for a couple of rounds and quickly lose your best pieces to the “losing” player… In my first game I was first almost the entire game, gathering up those podiums as I went, but the steady drain on my resources was more than I could keep up… finishing second to a player that managed to steal away most of my star performers.  (Losing both a tile for performing and one to the losing player each round means you really can only gain one new tile a round… pretty vicious...) Posted by Matt J. Carlson on Mar 24, 2008 at 10:37 PM | #

It definitely doesn’t seem like a typical Kramer design, Chris.  It’s pretty inelegant in an “everything but the kitchen sink” kind of way.  Auctions *and* trading?  In addition, there’s a looseness to the game which is unusual for him.  I also think there’s lots of issues with the trading phase. Maybe the simple, but unsatisfying answer is that the designers and DoW aimed for a family audience and didn’t bother to tighten up all the things that only gamers might find.  I have no idea if that was the case, but it might explain some of the unusual shortcomings of the design. That said, the game has some nice touches and some entertaining problems to solve.  It’s a fun game with three and very nice to look at.  It’ll never work it’s way onto my Top 100 list, but it’s a good enough title to keep in my collection. Posted by Larry Levy on Mar 24, 2008 at 10:45 PM | #

Kramer has done a game with both bidding and trading before, Die Händler, which is quite good (if you get the one slightly ambiguous rule correct, where you advance the arrivals marker once per each wagon that arrives, not once per turn in which a wagon arrives - otherwise it’s way too long). That was with Ulrich, though. Posted by Chris Farrell on Mar 25, 2008 at 02:19 AM | #

Yes, I have found Colosseum to be irritatingly draggy in the trading phase and overwhelmed by the medals (unless we’re missing some optimal strategy.) I have gotten a lot more out of Cleopatra and the Society of Architects, a game that has gotten a less enthusiastic reception from many gamers. Posted by Eric Brosius on Mar 31, 2008 at 08:43 PM | #

< Back Home