Valerie, you’ve just experienced the Imperial equivalent of putting your first two towns in Settlers on the widest possible spread of numbers and not getting any resources for the first half of the game.  At the risk of sounding presumptuous, it seems to me that when Tyler said he’d seen it two or three times before, he meant instances in which a player lost their only country BUT didn’t have to deal with that situation for nearly as long as you did.  I’ve played about a dozen games of Imperial and seen a player become nationless on perhaps four occasions; in all but one of them, they stopped being nationless within ten minutes, and in the other, the player deliberately avoided getting a flag so he could keep getting free chances to buy stock.

As a big fan of Imperial, and as someone who is still bitter about Antike not winning the top prize at BGG.con last year (shout “Caylus!” all you like, Antike is still a better game), I really hope you give it another try.

Wow, I would’ve paid a good deal more than $14 for Atlantic Star, at least $20, and possibly more…

Sorry to hear you didn’t enjoy Imperial.  One thing I enjoy doing in that game when I don’t control a country (which is often because I have a feeling not controlling a country may be best at times) is to seriously kibitz, advising and persuading the other players to do my bidding.  People often have no idea what to do with the country they’re controlling, so they generally seem very open to suggestions.  Then again, playing for your first time with a bunch of veterans isn’t going to make that role very feasibly!  Lastly, if you were ever to try it again, I’d recommend playing it without the Investor card, the designer’s recommended variant is to not use the Investor card, which from the sounds of your summary you did use in this game.  Anyway, thanks for the summary, sounds like a fun time, wish I could’ve been there.

Not having a country can be a valid strategy in Imperial. I have won the game spending 80% of the game without being in control of a country. Granted, you aren’t making moves and doing stuff on the board, but careful planning and allocation of money is needed. It is a fine rope to walk, and enjoyable just for the tension that this brings. Plus you can spend a lot of time trying to talk our fellow players into moves that benefit you. ;)

It is not how I would want to play every game, but it is OK occasionally.

Thanks,
Dave

Val, your quickie description of Wabash Cannonball makes it sound a lot like the Prairie Railroads games Martin Wallace did for Winsome, which is a bit ironic given their recent squabble.  Of these, Pampas Railroads is a huge favorite of mine.  Looking at Wabash’s entry on the Geek, I noticed two things that sets this games apart:  no crayons and a duration of 60 minutes (the Prairie games all took at least 3 hours).  The shorter playing time and your enthusiastic recommendation puts this firmly on my want list.  My only concern would be if I could find anyone in my group willing to play a Winsome game; it was always an issue, but recent events might make it even tougher.

How many people were in your games of Patrician?  As I mentioned in my column yesterday, we played it with five and it really stunk up the joint.  It’s supposed to be better with three.

About Imperial, which I think is an excellent game:  how many were in your game?  I think the game is best with four and having no country is more unusual with that number.  With five, it will happen with some frequency and with six, it’s practically guaranteed.  Playing without a country isn’t *necessarily* a problem (it’s possible to win like that), but it isn’t pleasant if you didn’t plan for it.  Eric’s implication that this was a newbie mistake is probably correct, but the game is a bit fragile, in that you can make missteps (some of which are a bit subtle) that can hose you for an extended period.  I can accept that as the price for playing a challenging and slightly unforgiving game, but YMMV.  I would try the game again if I were you, possibly with fewer players, as a little experience goes a long way with Imperial.

"Eric’s implication that this was a newbie mistake is probably correct”

Uh...that’s not what I meant.  Perhaps the Settlers analogy was ill-advised.  I just wanted to say that her first experience with Imperial was a very unusual one, which I suspect she already knew, anyway.

There are a whole bunch of things you can do when you do not have control of a country. There is a very long thread or two on the Geek about it.

I have found it favorable to maneuver things to go without control of a country for at least a while. That gives you the best flexibility in how to invest. Timing your positions in countries is the key to the game. One very hard thing to get out of your head is that any particular country is “your” country. You have no allegiance to anyone but yourself and are not trying to assist any particular country unles you benefit.

I think that Imperial is a brilliant design and really enjoy it.

Thanks for the comments, all!

We played Patrician with 3 and it quick, light fun.  Our games of Wabash Cannonball took 45 minutes (3 player, but nearly reaching all the ending conditions at once) and 30 minutes (4 player, but we ran out of stock while the other ending conditions weren’t close).  While the two plays felt completely different, both were tremendous fun.

There were 4 in the Imperial game.  I appreciate that the game has a ton of fans, but remember that I didn’t think I’d like the game for other reasons as well.  To find that it also has an element that sits a player out (like I’m the Boss, another game I really dislike) definitely puts it in the category of games I don’t care for.

It’s definitely reasonable to dislike a game that a lot of other people like. Some think I’m crazy because I don’t enjoy Power Grid.

I think, though, we have a fundamental difference of perception as to whether Imperial (and I’m The Boss, evidently) sits players out. Not having control of a country in Imperial or not having an investor in I’m The Boss does not force anyone to sit out the game until they get one. There are important things to be done during those times without the country/investor. A lot of it in both cases involves negotiation and maybe that’s what you dislike, and that’s fair.

I just have difficulty labeling a game as forcing a player to sit out when it’s really just a mismatch between the style of the game and the player’s taste. It would be like saying that players are forced to sit out of Traumfabrik if they do not bid because they don’t like auctions in general.

Note to Larry:  Wabash Cannonball is reminiscent of the Prairie Rails games if for no other reason than the way dividends are triggered (two of three action tracks filled in HW’sWC vs. only one type of action card available in the Wallace games).  There’s just no way that the game can avoid comparisons to earlier Winsome games, and John Bohrer’s presence can be felt here, just as with Age of Steam and everything else that he’s been instrumental in bringing to us.

What I find so utterly compelling about HW’sWC is that it distills elements of nearly every class of train game that has preceded it into supremely basic levels, and winds up being more fun than ninety percent of its predecessors.  An 18XX extremist can justify playing this easily as either a warm-up exercise or to use as a primer for those unfamiliar with that genre.  A crayon railer (there really is no hope for those people) can enjoy optimizing a route to Chicago (but they will be sad that there is no deck of cards to memorize.) The people who invariably bitch about the price tag of Winsome’s DTP games will enjoy bitching about how difficult it is to obtain the game.  The game just scratches so many itches.  It gets my highest recommendation, as did Age of Steam way back when.

Actually, Josh, it sounds like it might also scratch so many bitches!

Larry!!!  Did you just call me a b**ch?

:)

It wasn’t me!  It was Josh!  He’s the one doing all the scratching!  :-)

Hey!  What’s with the asterisks?  I don’t speak in tongues.  When I call somebody a birch or a bunch, they know it!  I am really tempted to go to Essen this year just to see if any of the pre-orderers for Wabash Cannonball are no-shows, and try to get a leftover.  Larry, you don’t look busy, would you go get one for me?  Thanks, guy.

Oh, and I forgot to say, Imperial is really unforgiving of inexperience due to the counterintuition factor.  Obviously there is a segment of the gaming populace that will find its play to be intuitive, but I am in the other camp, and have to fight constantly to remind myself when playing about the ACTUAL goal of the game.  The interesting thing to me about this column now?  Imperial and Wabash Cannonball share some really basic features, but Wabash Cannonball doesn’t make you feel punished for not being a majority stockholder...until perhaps, the very end.  Which comes a lot more quickly!