Let's Talk About New Angeles

All evidence points to the fact that, contrary to how people, media and often Trump himself portrays him, he's is an extremely focused fellow, and if he was to play boardgames, in particular negotiation ones, my bet would be on him. It wouldn't be a fun game for the rest of the players, nor a clean sportsmanlike win, but I have very little doubt there.

Going back to the game, hidden personal agenda + negotiation + semi-coop is what pulling me towards it. But time-investment is too much. At 4 hours I'd rather play a time-proven classic than break out a new game, explain the rules, etc. On the other hand, this conversation made me think of Acquire (corporations+Trump), which I have never played and probably should.

Wrote a long post this morning that got eaten. I'll sum up:

Game is annoying. It's not a team game. It's not a traitor game. Just play Intrige 5 times in the same play time as this if you like negotiation. Or if you like hidden roles/"traitor" games then BSG does it way better.

ratpfink wrote: Wrote a long post this morning that got eaten. I'll sum up:

Game is annoying. It's not a team game. It's not a traitor game. Just play Intrige 5 times in the same play time as this if you like negotiation. Or if you like hidden roles/"traitor" games then BSG does it way better.

Your post being eaten is sad as I'd love to see you unpack this.

I don't view New Angeles as a traitor game exactly, maybe that's a key difference? I like BSG, but there's way more downtime in BSG than in this game (at least from my group's one play thus far). That one rival dynamic also makes it very different.

Vlad wrote: On the other hand, this conversation made me think of Acquire (corporations+Trump), which I have never played and probably should.

It's difficult for me to analyze Acquire, because my dad taught me how to play when I was in first grade. It was his all-time favorite boardgame, and we played it at least 200 times over the years. I practically had the first few lines of the price chart memorized. The game is honestly a dry, somewhat abstract representation of an over-simplified segment of the stock market, with low player interaction and significant constraints on gameplay. The random tile draw adds a certain amount of luck to the game, but player skill in assessing risk and return can more than make up for the luck. The game is still somewhat impressive for offering a decent amount of gameplay with a single page of clearly-written rules, and is very easy to teach. There is a certain amount of brinksmanship is chasing the same stock as another player, trying to gain majority share.

Because of my history with Acquire, I have been thinking about acquiring a first edition set. Maybe more for nostalgia than active interest in playing again. But I suspect that I would get more fun out of New Angeles, because I value player interaction.

charlest wrote:

ratpfink wrote: Wrote a long post this morning that got eaten. I'll sum up:

Game is annoying. It's not a team game. It's not a traitor game. Just play Intrige 5 times in the same play time as this if you like negotiation. Or if you like hidden roles/"traitor" games then BSG does it way better.

Your post being eaten is sad as I'd love to see you unpack this.

Me too. Please write again. It will be easier and quicker the second time, I promise

Shellhead, many thanks for that mini-review of Acquire. I had a completely different idea of it for some reason, and that it actually favored player interaction. If it doesn't, I'm definitely not interested - at least, not at the moment.

Vlad wrote: All evidence points to the fact that, contrary to how people, media and often Trump himself portrays him, he's is an extremely focused fellow, and if he was to play boardgames, in particular negotiation ones, my bet would be on him. It wouldn't be a fun game for the rest of the players, nor a clean sportsmanlike win, but I have very little doubt there.

Not to hijack, but if we're now seeing his famous negotiation skills in action, I wouldn't bet on it. He has a million "tells", he's thin-skinned, easily manipulated, and can't for a moment imagine anyone else's point of view. His negotiation skill in a boardgame would be demanding you give him something because he's Trump and you can tell your friends you once gave a gran card to THE Donald Trump and as soon as he starts to lose he flips the board and complains the game was rigged all along. Oh, and if you do make a deal with him, he simply doesn't pay and threatens to sue you if you complain.

It's pretty clear he's largely coasted on a brand rather than any actual skill.

Vlad wrote: Shellhead, many thanks for that mini-review of Acquire. I had a completely different idea of it for some reason, and that it actually favored player interaction. If it doesn't, I'm definitely not interested - at least, not at the moment.

The primary interaction with other players in Acquire is when more than one player is chasing majority in a given stock. There are only 25 shares available, and the person who started the company (by playing a tile adjacent to another tile that is not already part of a company) gets a free share. As more tiles are placed adjacent to a company, the stock price increases. Once a company has at least 11 adjacent tiles, it can't be merged into another company, though smaller companies can be merged into it. Mergers happen when a tile is placed in a position that is adjacent to two or more companies.

I don't have the necessary detachment to analyze it, but there is something appealing about Acquire. It has many of the qualities of the best early Euro games of the '90s, though Acquire was published in 1962. It is simple, elegant, and provides players with meaningful choices. If there was any justice, Acquire would be worshipped like a demi-god over at BGG. I don't even like to play Euros, but I am always up for a game of Acquire. Maybe that's just the nostalgia talking.

I started reading the rules on this and at a certain point decided it was not for me - it seems to be a lot of bluff/threat/deal/backstab and not too much else, probably well done but that doesn't interest me.

I'm still on the fence about New Angeles. It looks like a good game, but it could end up being a shelf toad for me if my friends aren't interested. That's why I started the thread about Negotiation vs. Dexterity. Not that my friends are into dex games or that there is any sort of dex element to New Angeles, but it just seems to me that those two types of games are almost opposite in nature. I figured that the comments would help me think through the advantages and disadvantages of negotiation games.

I think you're spot on Southernman. There's other nuances in the game and it has a bit of a cooperative game feel at times (dealing with threats and discussing best courses of action), but that deal-making/backstabbing/negotiation is the heart and the vast majority of what you spend your time doing.

charlest wrote: I think you're spot on Southernman. There's other nuances in the game and it has a bit of a cooperative game feel at times (dealing with threats and discussing best courses of action), but that deal-making/backstabbing/negoation is the heart and the vast majority of what you spend your time doing.

I was initially interested enough from all the chatter to read the rules but soon realised that it wasn't for me or few, if any, of people I game with and a player count of 5 or 6 means it would always get overlooked by other games.