Solving the 'math' of popular Euros like Agricola

You know what's funny? Even in really math-y games like POWER GRID I never crunch numbers unless they're just obvious- "If I buy that coal, I won't have enough money to build a station", that kind of stuff. Because I hate math, math is not fun, and math in games makes them not fun.

I understand that there are mathematical foundations in some game designs, and a lot of Eurogames in particular might as well be the kinds of RoI calculations I have to stick in proposals all day long. And not surprisingly, I hate those kinds of games.

But yeah, even in something like ACQUIRE I play by intuition and gut, not by running the numbers.

Black Barney wrote:

Someone called Last Night on Earth a ridiculous game. I was curious about that one cuz I had heard it was the best Zombie boardgame out there (I've tried Zombies and wanted to pull my eyes out after the 2nd hour). Do people here like Last Night on Earth?

Oops...sorry for the misunderstanding. I meant that trying to optimize a turn in Last Night on Earth is ridiculous. I really like the game itself...you can immerse yourself in B-movie zombie greatness; it is my favorite zombie game. If you bring math into it, the fun quickly leaves the room.

Black Barney wrote:

Someone called Last Night on Earth a ridiculous game. I was curious about that one cuz I had heard it was the best Zombie boardgame out there (I've tried Zombies and wanted to pull my eyes out after the 2nd hour). Do people here like Last Night on Earth?

Last Night on Earth

Space Ghost wrote:

Exactly. As one moves from Euros to AT, we kind of slide down the optimization to applied statistics (i.e., risk management) scale. Pure open information games leave themselves open to optimization, while a game like Last Night on Earth is ridiculous. Each addition of an AT element reduces the optimization ability of a regular human.

Very good post. Definitely how I would distinguish the two. I fucking hate that most eurogamers don't appreciate risk management as a legitimate skill to be tested. I vastly prefer testing risk management to optimization problems.

I can tap the Observatory to buy my 8th Noble. Then I can arrange them so my play area forms the Sigma Notation of my end game scoring bonus.

I'm a war gamer, so I'm not adverse to math. How could I, someone has to calculate that with 7 movement points my 1st Guards Tank Brigade can move through 1 hex of woods, 2 hexes of open terrain via road, 1 city hex and up a hill and with a 22 attack strength assault the 33. Panzer-Regiment with a 13 defense strength for 1.5:1 odds.

However, because you usually want to move a unit to some defined place and then calculate if it can reach there, or because a shitty dice roll can botch every attack no matter how well prepared it was, war games feel less analytical than euros, which often don't have any random stuff happening during the game and in which you can clearly determine what outcome your turn one action will have on your seventeenth game turn.

Michael Barnes wrote:

You know what's funny? Even in really math-y games like POWER GRID I never crunch numbers unless they're just obvious- "If I buy that coal, I won't have enough money to build a station", that kind of stuff.

I do the same thing. Probably why I rarely win at Power Grid, though I do pretty well up until the last couple turns.

Gary Sax wrote:

Space Ghost wrote:

Exactly. As one moves from Euros to AT, we kind of slide down the optimization to applied statistics (i.e., risk management) scale. Pure open information games leave themselves open to optimization, while a game like Last Night on Earth is ridiculous. Each addition of an AT element reduces the optimization ability of a regular human.

Very good post. Definitely how I would distinguish the two. I fucking hate that most eurogamers don't appreciate risk management as a legitimate skill to be tested. I vastly prefer testing risk management to optimization problems.

Oh but they say that Euros are risk management. I mean you run the risk that such and such a person is going to take the wood as you need it. Or he's going to grab that fucking favor spot or whatever. So you try to mitigate risks. Problem is that there isn't much you can do to mitigate that risk. You just have to do something else.

Whereas in AT or a wargame, you can have the most perfect plan that gets foiled because you're guns jammed or whatever....(You botched your rolls).

Plus I think they are different kinds of risk.

In many of the Euro games, you can avert the risk by taken the first player next turn or something. There's not alot you can do about bad die rolls. Although you can reduce that risk by moving to an advantageous position.

From what I've read the game Connect 4 has been solved. However, if you add an additional row to the "board" that arrangment has not been solved.

I haven't read the actual solution, nor would I want to. Connect 4 remains one of my all time favorite games, "solved" or unsolved.

Of course Connect 4 isn't a Euro anyways.

dan daly wrote:

From what I've read the game Connect 4 has been solved. However, if you add an additional row to the "board" that arrangment has not been solved.

I haven't read the actual solution, nor would I want to. Connect 4 remains one of my all time favorite games, "solved" or unsolved.

Of course Connect 4 isn't a Euro anyways.

Pretty sneaky, sis....