What BOARD GAME(s) have you been playing?

I played 1812 a number of times when it came out and enjoyed it. However, it appears the game is not really balanced, as the Brits took every game we played. Feedback from others on BGG seemed to be the same. I think 1775 fixed this issue a bit by limiting it to two factions per side.

jeb wrote: Ah, I laughed. Putting the work into modifying the little "quote" box is comedy gold.

And we're allowed to be curmudgeonly now. I haven't honestly been impressed with a new game design since YOMI, maybe. Or RISK LEGACY--whichever was last.* But nothing in the last couple of years has fired me up in the boardgame space. Lots of re-treads. I'll take the new WIZ-WAR, don't get me wrong, but what is out there like NEXUS OPS when that was fresh?


*I want to try ROBINSON CRUSOE--seems to be in my wheelhouse.

Firefly and Robinson are two of the best games to come around in a long time. I've been playing both for a year now, still play them as often as I can (Firefly hits the table more than Robinson), and I'm still finding plenty to love in both.

I got in a second game of Lords of Xidit yesterday, and I'm starting to think this is the real deal, rather than a flash in the pan. Competing on three levels is very interesting, the ways you can anticipate actions and program your knight to defeat monsters that aren't even on the board yet is a lot of fun.

Also played a "game" of Dragon Slayer, the latest crowdware pile of trash from Indie Boards and Cards. This company has had such an awful track record since turning to Kickstarter, but they're making a lot of money so? Anyway this is a push your luck dice fest, I can't even describe it, it's barely a game, I can't believe stuff like this gets published. Avoid it.

Sagrilarus wrote: So next time you should consider rebutting the content of my post in the tradition of Fortress:Ameritrash instead of taking it to me personally with trolly bullshit like a nine-year-old in his mom's basement. I used to have a pretty high opinion of what you had to say.

S.

Thought you could use this, S.

Green Lantern wrote:

SuperflyTNT wrote: i love Eldritch Horror.

Loving Eldritch Horror too, Supes. I always enjoyed Arkham Horror well enough but always found my actions useless or wasted, so always felt impotent in AH. Not so with Eldritch Horror. On top of that I love the cleaned up rules and think it does a much better job in telling a cohesive story.

I am not of the mind that I felt that what I did in ARKHAM HORROR was wasted, or that I was running in circles. My bitch with the game is that the upkeep is way too hard, with monsters moving differently based on rim color, etc. It's just too much like work. I work enough as is, and I don't need to do it when I'm trying to have a pastime.

ELDRITCH HORROR does everything right, IMO. It boiled away the bullshit from ARKHAM HORROR while retaining the feel to a great extent. It's just a very well-designed game, and I keep reading that people don't like it for this or that reason...I'm just kind of befuddled as to how this isn't the same "evolution and simplifying" that people are more into these days. I guess the hard-core ARKHAM players dig the narrative and can put up with the bullshit baggage that comes with it to get that narrative, but for me, ELDRITCH has more than enough narrative and tells a great story, with lots of memorable moments, but without all that overhead.

It's probably my #1 go-to game right now. I've not sickened of it, which is a great sign, and thanks to a fine human being (Von Tush) I've now got my only complaint with the game knocked away (not enough cards). Very happy.

Josh Look wrote:

jeb wrote: Ah, I laughed. Putting the work into modifying the little "quote" box is comedy gold.

And we're allowed to be curmudgeonly now. I haven't honestly been impressed with a new game design since YOMI, maybe. Or RISK LEGACY--whichever was last.* But nothing in the last couple of years has fired me up in the boardgame space. Lots of re-treads. I'll take the new WIZ-WAR, don't get me wrong, but what is out there like NEXUS OPS when that was fresh?


*I want to try ROBINSON CRUSOE--seems to be in my wheelhouse.

Firefly and Robinson are two of the best games to come around in a long time. I've been playing both for a year now, still play them as often as I can (Firefly hits the table more than Robinson), and I'm still finding plenty to love in both.

What are your thoughts on the base game versus the base with Pirates/BH?

charlest wrote: I played 1812 a number of times when it came out and enjoyed it. However, it appears the game is not really balanced, as the Brits took every game we played. Feedback from others on BGG seemed to be the same. I think 1775 fixed this issue a bit by limiting it to two factions per side.

Given that the British stuck it to us pretty hard in the actual war, perhaps that's warranted? Has anyone made recommendations on how to move the centerline of the results in order to make it a more balanced game? I wonder if spotting the Americans two locations would make things better.

The Revolution was a more muddy affair. It could have gone either way.

S.

Sagrilarus wrote:

charlest wrote: I played 1812 a number of times when it came out and enjoyed it. However, it appears the game is not really balanced, as the Brits took every game we played. Feedback from others on BGG seemed to be the same. I think 1775 fixed this issue a bit by limiting it to two factions per side.

Given that the British stuck it to us pretty hard in the actual war, perhaps that's warranted? Has anyone made recommendations on how to move the centerline of the results in order to make it a more balanced game? I wonder if spotting the Americans two locations would make things better.

The Revolution was a more muddy affair. It could have gone either way.

S.

The designer and publisher both have provided a few different options at BGG if groups are finding 1812 unbalanced. I don't get the impression many folks have tried the suggestions as there doesn't seem to be much commentary after they were posted. I'd guess players got in their 1-2 plays, complained, and moved on to the next new shiny. I haven't been concerned with it, so haven't employed any of them. If I were to, it may be the one where the Americans get 2-3 extra starting cubes out west, but again, I'm not too sure.

1775, to me, plays like Nexus Ops. I like Nexus Ops ok, but since defense isn't an issue in NO I feel like I'm only playing half a wargame. 1775 is so fluid I don't really get a sense of any valued territories or objectives, so long as my side ends up with more colonies than yours we can swap around all day, not much matters except the tally at the end, so again it feels like half a game to me.

1812 feels more historical and thus more rewarding. The territories you hold matter, not only because it dictates whether you can even muster or not, but because it also impacts your path to the front. Also, there seems to be more flavour in how the factions play.

1812 feels like a light wargame, 1775 feels like something to do.

Oh, I've got both for sale. Too many copies in my game groups, and I'm trying to get out of this hobby (hopefully for reals this time). The games I have are fine...no more chasing new ones.

Green Lantern wrote:

lj1983 wrote:

Green Lantern wrote: Oh yeah, got to play Firefly earlier with both expansions...

by both expansions do you mean Blue Sun? if so, tell me moar! I worry that firefly could become one of those games where you'd dilute with too much stuff and too much empty space between players. Pirates and Bounty Hunters was great, but added new mechanics and not a whole lot of extra stuff.

Sorry, both expansion to this point meant Breakin' Atmo' and Pirates and Bounty Hunters. Is Blue Sun now available?

I think some people picked it up at GenCon

Jeff White wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote:

charlest wrote: I played 1812 a number of times when it came out and enjoyed it. However, it appears the game is not really balanced, as the Brits took every game we played. Feedback from others on BGG seemed to be the same. I think 1775 fixed this issue a bit by limiting it to two factions per side.

Given that the British stuck it to us pretty hard in the actual war, perhaps that's warranted? Has anyone made recommendations on how to move the centerline of the results in order to make it a more balanced game? I wonder if spotting the Americans two locations would make things better.

The Revolution was a more muddy affair. It could have gone either way.

S.

The designer and publisher both have provided a few different options at BGG if groups are finding 1812 unbalanced. I don't get the impression many folks have tried the suggestions as there doesn't seem to be much commentary after they were posted. I'd guess players got in their 1-2 plays, complained, and moved on to the next new shiny. I haven't been concerned with it, so haven't employed any of them. If I were to, it may be the one where the Americans get 2-3 extra starting cubes out west, but again, I'm not too sure.

Yes, I don't think any big changes are needed, something as simple as a few cubes should do the trick.

I got in 4 games before selling it. I liked it, but another prominent member of my group did not like it multiplayer and was only interested in playing it as a 2 player game. This kind of killed it for me.

I'd very much like to try 1775 at some point as the system itself is great.