07/17/2008: Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage

Last night Darren dropped by for some Second Punic War. We've played Hannibal three or four times before, and the Carthaginians have won each time. Now we're more familiar with the rules, but still not sure what we're doing wrong strategy-wise. I'm Carthage.

First turn, Hannibal moves up the coast (surprise, surprise) and forgets to drop off Mago in Spain. Oops. Carthage also shores up Gallia Cisalpina. The Roman generals toodle around in Sicily and Rome.

Second turn, Hannibal continues to rampage in northern Italy, flipping the northernmost PC in Samnium. He then plays I have come into Italy... to flip the next two along the cost, seizing Samnium. Luckily for me, Syracuse Allies With Carthage, and things are looking awesome. Rome mounts an attack on Hannibal with the benefit of Elephant Fright, but it is just barely deflected. Unfortunately Hannibal is somewhat stupid and walks into Etruria, ending the turn there and suffering Winter Attrition. This mistake is compounded by Rome exercising some clever Diplomacy on the northernmost PC, and Carthage doesn't get the province. Fortunately Carthage is in the lead and Rome removes some PCs at the end of the turn. (Carthage replaces his PCs at the beginning of the next turn.)

The rest of the game is a bit fuzzy, ending the turn after Scipio Africanus' appearance, but here are the highlights.

Hannibal retakes Samnium, which remains under Carthaginian control until the end of the game.

Hannibal makes his way down the coast, and to Rome's surprise, there's a Traitor in Tarentum and Hannibal takes the city without a siege. Hannibal begins to take over Apulla province.

Hannibal senses a weakness in one of the Roman generals (Marcellus?) and attacks him at Rome. Marcellus retreats into Rome, upon which Hannibal builds a Carthaginian Siege Train and tries twice (or three times) to siege Rome, only to result in failure. Hannibal is forced to retreat to Tarentum with his crappy siege train in tow.

Hasdrubal sails to Sicily to and has modest success, but he's interrupted by the newly-arrived T. Longus who destroys the PCs he has left behind in an effort to flip it quicker.

Nero confounds the Carthaginians by sailing to then-unoccupied Spain, making an unprecedented three successful siege rolls in a row to take over New Carthage. This is a major punishment for Carthage, who can then not claim the reinforcements for New Carthage, and does not have a general in Spain to take the Baetica reinforcements.

Hasdrubal is killed in Sicily.

Nero (proconsul) gets itchy for a province, spreads out in Baetica, dropping a single CU in 3 cities in an attempt to speed things up.

Hasdrubal, newly reemerged in Africa, sails to Spain with 7 of Hanno's troops, kicking Nero's ass (who is too spread out to stop him), flipping a PC and politically isolating one of Rome's PC's in Baetica. Baetica remains under Carthaginian control. Hasdrubal sieges New Carthage but only gets one counter on it.

Hannibal -- who is left with only 4 PCs -- is scared off by Scipio Africanus and retreats back to Gallia Cisalpina.

Scipio Africanus sails to Africa and destroys Hanno at Carthage. Scipio is left with 4 CUs. This is maddening to me because I was holding and had considered playing Cato Counsels Rome to prevent this!

Hasdrubal, somewhat concerned by this recent turn of events, sails to Carthage with 7 PCs and defeats Scipio Africanus. Rome concedes, having only a handful of PCs left on the map.

All in all, a good game. The battle cards didn't frustrate us much, although we're still not sure how Rome can win the game. Two things happened that haven't happened in any of our previous games: 1. Rome went to Spain and took New Carthage, and 2. Hanno was defeated in Africa.

"The reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

Yeah, it’s been a while. I apologize. But I am alive and mostly well. I am getting caught back up on gaming and in the last few months I have played a lot of new (to me) games. I thought I’d give you the quick and dirty on a few of the standout games and wonder what your take is on them as well.

Agricola
Yes, I played it. I figured that, one, I needed to see what all the fuss was about and, two, I needed to see what all the fuss was about. Honestly, at this point in my gaming life you will not find me at my FLGS looking for the newest farm-related game to be released. This playing of the game was solely based on all of the hub-bub. Special thanks to Michael Chapel and Jeff Jones for showing me the ropes.
The one-liner: My wife and I might enjoy it.
A little more: We played the game with all of the decks combined. I would not recommend this. I got nothing, as far as cards went, that worked with each other. The schlub sitting next to me got cards that all worked together and was beaming at his prowess for playing them. Of course, he won. Separate the decks. This is not a bad game, but it would be a game that we play when we have another couple over and the girls want to play something “cute”.

Starcraft: The Boardgame
I played this with ever-hospitable Jim Brooks at the FLGS. This is a game that is right up my alley.
The one-liner: An accurate re-imagining of the computer game.
A little more: So accurate that I’d prefer to play the computer game. Just kidding. I try really hard to think of board games and the original games that some are based on as two different creatures entirely. I enjoyed this game. I enjoyed the turn markers and the choices one had to make in placing them. Also the combat system is a lot of fun. I enjoyed the game and with the different ways to win the game, it was an easy sell for me.

Last Night on Earth
Once again, this game was graciously presented to me by Jim Brooks. We played this one at GITHOT with Susan Rozmariek and a few others. I am a huge zombie fan and have been looking for a great zombie game; words that don’t normally make it together in the same sentence. I may have found it. This is all based on one play, but… wow!
The one-liner: Captures the essence of Zombie-ana very well.
A little more: People are fragile in this. Zombies are more zombie-like in this game than others. Scenario-specific goals! Great components. I really liked this game and will most likely pick it up based on this one play. I know zombie games aren’t for everyone, but this one is great!

Race for the Galaxy
I played this at one of John Gravitt’s game days. I’ve played the hell out of San Juan, so I was very interested in trying this out.
The one-liner: I’d rather play San Juan.
A little more: Seriously?! A game that is so similar to another game and is getting a lot of buzz?! I don’t see it. People were not soiling themselves when San Juan came out. This is another game that is so hype-fueled that when the hype wears and the shelf-dust starts to collect on Race for the Galaxy, people are going to know shame the likes they have not known since quietly throwing away their Milli Vanilli album.

Mr. Jack
I love Scotland Yard and Fury of Dracula. I’m also intrigued by Jack the Ripper and a fan of Sherlock Holmes. This should be a no-brainer for me.
The one-liner: I’m glad I’ve got a friend who owns this.
A little more: I can’t place it, but there is something that keeps me from buying this. I enjoy the game, but I don’t see it having a great deal of replayability. I’ll play it any time that I’m asked, but I buying it seems a little much for what you get. Mr. Jack would make a great PDA/cell-phone/Flash-based game.

Galaxy Trucker
Racing? In space? Sign me up! The whole trucker thing is a little weird.
The one-liner: I’d buy it, if I could find it.
A little more: Stylistically this game rocks. This game is a lot of fun and is a wonderful game AND shared experience. I will definitely be picking this one up.

Yspahan
I played this one at GITHOT as well and I’m at a loss with this one.
The one-liner: Great dice mechanic on a thoroughly pasted on themeless Euro.
A little more: The game was enjoyable, but it was abstract a game as could possibly be. I am tempted to read the rules just to read the laughable explanation for the theme. The dice mechanic is really neat and fun, but I don’t know if it carries the whole game. I’ve only played this once and will have to play it some more to get a better feel for the game.

Cartagena
Yes, that ol’ chestnut. I’ve never played it until now.
The one-liner: I’m now of the notion that the British were just in jailing pirates.
A little more: Now I’ve only played the open style of play, but this game is dry and more of an interactive puzzle. At one point in a game, I had the option of letting my friend win or his wife. I let her win. She’s cuter.

Elfenland
Another ol’ hickory stick. I played this at John Gravitt’s game day.
The one-liner: Seems to have limited replayability.
A little more: I enjoyed it and can see where Alan Moon is stuck on a single thought. The pieces were interesting and the board art is cute. I enjoyed and thought that this would be a great game to play with my daughter.

Spacebeans
I picked this up on a whim. It was cheap. The Mrs. loves Bohnanza and it’s space themed.
The one-liner: A fun, short group exercise.
A little more: This can be fun, but not having a hand leads to no forthought as to your next move. It’s lite (not even “light”) and cute. I’m glad it was cheap.

Once again, sorry for the total lack of entries here as of late. I’ll be better, I promise. Keep gaming and until then, stay off the streets.


Images by Michael Chapel, Ed Rozmariek and me, baby.

Man, I Was So Wrong About Combat Commander!

Almost a year ago to this day I did a compare-and-constrast of Combat Commander: Europe, Memoir '44 and ASL Starter Kit #2. Looking back now, I guess I looked on it a little unfavourably; indeed, a compare-and-contrast isn't the best way to review many games at all. The reason I'm coming back to it is twofold: first, I've been playing it again lately, and second, I've played other games in the same vein since that original post.

In retrospect, the most interesting thing about Combat Commander: Europe -- and it's something that can only been seen in retrospect -- is that even though I started playing CC:E over a year ago, I can remember each of my four games clearly. Unlike games of Memoir '44, or Tide of Iron -- three months later it's already pretty fuzzy -- CC:E builds up such a fantastic ebb-and-flow narrative that sessions of it are branded into your memory. How does it accomplish this? Chaos, man. When I play a game and everything happens how I planned it, I remember the planning, not the result.

I've always believed that the fun inherent in playing games has more to do with the experience, not the quality of the game itself. But some games, regardless of quality, draw out better experiences, and CC:E is one of those games.

Cutting It Down -- Better Experience Through Less Choice

I'm in the middle of a game purge, largely induced by the realization that having too many games makes the selection process needlessly difficult, and that games haven't become less replayable over the years by their design; rather, I have made them that way. (I'll end up elaborating on that in a later post.) Some games I just turfed because they don't play well (or at all) with two, and when I have more than two, I end up picking something else.

In the mean time, let's see who was kicked out the door in favour of some crisp Lauriers:

Tide of Iron - I unloaded this sucker on an unsuspecting university student. I don't feel too bad about getting a bit over half of my money back on it. It's a sunk cost, really, I didn't want to play it anymore and keeping it around just made me angry when I saw it. What was I thinking, trusting yet another "game system" with promised scenarios?

Alhambra - I've been trying to turf this for over a year, and I finally succeeded.

Arkadia - Great game, I'd just rather play... anything else. A nice, tight system that seems to play out the same way every time. I'm sure its new owner will enjoy it more than I did!

The Pillars of the Earth - I enjoyed a few plays of Pillars until it all got so repetitive. In any case, I own other, more interesting games that scratch the same itch, like Notre Dame. I can play this on BrettSpielWelt if I get the hankering.

GIPF - Like PUNCT, I played this so many times against so many people that I can handily defeat anyone that I would ever play it face-to-face with. No need to keep it around.

Taluva - Feels too much like Attika, which is a much better game by the same guy. I can't stand it when a game has a glaring flaw, and in this case, it's the fact that most of our endgames come down to "if I draw this or this type of land, I win".

Louis XIV - Too much like work. Besides, I played it almost 20 times. The bloom fell off this rose when we noticed a correlation between your initial two mission cards and how likely you are to win.

Mykerinos - Couldn't stand this turd after two plays. Booooring. Glad I picked it up cheap and got all my money back.

Head-to-Head Poker - Apparently poker lovers like this sort of thing. I'd sooo much rather play Schotten Totten with a Rage deck than this sucker; it's completely missing the line aspect in favour of a kludgy betting mechanism.

I've still got quite a few games I'm trying to get rid of, and may have to re-price:

1960: The Making of the President - Falls short of Twilight Struggle in so many ways, I just don't want to play it anymore. I understand that many people love this game, and I respect that, but by comparison, it's the ugly stepsister.

Beowulf: The Legend - Cool game, and I played it over a dozen times, but I can't imagine a situation where I'd choose this over the much less luck-ridden Taj Mahal, which you'll have to pry from my cold, dead hands.

Citadels - Played quite a few times but no one ever asks for it anymore.

A Game of Thrones - Played almost a dozen times since I got it over a year ago, and it's starting to show some cracks. I enjoy it, but too many people I play with don't; frequently, games will end with one or two players never experiencing a fight, and it's in their best interest to stay that way. This game needs the right group, and I don't have it. (And, if I ever find such a group, they will most assuredly already own it.) Alternatively, I could keep it and acquire the expansions, which purport to fix the game, but why? The group(s) I used to play this with would be better off playing Ra or Imperial.

Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation - Cool two-player game that wore out its welcome. There are other two-player games I prefer, like Blue Moon or San Juan, both of which reward skill more than this game.

Medici vs Strozzi - I do enough math at work and balancing the checkbook, I don't need to seek out more. Too many 2-player games I'd rather play, and if I'm in the mood for this type of auction, Adam has a copy of Key Harvest that does it better. Great adaptation of Medici, though, so thumbs up to Herr Knizia.

PUNCT - Like I mentioned above, played it too often that no one wants to play this face-to-face with me.

Palazzo - A little too run-of-the-mill. Works fine with two, although there's a lot of luck in that case with the tile flips. With three or four players, please, bring on Modern Art.

Phoenix - Already played the crap out of this years ago and can't seem to unload it. Please, somebody?

Roma - A slightly broken game, depending on who you ask, so I'd rather play Blue Moon.

The Settlers of Catan Card Game - Again, a two-player game that's doesn't adequately reward you for the time you spend playing it.

Tigris & Euphrates - The de facto example of a game that I respect much more than I enjoy playing. Besides, everyone else I know has this game, so there's no need to own it. If I get the hankering, I can play it online at BGG, I suppose. (Not that it has come up.) What's more, the last time we played this we got a call that my wife's grandma (our last grandparent) was in the hospital. Bad memory association? Perhaps.

Timbuktu - Bought it, played it once, fantastic design, not my idea of fun. If I taught a logic class I'd totally bring this in to school.

Now that I've summarized the list of games I'm parting with for sure, here are some that I'm mulling over:

Blue Moon City - Interesting design and very approachable, but let's see where it fits. As a gateway game, I've had success with the in-laws, but there are so many other games that are more fun, like Bohnanza or Ingenious. As a gamer's game, it doesn't cut it; every time we play this now (with experienced opponents), everyone else is ready to win the turn after someone else does. It makes me wonder if there's much skill to it at all.

Carcassonne: The Castle - While it's different enough from regular Carcassonne to be interesting, you'd have a hard time convincing me that it's better, even with two players. I like it, sure enough, but I think Carcassonne is more rewarding. Tough to decide. To me, Carc: The Castle is a single-use appliance that you aren't thrilled about keeping space for, like a waffle iron. But waffles are so darned tasty...

China - We played the bejesus out of this years ago, not so much today. A great area-influence game that I am always glad to play, but it takes three to tango and I prefer other fare with that number.

Amun-Re - Yes, it's my #2 game, but I've played it so much now, it's gotten to the point where I'd beat a newbie up one side and down the other. That rules out local play. I enjoy it on SpielByWeb.com tremendously, and it's even my preferred format. Is there any reason to keep it around? Other than wishful thinking?

Goa - My wife won't be happy with me if I ditch it but I'll be less happy if I play it again. First of all, we've had a negative experience playing this once before, and second of all, it only hits the table with two, where the luck inherent in flipping expedition cards for founding colonies makes a much bigger difference than with three or four. I can't stand it when a seemingly perfect design is blemished with an element like this. Besides, if I wanted to play an auction-action-action game, I'd play The Princes of Florence, which has this one beat by a mile.

Torres - Until recently this was on my Top 10, and I still rate it a 10, but my copy hasn't been played in over a year. I play this quite a bit on BoiteAJeux.net, where I've got a pretty good ranking, and it's fair to say that I'd dismantle a newbie fairly easily. Playing it online is my favourite format because I feel too guilty spending too long on my move when I play it face-to-face.

Caylus Magna Carta - Extremely dry, and it seems like the winner is the player who builds the 1 resource -> $4 building and the church always wins. I had acquired this after Charlene expressed so much disappointment over me trading Caylus away; I was hoping this would fill the void, but I don't think it does.

After all that stuff is (theoretically) let go, here's the collection I'd be left with (excluding kids' games), and I consider it ideal.

Blue Moon - 2-player, quick, high skill quotient, best of breed (CCG aspect)
Bohnanza - gateway, light, best of breed (negotiation)
Carcassonne - 2-player, gateway, high skill quotient (seriously), quick
Coloretto - gateway, light, quick
Cranium Hoopla - party, light
Imperial - not sure, haven't tabled it yet :(
Ingenious - 2-player, gateway, team play, high skill quotient, quick, best of breed (abstract)
Jambo - 2-player, light, best of breed (CCG aspect)
Mamma Mia! - 2-player, cards, gateway
Memoir '44 - 2-player, play with Gavin, light, war game
Modern Art - best of breed (auction), high skill quotient
Mystery Rummy: Jekyll & Hyde - 2-player, quick
Notre Dame - high skill quotient, best of breed (resource management)
Power Grid - supports 6, best of breed (economic), high skill quotient
The Princes of Florence - 2-player (with variant), best of breed (auction), high skill quotient
Ra - 2-player (with variant), high skill quotient, light, gateway
Runebound - 2-player, can watch TV simultaneously :)
Samurai - 2-player, gateway, quick
San Juan - 2-player, high skill quotient, quick
The Settlers of Catan - gateway, light
Taj Mahal - best of breed (hand management)
Tichu - gateway, team play, high skill quotient, quick, best of breed (trick-taking/climbing)
Ticket to Ride: Europe, Switzerland - 2-player, gateway, best of breed (connection, rummy)
Time's Up! - gateway, team play, best of breed (party)
The Traders of Genoa - best of breed (negotiation)
TransAmerica - 2-player, gateway, best of breed (connection, bluffing)
Twilight Struggle - 2-player, high skill quotient
War of the Ring - 2-player, high skill quotient, war game
Crayon rails games - 2-player, high skill quotient, best of breed (economic), quick (at least with 2)

New To Me, January 2008

January was a great month for new games. Not in quantity, to be sure, but the quality was all there. Let's have a look, shall we?

Russian Rails

Lindsay is into crayon rails as much as -- if not more than -- myself, and she picked up Russian Rails and British Rails in a game order with JJ Superstore. (I tossed in a game for myself, see further on.) I was wary of Russian Rails, since I heard it was one of the longer crayon rails games. I couldn't have been more mistaken!

Our first game took three and a half hours, though the time flew by. I won by a nose, having built just as inefficiently as Charlene and Lindsay. We were completely oblivious to the fall of Communism, so when it came, we looked at our rail networks in dismay. I lost 20% of $150M+ rubles, which leveled the playing field a bit. Thrifty building and a steady 3 loads back and forth won me the game.

Lindsay generously lent us Russian Rails, and we played it three more times. The first game, we got the fall of Communism in the first 15 minutes! It made for an interesting game. The last two games, it didn't happen at all. The first 2er game clocked in at 90 minutes; the last two, 60 minutes! Truly a speedy game.

We did notice some things, though. It seems like drawing cotton deliveries is a significant advantage, since they are usually going somewhere you have to build to anyhow. The bounties are very cool, especially since there are so many more of them than a typical crayon rails game. Two thumbs up for Russian Rails!

Timbuktu

A member of our club was having a fire sale, so I picked this up for cheap. I couldn't figure out where the game was by reading the rules, but it quickly revealed itself once we started playing. This is a very, very clever game that isn't my idea of fun. I mean, we had fun playing the game, but there was no table talk, no chit-chat, no sense of participating in something together. I'd recommend this game without hesitation to people who really like deduction games.

Silverton

Somehow, having looked over the Mayfair rails games several times on the shelves of my FLGS, I never flipped the Silverton box over to see what it was about. Something on BGG tipped me off to it, so I got Lindsay to order it for me from JJ's. Well, I'm glad I took the chance, because so far, Silverton has emerged as the supreme economic game in my collection.

I have played Silverton twice with Charlene now, the first time being mostly a learning game. The second time, we played the Short Game to completion. Both were extremely interesting experiences, and we look forward to playing the full game.

Silverton is a great economic game. I love the blend between passenger routes and shipping, and the commodity market is very clever. The dice-rolling is a hoot; my victory in our second game was made sweeter because all my mines had depleted and I was banking on winning that turn.

Unfortunately the designer died young (in his early 30s!) so we'll never see another design quite like it.

Race for the Galaxy

It seems like everyone I know is buying this game, so of course I've played it. 9 times, in fact. Each time it gets a wee bit better, but I still can't ditch the feeling that I'd rather be playing something else. Yes, even San Juan. Sorry. But you read this blog 'cuz it's 100% Hype Free^TM, so there you go.

Key Harvest

I got this for Adam for a Christmas gift, simply because it's Richard Breese, man. Unsurprisingly, it feels just like his other designs: I feel like I'm in control of an elegantly-designed system with no loose ends; everything I do affects everything else I do and everything everyone else does. It's really an amazing game. The replayability is still in question, though after two plays, I'm excited to play it again.

The auction mechanic in Key Harvest is brilliant, and while not entirely original, it's not often used. It's kind of like Medici vs Strozzi's auction, where you have to give the other player(s) an opportunity to purchase something before you buy it for yourself. Only this time, you can let it sit if it isn't bought by other people. In this game, though, you can pick what you are putting up for sale, rather than pulling it out of a bag. Hence you can pursue two approaches: put up stuff that you want for cheap and hope it sits, or put up stuff other people want for a bit more and hope they bite.

Man, I'm rambling. Key Harvest. Play it. And while I'm here, can I send a virtual boot up the ass of all those who called it "Euro Bingo"?

Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers

I've been deluged by various Carcassonne variants over the years. Knizia's was good, The City was different, but good, Ark of the Covenant was a turd, The Discovery is to avoided at all cost (or so I'm told), so what's one more?

Well, this version of Carcassonne played out better than I expected, but I still don't think it ever needed to be made. I'd like to ask Klaus why he bothered in the first place. He didn't simplify Carcassonne, he didn't improve it, so what was he shooting for? I wouldn't even recommend it for new players.

Anyway, Adam picked it up at a thrift store for less than $5, so why not.

Wings of War - Burning Drachens

I've always been into tabletop air battle games like Wings of War, and to a lesser extent, Techno Witches, though they really lose something when you play them with only two players. I've yet to play Wings of War with more than two, though I've heard it's epic. That didn't stop me from drooling over Darren's copy of Burning Drachens, so I got to try it out.

Man, this is some cool stuff. We played a mission where I had a single fighter attacking an observation balloon defending by a single fighter with a two-round delay. I managed to shoot it down with rockets (hell yeah!) and then escaped off the board after Darren's fighter's guns jammed. It was about seventy-six times more exciting than I just described it. If you're planning on starting somewhere with Wings of War, why not here?

New To Me, December 2007

I resumed being open to playing new games in December, as opposed to avoiding them. How did that go? Read on and see!

Jungle Speed

Adam borrowed a copy of this from a friend. Eventually he traded for his own copy. I suck at Jungle Speed, because I can't remember what the cards mean. Even after playing it five times, I'd still stutter when the cards are flipped up. With three players, this game sort of sucks, but with six, it's better, though you have to be sitting in such a way that your grabbing hand isn't blocking someone's view of your pile. I had some issues in that area. I'll play it, but I'll never ask for it.

Formula Dé Mini

Picking this up cheap for my son, though I haven't played it with him yet. I've played it twice and enjoy it a lot, more than Um Reifenbreite. The gear shifting is cool and you can find yourself in some very difficult situations if you're not careful. Double-sided board? Awesome. We found that the way to play was with two cars for each of three players on the three-lane track.

Tier auf Tier

This was the Christmas game this year and I have since played it 19 times since. Usually it gets played three times in a row. It turned out to be a bit more simple than I expected, but Gavin loves it and I don't mind playing it at all. The pieces are amazing. (This is my first Haba game.)

Jambo Expansion

I've only played this twice, once with one of the expansions, and once with the other two, and I'm undecided on it. It didn't change the game quite enough to completely reinvent it, but it adds some interesting new options. The swapping out of cards is a pain in the ass, so I'd like to avoid that, though I see now that Herr Dorn has posted a suggested replacement list. I ended up giving it the same rating as the base game. I have to play it some more, though Jambo was never one of my wife's favourite games, so that won't be any time soon.

Ticket to Ride: Switzerland

Let's get this out of the way first: the cards are crap. They're not even all cut the same way, and they're noticeably bigger than the train cards. I e-mailed Days of Wonder to express my disappointment and got back a complete non-answer. The lesson here is to avoid Days of Wonder games until they get their act in order.

Okay, now for the game: it's fun. It's tighter for 2-players than Ticket to Ride: Europe, which only had 2-player conflict when the two players drew Cadiz-Stockholm and Lisboa-Danzig. I'm familiar with the country tickets from the Märklin Edition, though the country-country tickets are new. Unfortunately that's where the flaw comes in... it's not uncommon to draw two of these at the same time, and quite frequrntly, you've already completed them. What's worse, Germany-Italy pays 13 points if you pull it off. The game seems to descend into a contest to see who can pull the most country tickets. Of course, I have never won, so I could be wrong.

Verdict? For $20, not bad, though don't hold your breath for a fixed version from Days of Wonder... they don't seem to care.

Memoir '44 - Air Pack

The good: Air Sortie rules (flexible, scenario-dependent and all-around well thought out), beautiful airplane miniatures, rejigged scenario book, handy terrain/unit/action/army summary cards.

The bad: the insert (tile wells aren't deep enough, finger holes don't reach far enough), we should have had the summary cards and winter hill tiles provided by the expansions.

All told, this is a fitting end to the Memoir '44 system and is worth acquiring for the new scenario book and air rules alone.

Mykerinos

I wouldn't have bought this if I didn't get it so cheap, although in retrospect, it was still too much. Mykerinos, to me, represents the worst of "Eurogamer porn". It's a set of cobbled-together mechanics designed to appeal to the genes that makes Eurogames what they are. There's no passion, no drama, no ingenuity... just an exercise in optimization with literally no opportunity for clever play. It's all out there, out in the open. No hidden information (apart from next year's parcels of land) makes this even more boring. Never again!

HeroScape Marvel: The Conflict Begins

I bought this for Gavin's birthday. It was more or less a no-brainer; I had the Rise of the Valkyrie set packed away for him for Christmas, my thinking being if he hated this version, I'd sell Rise of the Valkyrie on eBay or something. Well, HeroScape Marvel was a big hit. However, I didn't like it. Having been exposed to regular HeroScape, I found it lacking any kind of excitement due to the lack of squads and interesting terrain. I would strongly urge anyone who's interested in HeroScape not to start here.

Now for the kicker: once we gave Gavin regular HeroScape and offered those pieces for drafting, the Marvel guys never get chosen! Food for thought.

EastFront

Darren taught me this classic block game. Why did it take so long to play this? It's got everything a game needs, and I'm not restricting that statement to war games. Tension, drama, excitement, everything. Heck, there are even a book full of scenarios with the opportunity to chain them all together. I got destroyed the first time I played this. I got to Moscow but didn't make enough points after the handicap to win. Can't wait to play again... brilliant stuff!

Spy

I think Adam thrifted this. One of Knizia's earlier designs; you can tell, because the box credits him with his middle initial. At first, I thought it was really simple, then I saw the subtlety, then I realized the subtlety was all there was to it, and it really wasn't that subtly anyway. Disappointment ensued and the game was promptly returned to its owner. I thought I might be missing something, but I did play against two different opponents, and they didn't see anything either.

La Città

Adam scored a reprint of this for a reasonable price. There's a lot in this box, that's for sure. We had no idea how the game worked, and thus had no expectations, so the game progressed in a most interesting manner. I was originally thinking it was an area control game, then a civ-building game (in my defense, the building powers had just been explained to me), then multi-player war game. In the end, though, it's an optimization exercise. It's not a war game, because you don't always want to win a lot of people; in fact, sometimes you want to lose some people. I had a great time, and the game was hard as hell, though the ending let me down. I can't quite recall how it is scored but there was a bit of a disconnect for me between how you play the game and what you need to do to win. Anyway, I'd play it again, but I can't say I'm really excited about it. Definitely a heavyweight game... I'm more economic these days.

All in all, a wide variation in new games this month. For the most part, it was good.

1960: The Milking Of The Precedent

The first time I played Twilight Struggle -- only half of a game -- I didn't find it very rewarding. The second game was much smoother, and I'm glad I convinced myself to try again. After the second game came the third, then I borrowed a copy, and the rest is history. Now I own my own copy and it is well-loved. In fact, it's one of only four games I rate a perfect 10.

When 1960: The Making of the President was announced, I was thrilled. Another CDG from (likely the better) half of the Twilight Struggle team? Count me in! I'd never heard much about this election before, and I counted on Jason Matthews to make it every bit as compelling as the original.

Early reports pegged 1960 as a smoother, more streamlined CDG than Twilight Struggle. Gone were the dice, the separate decks, midgame scoring and the automatic playing of your opponent's events . I was intrigued and ordered a copy as soon as it was released.

Our first play was smooth, and definitely quicker than a game of Twilight Struggle. The final scoring was exciting, considering most games of Twilight Struggle don't run to the end.

After my third play, I started noticing some stuff that didn't sit right. (I have since played five games.)

Bad hands can't be mitigated

In Twilight Struggle, powerful cards are paired with OP values, so even if you can't Space Race your opponent's event, at least you get 3 or 4 OP out of it. In 1960, you can do the following with one of your opponent's cards:

1. Play it and squelch it, if you can afford the two momentum. You usually want to save one, though, in case your opponent is hoping you run out.
2. Save it for the debates. If it's a dual card, this is okay, but if it's not, you may be throwing the debate. Read on further for my thoughts on the debate. Of course, if you're past the debates, you may be blessed to have that card represent a state you're thinking you can win during the election.
3. Try to bait your opponent's momentum markers with less damaging cards. Good luck.
4. Play it anyway. Unfortunately, with a hand of bad cards, this is your most likely -- and common -- choice.
Because the cards rarely interact with each other (and when they do, it's in uninteresting ways), you don't get the thrill of playing them in a clever order to escape safely, like you can do in Twilight Struggle. When I get a lousy hand in Twilight Struggle, I think of it as an opportunity. when I get a lousy hand in 1960, I curse the design.

The debate is stupid and pointless

The debate is skewed toward Kennedy. He gets Harvard Brain Trust, the debate event that gives him +1 CP and Lazy Shave, the debate event that forces Nixon to play his card first. Too bad for Nixon, those two events are not guaranteed to be drawn before the debate, so Nixon has to decide early on if he cares about the debate or not. If he cares, and files away good Republican cards in the campaign strategy pile, he's screwed, and he has lost one or more opportunities to discard dangerous Democrat cards. Nixon's decision to fight for the debate or not is based on speculation. The only situation I can think of where Nixon would fight for the debate with a good chance of doing well is if he's dealt Lazy Shave in the first round.

As for the debate itself, assuming Lazy Shave doesn't make it into play, it's pretty much rock-scissors-paper to see who will win. Jockeying to have your strong issue win last is dangerous at best.

All in all, it's simply not worth Nixon's effort to try to win any of the debate issues with the Lazy Shave card floating out there, not to mention Harvard Brain Trust. This would be fine if it weren't such a large part of the game. If the designers were shooting for historical accuracy, they got it, but why did it have to be close to a foregone conclusion?

The unified deck / minimal deck recycling

The unified deck eliminates the experienced player's advantage in knowing which cards would come up soon. No doubt, when a newbie plays Twilight Struggle against an experienced opponent, he's going to get thrashed because the veteran knows what cards to play for in advance. By eliminating this factor, everything feels random and arbitrary.

The Prevention Events are rendered nearly useless by this change in the draw deck. In my five games, only once has Dwight Eisenhower come up before Eisenhower's Silence. And it seems to beat the odds that Greater Houston Ministerial Association always comes up after all four events it prevents are played. I didn't realize how critical the split decks were in Twilight Struggle until I got experienced with 1960.

Twilight Struggle made key Early War cards more likely to come into play by having the Early War cards be played through roughly three or four times. This doesn't happen in 1960. It's entirely likely that important events like Lazy Shave and Henry Cabot Lodge will never get played. For me, this removes a lot of the historical flavour.

No mid-game scoring

I'm not extremely familiar with the United States presidential electoral system, let alone how it worked in 1960, but it seems to me that key things happen in every election that influences the rest of the race. Since 1960 doesn't use victory points, the designers included a single mid-game scoring system (the debates) and left the rest up to the cards. It feels too loose to be fighting for influence in areas that won't matter until the very end of the game. In Twilight Struggle, you've got some rudimentary card-counting and frequent scoring that keeps you on your toes. Focusing on various parts of the map at certain parts of the game is what appeals to me about Twilight Struggle, and I really miss it in 1960.

The issues, momentum and endorsements

Since the issues are the primary way to get momentum markers, and the only way to earn endorsements, I'll mention them here.

First of all, hats off to the designers for coming up with a persistent, game-spanning method of dealing with the campaign issues and reflecting the difficulty the candidates would have had in getting a huge run up in them. The one CP/two CP cost is simple and effective.

The new 1960 player quickly realizes that blanketing the issues is a cheap way to win them when they're empty. Even better, then opponent can't switch all three in a single turn. The best he can do is empty them or switch one and empty another. Eventually someone has to give it up and let the other guy have them. Playing last is the most common method of winning issues, in my experience, and is the primary reason for the winner of initiative to choose to play last. I've never had a really difficult time deciding whether to play first or last.

Let me sneak in here to mention that the issues are the only outlet in the game for clever card play. Whereas combos are rife in Twilight Struggle, as in I play this, and on my next turn I play this, such combos are few and far between in 1960 and are essentially limited to the issues (except for that Alaska/Hawaii card). It feels satisfying the first time you take the lead in Civil Rights and then on your next turn play Lunch Counter Sit-Ins, but then your opponent takes the lead in Defense and plays Nikita Kruschev and does the same thing back to you. Boring. There are so many cards that manipulate the issues and grant bonuses to the leaders in them that it feels like the designers are forcing you to acknowledge this system that yields questionable rewards (see next paragraph).

What do you earn by winning the issues? Momentum and/or endorsements. Let's look at those separately.

Momentum markers are critical, no doubt, but you don't always want to acquire as many as you can. Momentum decay takes care of momentum hoarders. This wouldn't be so bad if you were assured that you'd always have something to spend your momentum on, but this isn't the case. I've played an entire game where I spent a total of three momentum to trigger my event. Seriously. In a normal game, I'm lucky if I get an opportunity to use a momentum marker each turn. Drawing a bad card of your opponent's (and your opponent drawing a bad card of yours) just isn't that common. Most 4 CP cards can be mitigated by sticking 'em in the campaign strategy pile (and forget about the debates, or it might have a lucky state on it) or by simply playing them at the end of the round, when your opponent won't get much out of it. Heck, even Gathering Momentum isn't a big win for your opponent to trigger; the momentum he spends is returned to him and he gets to populate the empty states, which by the third round or so are few and far between. I shoot for one momentum and that's it, just to give my opponent pause for thought. I started this strategy when I realized that I lost more momentum to momentum decay than I ever spent.

As for endorsements, these are pretty good, except that they're so random. I've used endorsements successfully a couple times by double-stacking the endorsement in the midgame and then clearing out most of the states within. This isn't always repeatable, though. The fact that the endorsements are random means that you can't plan to take advantage of them. So why deliberately try to earn one? We're trying to be a medium-weight strategy game here, right?

Media support is overrated

Media support feels like an afterthought to me. Sure, the board leader in media support gets to reorder the issues, and he gets to skip support checks when campaigning in carried or occupied states, but the sheer frequency of times that you will be adding or subtracting state support without campaigning means that you're wasting your time. There are only two cards (World Series Ends and Prime-Time Television) that reward a player who is leading media support in a region! Heck, there are just as many cards that grant media support. It's like the designers are pushing you to add media support even though it's totally overvalued. Blech.

Campaigning vs. adding state support directly

I've never taken a formal count, but I'd guesstimate that in the typical game of 1960, you will place state support 50% more often than you will campaign in a state. This bypasses several of 1960's mechanics: carrying states, candidate presence, media support and travel costs. I think this is even my pet peeve about the game. Twilight Struggle has a perfect balance between using Ops to spread influence and adding influence with cards; in 1960 it's way off. I get it, in the election, the hearts and minds of the voters were swayed without the candidate being in their state. But it just doesn't make for a good game.

Candidate cards are weak

Twilight Struggle's China card is brilliant and manages to produce a compelling gameplay element that is rooted in history. 1960 yields a similar mechanic that doesn't quite work. The cards themselves that are quite powerful, in the rare event that you draw too many of your opponent's cards; carrying too many cards in your hand now allows you to (essentially permanently) discard the bad ones. The problem with the candidate cards is how unlikely it is that you'll unexhaust them. It's too hard to justify exhausting your candidate for the 5 CP unless you're actually holding the card that will flip him back!

Now that I've torn 1960 a new one, it sounds like I don't think it's a good game at all, but I do. It's a great game to introduce to someone who enjoys history, American politics or simply meaty 2-player games. But the game has an illusion of being meatier than it is. Maybe I'm just corrupted by having played Twilight Struggle a dozen times or so. I think that Jason Matthews tried to leverage the growing success of Twilight Struggle and "Eurofied" the mechanics to produce a game that would appeal to a larger portion of the gamer demographic; ironically, while the game was being published and distributed, Twilight Struggle grew to achieve that sort of success anyhow. The adjustments to the game were unnecessary. In fact, I think that most of the changes could be rolled back to produce a better game. I may play 1960 from time to time but when I've got 3 hours to spend playing a meaty 2-player game, I will always reach for Twilight Struggle over 1960.