Like it says really, I often see games described as being American or German in reviews, and it plainly is more to do with design philosophy than location of designer (in that you can get German/European games made by Americans), so what are the two schools of thought?
From the BoardGameGeek.com glossary (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/glossary):
Ameritrash
n. A catchphrase for "American style boardgames". In general, this means games that emphasize a highly developed theme, player to player conflict, and usually feature a moderate to high level of luck. Examples of classic Ameritrash games include Axis and Allies, Dune, Cosmic Encounter, Talisman, and Twilight Imperium.
euro / eurogame
n. synonym for German game This term emphasizes the more frequent publication of German-style games in other countries in Europe.
eurotrash
n. A derogatory catchphrase for "European style boardgames"
family game
n. A game that typically has simple rules, a short playing time, relatively high levels of abstraction and player interaction, and requires three or more players. A large percentage of these games originate in Germany.
german game
n. A game from Germany. Such games typically have relatively simple rules, short playing times, fairly high levels of abstraction and player interaction, and attractive physical components. Games not from Germany that otherwise meet the criteria are occasionally included in this group, but are more frequently described as 'German-like'
Quote from: StuartFrom the BoardGameGeek.com glossary (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/glossary):
Ameritrash
n. A catchphrase for "American style boardgames". In general, this means games that emphasize a highly developed theme, player to player conflict, and usually feature a moderate to high level of luck. Examples of classic Ameritrash games include Axis and Allies, Dune, Cosmic Encounter, Talisman, and Twilight Imperium.
euro / eurogame
n. synonym for German game This term emphasizes the more frequent publication of German-style games in other countries in Europe.
eurotrash
n. A derogatory catchphrase for "European style boardgames"
family game
n. A game that typically has simple rules, a short playing time, relatively high levels of abstraction and player interaction, and requires three or more players. A large percentage of these games originate in Germany.
german game
n. A game from Germany. Such games typically have relatively simple rules, short playing times, fairly high levels of abstraction and player interaction, and attractive physical components. Games not from Germany that otherwise meet the criteria are occasionally included in this group, but are more frequently described as 'German-like'
Thanks Stuart, turns out I tend to like American games more, due to the greater emphasis on theme and tying rules to the concept. I find with the European games that sometimes they're just too abstract for me, with the theme being mere colour.
Incidentally, I find boardgamegeek a really user unfriendly site, I don't mean the folk are unfriendly, just the site itself is not that intuitive.
Rpg.net reviews I can find really quickly, boardgamegeek I end up wading through tons of threads trying to work out which are relevant.
Me too, Balb. My visceral hat of the games that have been coming out of my country know no limit. Thankfully, I was spared from having to play Settlers with my nephews this past holiday season.
BGG is definitely overcoded, if that is indeed a word, but it's been a godsend more than once. I find their ratings noteworthy. We RPGers are supposed to be grumpy, but these dork don't like ANYTHING.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityBGG is definitely overcoded, if that is indeed a word, but it's been a godsend more than once. I find their ratings noteworthy. We RPGers are supposed to be grumpy, but these dork don't like ANYTHING.
I agree with Pierce. I use BGG to have an overall view of a game I don-t know, and I tend to trust their ratings. Also, if you know where to look there are many useful materials (erratas, additional rules, even counters for print). Otherwise, the place is quite messy.
Our Boardgames are nice.
If you play them with your grandma or other non-sophisticated-gamer people.
I really get iresome when quality gaming time with sophisticated gamers is wasted on something you could as well play with any girl or gal from the street.
There are enough occasions when one has to hang out with unsophisticated gaming people, play those games THEN!
Don´t turn the RPG club into a 50% Ligretto club.
Arg!
If there ever was something rightfully called retarded, then it´s Berlin RPG clubs...
Some additional differences:
American school:
- more emphasis on player-to-player conflict
- often features elimination (losing players drop out of the game before it's over)
- often lower production values (plastic figurines, paper chits)
German school:
- more emphasis on player-to-player cooperation (trading, diplomacy, etc.)
- rarely features elimination, everyone gets to articipate until the end
- high production values (wooden playing pieces for the win!)
- 'Star designers' have cult following, name featured on the box.
Add:
German school: Players might remain in game until end, bu might have lost without them even knowing at turn 2.
For me the differnce is sort that the euro games are more strategic and slow playing while american games are more flashy, visual, fast paced and more based on luck.
I tend to like American games best. Too many Eurogames are just plain boring. FFG, makes some of the best game around, IMO.
Shadows of Camelot, is that essentially right in between Euro and Ameri? It looks great, except for the price sticker.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityShadows of Camelot, is that essentially right in between Euro and Ameri? It looks great, except for the price sticker.
I think it still leans toward Ameritrash, but with a hint of euro.:D
American games are actually ABOUT something, instead of the "about" being just a stupid window dressing for a system designed to show off the designer's "brilliance".
Guess which ones I like better.
RPGPundit
Y'all basically have the difference between American & Euros down. Obviously there's a bit of blur at the margins--for example, based on one playing I'd say that the revised version of Conquest of the Empire has Euro tendencies even though it's probably too "dirty" for most Euro fans. Yet Pundit IIRC likes the game. AFAIC, for my money I'd rather play Imperium Romanum II or King of Kings (aka Imperator in the revised version).
BGG is indeed an overcoded site, though not as bad in my experience as some of the online RPG PDF stores. I mainly just use BGG by logging in (having an account is essential) and then searching for individual games. Indeed I rarely visit the threads, if I have at all, other than the occasional GeekList.
One awesome thing about the place: people are helpful. At least, when I bought a secondhand copy of a game that was missing part of the rules, I sent a message to owners of the game and got several offers to scan the bits I was missing.
Anyway, back to the Euro/Ameritrash divide, as someone who was fairly indifferent to games in general until I was introduced to wargames back in the 70's, it was an extreme annoyance when Euros and CCGs invaded rec.games.board in the early 90's. And I personally loathe Civilization, essentially an early Euro, as well as most rail games, of which there were a flood in the early Euro days. A common characteristic of many of these games is that they reward precise calculation, but also depend on same from everyone around the table. By which I mean that in 1830, say, if you have a player who doesn't agree with the general consensus as to optimal play of his position down to a fairly micro level, it will upset the balance of the game for everyone. As a result--in my experience--the game featured a lot of browbeating as the inexperienced or maverick player is "encouraged" to make the "optimal" play. By contrast the kinds of fuckups I see in Risk-like games or say Kingmaker mainly revolve around misapprehending the balance of power; small tactical errors are punished but don't generally throw the whole game out of balance.
All that said, there are several Euro or Euro-like games that I've enjoyed. Off the top of my head:
Titan: The Arena (aka Colossal Arena)
Condottiere
Princes of Florence (only played twice, though)
And a couple "near-Euros":
History of the World (any edition)
Shanghai Trader (only played once but that was enough to get me to scare up a copy)
Acquire
By way of comparison, some non-Euro games which I enjoy but which aren't hex & counter wargames:
Republic of Rome
Junta
(key here is level of rules complexity and representation, in spite of the fact that map maneuver of armies is virtually irrelevent or nonexistent)
And then nontraditional wargames:
Dune (AH)
Cosmic Encounter (not really a favorite but I'll play)
Magic Realm
Star Trader (SPI)
Cold War (Victory Games)
"new-style" wargames--actually not new, block games or card-driven strategy--tend to use mechanics that are reminiscent of traditional board games such as making card play central to the game, or limiting movement to one or a few pieces on your turn
Hannibal (AH)
We the People (AH)
Napoleon (AH/Columbia)
Rommel in the Desert
Finally a game that's very hard to qualify: Titan. The subgame mechanics are a wargame, but the overall wrapper is vaguely like backgammon--crossed with Headache, maybe.
The reason I'm breaking down the categories is to show that "wargame" per se isn't the opposite of Euro--particularly in the 70's & 80's, there were a lot of innovative games from the (Anglo) American school that weren't exactly about war but did seem to share a similar aesthetic to AH/SPI wargames, in that they tended more toward representation/simulation, weren't afraid of complexity, often featured player elimination as a natural consequence of simulation, and tended to rely on balance-of-power calculations by the players, as a way to manage competition, rather than limiting direct competition and appealing to a mentality favoring precise tactical calculation.
I find Junta tolerable so long as you play it with a high-ranking German politician dressed in an NVA uniform.
Which NVA would that be?
Junta has been a little less fun for me than I feel it ought to be. May be because I thought the other players were just a bit too easy on El Presidente. Either that or I never quite mastered the art of building people up so they'd be a bigger target than I am.
NVA = Nationale Volksarmee = Armed Forces of the GDR
I was just reminiscing about it with a friend tonight. It was majorly weird.
My favorite boardgame at the moment is Command & Colors Ancients. I love Borg's system.
Interestingly I've been looking at Condottiere and at Princes of the Renaissance (not that I can find that latter one).
Junta is up for play.
I own and hope to play:
Arkham Horror
Junta
Twilight Empire (two player)
Carcassonne (which I have played, but enjoy best when played uncompetitively with my wife, just watching the patterns unfold)
Kremlin which looks fantastic
Memoir '44
And some others I haven't listed. I plan to buy Brass which looks great and maybe Fire and Axe. I'm also looking for Soldier Raj, as the topic appeals.
Thanks for all the help so far by the way, it is welcome, and I have started to get the feel of boardgamesgeek which has helped hugely.
I enjoy Kremlin a lot; I'd put it in the same stylistic category as Junta & RoR. Unfortunately I've never had a chance to play the advanced game, which I think is supposed to help with certain situations. Arkham Horror is the only game on your list that I know and actively dislike, based on a single playing where it just seemed utterly random and rather pointless. It may depend on the players' knowledge & enjoyment of the source material. I don't know Cthulhu practically at all.
I looked at Memoir '44 today (there's a good if cringeworthy instructional video on the Days of Wonder side), and I have to say: Despite earlier reservations it looks like a good game. It is what it is, i.e. fairly simple. But it, rather than AT-43, may be the thing to play with this friend of mine who's in town for a couple of weeks and who's at best a very casual wargamer. Besides, given the contents, it's positively cheap.
I have found Arkham Horror (with the Dark Pharaoh and the Dunwich Expansions) to be my favourite boardgame on the last year. It's amazingly funny, though the expansions make the game a bitch to beat.
Quote from: Elliot WilenI enjoy Kremlin a lot; I'd put it in the same stylistic category as Junta & RoR. Unfortunately I've never had a chance to play the advanced game, which I think is supposed to help with certain situations. Arkham Horror is the only game on your list that I know and actively dislike, based on a single playing where it just seemed utterly random and rather pointless. It may depend on the players' knowledge & enjoyment of the source material. I don't know Cthulhu practically at all.
Is RoR the one where you all play Senators scheming to become Emperor, but where potentially if you all backstab too much Rome will fall and everybody loses?
I always thought that sounded rather cool if so.
Yes, that's the one. I've only played the early republic game; there's also a middle and late republic scenario, as well as a "play it all the way through" campaign. As time goes on the external threats become less pressing, although the populace always needs to be appeased: if the senatorial order is overthrown, everybody loses regardless of how well things are going otherwise.
Quote from: Elliot WilenYes, that's the one. I've only played the early republic game; there's also a middle and late republic scenario, as well as a "play it all the way through" campaign. As time goes on the external threats become less pressing, although the populace always needs to be appeased: if the senatorial order is overthrown, everybody loses regardless of how well things are going otherwise.
RoR is awesome, but quite difficult at the beginning. In the first turns simply getting Rome to survive can be a trial. We found that, in many games, in order to start with the scheming and backstabbing, we had to do a lot of teamwork to eliminate the Punic Wars and the Social Wars at the early stage of the game. If you let a number of wars to stack simultaneously - I seem to recall that the top was 4 - Rome was destroyed. Wars were a random event, so if you had 3 wars started, you usually started to pray. Seriously.
Arkham Horror is a game for dense people. There´s an optimal strategy, that makes it pointless to play the game. They later introduced complications, but that just stretches it, doesn´t invalidate the optimal strategy.
Typical FF-game. Just one step away from the Eagle Game sickness...
For fuck's sake:
Quote from: SettembriniIf you play them with your grandma or other non-sophisticated-gamer people.
I really get iresome when quality gaming time with sophisticated gamers is wasted on something you could as well play with any girl or gal from the street.
There are enough occasions when one has to hang out with unsophisticated gaming people, play those games THEN!
Don´t turn the RPG club into a 50% Ligretto club.
Quote from: SettembriniArkham Horror is a game for dense people.
Could you please try a bit harder to be more of a pretentious cunt? I'm not sure if that's possible, but you have a history of trying really hard.
"Sophisticated gamer people"? "A game for dense people"? "Any girl or gal form the street"? Have you been attending the Brain Damage school lately? Are you feeling the need to replace Ron Edward's message?
For fuck's sake. This shit it's vomit - inducing.
Sorry, Arkham Horror has an optimal strategy. If you don´t find it, you are not paying attention. Surely that could be because you don´t care, not only because you are dense.
But if you just play, without thinking, then it´s not quality gaming.
It´s just killing time, and not wirth the label sophistication.
The first part is in no way offensive. It´s truth. I HAVE TO play Settler or Liggretto or Caracassonne at family gatherings and children´s birthdays.
If I meet with my gaming buddies, I will not waste my time for such trivial shit. Because we play RPGS or Wargames that are way more sophisticated and specialized. That´s just TRUTH nothing offensive going on.
EDIT: If you can play Empires in Arms or Battletech with your grandma and little cousin, more power to you. But they are unsophisticated gamers in my book.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityI looked at Memoir '44 today (there's a good if cringeworthy instructional video on the Days of Wonder side), and I have to say: Despite earlier reservations it looks like a good game. It is what it is, i.e. fairly simple. But it, rather than AT-43, may be the thing to play with this friend of mine who's in town for a couple of weeks and who's at best a very casual wargamer. Besides, given the contents, it's positively cheap.
I was really underwhelmed with it. I own Battlelore and played it before I played Memoir '44. I think Battlelore is a better application of the rules.
Quote from: SettembriniIf you can play Empires in Arms or Battletech with your grandma and little cousin, more power to you. But they are unsophisticated gamers in my book.
Unsophisticated gamers?!? If you can play Empires in Arms I don't think the term "unsophisticated" applies, regardless of age.
Sorry, I meant to say:
You can´t play that [ASL or Runequest and the likes] with your grandma, that´s why your grandma is an unsophisticated gamer. That´s basically my point, and I cannot see anything offensive in that.
Quote from: joewolzI was really underwhelmed with it. I own Battlelore and played it before I played Memoir '44. I think Battlelore is a better application of the rules.
How so? Is card play in BL less random / unbalanced / anticlimactic? That's the one persistent criticism of M44 I came across.
Quote from: SettembriniThe first part is in no way offensive. It´s truth. I HAVE TO play Settler or Liggretto or Caracassonne at family gatherings and children´s birthdays.
If I meet with my gaming buddies, I will not waste my time for such trivial shit. Because we play RPGS or Wargames that are way more sophisticated and specialized. That´s just TRUTH nothing offensive going on.
And you know what? Lots of people find wargames to be
trivial shit. No matter how complex they get and whether you get to keep track of ammo reserves, cover and suppression, they're still about soldier guys/ships/whateverthefuck fighting each other. One could then go on to claim in a voice as big, uninformed and gratingly rude as yours that this means that you wargamers have defective and inferior imagination, since you can't separate the metagaming concept of "players employing strategy to defeat each other" from the game's theme of "soldiers employing military strategy to defeat each other". It's like if you're only capable of strategic and tactical thinking if it's all about unit movement and shooting, but not if it's about something different, like resource acquisition, trade or cooperation, because these concepts are just too abstract for you. One could than draw the conclusion from the above that wargames are immature, and designed for people who can't grasp other types of games; kinda like how a 6 year old might be able to grasp the basics of checkers but be unable to play chess at even a basic level. And that's just the TRUTH, nothing offensive going on.
Whee, wouldn't you be pissed off if some
stupid crude boorish idiot started spouting ridiculous bullshit like that, dissing your preferred style of games? So how about not being the
exact bloody same kind of stupid crude boorish idiot yourself? You
personally and subjectively prefer military wargames to other boardgame types, more power to you. Family obligations force you to play certain other types of games more often than you'd like, and probably with casual players of lesser skill, our bleeding little hearts go out to you and your plight in sympathy. But that doesn't give your the moral entitlement to spout hateful garbage at other people's tastes, calling them "crude" and "unsophisticated" just because you happen to have some petty little personal problems with your familygaming. Grow up, emo-boy.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityHow so? Is card play in BL less random / unbalanced / anticlimactic? That's the one persistent criticism of M44 I came across.
I found the cards in M44 to be anticlimactic. I don't have any really in-depth things to say about it, having only played once, but it was underwhelming. I was expecting a fast and furious game of WW2 action, and instead got a game that was fairly boring. It felt like one ineffectual unit was fighting another all the time. I had fun, but not enough to buy the thing.
Quote from: SettembriniSorry, I meant to say:
You can´t play that [ASL or Runequest and the likes] with your grandma, that´s why your grandma is an unsophisticated gamer. That´s basically my point, and I cannot see anything offensive in that.
Ah, ok. But somedays I feel like ASL and some days Arkham Horror. Both can be great fun to play, and frankly I am much more likely to get people together to play Arkham Horror than ASL.
As much as I do appreciate a hardcore wargames, sometimes "beer and pretzel" games are more entertaining and certainly more social.
Premier, your point is nonexistant.
If you had paid attention, you would have read, that I DO play unsophisticated games.
I just don´t see the point in playing them at opportunities where I could play something else, something that I can´t play with any random person on earth.
And that point doesn´t go away, and is not offensive. It´s truth.
Quote from: SettembriniI just don´t see the point in playing them at opportunities where I could play something else, something that I can´t play with any random person on earth.
That makes sense.
Quote from: SettembriniAnd that point doesn´t go away, and is not offensive. It´s truth.
I agree, although the way you put it earlier was a tad aggressive.
That´s because I DO get angry when RPG-gatherings are transformed into Ligretto or Table-Soccer events.
I HAVE non-sophisticated-gamer friends & family, THANK YOU!
That´s not why I joined the club.
That was a rather unsophisticated contribution to the discussion, Sett.
Well, well, what would you say, if everybody at a convention was actually playing Carcassonne instead of something real?
About the same as a convention where everyone was playing any one game and it wasn't the one I liked. If I went there wanting to play a game like Carcassonne it would be just fine though.
It's not that you don't have a point -- you're just making it in a very ham-fisted and *unsophisticated* way. Which, considering what you're ranting about is more than a little ironic. ;)
So what is it people get out of eurogames?
Because Pundy's point rings true to me: they're about nothing.
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo what is it people get out of eurogames?
Because Pundy's point rings true to me: they're about nothing.
Faster Game, Easier Rules, More Social, etc.
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo what is it people get out of eurogames?
Because Pundy's point rings true to me: they're about nothing.
Well they're still games and I play games to win and have fun. I'm a casual eurogamer: I don't think they're the alpha and omega of gaming, but they do appeal to me because of their usual selling points: easy to learn, nice production values, etc.
The whole "thematic" and "about something" argument is, frankly, a bit baffling to me.
So, they're over soon, they instigate sociability in the manner alcohol does, and their easy rules mean they fade into the background.
In other words, there's nothing intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, they're over soon, they instigate sociability in the manner alcohol does, and their easy rules mean they fade into the background.
In other words, there's nothing intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
Well I'm not sure its possible for game rules to fade into the background, no matter how easy or light, but I do agree with everything else.
Well, well. There are A FEW of those games that have some clever mechanisms.
La Citta or Puerto Rico, for example.
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo, they're over soon, they instigate sociability in the manner alcohol does, and their easy rules mean they fade into the background.
In other words, there's nothing intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
Yes.
Quote from: PeteThe whole "thematic" and "about something" argument is, frankly, a bit baffling to me.
I agree. Sometimes a game is just a game. It doesn't always need to be a historic sim.
This is funny.
Perhaps it works if I write out the question in boldface?
So what is intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
They have been playtested thoroughly.
That´s about it.
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo what is intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
Well, nothing, but so what. I play games for fun. Not because the "game" has a value in its own right. Hardcore wargames or other simulations have no intrinisic value either. If you are really interested in the history of the period being portrayed, I think you'd do better spending time in a library than playing a game simulation.
This is a site for the DISCUSSION of GAMES.
With the attitude you just reveiled, you should not participate in such endeavours.
Quote from: SettembriniWith the attitude you just reveiled, you should not participate in such endeavours.
I hope you aren't referring to me. I'm not the one writing off whole types of games as having no value. A games "intrinsic value", to me, is the enjoyment I get from playing it. That is what's important to me. Otherwise it's worth is in its material components (i.e. not much). I don't see why we have to label types of games as having some other "intrinsic value". It seems just another way to claim our games are better than your games.
Overall, I just think that there are different games for different people in different moods.
There's a muddle here, Callous. Fun can be generated intrinsically and extrinsically. You're claiming the latter. The games generate fun all around them, but they themselves aren't fun as games.
What I'd like to hear, out of actual curiosity because I do think Premier may have half a point or more, is a case for these games as games.
Rather than retyping or quoting a lengthy post, see this analysis of Ameritrash vs Eurogame vs Wargmae (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1268120#1268120).
Eurogames appeal to people who do not enjoy many of the qualities of an "American Style" boardgames:
* More Complicated Rules
* Often War / Fighting themed
* Direct Player vs Player conflict
* Player Elimination from the Game
* Longer Playing Times
* Greater Dependence on Luck
The "fun" quality is entirely dependent on what elements of a game you, personally, find enjoyable. To say that a Eurogame or American Game is intrinsically "more fun" than the other is purely based on your personal preferences.
QuoteThe Ameritrash 'Core Priority' is Drama.
So Risk is a soap opera.
It's actually a bit scary, the way in which an apparently large number of people process all sorts of different experiences through television terms.
EDIT: Stuart, can we stop posting lists of what the fun of Eurogames is NOT about?
I am sorry if I am adding confusion to the thread. That was not my intent. I will have to look at Stuart's link at home. It's blocked here.
I do agree with Stuart's position, that, "fun" is based on personal preferences and is not intrinsic to a game. I doubt you will find any game that everyone thinks is fun. Thus they have no "intrinsic" fun value. I guess my beef is the word "intrinsic". To me, an engineer, the only truly intrinsic value a game has is its heat content. I know I could keep warm for hours with all of my SL/ASL stuff. :)
QuoteIt's actually a bit scary, the way in which an apparently large number of people process all sorts of different experiences through television terms.
Yep.
Talk about brain damage...
Quote from: Pierce InverarityStuart, can we stop posting lists of what the fun of Eurogames is NOT about?
If this helps you:
People prefer Eurogames to "American Style" boardgames because they:
* Have Less Complicated Rules
* Involve Themes Other Than War / Fighting
* Have Less Direct Player vs Player Conflict
* Players Do Not Get Eliminated from the Game
* Shorter Playing Times
* Less Dependence on Luck
Words fail me.
That's par for the course, really. :(
Here. Same thing... again...
* Easy to Learn Rules
* Involve A Wide Range Themes
* Indirect Player Conflict
* All Players Stay in The Game Until The End
* Short Playing Times
* More Focus on Strategy Than Luck
Let's try and avoid any more pedantry.
Quote from: Pierce InverarityPerhaps it works if I write out the question in boldface?
So what is intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
I am not sure I "get" the question.
Let me try another another question to see what kind of features you are looking for:
What is intrinsically valuable about RPGs as games?
(Or, if "RPG" is too broad a category, D&D?)
On a side note: I find it strange that the first Eurogames were designed by American designers, Sid Sackson and Alex Randolph.
Acquire (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/5), Bazaar (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/287), Metropolis (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/145) (all Sackson), and Moonstar (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1714), Schachjagd (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/4431), and Inkognito (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/466) (Randolph) paved the way for the likes of Reiner Knizia, Bruno Faidutti, Klaus Teuber, Stefan Dorra etc.
Quote from: Dirk RemmeckeI am not sure I "get" the question.
Let me try another another question to see what kind of features you are looking for:
What is intrinsically valuable about RPGs as games?
(Or, if "RPG" is too broad a category, D&D?)
Dirk, bringing in RPGs would take us right into apples and oranges land.
Unless you game for the cheetos, in which case good luck.
Quote from: SettembriniArkham Horror is a game for dense people. There´s an optimal strategy, that makes it pointless to play the game. They later introduced complications, but that just stretches it, doesn´t invalidate the optimal strategy.
Typical FF-game. Just one step away from the Eagle Game sickness...
There's an optimal strategy to most American-style boardgames.
You seem be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you dismiss euros as unsophisticated games you play with your grandma. Then you call games with optimal strategies (ie almost all thematic American games) pointless.
So what sorts of boardgames do you think are thematic, sophisticated, and deep?
Quote from: Pierce InveraritySo what is intrinsically valuable about these games as games?
Ease of entry - You can get a few guys together, read the rules out in 10 minutes, and everybody knows how to play. By one complete play-through (1-2 hours), everyone should be familiar with how the mechanics work and interract. That means you can focus all of your mental energy on thinking of tactics/strategies to win, instead of pausing to look up rules and special exceptions all the time. It also means that after one or two plays, your group of new players can be plumbing some fairly deep strategies and discovering new interrationships and dynamics in the system.
Different Paths to Victory - Euros tend to be designed and developed so there are no obvious paths to victory. You don't 'crack' them after a few playings. An approach that gave you the win last time will not work because the variables have changed. You have to be flexible.
Tough Choices - You usually have more things that you want/need to do, than you have actions/resources. This makes for very tough choices.
Balance - Euros often feature tight finishes. The better player will usually win (there tends to be little luck), but it's rare to see situations where a player is obviously out of the game 1/3rd of the way in, and so has to play out the string in despair or capriciously play king-maker. The intent is that you spend as much of the game as possible playing to win.
New Mechanics - A lot of people enjoy exploring new mechanics (bidding, placing influence, drafting, placing tiles, etc.) and seeing how they interract with one another.
Brevity - You can usually play 3-4 euros to completion in a 6 hour gaming session. This means you're not stuck in the same situation for too long. This gets back to spending as much of the gaming time as possible in contention to win.
Replayability - The better ones don't get stale after a few playings.
That's not to say euros are the be-all and end-all. But they address a lot the weaknesses of traditional American designs (strong get stronger, early elimination, playing time only young single men can accomodate, optimal strategies).
If you still fail to understand their appeal as games, my next question is whether you think Chess, Go, or Bridge have any merit as games.
Haffrung, thanks. That's illuminating at last. I'm doubtful about some criteria but not all.
"Easy" and "doesn't take long" seems to mean a eurogame is good insofar as it's not much of game. Were it more of a game, it wouldn't be good.
Elimination: How many American games still use that? (Honest question, I've no idea.)
Replayability/different paths: that does make sense.
Bridge, Chess, Go: see, that's the thing, and I think it's what Pundy means also. Bridge etc. are unabashedly abstract games. Form = content. Fine. Whereas eurogames look like Bridge et al. dressed up with some random theme.
Quote from: HaffrungThere's an optimal strategy to most American-style boardgames.
You seem be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you dismiss euros as unsophisticated games you play with your grandma. Then you call games with optimal strategies (ie almost all thematic American games) pointless.
So what sorts of boardgames do you think are thematic, sophisticated, and deep?
Not many.
Cosmic Encounter, Dune, Europe Aflame, Red Storm Rising, A line in the Sand, Fortress America, Shogun, Civilization, Vertigo, all Borg-Games, Titan, Axis & Allies, hero Quest, Star Quest. etc.
City of Chaos.
Empires in Arms, World in Flames, Imperium Romanum II, Wooden Ships & Iron Men, Third Wolrd War.
Block Games, J.U.M.P.
Pax Brittanica, Britannia, Age of Rennaissance.
I´m sure I´m missing some fun ones.
The grandness of "American" boardgame design has pinaccled some time ago.
Now, there´s a HUGE difference in quality between the games I cited and their modern cousins.
Just look at the Eagle Games...or Fantasy Flight.
We tried BattleMist and Twilight Imperium VERY hard, very often. We wanted it to be fun. But it wasn´t.
And don´t get me started on the sheer stupidity that is Age of Mythology, Tenjo, Civilization Boardgame or Napoleon in Europe.
What about Tide of Iron? Combat Commander?
I have the opportunity to play those, and all I know is that ToI is fat and CC is all the rage.
Don´t know enough about them. have to check them out. There´s still good in the market, I´m just burnt out on EG/FFG-like fiascos of the 200xs.
EDIT: I just read the reviews at BGG, and it sounds as if all FFG-suckages are firmly in place. Especially unbalanced scenarios. Why play something unbalanced if it´s not as historically accurate as can be?
We´re at war, choose sides: Game or Simulation. Don´t take the worst of both: Abstraction/ahistorical elements AND unbalanced Scenarios.
I might end up buying it for the minis. Traveller is SO hungry for all eras of warfighting.
But I´m inclined to let someone convince me of ToI´s merits. The "positive" reviews at BGG didn´t.
I totally agree with your criteria... but imbalance doesn't seem foreign to the Borgverse either. I can point you to some M'44 scenarios, and some dude on BGG actually compiled a statistic for every single one of them.
Re. ToI, some of the BGG threads seem to indicate it's more complicated. Mike Zebrowski headed the playtest, for what it's worth. What gives me pause is a purely aesthetic reason. The game looks crassly overproduced.
Quote from: SettembriniIf I meet with my gaming buddies, I will not waste my time for such trivial shit. Because we play RPGS or Wargames that are way more sophisticated and specialized. That´s just TRUTH nothing offensive going on.
You're a sad little man, but you do make a luke warm troll.
Quote from: SettembriniNot many.
Cosmic Encounter, Dune...
That's actually a pretty good list. Personally, a lot of those games are off my list because I just don't have 10-14 hours to play a boardgame these days, and when I do I want to play a 2-play wargame. Just can't stand the downtime in some of those old-school mulitiplayer games, where you often wait around for 40 minutes or more until you can take an action.
An excellent historical game in the old-school mode that plays quite briskly (though a full game will still run 10+ hours) is
Pax Romana. Richard Berg has churned out a lot of dogs in his day, but Pax is a fantastic game.
For a longer two-player wargame with an emphasis on the game, you can't beat
Europe Engulfed. WWII in 15-20 hours without the perfect-plan bullshit of Third Reich of the mind-blasting minutiae of World in Flames.
Quote from: SettembriniNow, there´s a HUGE difference in quality between the games I cited and their modern cousins.
Just look at the Eagle Games...or Fantasy Flight.
...And don´t get me started on the sheer stupidity that is Age of Mythology, Tenjo, Civilization Boardgame or Napoleon in Europe.
I'm with you, brother. I can't understand how Eagle Games titles even got produced. They couldn't possibly have been played by anyone except the designer.
And Tenjo is simply appaling. Gorgeous, original - a true labour of love. And completely broken out of the box. It's like an anti-game.
Fantasy Flight Games are massively overproduced and procedural. If they can turn a simple action into a three-part process where you have to shift all sorts of markers, cards, and tokens around the board, they'll do it every time. And I don't think they're allowed to publish a game that doesn't have at least four decks of cards, with a dozen coloured symbols denoting piddly shit that ultimately has little to no effect on the game. But they obviously know their market.
Speaking of Tenjo, how can one not enjoy this hate list by the unlikely Tom Vasel--
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/5740/item/90416
Also, scroll down for Teh Great Diplomacy Controversy.
All I know is I'm a Realpolitiker. If I were to play Diplomacy with Settembrini, my first priority would be his elimination.
Diplomacy is awesome!
We never had problems witth it, and I greatly enjoyed it online.
EDIT: http://www.diplomacy-archive.com/resources/strategy.htm
Quote from: kryystYou're a sad little man, but you do make a luke warm troll.
I think you are a sad man, if you meet with your gaming buddies to play Jungle Fever.
Awesome website, sector duke!
Turkey = Teh Win.
It´s, in fact, my favorite country, in most games.
Let me tell you of the time I reached dominance with the Ottoman Empire in EiA, and how it changed my life...
Quote from: Pierce InverarityI totally agree with your criteria... but imbalance doesn't seem foreign to the Borgverse either. I can point you to some M'44 scenarios, and some dude on BGG actually compiled a statistic for every single one of them.
Re. ToI, some of the BGG threads seem to indicate it's more complicated. Mike Zebrowski headed the playtest, for what it's worth. What gives me pause is a purely aesthetic reason. The game looks crassly overproduced.
Borgverse Imbalance is a special case: "Switch sides, play the game twice!" is possible due to the nature of the game. It´s fastfastfast.
I don´t see that elegance in ToI. It just seems the scenarios are sloppily produced. You´ll never see a German:US victory statistic for that game, whereas the Borgverse games all end up with well-analyized Scenarios.
I might be channelling Pundit right now, but MY GUT tells me there´s a difference between the "Serve/Break"-nature of the BorGames, and the sloppy/handwave FFG scenarios and rules.
But the sheer amount of material...makes me want to run a Chamax Horde/Striker event at the next convention...TL-5 + 1 Far Trader against Keithian Bugs for the win!
Quote from: SettembriniBorgverse Imbalance is a special case: "Switch sides, play the game twice!" is possible due to the nature of the game. It´s fastfastfast.
Now this is spot on. Proof: I played Pegasus Bridge AGAIN tonight. And guess what, my Germans won (probability 25%). :haw:
I just played Avalon Hill's Circus Maximus again last night. What an awesome little game. Ugly as sin, but fun gameplay, fast set up, can do it in 2-3 hours even if you're new to the game, easy to play, but some varied strategies. It's a nice mix of "old school Avalon Hill" with a playtime and complexity suitable for more casual gamers. The rules, IMHO, could use a rewrite for clarity and esp. organization, but that's my only quibble.
I'm bringing it to JeffCon (our local once a year get together at a guys house for all day gaming) today.
Quote from: HaffrungFantasy Flight Games are massively overproduced and procedural. If they can turn a simple action into a three-part process where you have to shift all sorts of markers, cards, and tokens around the board, they'll do it every time. And I don't think they're allowed to publish a game that doesn't have at least four decks of cards, with a dozen coloured symbols denoting piddly shit that ultimately has little to no effect on the game. But they obviously know their market.
I completely agree.