#17
Feb '04




a review by Mark Johnson

 

Wolfgang Kramer’s Wildlife was first released almost two years ago, at Germany’s exclusive Nürnberg Game Fair in early 2002. Despite the attractive production, popular theme, and award-winning designer, reaction to the game was muted. Part of that could be attributed to the absence of an English language edition. Now the new American publisher with a German-sounding name, Überplay, has released an English version, and the game may start to reach a broader audience.

In Wildlife the players represent species of prehistoric creatures competing for dominance on the map. Each creature begins with strengths and weaknesses, and during the course of the game players improve their species’ ability to thrive. The principal game mechanics are a synthesis of tile-laying and majority scoring. Wildlife supports from 2-6 players and plays in about two hours.

Wildlife is a substantial game, and there’s a lot of material in the large box. Besides the board & rules, there are a dozen wooden scoring markers, a thick deck of cards, cardboard displays for each species, double-sided reference cards, fifteen sturdy special ability cards, and cardboard tokens. Lots of cardboard tokens—over 300. Most are the creature tiles that populate the board, while others are “food” (the money in this game) and adaptation markers used to record the improved survival abilities of each creature.

An issue with all of those game components is storage! The game comes with one large ziplock bag, but you’ll want to add a dozen smaller ones to keep all of the components separate. Getting them back into the curiously shaped plastic box insert is an exercise in suitcase-packing, but it can be done. Then again, it might be best just to toss the insert.

There are several ways to score victory points in Wildlife, all of them relating to the placement and position of the creature tiles on the board. That board is a grid of 78 spaces. You’ll notice that number doesn’t lend itself to a straightforward X-by-Y rectangular array. Sure enough, the game board isn’t regular like that—it’s mostly rectangular, but with lots of “ragged edges” as some rows extend different lengths than others. Furthermore, the board is subdivided into twelve regions, two of each terrain type: Water, Desert, Plains, Savannah, Forest, and Mountains. Like the overall board, each terrain region is an irregular shape, creating lots of strategic crossroads for the game (like where a bit of Forest extends out into the largest Water region).

The first and most straightforward type of scoring occurs when a terrain region on the board is completely filled by creature tiles. Mostly that comes about by cardplay, as I’ll explain below, but there are other methods. The player who fills the last spot of a terrain region with a tile also places a wooden scoring marker in the region, indicating it has been scored. A modest three points are awarded for this in the beginning of the game, rising to five during the last third. The player receiving the points doesn’t need to have a majority of creature tiles in the region—he doesn’t even need to have a single one! It’s the act of completing the region that generates the points, regardless of its contents.

After this has happened to several regions, however, a Major Scoring occurs. Now the contents of the terrain types do matter. Each terrain region on the entire board is scored, with 3-2-1 points for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd place majorities. Being the only creature in a region scores a bonus point, and covering every space in a region scores another one yet. The biggest single scoring opportunity comes next, and this is where Wildlife is distinct from other area-majority games, showing its theme: largest herd. This is for the largest contiguous collection of creature tiles, spanning any number of terrain regions. A whopping 10 points are awarded to the largest herd, but a generous 7 go to second place, too, and so on down to the 5th largest herd. (Note that particularly successful players will score more than one herd. I’ve seen a player score 1st and 2nd largest herds, a game-swinging 17 point windfall that won him the game.) The Major Scoring finishes with a some more points for having acquired the most species advancements.

The game ends one of two ways: when all but one terrain area has been filled, or else when one player places his last creature tile onto the board. Either way, it ends with one final Major Scoring. That’s generally the third Major Scoring of the game, though aggressive play can shorten it to just two.

Obviously tile-placement is the heart of the game, so how do you do that? Wildlife opens with some initial free placements, a la Settlers, but from then on the game is driven by cards. Each player holds a big hand of ten cards, playing two for themselves each turn, auctioning off a third to the other players, and refilling to ten at the end. Most of the cards show terrains that match the regions—playing one allows the player to move, place, or replace one of the creature tiles in the region. Exactly which you can do depends on your species’ current abilities. There are four levels of ability in each terrain type: No Action, Migrate (move a tile), Expand (place a new tile), or Attack (replace an opponent’s tile with one of your own). Naturally, Expand also includes the Migrate ability, and Attack includes everything. Each creature starts with one native terrain where they can Attack, another where they can Expand, two where they can Migrate, and the other two are off-limits with No Action.

For example, the player with Man as his creature species might play a Plains card to Expand (place) a new creature tile into an open Plains space on the board, then a Forest card to Migrate (move) that or any other Man tile into an adjacent, open Forest space. (Moves can be of any length over your own herd, but only one space into new territory.) Finally, he could auction off a Water card, hoping to see a bidding war between the Crocodile and Snake players who can best use it.

The auction is interesting in that the player who wins the card doesn’t take it into his hand, but rather takes the appropriate action immediately. That can change the board dynamic or even trigger a Major Scoring. The auctions are paid for with food tokens, the money of the game. Everyone starts with a modest amount, but is allowed to overbid in the auctions (a little), cashing in victory points for food tokens at a 1:3 rate.

In addition to the terrain cards, the deck also contains cards that allow upgraded abilities (going from Migrate to Expand in a chosen terrain, for instance), acquisition of a special ability, or wildcards that are usable as any of these card types. Finally there are some event cards (here’s where the English edition of the game comes in most handy), which penalize every player except the one playing the card. Any of these cards may be auctioned.

The special ability cards drive a lot of the strategy in Wildlife. Each player is allowed to acquire up to two of each type, but there aren’t enough for everyone. If the desired special ability isn’t otherwise available, it is simply stolen from another player—whoever is furthest on the victory point track. Some abilities are mundane, but still valuable, such as free victory points per turn or extra card actions. Others are very dramatic in their effect on the board, and the game starts to take a very competitive turn when they enter play: one that lets players swap one of their on-board tiles with another creature (good for helping your own herd size and hurting an opponent), another that allows a free, wanton attack each turn, and the requisite defense card to oppose either of these nasty tricks.

Two other free actions are permitted on each player’s turn: a bonus (no card required) Migration, and an opportunity to cash in extra food tokens for victory points (at the inverse 3:1 rate). All of a turn’s actions can be completed in any order. For example, a player could do his free Migration first, then auction a card, play two cards, activate a special ability, and cash in some food tokens. (You can even auction more than one card, but that comes in place of a card you’d play for yourself.)

In play, it’s typical for Wildlife to start at a pleasant pace, a few minor scorings happening as players close out the smaller regions on the board. A few Attacks cause nervous glances at each other, and the first Major Scoring makes it clear who the early game leaders are. By then the kid gloves are off, and the competition becomes strong to the end

Wildlife is a “meaty” game, one that takes a little while to set up, explain, and play. With a full six players the game takes as long as three hours with deliberate players. With more experience, or with a more moderate number of players like four, the game fits in two hours. Even that’s on the long side for today’s players—including me—but there is much to occupy your attention during that time. The auctions not only involve the other players on every turn, but the fact that the winner has to take the card’s action immediately makes Wildlife more dynamic and interactive than other games of comparable length. This is a novel mechanic that should find its way into other games.

When first released in German, there were some bumps in the original English translation. If that caused some prospective players to stay away, that shouldn’t matter any more. The English rules and components are very clear.

Other than the obvious difference of language, the only difference I noted in this version compared to Clementoni’s original from Germany was a small rule relating to overbidding during auctions. The Überplay edition only allows a maximum of two victory points to be exchanged (for six food) during an auction overbid. In the original, there is no restriction at all. That can lead to some curious games where rampant overbidding leads to a glut of food tokens in the game. While in theory that can disrupt the game’s balance (one of the event cards calls for the opponents to discard five food—nearly meaningless in a game overflowing with it), I have a sneaking suspicion the game is robust enough to handle the situation without the little “fix.” In those games with so much food, I think the wise thing might be to auction one or even two valuable cards (wild cards are always popular), getting gobs of food tokens for them. Then simply cash in those food tokens for victory points, and things return to normal . . . only you’ve gained a worthwhile 10-20 victory points in the process. Once that happens a couple of times, I doubt the overbidders will be so eager.

One thing that should have been changed in the new edition, but wasn’t, are the unfortunately close colors of light green and dark green. The corresponding Mammoth and Bear tiles are easy to distinguish, but the scoring pawns on the victory point track are way too similar in color. (It’s a good idea to mark one of them with a permanent marker somehow, to avoid confusion.)

What usually happens in our games is that we simply leave one of the green creatures out. Unless you’re playing with the full six players, some have to be left out anyway. Ah, but what about balance? Since each creature is “home” in one terrain type, some players have been bothered by perceived imbalances that exist when less than six are playing. In an extreme example, suppose there are the Crocodile, Man, and Eagle in a three player game. Until there are several creature upgrades, only the Crocodile can use Water cards. When auctioned, he’ll buy them for a song. Or when the Crocodile player chooses to auction a card, he can choose something sought dearly by both opponents. The other players cannot, at least not in the beginning of the game. Isn’t that a problem?

If you think so, there’s a fine suggestion posted to Boardgamegeek about how to select species in a less-than-six player game to maximize balance. However, I don’t find this necessary. In Wildlife, it is both comparatively easy to target another player (i.e. the game leader), and the game itself works to rein in the leader (with the special ability stealing rules). Although someone with a preferential setup may do well in the first Major Scoring, players who pay attention can work together to fix that. In fact, this is the sort of game where it can be dangerous to come out too strong in the early scoring. The game is somewhat self-balancing, in other words, and the rest comes from the players almost automatically.

With all of those components, is the game fiddly? Yes, a bit, in the same way that Puerto Rico or La Cittá confronts the players with lots of different components that need to be manipulated each turn. In the beginning, it can be a bit daunting, but by the midway point through the first game, it shouldn’t be a problem. The fiddliness goes way down if you just take those steps to package the bits in various ziplock bags.

I’m drawn to games with strong themes, and Wildlife certainly has one. Doesn’t it? A couple of my local players really couldn’t see the theme shining through, and one went so far as to say he only really “got” the game when he discarded the theme altogether! Why the difference? Much of it has to do with the creature abilities, Migrate, Expand, and Attack, especially the middle one. With that name, it just feels natural to many players that the new tile placment must be adjacent to a current herd on the board, expanding the herd itself. Nope, it’s simply a new tile placement, which can go on any legal space anywhere on the board (with the appropriate terrain card, of course). Why does it make sense to me? My brother is a wildlife biologist (see why I like the theme?), and right away it appeared to me that Wildlife is depicting more general population densities, not individual herds and animals. There’s nothing amiss with a new population of sufficient size “popping up” at a distant place on the map. Perhaps that’s just a rationalization, but it makes sense to me, anyway.

Similarly, the Attack ability can throw newcomers with its restriction that an opponent’s tile is replaced only if the terrain region is already full—otherwise, it’s simply another placement (Expand) into an empty space. That’s because the Attack really just represents outcompeting the other animals for the region’s resources. (The sort of ruthless attack you’d like to make is still possible, though it does require the Aggression special ability.)

Compared to the similarly themed Evo, the strategic decisions in Wildlife are more varied and numerous. The creature tiles don’t move around nearly so much—the game is more about filling the board and establishing strong clusters of tiles. It’s less suitable for the entire family, however, since this is firmly a “gamer’s game.” The auctions in Wildlife aren’t as central or unique as those in Evo (that game’s strongest feature). The hidden hand of cards give Wildlife a different feel than Ursuppe, too, and the game isn’t so strongly driven by the special ability cards (especially in combination, the way the gene cards work in Ursuppe). Neither is it so processional in mechanics. Although Wildlife has a regular turn sequence, not even changing the start player, the cards auctioned to other players “break up” the action and keep all players on their toes.

In fact, the games to compare with Wildlife aren’t those of similar theme, they’re the ones of similar mechanics and strategic heft. As in Kramer & Ulrich’s El Grande, the skillful play of cards is what’s required to advance your majority positions on the board. You have to keep an eye on your opponents’ aims, and be careful not to be the obvious game leader going into the final rounds of the game. Similar to Knizia’s Euphrat & Tigris, the need to establish and defend strong clusters of tiles is what leads to success in Wildlife.

There are many opportunities for skillful play and thoughtful choices. The layout of the map makes some spaces particularly desirable or contested, those “strategic crossroads” I mentioned earlier. The card selected for auction may be one that starts a bidding war, encourages an opponent to help fill in a region (one you’re able to finish yourself and score later on your turn), or provokes a conflict between two opponents. You could even pick a card for its uselessness—if no one bids on it you don’t gain anything in the auction, but neither do you allow one of your opponents an additional action.

Triggering a Major Scoring on your own turn—after you’ve maximized your position at the expense of others—is a key to winning the game. Inexperienced opponents may leave you an opening to do that by finishing the second-to-last region before a Major Scoring, but against hardcore gamers you’ll need to find a way to close multiple regions on a single turn. The Intelligence special ability grants extra extra card actions, while the Mobility and Aggression special abilities allow creature tiles to be moved or placed into a region without the use of a card. So does the bonus Migration. In the most extreme extreme (albeit unlikely) example, up to eight creature tiles could be placed in open spaces by a player in one turn, creating several scoring opportunities. It’s all in the hands of skillful players.

The winning combination of majority scoring and tile-placement game mechanics, together with the interactive play sequence and player control makes Wildlife another superior gamer’s game from Wolfgang Kramer.

Mark Johnson is a Mechanical Engineer at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which just successfully landed the Mars rovers "Spirit" and "Opportunity." This is his first review for Game Notes - and we're amazed he found time to write it!

Back to Contents


 


a review by M. Barnes

In my group’s first game of Fantasy Flight Games’ A Game of Thrones I lost a very close friend. My one-time buddy Kurt pledged to help me defend one of my key territories against a do-or-die assault from the Baratheon player Eric. We laid down our secret order tokens. I put my +2 Defense token in the contested territory. Eric revealed his +2 attack token. Kurt flipped over his +1 support counter. Everything was going as planned- until Eric launched his assault and Kurt demonstrated what a backstabbing turncoat he could be by adding his numbers to Eric’s attacking force instead of augmenting my defense. I will never forgive Kurt for that despicable action (which did, in fact, cost me the game) and to this day, I cast a weary eye on him at all times. He offered to buy me coffee last week and I wasn’t so sure of his motives.

As illustrated by this sad example, Christian Petersen’s A Game of Thrones is a fine brew of politics, conquest, resource management, and of course, dirty diplomacy. Published shortly after Eagle Games’ Age of Mythology (which I gave a good review to in Game Notes #16), AGOT provides another argument for my assertion that we are entering a revolutionary period for game design in America as the influence of the European style is finally coming to fruition. Incorporating diverse elements from Avalon Hill’s classics (namely Kingmaker, Diplomacy, and Dune), and flowing with the elegance and expediency of Wallenstein AGOT emerges as the Other Great American Game this year- every bit as good as Age of Mythology and probably more accessible to players who found that game too dicey or uneven.

Based on George R. R. Martin’s A Song of Ice and Fire novels (which is probably the game’s only liability- but more on that later), A Game of Thrones is ostensibly a fantasized version of the War of the Roses. Five houses vie for control of territories containing cities, strongholds, and resources on a fictional continent (“Westeros”). Starting positions and assets are predetermined and what follows is an elegantly metered sequence of 10 turns in each of which three random events will occur, order tokens will be placed, and actions will be taken. The goal is to claim seven cities or strongholds or at least have the most at the end of turn 10.

The “Westeros phase” opens each turn beginning on the second round. The random events are one of the most interesting elements of the game. These three stacks of cards control many key factors in the game, including the mustering of new troops, the attack of the “Wildlings” (lay folk know them as “barbarians), reconciling available supplies to number of troops, and the restriction of certain types of orders. Perhaps most importantly, the “Clash of Kings” card initiates an auction-style contest for positions on three influence tracks and the resultant control of the game’s extremely large influence symbols (the Iron Throne, a sword, and a raven- each imparting special abilities). Some of the complaints levied against this randomizing mechanic have claimed that the game can become broken if no mustering cards or supply cards come up (which can happen) or that a player can essentially monopolize one or more of the power symbols should the “Clash of Kings” fail to occur. These people, ladies and gentlemen, are crybabies who pitch a fit if their meticulous strategies go astray due to ill fortune. I am of the thinking that this sort of randomness, particularly in a conquest-style game, is an asset. Furthermore, the need for an adaptive, evolving strategy that takes into account the random possibilities offered by these cards challenges the player to really think ahead and prepare for the worst.

The second game phase sees the players simultaneously placing face-down order tokens in order to move troops, attack territories, defend positions, raid (thereby canceling) neighboring actions, pledge support to surrounding forces, or collect power tokens from appropriate regions. This phase is essentially the core of the game and it is in this planning section that the diplomacy aspect comes to full expression. Players can negotiate to forestall or circumvent attacks, unite to overcome stronger opposition, or simply lie to hapless allies for personal gain. Each player has a common number of order counters, some of which can only be used if the player maintains enough influence on the three tracks in contest during the “Clash of Kings” event.

Phase three finds these order tokens revealed and actions taken one by one in an initiative order determined by the Iron Throne influence track. Movement and combat are the prime actions during this phase, and the game’s combat system is well implemented if a bit overwritten. Numerical superiority wins the day based on the comparison of opposing forces (footmen count as ones, knights as twos), any bonuses afforded by marching or defending order counters, and support offered by neighboring territories. The Valyrian Steel Blade, won on the military influence track, gives the wielder a once-per-turn +1 bonus. After all of this is calculated, the game takes a sharp detour into Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation’s combat system to borrow the breathless cardplay mechanic that makes that game so dramatic. Each house has a unique set of 7 house cards, numbered 1-3 and featuring minor special abilities. The cards are secretly selected and simultaneously revealed and the number is added to the physical total to determine the winner. The loser is routed and forced to retreat but if the winner’s card features one or more sword icons casualties are taken unless the defender’s card counters with castle icons. The luckless combat system is fun and relatively simple but the cards seemed almost an afterthought- very rarely did the numbers added by the cards really make that much of a difference. Most of the attacks I’ve seen have either been so overwhelming that even a three-point card can’t defend against it or so desperate that even three points won’t win it. Nonetheless, dramatic upsets do happen, but I’m sure you’ll find yourself wishing for a broader spread of numbers like The Confrontation featured.

This is a simple outline of what you can expect from A Game of Thrones but I’m afraid my overview of the game belies the intricacy of the system. There is the whole issue of supply, another resource culled from territorial holdings which determines the number and size of armies (defined as more than one unit) you can have. Sea power is important for transporting troops, staging amphibious assaults, and for one house it’s necessary to do anything at all. Power tokens become a precious commodity as you must leave one behind in territories you vacate to maintain control- but then you have to spend them fighting wildlings or bidding on influence tracks. Overall, the delicate balance of when, where, and whom to ally yourself becomes the most difficult decision of all and you can expect alliances and rivalries to shift as the game progresses; this atmosphere of political uncertainty and treachery is quite a feat for a game that is only 10 turns long and can be played in 2 hours.

By way of negatives, there are relatively few to be found in discussing A Game of Thrones. I do fear that in time the game could suffer from the programmed, predictable openings and virtually set in stone pathways that games like Axis and Allies sometimes exhibit as players discover clearly optimal strategies for each house. I also suspect that certain gamers and groups might not get the most out of the game- timid Eurogamers might find themselves stomped into an evening of solitaire Balloon Cup while the game finishes. The game requires players to be aggressive, hurt each other’s feelings, and exhibit efficient ruthlessness- not a stretch for veterans of Diplomacy of course but probably a bit distasteful for those who demand that every player have an equal chance of winning regardless of skill through the final turn. I also feel that there is something of a learning curve that demands repeat plays to really “get” the game as the first few games seem to suffer from that “I don’t know what the hell I’m doing so I’ll try this” sensation.

My group felt that the game would be better served with a historical theme or a more generic fantasy setting as a game of this quality should not be bound to the license of a fantasy novel (LOTR is somehow excused in this regard). I tend to concur with that assertion as I think a game of this quality might not have the broad appeal it could have if it hadn’t been so associated with the Martin novels. From what I have read of the books, I can say that I feel the game captures the themes and subjects very well but I actually almost gave the game a miss because I wasn’t terribly interested in its source material. So if you’ve read the books, you’ll love seeing your favorite characters and whatnot represented but if you haven’t, don’t balk at the unfamiliar names and environment and enjoy it on its own terms.

Oh yes, the components. European quality. A bag full of wooden bits. You happy? The artwork is excellent, the cardboard thick, and the rules clear and terrifically illustrated. The thing is, the AGOT system is so well done that the components are icing on a very tasty cake- the game would be awesome even if it had 1979 Avalon Hill-level components and artwork.

In sum, I don’t know if A Game of Thrones will have an across-the-board appeal given its nature as a game of diplomacy and conquest and also due to its ties to the George R. R. Martin license but for those who are interested in this type of game, these books, or just playing a really damn good game system there’s many, many hours of good times in this $33.40 box (thank you Boulder Games). Nonetheless, the game joins this year’s Age of Mythology as the best examples of how the influence of European games can innovate and reinvigorate the American game design idiom. It’s sad to think that there are 12 year old kids still playing Risk every Friday night when a game like this, with proper marketing and distribution, could open them up to a whole new world of treachery, conquest, and domination.

M. Barnes is a steadfast advocate for change in the American game market. This is his second review for Game Notes.

Back to Contents

 

 

Odds'R
a review by Jon Waddington

Odds'R is a new trivia game from Eagle Games, but it's designed by Roger L. Schlaifer (not Glenn Drover; it appears Eagle is branching out). It's an "adult party game for 2 to 4 players or teams." No, not that kind of adult game. I should state at the outset that party games in general do not appeal to me, but this one boasts an interesting feature that seems geared toward serious gamers: betting. Hence the name, as players will be placing wagers on the likelihood of questions being answered or flubbed, and will need to figure out the, er, odds.

Apart from that feature, the game is basically roll-n-move combined with trivia. The board has three tiers: outer, with 36 spaces; middle, with 28 spaces; and inner, with 20 spaces. Players move from outer to inner, with minimum bets going from $25 to $50 to $100 at each tier. In the middle is the "lottery pool," which is seeded with $500, and always reseeded with this amount after every lottery payout. Also, all lost bets and penalties go into the lottery pool, giving it the potential to grow very large. Think Monopoly "Free Parking," only add the exponent of your choice. You can buy a lottery ticket every time you move up to another tier, for the usual tier costs ($25, $50, $100). The same ticket can pay more than once for its holder. Just reading that, you might think buying a lottery ticket is pretty much a no-brainer sort of decision, and you'd be right: every player will have two or three by the end of the game.

The basic flow of the game is that the active player rolls two dice and moves, and then all players ante up an amount based on which tier the active player is in ($25, $50, or $100). The player to the left of the active player first reads the lottery payout number off the Q&A card (and pays out the lottery proceeds if there's a winner). Then he reads a multiple choice question (always with 3 answers) aloud, and shows the answer to all but the active player. Beginning with the reader, players place bets on whether the active player will answer correctly or not. There is no limit to how much can be bet by these players, but everyone must bet the minimum (again, $25, $50, or $100) or forfeit their ante. The active player bets last, and must bet to win; in addition, he may only bet up to four times his current level (so, $100, $200, or $400). Then he answers, and bets are resolved. If he answers incorrectly, he receives a "dinger" (a little ring put on his pawn). If four dingers are already on the pawn, he receives a "dunce cap", which means he must immediately lose $500, but he also gets to remove the cap and all dingers. Once any single player reaches the middle (the lottery pool area--and it doesn't have to be reached by exact count, thankfully), the game ends. That player receives all funds in the lottery pool, and collects $100 from every other player for each dinger they currently have on their pawn. Most money wins.

Right off the bat, it's a clever idea. Instead of the usual trivia game problems (uneven question difficulty and uneven player knowledge, sometimes paired with a horrible "exact throw" end-game condition), players are presented with a betting mechanic that should mitigate those issues. Easy questions could mean a big payout for everyone, while someone truly clueless is going to accidentally hit 33% of the time, making sure losing bets impossible. I might've wished for four or five answers per question, but this is a party game, so I'll be charitable. So far, so good. If you're a bit party-game averse, like me, by now you're wondering when the list of annoying features will start. Well, let's look a little more closely at the board. Almost every space has some special function that the active player can use if they answer correctly:

CowChip Flip (10 spaces): just a coin flip, really, to get some cash ($100, $250, or $500 per tier). You use a goofy little chip that looks vaguely like cow dung. Why? Because it's zany fun!
2xMultiplier (6 spaces): roll two dice and double the result, then move forward (66% of the time) or backward (yes, 33% of the time) that amount, based on the throw of a special die.
GrabBag (12 spaces): grab one of 15 tiles and follow the instructions. Nine have positive effects, six negative. They all have silly names with no real bearing on anything (e.g., "Strike! You're on a roll! Collect $300 from the House and roll again! Take any ActionSpot action!") Yes, exclamation points are liberally, indeed gratuitously, peppered throughout all these.
SnakeBite (2 spaces): No questions or betting on this one. You just pay every other player $250 or roll and move backward double the number of spaces. But you have to choose before you roll, so there's some angst for you.
De-Dingers (2 spaces): You can remove all your dingers and collect $100 for each one removed.
Odds improvement (12/16/12 spaces): These show either 2-1, 3-1, or 5-1, and reflect the payout for the active player if he's correct.

Twelve "blank" spaces make up the balance. All the non-odds (2-1, etc.) spaces on the board pay 1-1, and even those pay 1-1 if you're not the active player. Though there is clearly a good bit of randomness associated with these spaces, it's not overwhelming. The likelihood of great luck in terms of movement rolls overcoming good play alone is pretty minimal, and the fact that you only get to use the function of the space if you answer correctly adds something to the proceedings.

The heart of the game, though, and the reason I bought it, is the notion that you can bet on how you think your opponents will answer. First, it keeps everyone involved in every question, which is a good thing and addresses yet another common failing of trivia games. Apart from that, the betting mechanic creates some interesting problems to work through, and rewards both casual and more serious players. You always have to evaluate the chance that the active player can answer the question correctly, and then the threshold at which he might tank it. Oh, yes, you can deliberately miss (how could it really be otherwise?), but you take a dinger, lose your bet plus ante, and lose the function of the space you're on. This is a critical part of the game, and it's actually fairly interesting. It provides the means by which the "side betting" is limited. However, it's also wide open for kingmaking and other nastiness, as you might imagine. I should note that all holdings are open, so a player could calculate the effects of every play almost exactly if they wanted. However, we played it as a party game, playing quickly and using intuition, and it worked better that way.

All of that is really beside the point, though, because of the lottery. I think the designer must really love the Monopoly "Free Parking" variant, because a similar effect is at work here, only it's actually much worse. Much, *much* worse. All lost bets and penalties (dingers, GrabBag, etc.) are paid into the lottery fund. It gets huge! The lottery can regularly grow larger than the total holdings of all players combined, so you can imagine the effect if a player is fortunate enough to win it. You might, of course, win it right after it pays out, and collect $500 compared to the $12,000 the previous winner received. That's wacky fun for you. There's no doubt the game has a healthy dose of randomness with the GrabBag chips and the other spaces, but everything pales in comparison to this ridiculous lottery system. Even if everyone bets conservatively, there's still a great likelihood that the lottery will grow excess of the holdings of any one player (since, after all, conservative bets will yield conservative returns), and thus getting to the end first, or getting lucky with your tickets, is crucial for success in the game.

The questions are a mixed bag, with many of them sharing the common and annoying tendency with multiple choice questions of having one obviously wrong answer. Which means the active player should very nearly always be able to tank the question. This might have bothered me more, but it's nowhere near the level of pain of the lottery "system" (I'm being generous), so I let it slide. Another matter of some concern is that there are only 360 questions (only one per card). I'm sure expansions will arrive, but in their absence, I'm not sure that you could easily adapt other trivia games to this one, as it's ideally suited for difficult multiple choice questions, where the player might inadvertently choose a correct answer while trying to tank it.

Thus the game is a disappointment. The basic idea of the betting is nice, and works decently (though I think it would fail badly if everyone took the time to calculate the full ramifications of each bet, which is technically possible on every play). But the lottery system is just incredibly inane. I've played with distinctly non-gamer people who aren't all that critical of game mechanics and who tend to enjoy party and trivia games, and everyone thought, without prompting, that the victory conditions of the game were pointless and idiotic. Nevertheless, I'm not done with this game, as I think it's good enough (and easy enough) to tinker with, and the betting portion is worthwhile and enjoyable. So, as written, a poor game, but one with a nice idea or two.

Jon Waddington lives in the Denver area, where he plays German games (and the too-infrequent wargame) with family and friends. Sometimes they even let him win. Contact him at jon_waddington@yahoo.com.

Back to Contents

 

 

Complex Simplicity

an interview with Warfrog's Martin Wallace

Princes of the Renaissance has been warmly received by the gaming community. Are you pleased with the final product? What design elements contribute to its success?

I am happy with the final product although a little annoyed that we made some minor mistakes in production. Each year we try to double check things but for some reason some things just get through the radar. The game went through a very difficult development process and even at the end I was not sure how well it would be received. I am very fortunate in that I have a team of dedicated, hard-working playtesters who put up with some really awful versions of the game. Many suggestions were made by various testers which helped whittle the game down to the version you see today. I think this is an important part of why Warfrog manages to release half-decent games, because there are a lot of folks in the background who put a lot of effort in for not much return.

Regarding design elements I think the most important one is that the theme and the mechanics fit neatly. If you are playing a longer, more involved, game you don't want to feel you are playing something too abstract with a theme loosely tacked on.

Do you have a favorite game or series of games? If so, what has it taught you about designing effectively?

My background is in wargames. I started with the old SPI games, then discovered Avalon Hill and Victory Games. My favourite designs are Breakout: Normandy and Across Five Aprils. Both games deal with familiar battles but do so in a highly original manner. What I like about Across Five Aprils is that the mechanics are pretty simple but the chit draw system for moving units creates enough uncertainty to make you have to plan carefully how you maneuver your forces. Similarly, Breakout: Normandy has a neat system for showing how powerful units become weaker after they have attacked, making them vulnarable to a counter-attack. That is the essence of a good game, simple systems that create complex situations.

Your themes have moved from the Old West to trains to revolutionary France. Is there a theme you would like to incorporate into a game but simply haven't yet?

There are a number of themes I would like to have a crack at at some point. I would like to do a decline and fall of the Roman Empire game. One of the first wargames I played was the old Decline and Fall by Ariel Games. I think today it would be regarded as very dated and much too long. What I would want to do is capture the feel of the period in something a lot quicker.

What unique challenges do you see in creating games based on historical subjects?

The unique challenge is trying to recreate some small element of a particular period with the simplest of rules. I like the fact that in Liberte nobody really knows what is going on - just like a real revolution. You also have the sudden-death victory conditions which forces those players who are doing well to defend the middle ground against the radicals and royalists, which is also pretty realistic. However, the secret is getting players to act this way because they realise that it is in their interests, not because the rule book tells them to. With Princes you have a clear role as a condottieri prince who fights for money and is not always bothered about who wins the war. It was certainly the case that some condottieri would actually throw battles because it was not in their interest to win. Once again, the game is not too complex, but players do act like the characters they are meant to represent.

What can you tell us about your design, playtesting and publishing process?

We always start with a theme. That's how Princes started. Hammy, my business partner, thought it would be a good idea. The next stage is research - read as much as possible to get a feel for the period but not too much that you become tempted to throw too much stuff in. Then it is time to start designing. The first version is nearly always a disaster, but it gives you an idea in which to go. Then it is develop, develop, develop. I go to a lot of conventions in the UK which gives me a chance to try a game with different people. The game has to be about ready a year before its release, to give us time to commission artwork and do all the production stuff. The game will actually be printed about a week before we release the game at Essen.

What designs are you currently working on? What can we expect from you in the future?

The next game will be called Birth of Nations. Think of Civilisation/Age of Renaissance set in the the 18th century. Players take the role of one of the major powers of the period and fight in both Europe and the colonies. The twist to the game is that in each war players must form into two alliances. Once allied with a player you cannot fight each other. This means you do not have the backstabbing of Diplomacy to worry about; if he's allied he's with you until the end of the war. This means that a player has to think carefully about who he wants to fight against and who he wants to ally with. Very often he will want to ally with his natural enemy and go to war with the guy who doesn't really want to fight him. On top of this you have lots of improvement tiles that you buy to shape your empire, plus alliances with minor powers, and the possibility of going into revolution. The game is 99% done and personally I am very pleased with it. Even though it is a big empire building game it will scale from 3 to 7 players and has pretty simple rules.

Back to Contents

 

 


Steve's obsession with the "Puerto Rico shipping strategy" started to take its toll on his marriage.
a cartoon by Scott Starkey

Back to Contents

 

 

Monty's Gamble: Market Garden
a review by Steve Pfarrer

After the Avalon Hill Company folded in 1998, its arguably most popular game series, Advanced Squad Leader, found a new home at Multiman Publishing, which has continued to issue new titles of the World War II tactical combat game. Now Multiman has continued another, smaller series begun by Avalon Hill with its World War II area movement game, Monty's Gamble: Market Garden.

Monty's Gamble is a moderate complexity game depicting the dramatic attempt by the British and American armies in September 1944 to seize a series of bridges in Holland with airborne troops. The goal was to secure passage for a quick strike by Allied armored forces across the Rhine River into northern Germany, the belief being that such a thrust could unhinge the Reich's border defenses and finish off the Nazis before winter set in.

The audacious plan, which involved dropping three airborne divisions as much as 60 miles behind German lines, was developed by Britain's Bernard Montgomery, an otherwise cautious general known for his deliberate and methodical approach to battle. In this case, though, Montgomery hoped to take advantage of the confusion of the Germans, still reeling from their headlong retreat from Normandy in August. Operation Market Garden, of course, ended up trying to go "a bridge too far," as the Germans recovered
from their initial surprise to crush the British 6th Airborne Division at Arnhem, the furthest point of the paratroop drop, and halt the Allied drive at the Rhine.

Monty's Gamble is the fifth game to use the area movement system Avalon Hill first pioneered in 1980. It provides a sweeping look at the Market Garden operation, and stylistically it most closely resembles 1993's Breakout Normandy, the last of the company's area movement games. Market Garden is a good topic for the system, as the rivers and canals crisscrossing the map, as well as urban areas like Arnhem, Eindhoven and Nijmegen, provide natural geographical boundaries and landmarks for the different areas. Much of the game's action is driven by the Allies' need to seize bridges and cross water barriers and the Germans' need to prevent or at least delay that.

The game comes with an attractive 24 x 38 inch map showing the stretch of southern Holland that was fought over, from Eindhoven near the south to Arnhem and nearby towns in the north. The map also includes various charts and play aids. There are 352 user-friendly 5/8-inch counters, about half of which are combat units; the rest are markers. Most of the units are regiments and brigades, but there are numerous battalions, too, in particular ones reflecting many of the ad-hoc and depleted formations the Germans had. Armored, mechanized infantry and armored car units are identified with vehicle icons, while infantry, airborne and artillery units have NATO symbols.

That designer Michael Rinella modeled Monty's Gamble so closely on Breakout Normandy was a source of some debate on the Consimworld Web site for several weeks following the game's release. Some complained that the rules, many of which were taken verbatim from Breakout Normandy, were confusing and off-putting to beginning wargamers, in theory at least part of the audience Multiman Publishing was trying to attract with Monty's Gamble. The rules did lack clarity and organization in some places -- a second edition is slated to be posted on the Multiman Web site -- but overall they weren't that hard to follow, in my opinion. However, area movement games do have some unusual concepts that can definitely trip up people unfamilar with the system, so rules clarity is important.

On the other hand, the basic game in Monty's Gamble is just four turns long, with each turn representing one day, and play moves along pretty quickly once you're familiar with the rules. As in Breakout Normandy, each turn consists of a variable number of "impulses" in which players alternate activating one area at a time; then they move or conduct combat with units in the area, or try to seize, demolish or rebuild bridges on the area's boundaries. A key to the game is properly sequencing your activations to have fresh units available to exploit a weak spot in enemy lines. Each action costs a certain number of movement points, which varies depending on terrain and whether an area is vacant, enemy-controlled, or contested. Once a unit moves or conducts combat it becomes "spent" and is flipped to its reverse side, which has a lower combat value and no movement allowance. Spent units can be further degraded by becoming disrupted, either through combat or lack of supply; units can improve their status if they can trace a supply line during a refit phase at the end of each turn.

For combat, each side selects a lead unit and to its combat value adds a number of modifiers for supporting units, terrain, divisional integrity, and disrupted enemy units. Each player then rolls two dice and adds the result to his total combat value. If the defender wins, attacking units become disrupted; a tie means only the lead attacking unit is disrupted. A defender on the short side of the result takes "casualty points," which must be met by flipping fresh units to their spent side, disrupting spent units, retreating, eliminating units, or some combination of thereof. Attacking units get an overrun and can expend more movement points if the defender cannot absorb all his casualty points.

It's an odd combat system in some ways; essentially it's a battle between lead units with cheerleaders on each side, as supporting units, regardless of their strength, only contribute a +1 to each side's total combat value. Thus the Germans, even though they're much weaker than the Allies on a unit-by-unit basis, can mount a strong attack by using one of a handful of strong panzer battalions as a lead unit and attaching a string of garbage battalions to it. Yet this also gives the Germans a chance to make a few good counterpunches, and the wide range of results you can get from rolling two dice ensures some surprising combats, where a sure-thing attack misfires or a strong defensive position suddenly crumbles.

The Allies win by occupying victory point areas like Arnhem and linking their paratroopers and mechanized forces in a timely fashion. I think they have a bit of an edge, at least in the basic game, which runs from Sept. 17 to Sept. 20. Two extended versions of the game, running to Sept. 24 and Sept. 26, raise the stakes for the good guys. Even though they have plenty of firepower, the Allies are pressed for time. On each impulse, a die roll is made that could end the turn immediately, so the Allied player has some tough decisions to make and priorities to deal with. The paratroopers have to seize key bridges and hold them to let the mechanized units of the British 30th Corps reach them and open a supply line along the infamous "Hell's Highway," which is long and tenuous and vulnerable to German counterattacks in certain spots. The Germans, despite their many understrength units, can cause problems by infiltrating Allied-held areas, a mechanic Rinella imported from another Avalon Hill area movement game, Turning Point:Stalingrad.

Most games will see three mini-battles develop where each airborne division lands: The U.S. 101st Airborne north of Eindhoven, the U.S. 82nd Airborne near Nijmegen, and the British 6th Airborne near Arnhem. As happened historically, the 6th will often find itself fighting for survival as it tangles with German armored reinforcements around Arnhem, while the U.S. units can be stretched thin as they guard Hell's Highway against German infiltration. Weather can also play a critical role, as overcast skies negate Allied air superiority and delay airborne reinforcements. And airborne troops that can't trace a supply line to Allied mechanized forces after the first two days become vulnerable to disruption and elimination. The 6th Airborne faces the toughest challenge on that front.

My only real complaint about Monty's Gamble is what seems a significant departure from Breakout Normandy, where artillery units became spent after firing. In this game they can keep plugging away, pretty much impulse after impulse, which seems at odds in particular with the supply shortages the Germans were dealing with. I've had a few games where German artillery units -- with the help of some good dice -- pounded Allied units into pulp, which seemed quite unrealistic. However, this hasn't been a big complaint among gamers who frequent Consimworld, so I'm willing to think my experience was unusual. Besides, you could always use a house rule if you don't like the way artillery functions in the game.

On balance, Monty's Gamble is a welcome addition to the area movement series, a fairly pretty quick playing game that captures much of the flavor of the battle with moderate complexity. Rinella has said he'll offer some additional rules in an upcoming publication from Multiman that will provide more realism and historicity for players seeking more simulation value. It sounds like icing on the cake to me.

Steve Pfarrer lives in western Massachusetts and enjoys a variety of historical simulation games, including GMT's June 6, Ukraine '43 and Eastern Front Series, as well as the Panzer Grenadier series by Avalanche Press. In between them, he also enjoys Strat-O-Matic Baseball.

Back to Contents

 

 

Coloretto
a review by Norbert Chan

This simple set collecting game from Michael Schacht has become our gaming group’s favorite light game of late. As a bonus, when one purchases this game, there are bonus cards for another one of Schacht’s games.

In Coloretto, one tries to collect different color chameleons. There are seven different colors (or suits) of them, and there are nine in each color. You score points for the longest three colors of chameleons you have collected and you LOSE points for any other color chameleons you have.

The number of columns used in the game is equal to the number of players. During a player’s turn, they either 1) take one card from the draw pile and add it to any column, maximum of three cards per column, or 2) take a column and add the contents to his play area. At the beginning of the game, each player is given 1 card of a suit, different from the other players. When each player has taken a column, another phase of column collecting begins, starting with the player who last took a column.

Also in the deck are ten cards with the symbol +2, which means they are simply worth two points. There are three joker cards; at the end of the game, any player who has collected jokers must then decide the color of the joker. The round ends when the “Last Round” card (which is placed 15 cards from the bottom of the deck) appears. Players finish off the current columns and scoring takes place.

First card in a suit is worth 1 point, second card in the suit is worth 2 points, and so on, up to a maximum of the 6th card which is worth 6 points. For instance, a 6 card suit is worth 21 points (1+2+3+4+5+6). A four card suit would score 10 points (1+2+3+4). The player takes their best three suits, adds up the score, and subtracts any extra suits according to the scoring described above. +2 cards score 2 points for each card. The game ends after a set number of rounds.

This game is extremely easy to learn, simple, but yet full of tense decisions. If one bails out early by taking only a joker card, then the other players can fill up the columns with three cards, which could be potentially worth more points. When one adds a card to a column, they want to pollute the column so that it is not worth as much to the opponents, but one has to be careful, since they may end up being stuck with that column!

Like any other card game, the luck of the draw does play a factor. If a player is left alone to fill up a column, they could draw the 6th card of the suit, or some +2 cards. To prevent a player from filling up a column, players must make tough decisions on whether to stay in collecting, or take a column not risking a chance to collect more suits.

We usually play three rounds, which takes around an hour. It is important that one plays a number of rounds, to average out the luck of a good round. I’ve seen many session reports where people play one round, have a player score higher than others, then the players say the game is fun, but very luck driven. I believe that playing three rounds does average out the luck to a certain extent. For instance, after the first round, if there is a clear leader, the rest of the players can pay more attention to that player to make sure they do not collect even more points.

Despite the simplicity, there is some room for strategy. Since each player is initially seeded with a suit, if an opponent’s seeded suit is on a column, other players tend to try to pollute that column with a different suit. I have seen an interesting play at the beginning of the game, where if a player sees one card of their seeded suit on a column, and they happen to draw a card of that suit, they add it to that column to put two cards of that suit in a column. Other players tend to shy away from taking that column, since there is the perception that two players trying to collect the same suit could potentially lead to negative points for both players. Of course, I have also seen the two orange chameleon gambit accepted, meaning an opponent has snapped up that column of two cards of one suit, since in the early collecting, two cards of a suit does have potential.

Coloretto is simple, easy to learn, fun and full of tense decisions. Groans fill the table when the last player collecting in a column gets a lucky card out of the deck. Laughter fills the table when a player gets a suit that will score them negative points. It’s a game that you can play while waiting for someone to arrive, or you can play it to finish off a day of gaming. Coloretto can also be played with your family, which is another bonus.

Michael Schacht has impressed me with his recent designs. His games are easy to learn, reasonably light with some hints of strategy (Web of Power, Paris, Paris for instance). His recent card games have also impressed me as well. Coloretto is a well designed game, and so is his 2 player game Crazy Chickens. I’m looking forward to seeing more of Schacht’s games in the future.

Norbert Chan lives in Calgary, Canada.

Back to Contents

 

 

Mammoth Hunters
a review by Dave Shapiro

Last year (2003) saw the design team of Alan R. Moon and Aaron Weissblum release two new, big box games; both generated interest and some controversy. New England (Goldsieber/Uberplay) won Games Magazine’s Game of the Year award which immediately initiated a debate as to the game’s qualifications. (It has been my experience that if God were given an award for creating the universe, someone would suggest he wasn’t qualified.) The box art captures the flavor of the colonies with the unloading of a sailing ship, two workhorses and a contented colonist; all very orderly and much the way the game plays.

A wild wooly and several cavemen adorn the cover of Mammoth Hunters drawn with an in-your-face approach and this too captures the feel of the game. Released as Mammoth Hunters by Rio Grande Games in North America and Eiszeit (Ice Age) by Alea in Europe this is the eighth in the Alea big box series following Puerto Rico in the line up. It met with derision in certain gaming circles protesting that it was an unworthy Alea candidate. Alea is a division of Ravensburger and is known for publishing gamer’s games; games that are more challenging than the average release with deeper strategic and tactical planning. A certain mystic has enveloped Alea games where even the series number on the box, or lack of it, has caused great concern for some (a $ 0.79 Sharpie would resolve the problem). For our purposes, we will ignore the extraneous elements and concentrate on the game, assuming that most of us purchase games to play, not collect boxes.

Originally released as Eiszeit (Ice Age) the name change was necessitated by copyright laws and an animated movie of the same name (apparently the New England Patriots are not as paranoid about their moniker). Details of the mechanics can be found in the rules set but minimal background in the game is required.

Mammoth Hunters is an area control game in the El Grande family; play pieces, score points. Two design factors differentiate this from other games of this genre. First, the playing area shrinks with the advancing glaciers after three of the four scoring periods. The reduction of the available playing area concentrates the player’s pieces into the remaining areas significantly increasing the difficult task of maintaining an advantage in any area. Most other area control games have cards that alter or limit the options a player has; Mammoth Hunters is no exception. How the cards are manipulated is the second key factor to the game. Cards determine the actions available to a player; the ‘kicker’ in Mammoth Hunters is that the cards are split into light and dark. Light cards are advantageous to the acting player; dark cards aid his opponents. Obviously no one would ever play a dark card; however, the game system makes playing dark cards inevitable. Light cards cost money (stones) to play; dark cards generate income for the player when played. The combination of the shrinking playing area and the dichotomy of the light/dark cards substantially increases the complexity of the game resulting in a near unique gaming experience. Winning is tough, very tough.

So how does it play? If you are familiar with Wongar (Moon/Borg) the feel is similar. Units placed must dominate an area to score but it is possible for an opponent to move or remove pieces not their own. Where some see chaos others view it as sweet challenge; it is very difficult to dominate an area and more so as the game develops. It is one continuous struggle with no break. As with Wongar, Vinci and other open scoring games, the leader position is precarious at best; the leader becomes the player with the big, red target. The contracting playing area intensifies the tension and each move/decision becomes more critical than the previous one. Coupled with the resource management problems generated by balancing the light and dark cards, the result is a very intriguing experience with deep and difficult choices. The ability to move and remove opponent’s pieces adds a confrontational aspect to the game skirting the light war game genre. If you enjoy Wongar you will be at home here. However, if your idea of a challenging game is to place meeples in a field then you should probably pass as Mammoth Hunters is a testosterone trip. Hunters and Gatherers it is not.

Wongar was released several years ago but never reached the North American market. Originally designed as a battle for feudal Japan, the powers-that-be at Goldsieber, re-themed the game to be an Aboriginal dream (I did not make this up). The theme is ludicrous but the game is great. Mammoth Hunters has very similar characteristics with a coherent theme. Wongar has ten areas of contention; Mammoth Hunters has twelve. Cards determine the available actions in both games but Mammoth Hunters adds another layer of complexity. In Wongar all of the cards are available to all players, Mammoth Hunters requires each player to manage his hand of cards and the costs and/or benefits associated with each card. Confrontation permeates both games; these are not building games; these are games of a struggle for dominance. The relationship between Wongar and Mammoth Hunters is similar to that of The Russian Campaign and Fortress Europa or Verrater and Meuterer or 1825 and 1830; similar systems yet sufficiently distinct to justify another game. Of the two games I find Wongar to be the cleaner system as the simplification of the card mechanics allows the player to concentrate on the dominance aspect of the game. This is not to imply that Mammoth Hunters is any less the game; it is a very, very good game. There are other less important differences between the two games but the grand concepts are the same. With the limited availability of Wongar, Mammoth Hunters is a more than acceptable alternative. It is an entertaining product with continuous challenges.

It would be unfair to fail to address the controversy generated by the inclusion of Mammoth Hunters as an Alea game. In this case, the proper approach is to be blunt: Mammoth Hunters is not Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was the extremely popular previous release in the Alea line and it is a different breed. Any game that followed Puerto Rico was certain to be examined and compared with NASA like precision. Given the loyalty of its following and the quality of the game itself, it is unlikely that any game would have passed the PR-test. Alter the publication dates and Tigris and Euphrates or Taj Mahal would have been trashed as luck driven and chaotic. Admittedly Puerto Rico is a good game but then so is Mammoth Hunters and it compliments the Alea line. Mammoth Hunters offers more player interaction than Princes of Florence and certainly more depth than Royal Turf. As to the claims that it is too chaotic - bosh (note ‘bosh’ was not my first choice). If you are seeking chaos then look up “chaos” in the dictionary and the definition is: “Ra”. Imagine the criticism had Royal Turf or Ra followed Puerto Rico. If you enjoy Wongar, El Grande, San Marco, Carolus Magnus or any of the area control games then you owe it to yourself to try Mammoth Hunters.

Dave Shapiro has been gaming long enough to have beaten Moses in a game of Lost Cities. We're pleased to have him onboard as a new writer for Game Notes.

Back to Contents

 

 

an interview with ConsimWorld's John Krantz

Tell us a little about yourself - your background and how you initially got interested in wargames.

I'm just shy of 40 years of age and already have gray hairs in tow. I'm blessed with two young daughters that give me greatest cause to smile in life. I've spent most of my adult life in Arizona and have been working in the hi-tech industry for the past 15 years, largely in a product management capacity for such companies as Apple Computer and Adobe Systems. I've recently braved through the dot.com implosion and have landed back on my feet as a product manager for a privately-held insurance company, specializing in web-based solutions and support for Benefit clients.

I became involved in boardgaming, being introduced to the hobby and Avalon Hill classic wargames through my brother. He dropped out of the hobby shortly thereafter, unfortunately, after having a very bad experience in playing TAHGC's Kriegspiel, I'm sorry to say. We should have bought Russian Campaign. Oh well. So I was left to fend for myself. The hobby didn't truly catch my full attention until I received my first SPI game which was Wacht Am Rhein. I thought I had hit the mother lode, and I was officially hooked.

I went full bore ahead and founded a large local gaming group at the age of 16 in Ventura, CA. Unfortunately, I poured myself into this effort to such a degree that I literally suffered physical burnout and dropped out of the hobby for about 10 years. I guess I failed to pass a morale check die roll or something. Fortunately, I rediscovered the hobby in the early '90s and have been hooked ever since...and, no, I haven't burned out again yet, either. lol.

What is the history of ConsimWorld? What gave you the idea to start it? How did you go about developing your initial idea and bringing it online? How has the site evolved over the years?

In the mid '90s when the internet was starting to take hold, I was interested in finding a new communications vehicle to promote the hobby and the respective efforts of each board game publisher. The Virtual Wargamer HQ was created which basically was nothing more than a simple photo gallery site which displayed game components by publisher (box art, map, counters).

In 1997, I perceived the need for an online forum of communications since the collapse of the GEnie network had left a void. This discussion forum has been an unanticipated success, effectively becoming the heart and soul of the ConsimWorld community, with more than 15,000 registered members. I recently conducted a study, and a more accurate accounting shows that we had more than 5,000 active registered members visiting our forum in 2003. Of course, we have many unregistered guests who visit as well. In 2001, we also launched our annual gaming event, ConsimWorld Expo. The goal of the expo is to bring gamers together once each year to celebrate the hobby and community we have built together.

Late in the '90s, services expanded to include a news site, which initially started as an ebulletin. This was later expanded to a separate hobby news web site. The ConsimWorld news service was completely rebuilt from the ground floor and relaunched in the Fall of 2003. We have since added live chat services and a Game Rating service, which we will be expanding shortly, so members will one day soon be able to rate and review hundreds of games.

In total, ConsimWorld averages more than four million web page views per month. And all this without a decent google search engine placement (good luck trying to find us that way). Maybe one day I'll get serious and properly market ConsimWorld via search engine placement.

What impact do you think your site has had on wargames in general and on the hobby?

The goal of ConsimWorld is to support and promote the hobby. Our hope is that our publisher partners discover that their products are gaining added visibility with increased sales, and members feel they are part of a strong and growing community to enhance their enjoyment of the hobby. We don't want anyone to feel disassociated or disconnected from the hobby...ConsimWorld is all about building a sense of community to celebrate the hobby.

Is there a particular aspect of the site that you are proudest of?

Not really, although it was kind of cool to see Curt Schilling mention ConsimWorld as one of his favorite web sites in ESPN magazine, May 28, 2001. Hey, we can always use the free publicity!

But to be serious for a moment, what I am most proud of is the growing success of our ConsimWorld Expo, entering our fourth year. It is a modestly-sized event, nothing like ORIGINS or the WBC -- but we have found a true sweetspot in terms of the niche we serve. I'm proud of the event venue we have
established and the people we bring together, and it seems we have hit a home run of sorts for many of the attendees as being a slice of heaven (although I may be misquoting those attendees who are talking about their Hooters dining experience during the event). There is perhaps nothing like the moment of the opening welcome reception in feeling the energy and enthusiasm in the air as we bring such great and enthusiastic gamers together. That's what community is all about. I anticipate attendance will continue to grow each year, and I highly encourage all gamers to consider attending this event for a memorable and rewarding gaming experience. We'll take care of you.

Are there any changes in the works that you'd like to mention?

Yes, we will be adding an image gallery shortly, and as I mentioned previously, our Game Rating service has been lagging due to lack of resources, but that will be addressed shortly. There are other efforts in the works, but nothing I can mention at this time.

What games are you primarily interested in? Why?

I'm interested in all wargames, frankly, but I think there is a special place in my heart for that monster size game so long as they don't get too overly ridiculous in size or complexity. I guess the type of game that typifies my interest would be something like SPI's Operation Typhoon. Three full size maps, but not an overly complex system. And, fun to play -- at least from my own gaming experience. But again, I am fairly game type agnostic...I've never really met a game I didn't like unless it was published by the now defunct FGA.

What do you predict the future holds for wargaming?

Ask me this question again if I win the PowerBall.

In the meantime, I think this answer rests on the shoulders of our members, and of course the majority of gamers who are not online at all. Recruiting and evangelism is essential given that there is no meaningful retail presence remaining to grow the market.

If things hold stable, then there is room for publishers to continue publishing via preorder system and sell direct for the foreseeable future. DTP adds an added element to the mix, so there is no dearth of new game titles anytime soon. The only rude awakening in all of this is that we are all engaged in what is truly a niche, cottage industry. And no one is making bank as a full-time business publishing wargames. The majority of this boils down to folks doing this as a 'side business' out of the love for the hobby. Nothing wrong with that at all (thank goodness for all these people) -- that's simply the reality of the situation. I do feel bad for game designers, developers, graphic artists, etc. because these are very talented individuals who pour tons of effort into each project, and they can never be rewarded in terms of financial compensation for the work they've accomplished.

But I honestly can't answer what the future holds for wargaming. All I can say is that ConsimWorld aims to be there to continuing promoting the hobby.

Visit John Krantz's ConsimWorld at www.consimworld.com.

Back to Contents

 

 

Trendsetting

a brief interview with Rio Grande Games' Jay Tummelson

What led to the creation of Rio Grande Games?

My desire to see the great German boardgames available to people in the US. There were just not enough good games here on the market and I saw a way to change that.

What is your reaction to the "trend" you have started - where smaller American companies have begun translating and producing German games in English?

I think this is great - it makes even more of these great games available here. After all, I cannot do them all.

Take us through your development process. How do you decide which games you will publish? How much, if any, lag time is there between the creation of the original German game and the English edition?

I usually see the games in Germany before they are published and select the games I want at that time. Then, when the Germans have finished their work, they send me the files, I translate them to English and send them back. Thus, we usually publish together so there is no lag time between the German and English version (except for the shipping from Germany to the US).

Which games are you proudest of? Why?

Well, the Carcassonne series has been the most popular and is bringing more people to my games than ever before, so I must go with this. After that, I would say Puerto Rico - another very popular game. And Lost Cities was one of my first to be very popular and bring non-gamers to the table.


Are there any classic German games that you wish you could republish in English but simply have not been able to?

Not yet. I have been able to do the games I wanted so far.

What games can we look forward to in 2004?

Goa, St Petersburg, Marco Polo, Power Grid, San Juan, Alexandros, Corsari, Circus Flohcati, and many more, including a reprint of Torres with great new graphics by Franz Vohwinkel.

Back to Contents

 


Call for Submissions

Boulder Games is looking for submissions for future issues of Game Notes (believe it or not, we’re trying to come out with a new “issue” more than once a year). Please consider the following before you submit an article:

1. If at all possible, we prefer reviews of recently released games. An occasional article or review of a long forgotten game will be published, but we are mostly interested in what has gamers excited in the here and now.

2. Keep your reviews/articles between 1,000 and 1,500 words.

3. Payment for reviews is modest – usually $20 in Boulder Games credit per review used. Obviously if you submit an unusable review or article you’ll receive no compensation for it. Them’s the breaks!

4. Our space is limited, so make certain your writing is strong, eloquent and original. See any Darrell Hanning review for a good idea of what we consider effective writing.

5. Be opinionated! Boulder Games is known for telling it like it is. Heck, just look at many of our product descriptions. If we don’t like a game, we let you know it. So, whether you love or hate a game doesn’t matter as long as you clearly convey WHY you love or hate it.

6. Ease off of the game mechanic descriptions. We want a critique of the game, not three pages of detailed instructions about how the game works. Mechanic descriptions certainly have their place but don’t let them become the “meat” of your review.

7. We ask that all reviews remain Game Notes exclusives for a minimum of 30 days. After that period, we request that you include a statement like, "First appeared in Boulder Games' Game Notes issue #..." if and when the review is published elsewhere.

That’s it! If you have any questions, or if you want to submit an article or review, just contact chriskirby@bouldergames.com.


Back to Contents

 





Browse | Newsletter | Game Notes | Info | Shopping Cart