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” 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.
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.)
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 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!
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  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 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 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 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 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.
M. Barnes is a steadfast advocate for change in the American game market. This is his second review for Game Notes.
Odds'R
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 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
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! 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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Monty's
Gamble: Market Garden 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.
Coloretto
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 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 Michael Schacht has impressed me with
his recent designs. His games are easy to learn, reasonably light Norbert Chan lives in Calgary, Canada.
Mammoth
Hunters 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. 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. 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 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.
an interview with ConsimWorld's John Krantz Tell us a little about yourself
- your background and how you initially got interested in wargames. 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). Is there a particular aspect of
the site that you are proudest of? 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? What do you predict the future
holds for wargaming? 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 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.
Trendsetting a brief interview with Rio Grande Games' Jay Tummelson What led to the creation of Rio Grande Games?
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?
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. 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.
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.
|
(the money in this game) and adaptation markers used to record the
improved survival abilities of each creature.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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. 
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. 
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. 
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. 
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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).