gpage

@Ineedcoffee O&L is one of my favorite euros. I have a friend who super digs it solo, but its a very different experience then the 3/4p game. Ireland is more forgiving than France, but both are sort of relaxing compared to something like Agricola.

This weekend I'm advancing the game we have in the table well; Kim Kanger's Dien Bien Phu: The Final Gamble. We futzed around a couple weeks ago and made it through turn 1 (it's a monster long game, but even at Origins I got through like 6 turns before we had to pack up), hoping to get to the end of T3 before our time runs out. I suspect we're going to move it to Vassal just because our schedule doesn't sync up well and I'd like to get access to the table well again.

@Repptar Had it and got rid of it (well, more accurately, a friend had it and got rid of it). Juice wasn't worth the squeeze to us. It's a big game, and I think the one piece of advice I'd have is to approach it more like you would Here I Stand where it's going to take gobs of time and require a greater rules burden. This isn't TS2.0 sort of thing, and it wasn't intended to be.

I get really picky about my wargames, and this wasn't a time period that I felt passionate about. That's my fear with the upcoming Simmons game (which was BaM2e, now Triomphe à Marengo). I like Napoleon's Triumph in part because it does a great job of helping create that immersion of "I'm a commander and here is the situation" given the presentation, but it's not my time period so the rules burden and eccentricities are more of a burden than I normally want to put up with. I'm hoping this is an easier hill to climb as I do have some other fiends who jam on that era and it would be nice to have a game that meets my level of engagement with it that they are likewise interested in.

@Profilename1 lol, yeah, Italian Railroads was.... "not good" and would require more development and changes if it were to get licensed (IMHO). I did recoup my cash on that one at least. I actually *did* like Iberian Railways though, but it requires a very careful reading of the game and John's explanation that you *want* to make and break ties as ties score for those tied in each category and you can even tie yourself in some categories and score extra points. That's the point of the game, but it's buried in an explanation note that I'm not sure many have caught. I actually pointed it out to Ken Hill and it was revelatory (and that was AFTER the licensed it and announced it on BGG). Southern Pacific is the one unlicensed Winsome I still have, and it's about shuffling/suitcasing money to your advantage, but it has a very narrow "good" player count in my mind, and some terrible accounting...

I haven't even cracked open Horseless Carriage yet. I have the errata package taped to the back side of the box currently... That's a fall task I guess.

@donio I think my best hit rate is with Cole Wehrle, but I've sat and thought about this for a bit and I think I run into the issue that I generally only bat about 50% on any designer that does more than a couple games. There always seems to be something that they do that makes me go "no, you sort of missed on this one..."

For example:
- I enjoy Roads & Boats, Indonesia, and The Great Zimbabwe, but Antiquity/FCM/Bus all fell flat to me after a play or two.
- I adore Root/Pamir/JC1 but An Infamous Traffic was not good, and Oath was not worth keeping (and I skipped JC2 after playtesting).
- Glass Road/Ora & Labora/Bohnanza/Patchwork I like a lot, but I got rid of Caverna, Agricola, and I'm still deciding on the new Canal game.
- Twilight Struggle/1989/1960 I adore, and a bunch of other Matthews games I got rid of.
-- Glory to Rome, Innovation, and Mottainai are respectable, but The Bird and some others just sort of miss the mark I'm after.
- John Bohrer is on a 30% hit rate and I think I still have like 3 or 4 of his Winsome games.

There are some designers who I don't bother with at all anymore, because their style just doesn't mesh with me at all, and that's great cause there are other people who like those, but if we're talking about "who is your go-to" then that's tougher to say.

@dpunked Ooof, most disappointed I've been with a game has to be Cosmic Encounter; it's primarily rooted in two things.

1. I had a terrible first play. I won (no ties even), but it felt vapid and arbitrary.
2. The inability to select a target (and thus negotiate accordingly) sort of removed where I was hoping the game would be. Instead it was "oh, I'm targeting Jerry cause the game told me to"

Someone else in the group brought it, so it's not like I was out any skin. The game I did purchase, played a lot of to confirm some suspicions, and then traded away was Terra Mystica:

1. It has a declining critical nature of decisions as the game progresses (the three most important decisions you'll make in the game are during setup).
2. I found the faction dictated my strategy at an almost claustrophobic level (in particular, digging costs). This came across as a game about "here is what you need to do, can you do it better." Ora & Labora gives you a ton of options each turn and some of those are legitimate but it depends on your goal. TM says "here is your goal and strategy, can you actually do it" which I was less interested in.

I played maybe 7 or 8 games in person and double digits online but haven't played in years...