The NEW New Boardgames Thread

[Habbaku]

I played Churchill at WBC.

I actually really like it as a game - but it is almost designed to make three people hate each other. So that maybe isn't so great...

Their major complaint seems to be that there isn't enough incentive for the Western Allies to fight the war in Europe (in particular Normandy).  Not enough benefit for themselves and too much benefit for the SU.

The designer has posted a long analysis on why that is not true. He sounded convincing.

I definitely agree with that analysis.  At least until I disagree with it.

[Delirium]

Until evidence is put forward to the contrary I will take Mr Herman's word as gospel and continue to think that there is deep deep shit going on in Churchill that some people just do not get.

On the other hand, the main dissident over at BGG (the "Fixing Churchill" thread) played five games of it before giving up. I can honestly say that five games is a lot more patient than I have been in similar cases so I don't think his motivation is just complaining for its own sake...

Another thought: without even having played it, my take on the reactions is that maybe Churchill is one of those games where players have to be about level in their understanding of what you "need" to do or it will be disappointing, both as a simulation and as a game experience? If that is true, then I can understand the accusations of "fragile design". We shall see.

[frunk]

The designer has posted a long analysis on why that is not true. He sounded convincing.

Hmm, reading this that's not what I got.  It sounds actually like he agrees that the Western Allies don't want to advance in Europe, as he focuses on how the SU can push Normandy for their own gain (and even emphasizes the large number of points that SU can get through military victory).

[Delirium]

On paper, it looks like Mr Herman has a good argument why it is better to win the war than not (although I think it is a problem that some marketing blurbs state that all players lose if they fail to defeat the Axis, which is not true obviously).

But if the war is won, it is a problem for the Soviets if they are too successful in it (a concept I can buy, the rationale being that the rest of the world would unite against anyone becoming too powerful). So UK/US will probably want to make that happen. But if they do, then the Soviets can just hold off on defeating the Axis, wait for game end and win by "world domination" anyway.

I think the victory conditions do hold water as is, but my impression is that Mr Herman took a wrong turn by allowing players to win if the Axis are not defeated (rumour has it it is because players in last spot would sabotage the war otherwise). It would be a cleaner design in my view if all players lose Republic of Rome style if they do not finish the war properly. If what people are saying is true that you can just manipulate other players' fronts anyway to get the results you want then I would think that is enough to get away from the "last player sabotage the war" effect anyway?

[Habbaku]

I just played again on Sunday afternoon and so far I have to agree with Herman's perspective.  The other two players at the table have a plethora of opportunities to cock up things for a player that is deliberately sand-bagging.

If the US is pursuing a Pac-First strategy, the UK and USSR can cooperate to at least start Overlord on-time, if not necessarily at great strength.  They should be able to make the landing, at the very least.  This will, of course, lead to significant enough weakening of the Eastern Front to allow the Soviets some headway.

Ditto for Soviets avoiding advancing in the East in pursuit of some sort of deliberate war-losing/political settlement strategy.  There is a USSR Directed Offensive for a reason.  If the UK/USA are cooperating to push in Europe, they can use that and their own industry to purchase enough OS markers to get the Soviets moving.  It will be harder, but a Soviet player with both the Western powers aligning against them can reasonably expect to win a maximum of 2 issues--and they'll be things like A-Bomb or less-important issues that won't really impede the war-effort.  Combine that with the US/UK cooperating to keep the Pol-Mil issues out of Soviet hands and I don't see a sand-bagging commie winning often, if at all.

The real trick comes where, when cooperating to stop the USSR from doing that, the UK or USA begins to consider going for their own goals near the end of the war...

[frunk]

I just played again on Sunday afternoon and so far I have to agree with Herman's perspective.  The other two players at the table have a plethora of opportunities to cock up things for a player that is deliberately sand-bagging.

If the US is pursuing a Pac-First strategy, the UK and USSR can cooperate to at least start Overlord on-time, if not necessarily at great strength.  They should be able to make the landing, at the very least.  This will, of course, lead to significant enough weakening of the Eastern Front to allow the Soviets some headway.

Ditto for Soviets avoiding advancing in the East in pursuit of some sort of deliberate war-losing/political settlement strategy.  There is a USSR Directed Offensive for a reason.  If the UK/USA are cooperating to push in Europe, they can use that and their own industry to purchase enough OS markers to get the Soviets moving.  It will be harder, but a Soviet player with both the Western powers aligning against them can reasonably expect to win a maximum of 2 issues--and they'll be things like A-Bomb or less-important issues that won't really impede the war-effort.  Combine that with the US/UK cooperating to keep the Pol-Mil issues out of Soviet hands and I don't see a sand-bagging commie winning often, if at all.

The real trick comes where, when cooperating to stop the USSR from doing that, the UK or USA begins to consider going for their own goals near the end of the war...

In those situations would it be in the UK's best interest to help out the Soviets by pursuing Overlord, and is the USSR materially hurt by the Western Allies pushing them forward in Europe?  It's tough for me to make sense of this having not played.

[Habbaku]

That depends entirely on the situation.  There's never going to be a situation in which one player is devoting all their energy to helping both of the others while getting nothing himself.  The USSR may be materially hurt by being forced to commit in the East simply because they have very few resources to spend in the first place.  If two of their starting three factories are tied down, they aren't going to be pursuing much Pol-Mil action or be able to advance much in Asia.

[Delirium]

From reading the rules, the extended example of play (really good learning tool) and some BGG articles it seems to me that the game is at its best with three players who co-operate to win the war and the winner "giving away" just enough boons to their competitors to win the game by a safe but not too big margin. This sounds like the most fun way to play the game to me, too. But since us gamers have an intrinsic desire to push every button and pull every lever to see what happens you get a bunch of strange results with people "anti-playing" and need to have rules for that.

Were it a Dean Essig game he would chastise players (probably in advance) for gameyness, but this is Mark Herman so he wants us to trust him that he has thought of the weird tactics and they will not work (or at least not work as we think they do). And on paper I trust him, it just seems like a safer and more controlled environment to collectively defeat the Axis and eke out the few extra points than not doing so, because a winner will have to face more variables and more random elements to be successful. I think.

[Maladict]

Churchill expected to be out of stock before the sale starts
What am I going to get now?

[celedhring]

Me and my friends are looking for a quick timewaster. We have done Race for the Galaxy, Legendary, Ascension, 7 Wonders... we liked all those games, but we feel they have run their course with us and we are looking for something fresh. Any advice?

[Syt]

Sushi Go looked fun on Table Top.

[Habbaku]

Churchill sold out.

[Tamas]

Damn

[frunk]

Me and my friends are looking for a quick timewaster. We have done Race for the Galaxy, Legendary, Ascension, 7 Wonders... we liked all those games, but we feel they have run their course with us and we are looking for something fresh. Any advice?

I haven't had much opportunity for gaming lately, but here's a few suggestions.

For a poker like game there's Pandante.  Try to get 1st edition if you can, 2nd sounds like they messed with some of the rules.
I assume you've tried the expansions for the games you've mentioned, but there's also Roll for the Galaxy, the dice version of Race.  Easier to learn than Race and somewhat lighter but still fun.
If you don't mind a baseball themed game there's Baseball Highlights 2045.  Great little deckbuilder, particularly for even numbers of players.  Three player works but not as well.
Codenames - More of a party game than the other titles, but fun and quick clue giving/deduction game.

[Maladict]

Churchill sold out.

CoolStuufInc apparently has 20+ copies on offer for $58.
It looks a bit too good to be true actually, does anyone have experience ordering from them?