The first game can be approached with the intent to “work together” to keep the company afloat, but in a real (second and onwards) game every player should be out to make the most money themselves, and that can mean all sorts of things from looting India and sowing the seeds of rebellion and spiralling costs, to refusing to fit another player’s ships, to assigning all the money to one of the three presidents and leaving the others high and dry.
All these things can be resolved through bribery though, assuming players are willing and able to bribe enough. “Betrayal” would I guess be not following through on a deal. Since only very specific deals are binding (immediate exchanges and promise cards), I guess that can happen, but I don’t see any real point in outing yourself as someone who doesn’t uphold deals, unless you only ever intend to play once.
Anyone played Dinosaur Gauge, got a decent deal on it but I’ll hardly ever get chance to play it. It conatins two of my favourite things, dinosaurs and gauges (trains).
While going to pick up our two latest games (Earth and Flamecraft) at our FLGS, I saw that they had Great Western Trail New Zealand and I was wondering:
If we already own, play and greatly enjoy the original game (1st edition) with Rails of the North, is New Zealand worth it? What are the mechanical differences between these two versions? Obviously the map will be different, and I think it’s sheep instead of cows, but do the games PLAY differently enough to justify another purchase?
I think New Zealand is pretty different. There is a sea board with boats that is somewhat similar to the original’s Rails expansion so not hugely new there. Newer things: the sheep can be sheared for wool along the route not just sold at the end; the worker buying track is different and not the end game timer; there are new bonus tiles that are the end game timer; there are more cards (not sheep) to add to your deck with powers that really ups the deckbuilding part of the game; there’s new resources (a bird track you can move on and gold to spend buying cards). That’s the big changes. I was not overly impressed with Argentina but I think New Zealand is different and interesting.
I’m seeing noy some expansions for Ahoy, from Leder games, and somehow that game went under the radar for me. Considering there’s a few Leder games fans around, I found that surprising. Anybody played it?
I only played Concordia to death. Only a fair bit of Village. I feel that with Conc - especially with Salsa - had more depth. Problem with this is that it’s the least interesting Mac Gerdts.
Village is an interesting one where you manage the timing of the death of your family members. Killing them quick would degrade your capability, but it fills up the book quick. And I’m not sure if there’s more after that. I never manage to play beyond that
The low interaction Euros that came to mind would be Nusfjord or Res Arcana, as I’m biased towards their combo building
I think Concordia and Village are both great. I prefer Concordia but repeated plays of Village can reveal extra layers of strategy (getting those family members killed off at the right time is crucial). Concordia feels more grandiose.
Other ones to mention:
Wingspan Orléans Castles of Burgundy Lords of Waterdeep Istanbul Champions of Midgard It’s a Wonderful World Notre Dame
I’ve played more Concordia than Village, though I love them both and think they’re top tier euros (I will say Concordia is one of my favorite games though, Village is just a great game I own).
Burgundy is a good recommend, as is Orléans and Nusfjord.
Glass Road and Viticulture (though this has a degree of luck that’s a little less euroish, but I still rate it) are both also very good in this realm.
I’d say Concordia has more legs, if only because it’s so satisfyingly perfect a game. It all works so fabulously well, I don’t think I’d ever get bored with it. So streamlined and minimal, too. Village is great, but more fiddly and less perfect.
I don’t know how low-interaction you’re looking for, but Troyes is another fabulous game - although there is a bit (only a bit, mind) more scope for being mean to each other.
I have played both, and I prefer Village’s theme, but I think Concordia uses more common-ground game mechanisms, networking, making money… Village is more original, but has more luck involved, somehow…
I love both, it would be hard for me to choose. I think if money (and space) was no object, I would own both.
