Fair enough. We neither play it often enough nor analyse it enough for that to be a problem for us!!
Not if you look at player positions. Someone earning loads have to be beaten down. Whether “bash the leader” is good or not, is up to you
Yes, that is the equation.
Not sure how to label it but I think my favorite brand of luck/disruption is some combination of deduction and psychology. LOTR: The Confrontation is a case in point. At its core, it’s Stratego + Cardplay, so a strength 2 hobbit may bump into a strength 4 nazgul. But now you each get to play a card to augment the altercation, and this is the rock/paper/scissors or circular game theory that runs the game. As the “light” player, my highest card is strength 5, so my Hobbit maxes out at a 7. The Nazgul’s correct play, therefore, is a 4 (+4 = 8), guaranteeing the win. Knowing this, the Hobbit’s correct play is the 1 card - I’ll lose my Hobbit but gain some relative deck strength vs the Shadow. Knowing THAT, the Shadow should of course play its lowest card (2) since that will still beat my 1. But if the Shadow does that, I can mutually destruct with a 4 or win with my 5… And on it goes.
I love the dynamic of spinning the wheel and trying to stop just one step ahead of the other player. It’s amazing when you get it right and amazing when you get it wrong.
This also spills into a deduction puzzle, because the cards that are played stay by the side of the table and you can begin to calibrate on your opponent’s mental state as well as strategize around their shrinking options, and game really arcs as you get through your decks.
The other dynamic that came to mind is Nations. Nations is a civ/engine builder but the beating heart of the game is at the start of each round where you decide to take income or grow population. You always need to take income as you just need stuff and more stuff. But you win by growing.
Here’s the order of operations:
- Lay out the market for the round
- Each player decides whether or not to grow population
- Flip the random event
- Play the round
When you decide to grow, you are basically signing a contract to pay a bill at the end of the round. You get to see the random market before this decision, so you kind of know what is in play. But you have to do it before you see the event - which tells you the size of famine you’ll also have to pay at the end of the round as well as some crisis which you’ll need to manage your empire to avoid. (this is the random part)
Moreover, you’ll have a plan of how you’re going to make ends meet, based on the market, but others will have that same plan and they will begin snaffling up the cards you needed.
I love the partial information - make a plan - disruption (card flip + player competition) - adapt cycle that the game throws at you. Like Air Land and Sea, the game gets just the right balance of giving you the tools you’ll need to make ends meet, but its rarely easy or obvious just how to best put them together.
Those are both more “input” type scenarios. So as not to overindex, I also greatly enjoy something like Quacks where the game is probability management. I know not every plan is going to hit, but stick to the math and it will generally work out by the end. There’s a nice tension in the journey as you ride the ups and downs.
This reminds me of a proposal I saw once to eliminate small change (less than 1 currency unit) when paying cash. Work out the amount that would be given. Then each party separately comes up with a number from 1-100, add them together mod 100, and if the total is ≤ the change amount, pay an extra 1 currency unit, otherwise don’t.
The neat thing about this is that if you think the other party’s random generator is biased you can bias your own to take advantage of it, so your best tactic is to be unbiased.