I have been going through BoardGameGeek’s list of games, ranking the games that I’ve played using my own rating scale and adding a short blurb for each. The list is permalinked in the sidebar, but I’ll call it to your attention here.

I’m going from the #1-rated game down, and as of this writing, I’ve gone through the first 200. I’ll add more later and call attention as I hit various milestones. Interestingly, my preferences definitely span the whole spectrum even in the top-rated games, from 4 down to 1, and that’s not even including the wargames I know I wouldn’t be interested in.

I posted a short, negative review of Himalaya over at BoardGameGeek. It’s here. I really dislike this game. The programmed movement is frustrating, the way scoring opportunities arrive is unpredictable, and the scoring/winner determination is too boring and baroque to be worth messing with.

I may be posting future negative reviews over at BGG–they don’t get enough of them there–and continuing to post positive or more broadly thought-provoking reviews here.

So, apologies to reader qualistarian, who I know had high hopes for the game; my rating is 1+.

A while ago, I posted that Ra would have been better if it had used cards instead of tiles.

Well, at Origins, I got to play my Favoritest Game on a picnic table outside, listening to some music (a hilarious cover band at a biker bar, oddly enough).  It was breezy and this definitely wouldn’t have been possible with cards, but the tiles were just fine. So I take it back: sturdy components can be worth both the extra expense and the extra bulk.

A little while ago I observed (didn’t actually play) a game of Graenaland (Greenland). The promise of Greenland is to be a trading/negotiation game like Settlers, but with extra complications and subtleties. The board is divided up into region in which players can build multiple settlements; settlements give voting rights to the resources in a region.

In practice, players didn’t seem so enthusiastic about the negotiation, which was a practice of last resort, preferring to dominate areas and eliminate the dependency on other players’ goodwill.  All of the complications made the game see very inelegant; this wasn’t helped by the rulebook, which was unclear in several places, poorly organized, and lacked helpful diagrams.

Theme-wise, you play Vikings, but you don’t fight. Is this historical? I don’t care! In my book, Vikings fight! Clearly this Greenland is populated by some weird non-confrontational Euro-vikings that would rather settle their differences with voting and diplomacy rather than fighting it out. Too weird.

Apparently someone is trying to organize a gaming convention here in Cleveland. Looks interesting and low-key; I’m not planning to go to GenCon, so perhaps this will do instead. Link: AnCon

Nefarious reader Fu Leng pointed me to the way alliances work in Dune. I like it a lot. Broadly:

• There is a formal game mechanic for alliances. Alliances can win as a team, help each other in certain special ways, and allies may not attack one another.
• Intermittently throughout the game, an event happens where all alliances are automatically dissolved. They must be created again–then there is no more opportunity to create then until the next such event.

This appeals greatly to me because it allows for a shifting web of allies and enemies without the constant worry of a knife in the back (or the need to backstab for victory); I think I could get much more into this game than, say, A Game of Thrones or Diplomacy. I would definitely use this mechanic, or something similar, if I wanted to design a game where alliances between players factored significantly.

With deep, dynamic strategy, plenty of player interaction, and great pacing, Puerto Rico is a deservedly popular game. If you’re looking to practice or get your fix in at 1:30 AM when everyone is asleep, try our the Puerto Rico Evolver.

Cool things about this program:

1. It’s an Excel spreadsheet/macro that certainly pushes the limits of that environment.
2. It plays very well. I consider myself a strong intermediate player and feel very pressured. I have beaten it (once out of several tries, and in the advantageous third seat) but there is not much room for error.
3. It learns its strategy from a genetic algorithm. How cool is that? You actually get several different opponents, with different strategies, each picked from its own pool of contenders. You can even evolve your own opponents, if you have a few trillion CPU cycles to spare.

There are a lot of gaming blogs out there but Yehuda says a lot of interesting things and says them well. There are plenty of good articles there, with the highlights nicely noted for your convenience. The same author some time ago compiled a list of koans from the ancient gaming masters.

I played Tigris & Euphrates again last night. This time at least I felt like I understood what was going on, even though I didn’t do very well. The game is certainly more exciting with four players than two–there are more opportunities for conflict and if you start losing on one front, it’s more reasonable to go somewhere else.

Reader Fuleng posted a link to an annotated game of T&E in the suggestion box. I’ve moved the text here:

For an annotated games of Tigris and Euphrates, check out http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/170187
and http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/170597.
T&E is one of my favorite Eurogames, but I’ll admit that while extremely deep. it’s not very accessible to new players. While the rules are relatively simple, there are just enough exceptions to be confusing, and the strategy is ‘emergent’ - ie, not immediately obvious from reading the rules. It took me a few games with the online version before I started to ‘get it.’ The annotated game does a decent job at getting some of the basic principles across, I recommend it to any one interested in or frustrated with T&E.

He’s very right about the “emergent” strategy. What’s frustrating is that nearly all of the strategy is emergent. This is unlike, say, Puerto Rico, which has a lot of very subtle strategy, but you can feel like you’re making progress all along, and the development patterns that winning players use are pretty clear.

Pillars of the Earth is an economy/resource game with a novel auction mechanic.

The economy/resource portion is solid if unremarkable. You deploy laborers (you get 12 every turn) to acquire raw materials (wood, stone, sand) and feed these resources to craftsmen to earn VPs. Craftsmen are like technologies; they stick around.

The auction mechanic is the neat part, and the one that really makes you think. There are about 15 privileges available, and each player will eventually get three of them. Some are decidedly better than others. For each player, three markers are placed into a bag, and one is drawn out. That player has the opportunity to either pay 7 gold (which is a lot) for the opportunity to choose any one privilege, or pass, which effectively boots that privilege-choice to the very end of the line. The next marker drawn costs 6 gold, the one after that 5, etc. The last few all cost nothing, and after that, passed markers are placed.

The game looks way more complicated than it is–it “fell into place” for me around halfway through the first game. It took 4 first-timers 2 hours to play; with veterans it would probably be 90 minutes, with setup, or 75 if you hurried. Production quality is good  but not great–I didn’t much care for the decorative little wooden cathedral. On the other hand, the cards look nice and are helpfully backed.

Can be found here.