Lee Sedol defeats Google AlphaGo - Weiqi

http://recode.net/2016/03/13/score-one-for-humanity-googles-go-machine-finally-loses-to-korean-champ/ - Kurt Wagner 3/13/2016

Review: Castles of Mad King Ludwig (good)

I've played this game maybe 5-10 times now with different number and skilled players. Overall, this is a great game for both competitive and co-op-friendly players even though this game is more competitive style. Actually, it is a competitive style play but there is a factor that seems to keep some of the less competitive players interested. So it is a great game to bring to a party of unknown players or even first time players.

Although playable with less than 4 players, I agree with most of what Lyrisse (link below) said about fewer players. We actually made it a 5 player game and it seems to work out just fine too. We used a coin or some other small object for the score keeping and made another foyer.

I am not sure if there is a favorite to who goes first and winning, at least not an obvious one. Two big factors seem to be the big value rooms and bonus cards. As long as a player sticks to a game plan, I've found that the scores usually came pretty close at the end. Lucky players with good bonus cards usually do end up winning by a larger margin but does not happen often. I have also found scoring the last place person first at the end of the game keeps the lower skilled people more involved with the game so that they can at least feel like they led even if it is a short period of time.

The game is very replay-able. I still have not found a strategy that dominates another nor which rooms to keep at what cost. I found that it did not really matter that much.

At the beginning, I said that it was also somewhat fun for less competitive players because they just enjoyed building a castle and if they are adventurous a theme to their castle. Sometimes, this made it an interesting twist for the more competitive players.

Besides making it 5 players, we've even added another bonus point system at the end. If there are other non-players around, we had them vote on who had the "best" castle. You can make it a blind judge where they do not know who owns which castle, but it was a lot more entertaining having the players "sell" why their castle is better. You can use the same bonus structure as the middle bonus (8 for first, 4 for second, 2 and 1)... or really could be any system you want to use.


Reference
http://www.boardgameauthority.com/castles-mad-king-ludwig-review/

Review: Bohnanza, the card game

2024-12-09: Sorry, this seems to be more of a recommendation than a review. It has been so long that I do not even remember much of the game. I have not played it since mostly due to other life activities not because I didn't like the game. I probably will play this game again if it comes up, but probably not in the near future due to other life priorities.

Recommendation Summary

I just played this game for the first time and only one time. We had seven people with 2 more competitive players and 3 'have fun' players and 2 'forced to play along' players. The rules are pretty simple although a little difficult to explain as I tried to summarize the rules. I and another friend kept referring to the rules as we were playing and let a few rules go by just to keep the game moving.

Trading

Although this was not a problem with this group of friends, but I can definitely see this being abused with certain people (typically those who deny any knowledge of it and I believe that they genuinely think that way which does not change the fact that they abuse it). Trading is such a big pain point of mine and, in my opinion, oftentimes a failure point for many games.

I am not one to want to keep arguing trades that are obviously bad trades. By bad trades, I am generalizing to include macro level strategies. For example, a single player (player A) has been benefiting from a couple trades. The third person also entertains the thought of trading with player A because it benefits him not realizing that the trade benefits player A even more so due to the previous trades. Or even more simply that player A is already in the lead.

I have another friend who is very aggressive with trading. The game is very difficult to play when we have a player who is too kind to say no for many different reasons (no clue what is going on so goes with the 'flow', deceived to think that the trade is beneficial, wants to be friendly). These players are typically new players or new friends who will soon learn quickly not trade, but some people never learn. This friend of mine has a much higher win rate when there are new players or friends at the table.

When there is no one too gullible, the friend will continue to make trades that appear to be beneficial to them but do not realize that it benefits the other player more. I do not mean obvious trades where they give two and receive one. Many games have mechanics where you can build up a potentially long term high scoring game changing strategies. In these cases, I will typically lose to whoever happens to have the resources needed for the mentioned friend. I have no control over the trade. I could argue but after so many games, I am just too tired to explain. I'll play along but some players will just completely go into a 'forfeit' mode which just ruins the game too which makes it harder for me to come back from. I have been on the beneficial side of the trades at times too. But overall, I think trading ruins the game on the macro level especially when you have more players.

Besides strategy, there are many biases among players. You have couples who obviously would benefit in other ways besides within the game. Many times the wives will get the better side of the trade with a simple threat of someone sleeping on the couch and that someone not being her.

Conclusion

I like this game because it seems like you could play this straight forward with some strategy behind it. I think the game is pretty easy to explain after a game or two. There is quite a few opportunities to create a strategy on how to harvest and plant the beans which includes remember what cards have been played or used.

One con to the game that I do not particular enjoy even with other games is the ability to trade.

Review: Letters from Whitechapel (Board Game)

• 2+ players
• Competitive and Cooperative play
• Cooperative requires at least 3 players
• Good party game, new player friendly
• Theme may not be appropriate for young kids

I have now played or watched people play Letters from Whitechapel a few times now. The mechanics are simple but still challenging. A similar game to this was Scotland Yard which I have not played for over 10 years.

The basic concept is that there is a character, Jack the Ripper, that has to navigate around the map to accomplish his objectives. Whoever plays Jack will be playing against everyone else (typically an experienced player). This is the competitive portion where Jack has to mislead or bluff to his goal.

The rest of the players are the detectives in hunting for Jack. 1 player or multiple players can play the detectives. They can cooperate with each other to find leads, cut off certain paths, and/or hopefully arrest Jack.

Pros

The best part of this game is that it has both elements of competitive and cooperative play. One of my problems in finding a good game for a party where everyone can play. Typical games are either too competitive (i.e. Settlers of Catan) or too cooperative (i.e. Pandemic). I think one of the biggest problems with people who usually do not play board games is that they do not want to upset other players because they do not know how to play. This is even more so when you have very competitive friends (who always wants to play so I rarely play coop games).

For Whitechapel, all the cooperative players should be on the detective side since they can all discuss strategies. Competitive players can play either Jack or detectives. On the detective side, they will tend to direct the other players. I try to encourage that the head detective (who rotates after each round) do most of the talking.

Cons

I do not have much against the game so far. With friends who I think are good at strategy, Jack has a high tendency to win (4 out of 5 games). With another group of friends who I thought were less strategic in their play-style, Jack almost always lost.

Personally, I've played Jack 3 times and detective 2 times. I've won all except one. The lost game did not follow the strategies I think was needed to win. The other time as detective, I think it was a fluke that we found Jack.

Overall

This is definitely one of my top party games with people who like strategy and minimal random factors (like dice and/or card drawing).

Review: Open Lord Intrigue Card from Lords of Waterdeep

If a player is used to play Lords of Waterdeep prior to the expansion, this card will initially appear to be extremely Overpowered (OP). I've been a victim to this card twice and still do not quite have a solution to this. Both times played in the second round. Basically this card prevents players from using attacking intrigue cards on the wielder (OL - Open Lord).

After thinking over the game, I find that this card seems OP because it changes the dynamics of the game once it is played. Because now everyone has to share in the responsibility in preventing the OL from taking too big of a lead. Similar to the affects of IO or Wisp from DOTA, or playing against the score leader in Hearts, the card game. So to prevent the OL from winning is very difficult if you are playing with selfish players or new players. Revealing the lord is not a huge drawback because around Round 3 or 4, you have a pretty good idea which lord each player has anyways.

Two Players

To me this card is extremely OP for two player games because I did not have another player to play with. This means that I cannot play the attack intrigue cards at all which is a good percentage of the cards. That means that I will waste a lot of moves getting cards I cannot use. At the same time, because I cannot play them, I cannot use the Harbor which essentially gives you another half agent to an extra agent because you can replay him later. In two players, there are lots of open space and the intrigue cards give you the resources that you can attempt to block. At least with a third player, you can play the attack cards on someone else. This then leaves you with utility cards where half of them also benefits someone else, like two resources and give one to your opponent. Of course in two players, there is only one other opponent. I was completely crushed in this game. This was also the very first time I played this expansion so I did not know any of the new cards or mechanics.

Three Players

The second time we played with three players. We both still lost but it was much closer in score but really required both of us to "gang up" on the OL. By ganging up, we just used utilities between the two of us and avoided using attack cards. We had the building that let you discard intrigue cards which also helped. What hurt me was that I was the building lord which I had to spend half the game just getting the castle rook to have first dibs to the buildings, and of course the unfortunate luck to not getting quests that gave me buildings.

Conclusion

I feel this card is still overpowered but would like to play against it a few more times to get a better feel. But it definitely changes the game play once it is revealed. There are probably some lord combinations where it does not work very well like the building one.

On the rest of the expansion, I feel like there are a lot more intrigue cards that benefit the wielder without any penalties. At least in the original, the benefit was about an extra move like getting the same resources as if in another spot or take extra resource while giving something to someone else. There was one that just gives control of a building. Taking one that has a cost of 8 is basically stealing someone else's two turns for not even 1 turn... which basically means a 3 turn swing.

I am still split on the new mechanics. The corruption is interesting, and underworld quests cost a lot more (of course for more rewards).