Thursday 1 September 2011

From Japan to China, via Stokes Croft

A rare event occurred as both my Japanese lesson and games night aligned on a Wednesday evening. There were five of us (myself, Sam, Joe, Quentin and Steve) meeting in Joe’s fragrant kitchen, delicately perfumed by Joe’s dog’s anti-bark collar that sprayed citronella whenever she made a noise.

We began with a non-leaderboard game of Pickomino – a typical Reiner Knizia mix of simple strategy and blind luck. Steve joined in half way through, but that wasn’t really a handicap since no one else had made much of a start.

I quickly found my dicing knack, and had a stack of five tiles in front of me. This was whittled down by my opponents, and the advantage swung to Quentin. Joe’s technique of always choosing double fours if available turned out to be superstitious nonsense, and Sam’s rolls left him with almost no options at all. In the end, Steve came second with his usual tactic of not fully understanding the rules until the last round, by which time he’s usually doing quite well anyway.

Quentin 6
Steve 4
Andrew 3
Joe 2
Sam 0

For the main event, The Year of the Dragon was chosen. Rules were explained, and scenarios set, as we readied ourselves for the worst year in Chinese history. It was a slow affair, and preparing for one disaster seemed to leave you vulnerable for the next. At different times I remembered what was irritating and what was fun about this game. As you’d expect with three first-timers, there was a lot of thoughtful pauses, and Quentin took back and re-did his go four times at one point, which must be some kind of record.

I begun by building early, and stocking up on Buddhas. Sam planned ahead sensibly and ended the game with most people still alive and plenty of money. Joe lacked Sam’s foresight and at times was down to just three people, but he had bought privileges in the first round. Steve found himself last on the influence track and out of pocket – an unenviable position to be in, but he had two Buddhas in one building which scored handsomely at the end. Quentin also bought privileges, so he and Joe made the early running. In fact, most of the complaining about how badly they were doing came from the two leaders.

But this time, there was no last minute upset in the final scores: Joe and Quentin lead at the end as they had at the start:

Joe 83
Quentin 79
Sam 76 (Sam wins third on influence points)
Steve 76
Andrew 73

Then a third game was proposed, and since no one said it wasn’t leaderboard, I’ll assume it was. Steve set off home, and No Thanks was chosen. This time Joe used my strategy of picking up low cards (with the usual lack of success), and at the end of the game I had a lucky run of cards which reduced my score for no risk. Perhaps I should’ve sent them round for some chips, but I wanted to go home. In the end, Quentin’s steady nerve and decision to go for high cards paid off as the value of his cards was slashed by the number of chips he had.

Quentin 20
Sam 25
Joe 30
Andrew 33

A good night for Quentin (which sees him climb two places on the leaderboard), a bad night for me, and middling for everyone else.

The leaderboard...
PlayedPointsRatio
Adam17875.11
Sam2082.54.125
Andrew20623.1
Joe1560.54.03
Hannah835.54.44
Quentin6284.67
Jonny7284
Steve724.53.5
Paul26.53.25
Chris25.52.75
Sally13.53.5
Matilda11.51.5

3 comments:

  1. Nice game, Year of the Dragon. But Stefan Feld - mind meld. So much to think about... and despite managing all my disasters very well I limped in in third - which doesn't say much for Chinese priorities in 1000AD. Material gain over human life - has it always been thus?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The previous game of this I played, I was surprised that my steady gain throughout was scuppered at the final scoring, and so I played this one thinking the same thing would happen. The gap was closed significantly, but I managed to hang in there. And yes, I thought I'd totally lost it when I lost three people in the second famine — would have been four had Quentin not pointed out that I should let my fourth palace decay.

    This and Notre Dame, both I think will repay lots of replays — the strategies are subtle, and almost counter-intuitive. If you struggle to come out on top of each disaster, as the game seems to be telling you to do, you'll end up with lots of people, sure. But realising that you can afford to lose people who are no longer useful means that instead of using an action simply to protect those two farmers, say, you can use it to get points and let them starve. Evil.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If killing off little cardboard people doesn't sit well with you simply imagine them as contractors instead and you are just 'letting them go' :)

    ReplyDelete