Sillyman
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 339
Registered: 09-08-2006
IP: Logged

I saw them quite a while back at SJ Games' website. And by a while, I mean at least a year ago. Sadly, Warehouse 23 isn't printing them.

____________________________
Who, me?
FNORD

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

One of my favourite board games is Citadels:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/478/citadels

Generally, I dislike excessive random factor in games. Limited randomness, however, is good as it introduces more variety without making cunning irrelevant. I know no two games are exactly fair, but you can always play a few more matches and it becomes apparent who's better (if that's what you care about the most). Games with no randomness run into risk of being formulaic (yes, I mean Chess).

Citadels strikes the sweet spot for me. It has the variety of a random game, it rewards planning - and adapting. Few other games reward ability to adapt and predict opponent's choice as much as Citadels. The way the rules work, as soon as you become predictable, you become easy target for assasination or thieves. Turns are partially simultaneous, so you have to plan in advance to be most succesful.

It's not strictly a board game, it's a card game. To simplify, each round consists of two phases:
1) each player chooses one character he wants to influence, and passes the rest (face down !) to the next player.
2) Each player does his turn. Order is determined by who got which character. During his turn, a player may use his character's abilities, perform an action (earn 2 gold or take 1 of 2 district cardscards), and build a dustrict.

The game ends in the round where a player builds his 8th district (no, really). They the score is calculated for each player, with bonuses for things like finishing first, or having 1 district in each of 5 colors.

District drawing is the only truly random part of the game. The core - character choice - is mostly deterministic. Some of characters:

- Assasin: name a character. Player who controls that character loses a turn
- Thief: take all of named character's gold
- warlord: you can pay to demolish another player's building
- Merchant: gain 1 gold for each green district. Additionally take 1 gold at the end of turn.
- Magician: "exchange your hand" with another player, or with the common deck.
- King: 1 gold for each yellow district. In next round, you take the first pick at choosing characters.
(...)

So, for example, having lots of green districts lets you to earn a lot of gold quickly with Merchant. But if you have a lot of green districts, people will expect your choice, and you're likely to be assasinated or robbed. Accumulating a lot of cards on hand tempts others to take Magician. Trying to finish first by building very cheap districts makes you a target for Warlord.

Playing it safe is not necessarily the best route, either. If others sense your character choice is very random and mostly harmless, they can capitalize on your inaction by picking more focused characters. So this game is a lot about adaptibility.

District cards are usually quite boring, most of them differing only in color (which interacts with various characters' abilities) and price (which matters for calculating victory points at the end). Some of them, however, change the game quite a lot, for example by allowing you to earn gold by discarding, or making your other buildings more expensive to demolish.

Overall, I'd say Citadels has quite simple rules, which result in deep Machiavellian gameplay. Random factor isn't big, and it's unlike any other card game I've played so far. Additional pros:
- easy to teach to other people
- scales very well with number of players. 2-9 is possible, although most players seem to prefer 4-6.
- fresh concept (at least for me)
- nice, a bit dark atmosphere
- very good artwork and style
- pretty inexpensive (non-collectible card games generally are)
- in many countries, (Poland etc) new edition includes Dark City exansion, which may not be amazing but is nice to have
- promotes guessing your opponents' actions, and adapting to situation
- good gateway game, despite being fantasy-themed

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

---

[Last edited by b0rsuk at 12-29-2009 05:32 PM]

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

Good post, but had to react to the "chess is formulaic" bit. I think the point/passion of chess is that it's not...

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

Syntax wrote:
Good post, but had to react to the "chess is formulaic" bit. I think the point/passion of chess is that it's not...

Of course it is. Why otherwise would people bother with variants like Chess960 ? (960 possible starting positions)

Chess960, known as Fischer Random Chess, is a chess variant invented by former World Champion Bobby Fischer by modifying the rules of Shuffle Chess so that castling possibilities exist for all starting positions.(...) The chess variant emphasizes creativity and talent instead of memorization and analysis of opening moves by using a randomized initial chess position.

Because chess is so mathematical, it's a game that can be solved. Of course there are many many combinations, but...

In some opening lines, the exact sequence considered best for both sides has been worked out to 30–35 moves or more.

This means that many players can just skip first 30-35 moves. What's the definition of formulaic for you ? 30-35 is the upper limit currently. Chess strongly depends on there being (supposedly) best reaction to each situation. Memorisation is key. You can (and should) plan many many moves ahead - this makes it a bad military simulation, too.

Source: wikipedia

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

---

[Last edited by b0rsuk at 01-01-2010 08:36 AM]

UrAvgAzn
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 468
Registered: 04-15-2006
IP: Logged

I might be misinterpreting the word formulaic, but the opening is always where the procedure lies in a normal game of chess (excluding Fischer Random). After the opening has progressed, the middle game and endgame is where the strategy lies. Sometimes, one would prefer to play an offbeat initial move to throw off the monotonous sequence of some openings.

Fischer Random was indeed created with the intent of skipping the opening procedures and moving straight to the tactics and strategy.

Chess is not yet a solved game because of the innumerable amount of possible positions, but there's definitely a point in the future where computers can essentially analyze every possible position and turn the game into something akin to Tic-Tac-Toe; where best play will lead to a draw.

____________________________
"The leaf, still green, must someday fall.
Such grief, such joy, to live at all."
- T.A. Barron, The Lost Years of Merlin

Someone Else
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2350
Registered: 06-14-2005
IP: Logged

Yeah, but nobody can possibly memorize the perfect combination. Besides, the other player would have to play exactly right as well. I don't doubt that computers will eventually solve the game, but that won't make it anything like Tic-Tac-Toe. My friend just got a game, Power Grid, that is quite good. You play by attempting to power the most cities, building power plants and then fueling them. That said, the endgame isn't very good, and we're trying to make rules to alleviate that problem.
I tend to play a lot of strategy and tactical games, especially epic wargames. Recently, I've been playing Federation and Empire (which, as far as my brother and I can tell, lasts about 80 hours), Star Fleet Battles, and War of the Ring. The first two are not for the time-pressed, attention-lacking, or people with no stomach for a lot of rules. But War of the Ring is only about a 2 hour game and is definitely one of the best wargames I've played.

jbluestein
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1670
Registered: 12-23-2005
IP: Logged

Someone Else wrote:
Yeah, but nobody can possibly memorize the perfect combination. Besides, the other player would have to play exactly right as well. I don't doubt that computers will eventually solve the game, but that won't make it anything like Tic-Tac-Toe. My friend just got a game, Power Grid, that is quite good. You play by attempting to power the most cities, building power plants and then fueling them. That said, the endgame isn't very good, and we're trying to make rules to alleviate that problem.
I tend to play a lot of strategy and tactical games, especially epic wargames. Recently, I've been playing Federation and Empire (which, as far as my brother and I can tell, lasts about 80 hours), Star Fleet Battles, and War of the Ring. The first two are not for the time-pressed, attention-lacking, or people with no stomach for a lot of rules. But War of the Ring is only about a 2 hour game and is definitely one of the best wargames I've played.

I'd be interested in knowing what problems you have with the endgame. In my opinion, Power Grid is one of the true greats of the last decade, and the resolution is usually quite tight if you're playing with experienced players.

Power Grid is also nice in that it fits loosely into the category of expandable games, with (at this point) ten different boards to play on, most of which alter the rules in some minor (or not so minor) fashion.

Josh

____________________________
"Rings and knots of joy and grief, all interlaced and locking." --William Buck

Syntax
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1218
Registered: 05-12-2005
IP: Logged

UrAvgAzn wrote:
I might be misinterpreting the word formulaic, but the opening is always where the procedure lies in a normal game of chess (excluding Fischer Random). After the opening has progressed, the middle game and endgame is where the strategy lies. Sometimes, one would prefer to play an offbeat initial move to throw off the monotonous sequence of some openings.

Fischer Random was indeed created with the intent of skipping the opening procedures and moving straight to the tactics and strategy.

Chess is not yet a solved game because of the innumerable amount of possible positions, but there's definitely a point in the future where computers can essentially analyze every possible position and turn the game into something akin to Tic-Tac-Toe; where best play will lead to a draw.

Agreed and this is what I was getting at when saying chess wasn't formulaic

Nuntar
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 4792
Registered: 02-20-2007
IP: Logged

b0rsuk wrote:

Syntax wrote:
Good post, but had to react to the "chess is formulaic" bit. I think the point/passion of chess is that it's not...

Of course it is. Why otherwise would people bother with variants like Chess960 ? (960 possible starting positions)

Cuts both ways, though, doesn't it? If chess is as formulaic as you say, why has Chess960 failed to completely replace it?

Because chess is so mathematical, it's a game that can be solved. Of course there are many many combinations, but...

Has nothing to do with being "mathematical". Chess can be solved because there are finitely many possible moves on each turn and a game must end in a finite number of turns. (This isn't strictly true, as the 50-move rule only says a draw can be claimed after 50 non-progressive moves; immortal players could play an infinite game without violating the rule. But really this exception is not worth taking account of.)

In some opening lines, the exact sequence considered best for both sides has been worked out to 30–35 moves or more.

This means that many players can just skip first 30-35 moves.

Does not. The quote only says that some opening lines have been worked out to 30+ moves. Every move will have possible alternatives, so even if you have an ideal plan for the first 30 moves, the vast majority of games will end up straying from it. (You think this won't happen because once a line is known to be best, both players will automatically follow it? Wrong, for two reasons. One is that important word "considered", which does not mean "known". Openings theory changes fast, and one player might be more up to date than the other, or simply have a different opinion about the comparative evaluation of two lines. The other is the obvious point that players will play less optimal moves deliberately, precisely in order to get their opponent "out of book" or out least out of what they think they are likely to have prepared.)

____________________________
50th Skywatcher

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

Nuntar wrote:
Cuts both ways, though, doesn't it? If chess is as formulaic as you say, why has Chess960 failed to completely replace it?

You know what's formulaic? Running Trial of the Champion on Heroic in World of Warcraft.

Man, but people still run the /crap/ out of that instance?

NiroZ
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1302
Registered: 02-12-2006
IP: Logged

IIRC, you can't really level up or find sweet loot in chess.

Someone Else
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2350
Registered: 06-14-2005
IP: Logged

I was wrong about the Power Grid endgame; turns out that we were playing it wrong. Also, Chess does end in a finite number of moves: If the exact same position is reached three times, the game is a draw.

---

[Last edited by Someone Else at 01-03-2010 11:03 PM]

UrAvgAzn
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 468
Registered: 04-15-2006
IP: Logged

Someone Else wrote:
Also, Chess does end in a finite number of moves: If the exact same position is reached three times, the game is a draw.

According to Wikipedia, a draw can be claimed by either player in that situation (see Nuntar's post above). It's the first time I've heard of that rule though, it must be very obscure/rarely used.

EDIT: Oh, never mind on that last part about the obscurity. I thought it meant the position of the entire board (i.e. both players) as opposed to the position of one player alone. Yeah, this has happened to me before.

____________________________
"The leaf, still green, must someday fall.
Such grief, such joy, to live at all."
- T.A. Barron, The Lost Years of Merlin

---

[Last edited by UrAvgAzn at 01-04-2010 01:45 AM]

Rabscuttle
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 2511
Registered: 09-10-2004
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:
IIRC, you can't really level up ... in chess.

umm.. queening?


3-fold repetition (which does involve the entire board) comes up somewhat often in the form of perpetual check.

If you are analysing the game completely, then you can assume that if a player cannot force a win from a given position then they will claim a draw. And since only one player can win, the other player will always choose the draw. (I'm pretty sure the draws are only optional in those situations because they may not immediately obvious and you don't want to muck about if someone discovers a week later that a game should have been a draw instead of a loss.)

But yeah, chess is finite.

---

[Last edited by Rabscuttle at 01-04-2010 07:23 AM]

mrimer
Level: Legendary Smitemaster

Rank Points: 5164
Registered: 02-04-2003
IP: Logged

By the description, I would really love to try Citadels sometime. I have played Dominion a fair amount, and also San Juan, which is a simpler card game variant of Puerto Rico. I like both of these card games, and I'm interested to play Thunderstone, either coming out this month or already available.

____________________________
Gandalf? Yes... That's what they used to call me.
Gandalf the Grey. That was my name.
I am Gandalf the White.
And I come back to you now at the turn of the tide.

jbluestein
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1670
Registered: 12-23-2005
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
By the description, I would really love to try Citadels sometime. I have played Dominion a fair amount, and also San Juan, which is a simpler card game variant of Puerto Rico. I like both of these card games, and I'm interested to play Thunderstone, either coming out this month or already available.

It's actually possible to play Citadels online:

http://ciudadelas.frenopatico.net

However, the site is mostly in Spanish. I think there's english around there somewhere, though, so it's certainly possible to play there even as a non-Spanish speaker.

Josh

____________________________
"Rings and knots of joy and grief, all interlaced and locking." --William Buck

Maurog
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1501
Registered: 09-16-2004
IP: Logged

Citadels.net is a Citadels online site in English and a few other languages. But it's really much more fun to play offline with a bunch of friends than with some random strangers.

____________________________
Slay the living! Raise the dead!
Paint the sky in crimson red!

Banjooie
Level: Smitemaster

Rank Points: 1645
Registered: 12-12-2004
IP: Logged

NiroZ wrote:
IIRC, you can't really level up or find sweet loot in chess.

Doesn't matter. It'd be basically like playing a specific style of chess enough that you are 'allowed' to play the next, more difficult style of chess, enough that you are 'allowed' to play the next

eventually there is a top tier

the top tier still becomes formulaic

people will continue to do it.

coppro
Level: Smitemaster
Rank Points: 1309
Registered: 11-24-2005
IP: Logged

UrAvgAzn wrote:
EDIT: Oh, never mind on that last part about the obscurity. I thought it meant the position of the entire board (i.e. both players) as opposed to the position of one player alone. Yeah, this has happened to me before.

It does. The rule of threefold repetition is that if the exact same position (including any special moves like en passant or castling being available or not) is reached three times in the same game with the same player to move, either player may claim a draw, ending the game.

b0rsuk
Level: Smiter

Rank Points: 489
Registered: 11-23-2003
IP: Logged

mrimer wrote:
By the description, I would really love to try Citadels sometime. I have played Dominion a fair amount, and also San Juan, which is a simpler card game variant of Puerto Rico. I like both of these card games, and I'm interested to play Thunderstone, either coming out this month or already available.

I have but vague idea of Puerto Rico. From what I understand, Citadels is like Puerto Rico, but much simpler, and choosing your character is usually the most important thing to do on your turn. I keep thinking about trying Puerto Rico, but with two hours of board games per week learning a complex game doesn't seem worth it. Citadels is good because it can be explained quickly. In my opinion it also has much better atmosphere. Machiavellian city building. Building cities on lies, intrigue and murder. I don't like Puerto Rico's space trade theme, especially that it seems to skip unconvenient topics like slave trade.

The online version doesn't do the game justice. Somehow it just looks wrong, low resolution or something. In reality, cards are very pretty, if a bit flimsy. You should deffinitely buy sleeves at least for character cards.

If you buy Citadels, make sure to get the version with Dark City expansion. Most of cards are not particularly good, but others are welcome addition. Alternate characters like Imperator or Diplomat seem much better thought out.

____________________________

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20051128/adams_01.shtml

---

[Last edited by b0rsuk at 01-30-2010 05:35 PM]