Monday October 30, 2000

The return of the sungrilled one made up for the absence of Alex and Helen – still temporarily lost to Project X. After his experience of Vinci last week, Paul decided his time would be better spent elsewhere this evening. To be exact, better spent by sitting in front of a computer screen to be entertained by multicoloured flashing pixels while clicking a mouse button for hours. I don’t know. How the solitary experience of giving yourself RSI by playing a computer game can be deemed preferable to matching your wits against some human beings is a mystery to me. Surely Vinci wasn’t that bad.

I shall definitely have to put some work in on the young man! I am beginning to feel like one of those appalling evangelist-types who cannot understand anyone who does not worship the same thing he does.

With the introduction of a new system to choose the evening’s game – practically a game in itself which involves a Byzantine voting procedure, random selection and veto options – we came up with my choice for the evening – Extrablatt.

This is a game of ancient lineage, out of print and one of the foot soldiers of the early wave of German games. The designer, Karl-Heinz Schmiel, has an awesome reputation and is responsible for what many believe to be the quintessential German game – Die Macher. I only hope to play it one day (it is too long for a short evening).

This was the second time Ron and I had played Extrablatt (don't ask me what the blatt means!). Although the first experience was years ago so the rules had long been wiped from our internal hard drives.

Andy writes: (therefore the name Extrablatt = special issue)" 
source: http://www.austrianbeer.com/lokale/1000011.shtml although what I would be doing on an Austrian Beer page is anyone's guess!

Extrablatt is a game of rival newspaper editors, each trying to put together an edition of their rag in such a way as to attract the greatest circulation. The game has a huge number of bits, including a large piece of card for each player, overprinted with a grid of squares. This represents the empty layout of the newspaper, a quarter of which is enclosed in a red box to highlight the front page area. During the game players place headlines, pictures and text as they try to fill their paper with the best stories and the biggest subject sections.

The game, like Die Macher, blends together a variety of systems. Unlike Die Macher, it is playable in around 2 hours, once the players know what they are doing.

I am not planning a review of the game, after all, what is the point if it is out of print. You can still get hold of the game though, if you are prepared to look for it – as proved by our very own Andy the Intrepid, who managed to pick up a copy the very next day. It is all about who you know! Anyway, for those who have never seen Extrablatt before, here is a brief overview of the game play.

Each player has a set of text cards, in a range of sizes. During the game these are paired with headlines to make up the story which will be placed somewhere on the player’s grid. There are three copies of 30 headlines that will become available to players as the game progresses. These headlines are further subdivided into six sections – International News, Local News, Sport; Finance; Arts and Politics. At the end of the game players score points for having the biggest stories and the largest sections. Often, more than one player will have the same headline on their layout, but only the player with the largest text card attached to it will score points.

There are some restrictions on placement: all stories in the same section must be placed in a way so that they connect to at least one other, and, when starting a new section, the story must be placed so it does not touch any other section. At first there is plenty of space for the stories, but as the game continues it becomes more and more difficult to make the best use of the space available. It is a mechanic replicated in this year’s hit Princes of Florence, which, despite all the excitement, is an inferior game, in my opinion.

There are other important refinements to the scoring. First, stories placed in the front page area will score double. Second, and this is one of the neatest design elements in the game, the later a story is placed, the more valuable it is.

The pace of the game is determined by a cardboard clock, which will advance hour by hour as the game goes on. The clock is divided into three areas. Until four o’clock stories placed will score 10,000 in circulation, between 4 and 9 o’clock, 20,000; between 9 and 12 o’clock, 30,000.

Time moves on as determined by a collection of clock counters. These are semi-randomly mixed in with the headline counters. Without boring you with all the details, this allows players to have some control over the pace of the game, slowing down the clock if they want more stories to come their way, or hastening the end of the game if they think they are in a winning position.

The headlines become available when they are placed on a small board divided into five columns, supposed to represent a set of fax machines delivering wired stories. Three headlines are drawn randomly and placed in each column. Only the bottom headline in a column can be selected for placement in a player’s turn and a column is replenished once all three headlines have bee taken off.

The selection of headlines can be a really tricky decision with lots of direct and indirect consequences. For example, by picking the headline you want you may also make another valuable headline available for another player; emptying a column can be risky, giving other players first choice of the replacements. And so on.

In addition to placing headlines in their papers, players can also choose to instead remove headlines from the fax board, a move which can either protect your own stories or stymie the ambitions of others. Alternatively, there are opportunities to attack other players through a version of chequebook journalism. This involves a one-on-one bidding duel which uses a mechanism similar to the bidding process in Ra. The winner will get a chance to either spike another player’s story, rendering it pretty much worthless, or, most amusingly, place an advert from a prostitute into the loser’s layout – a move which can really restrict the future placement of stories.

There are a few other refinements as well, including the use of photographs and gaining extra turns but I have probably gone on too much already. Basically it is a game with several ways to score points, where it is not always clear who is in the lead, which has plenty of scope for being vicious to your opponents; where the theme is reinforced by the mechanics, of which there are many. In other words, all the elements of a good German game.

Suffice to say, I really like Extrablatt. So much so that after that first playing five years ago I sat down and created a complete set of English headlines, printed out on appropriately coloured paper, which I have stuck over the Indecipherable German ones which come with the game. Spoddy or what?

Of course, this home-made adaptation has probably wrecked any potential resale value, but since I have no intention of selling it…

Anyway, the three of us sat down to play. Despite the seeming complexity from the above description, it only took about 20 minutes to go through the rules. It is a lot easier when all the bits are laid out in front of you.

The first half of the game was played in a pretty civilised fashion, with only a few dodgy adverts placed, usually to restrict section connections to the front page area. I was building up a nice local news section, headed by Mayor Opens Playground and Local Bloke Dies, but I was behind Andy and Ron, both of whom seemed to be competing in Sport, Finances, and Arts.

As it turned out, behind was not the worst place to be. As the clock ticked down the competition between my fellow editors heated up considerably, with several stories being spiked on their layouts while I emerged relatively unscathed.

Unfortunately, towards the end, the pace of the game slowed, as decisions became more complicated, space on the layouts became trickier to fill effectively, and the correct tactic to adopt when grabbing or removing headlines seemed more difficult to discover. Ron also suffered because, while other people were working out strategies, she was often left twiddling her thumbs as the headlines she needed to progress did not appear. Meanwhile, space on her layout had contracted to almost nothing.

In the end, I managed to win, more through the fact that Andy and Ron were locking horns with each other rather than through any great tactical finesse on my part. I also got lucky with a few late-breaking stories just before the final deadline.

Scores: Bill 670,000; Ron 490,000; Andy 490,000

Because the game is designed for only three or four players I assumed it to be a good choice for a threesome. Now I am not so sure. In a game where attacks can really hurt a player’s position, I suspect it will often be the case that in a three-handed deal there will be two players fighting each other while the third player cruises past, as happened in our game. With four players I suspect the attacks will balance out a little more as the competition for individual sections and stories will be spread more evenly. I have subsequently found a similar opinion to this expressed on the Board Game Geek site, so there might be something to it. 

Ratings: Bill 8 (probably a 9 for the four player version), Andy 8, Ron 5.5

Ron really didn’t enjoy this, largely due to the way the game dragged on towards the end when she was left with little to do other than watch her position erode. Do not expect this game back on the table too soon – I think I know where Ron’s veto will be going. A pity really, since I think Extrablatt is a real gem, where the theme is strong and the game play involves lots of decision-making. It is crying out for the Rio Grande republishing treatment.

Monday October 23, 2000

Present: Helen, Alex, Paul, Bill, Ron

Monday October 16, 2000

Present: Bill, Ron

I know it looks a little sad, but a combination of holidays and Project X temporarily denuded the group down to the hosts alone. No matter. Summoning up the Dunkirk spirit we set upon our two-player card game collection.

We warmed up with Schotten Totten, a new arrival from the prolific mind of Reiner Knizia and excellent value for money. A fast filler but one with plenty to think about. I managed to avenge previous defeats at my wife’s hands with a swift 3-adjacent boundary stone win followed by a 5-4 stone victory which went to the last card. Great fun.

Ratings Bill 8, Ron 8

Next we revisited Lost Cities, another Knizia title which has deserved its reputation as the best of Kosmos’ impressive two-player range of games. In the first round of three I managed to build up a forty point lead on the back of a major 8-card expedition – including all three investment cards – which netted me the 20 point bonus for expedition size. With this cushion I played a defensive game for the next two rounds – making sure I didn’t get caught with an expensive failure while retaining cards I knew Ron would want and running down the draw pack as quickly as possible. This made it difficult for Ron to get back on level terms as the only option open to her was to risk developing large expeditions before she could guarantee success. Despite a few late lunges, my tactics worked and I ended up winning by a comfortable margin.

Ratings Bill 8, Ron 7

Finally, the evening’s main course, The Settlers card game. This has always been a favourite of Ron’s, whose love affair with the original board game has lasted a lot longer than mine. While I will not have the board game in the house now, not even if it comes clutching a crate of beer, I can still deal with the card game, even though I think I have only ever won once. This would be our first time with the English edition, alleviating the requirement to constantly riffle through the rules translation for card explanations thus speeding up the game play no end.

In previous sessions I had become convinced that the critical part of the game is to get the fifth settlement. With only nine settlements available the player with five will have a two resource card advantage over his opponent, which, I had thought, should really come close to guaranteeing victory.

Ron soon disabused me of this notion.

While I got to the five settlement mark fairly quickly, Ron still managed to outperform me with her four town strategy. I was always behind in the game, and, although I was only one point behind when Ron got past the 12 victory point winning post, this was largely through a series of unfortunate Robber rolls which had delayed Ron’s final push. I think the key to this game was Ron’s excellent attacking card play. She used the Spy card to great effect, stripping me of good card at crucial moments. Her knight majority, which she retained for the whole game, also served her well, dishing up valuable commodities at regular intervals. My play, in comparison, was weak. I never really managed to get a coherent game plan going, spending most of my time scrabbling for points and trying to repair the Ron-inflicted damage to my kingdom.

I certainly enjoy this game more than the board game, although it definitely retains some of that huge frustration caused when you fall behind and can find no way to close the gap, even you play on for another hour. At least this time, the falling behind is usually caused by poor play rather than a few unlucky die rolls.

Ratings Bill 7; Ron 8

The reason my rating is not higher is because I simply cannot seem to be able to get to grips with it, rather than because of any perceived weakness in the game itself.

Monday October 9, 2000

Present: Bill, Ron, Helen, Alex, Andy

We had decided the previous week to give Taj Mahal an outing, on the basis of its recent award of the German Spielepreis, one of the two top accolades available from the German game industry.

Despite my fondness for reviewing a game after only a single play, I am holding off for a bit on this one, for reasons which will become apparent. So, for now at least, this session report will have to do.

Taj Mahal is another contribution from that one-man game industry Reiner Knizia. Actually, I am beginning to doubt that he designs all these games himself. I suspect he runs an Andy Warhol-type factory, staffed by unpaid acolytes busily designing away, wanting nothing more than to bask in the reflected glory of their master. One day Grasshopper…

For those who don’t know anything about the game, Taj Mahal is set on the Northwest frontier of India. Each player represents a prince attempting to control various elements of Indian society. The struggle is played out in 12 rounds, with each round determining the fate of one of the 12 provinces on the game board. While the order of resolution for eleven of the provinces is determined randomly, the final round always takes place in Agra, where control of the Taj Mahal itself is up for grabs.

As is usual for an abstract game, this historical patina has little to do with the game itself, which is a clever combination of high stakes card game and tile-placement board game. Nevertheless, the theme is attractive and sits better with the mechanics than many of Knizia’s games. Not as well as, say, Euphrat and Tigris or Modern Art, but some way above Schotten Totten or Samurai.

The players use their cards to bid for one of six potential prizes in each province, with each prize contributing something to a player’s tally of influence points, which are recorded on a track running around the board edge. Without going through all the game mechanics, a player has only a limited number of cards with which to attempt either to influence a selection of the five key personalities – which will allow castle placement on the board and the temporary control of special cards – or to control the region's economy. If he is feeling particularly audacious, a player can try for a sweep of several of these objectives. As long as no other player tries for the same goals, all well and good. This will be the exception rather than the rule, however, and bidding wars will develop,  using up many valuable cards. With hands only partially replenished at the end of each round, fighting a long battle can really restrict future options. 

Surprise, surprise, different approaches score points in different ways. For example, building a series of castles connected by the roads printed on the map will net points according to the number of provinces a player manages to connect. Similarly, by taking the economic route, hefty globs of pointage can be gained for dominating commodity categories (tea, spice, gems and rice). There are other things to go for as well, from bonus tiles to an end of game card countup which rewards players who have retained a long suit in their hand.

In effect, the game is a constant balancing act between priorities, and the decision over whether to go for it in the current province or save the ammo for another fight is crucial. I think Reiner must have been reading up on his Sun Tzu before designing this one. It is definitely a case of choosing your battles wisely - if your opponent retreats, attack, if he attacks, retreat. You know the sort of thing.

Anyway, it did not take too long to get the rules down and off we went, after I warned everyone that internet reports on the game had stressed the power of the Elephant strategy (going for the economy tokens).

I managed to get into an early lead, primarily through getting quick control of the Princess card which effectively grants a 2 point bonus every round. I had decided to concentrate on certain commodities and just pick up castles where I could. The others went for a mixed strategy with the exception of Andy, who was planning something, but it was not clear what.

After about three or four rounds, Helen wrested control of the Princess card and began to score regularly, while the others jostled for position behind us.

As the game neared the end, Andy’s strategy became clear. He had managed to build up a long network of castles in the middle of the board – a position which promised to score heavily. Meanwhile, I had settled into a routine of sitting on my lead, doing nothing but replenish my hand until the others had caught up, and then using my card advantage to nose ahead again.

This approach just about worked, although Helen and Andy were within spitting distance when the final tallies were calculated. In the end it was only the fact that I had managed to keep hold of a long suit of cards which edged me out to the win.

Scores: Bill 39; Helen 35; Andy 34; Ron 27; Alex 26

The general reaction to he game was mixed, with nobody prepared to either write it off or hail it as a classic – hence my decision to save the full review for a while. Because there is so much going on in the game and so many ways to score – perhaps too many –no one really felt they had fully grasped the implications of their actions.

There was also a general feeling that five might be one too many for the game. It certainly did seem to drag a bit and we went over the two-hour mark, as opposed to the ninety minutes listed on the box. Although, since this is not the first time we have exceeded the time limits, perhaps I should just admit that we are a slow playing group.

I am not sure whether five is necessarily inferior to four, although it is certainly apparent that strategies will change depending on the number of people playing. For example, a big road net is more difficult to build with more players, while the two points granted by the Princess card gains in net importance with the higher number of players, as individual scores tend to be lower.

Personally, I loved it, and look forward to playing it again. There is real tension as the card play gets under way and you sit there hoping that nobody else will challenge you. I am sure we will see it on the table again.

Ratings: Bill 8; Helen 7; Andy 7.5; Ron 6; Alex 7.5

Monday October 2, 2000

Dog Eat Dog

Present: Bill, Ron, Helen, Alex, Andy

A contribution from Andy’s collection, I had borrowed the game in advance to mug up on the rules. It certainly seemed like it would be an amusing experience. A sort of warped Settlers with a bit of Monopoly and Junta thrown in.

For anyone who doesn’t know the game, players represent the leaders of divisions of a multinational company and are competing with each other to fill up their Swiss bank accounts. Money is earned by laying waste to nature by extracting as many raw materials as possible to convert into overpriced products to sell for bucket loads of cash. (A more detailed description of this game is in the Reviews section).

For a game with so many bits it was not difficult to explain, and we were soon underway. Alex got off to a flying start, appropriating the keys to the executive washroom and whizzing around the track to claim his second nature square. Andy seemed to be allying himself to Alex as an ominous cartel formed. Of all the players, Andy was the keenest to stick the two fingers up at nature and extract the max, soon followed by Alex. Helen played a little more conservatively, while Ron got stuck with continuous low rolls, landing on crappy squares and taking an age to get around to her home city to get hold of a second nature square. Meanwhile, I cleaned up as much pollution as possible to fuel my recycling business.

For the first hour, the game seemed to be going along nicely, but after the second hour, things were beginning to get repetitive and tedious. There was a bit of trading and a few half-hearted attempts to gang up on Alex, the perceived leader, but there seemed little anyone could really do to haul him back

As we approached the end of the third hour an obvious desire emerged from all concerned that the game should come to an end. It was really dragging now and people were beginning to curse whichever joker had decided that the game could be played in 90 minutes and then printed this estimate on the box. Andy had played the game twice before, with four players, and not once had it come in at under two hours.

In the end, with everyone looking wistfully at the door, we decided against playing to a finish and played one final round to allow everyone one last chance to rake in cash and sell goods.

I got totally screwed by landing on the 'cannot sell this turn’ square in my last roll of the dice, forcing me to wait to sell all my products in the final round, when I could only get half of it into my Swiss bank account. Not that this would have made any difference to the final rankings where I would still have come in last having totally mismanaged my recycling company.

Final scores ($million)

Alex 181; Andy 163; Ron 151; Helen 141; Bill 113

Ratings: Ron 6; Andy 6.5; Alex 6; Helen 6; Bill 6

A pretty underwhelming experience all in all, and not one likely to be repeated by this group. Dog Eat Dog gains the honour of the lowest average rating so far.