From: Allan Bell Subject: 1630 something Hi, Anyone play "1630 something"? Can't remember who makes it. Our group has played it the last two meetings and it seems like a good fast, simple game for 3-6 players. The problem is that we played with 5 people the second time and found some flaws. I was wondering if anyone has seen some suggestions on fixing it. Basically the idea of the game is that you play the Bankers of Europe in the 1630's and you have interest in a number (3-4) of countries. By using your influence (received via influence cards) and voting you decide which factions the countries join and who they go to war with. You get victory points each turn based on your influence and the status of the country. It uses a deck of special cards to give out the influence along with assassinations, unrest, extra votes etc. The first time we played it went quite well and the play was reasonably balanced. One player skipped away for an early lead only to be pulled back on the brink of victory. The second time we played we found that eventually the centre deck became empty and the game locked up. The problem is that each turn you draw 4 cards. You can put down any influence cards and then play up to two cards. Once the influence cards are down your hand grows each turn. You are limited to 13 cards in your hand but we had some players with 8 cards in the hand, others with 11 cards. Once they played their two cards and maybe lost an influence card (occasionally) the next player was guaranteed to get those cards and never received all four. Obviously you were careful what you played knowing the next player would get them. I would like to play it again with a limit of 5 cards (rather than 13) to force players to think carefully about what they should keep and make some hard decisions about what to discard. Has anyone else played this game with a reasonable size group? I suspect they never playtested it with more than 3 or they would have seen this effect. I highly recommend the game but it needs a little work. I hate making wholesale changes to the rules because you risk severely unbalancing it (but what the heck - you can do what you like - it's your game). I think a simple prod is the safest. Your thoughts? Allan +---------------------------------------------------+ | Allan Bell | | Marketing Manager - Software | | Apple Computer Australia | | ph: 02 452 8058 (international +61-2-452-8058) | | fax: 02 452 8160 (international +61-2-452-8160) | +---------------------------------------------------+ From: Allan Bell Subject: Re: 1630 something > >>I highly recommend the game > >I'd be interested to know the reasons why. > Good question! I think its attractiveness is that it is fairly simple to learn the rules but is a good multiplayer game. The play is fairly quick and there some opportunity for involvement when the other players are having their turn. Also it has the feeling that if you are behind you can pull back the leaders. We've only played it twice so far so it is still early days. Both times we had one player skip away for a big lead and then the other players slowed him down and the number two player sailed past him on the line. I like the way you can't predict the end of the game. Both of our games finished early (eighth turn I think it was). We rolled a one each time. Also, I lost both games - badly - but I had the feeling that with a slightly different strategy I could have won. Some comments were made in the review that if you draw low value countries you will do poorly. I don't entirely agree. What we noticed was that if you can get the ability up to three (I did it for Germany which started with an ability of zero) and a size of two or three then other players are a little reluctant to attack it without using bonuses such as leaders and unrest. Once you get the armies strong it is easy to find a weak opposition to attack. The other trick I liked was when I had control of a country that gave me no points. I was able to use it in combats where I didn't care if it lost. So the United Provinces (dutch) attacked the Austro-Hungarians and if they won it was a bonus to me but if they lost I didn't care. It is quite a fun game especially when you have an absolute majority of the votes in a country and everyone is second-guessing your vote so they are not on the losing side. I think we have to play it a bit more before I can pass absolute judgement. I don't agree that there are an endless supply of other games. When you play regularly you need some new blood. >>but it needs a little work. > >contest the word "little" I have to wait and see. I'm sure there is a lot that could be done to it but I suspect getting the other cards back in to play by limiting what you can hold in your hand will make a major improvement. I would like to force the assassination cards and unrest cards into play as well. This tends to free up the other country cards. I found the leading players tend to grab and sit on these cards as the last thing they want is the balance being upset. I'm happy for them to do it as long as there is a cost ie they have to throw away other useful cards. If this doesn't do it I will suggest the variant that you must discard any unused assassination & unrest cards not used in your turn. > >The obvious problem is that the cards are poorly distributed, but >after our games my opponents mentioned many others. Its odd that >we found so many things in a few hours, whereas most >reviewers/players did not, and Warfrog et al didn't during their period >of testing starting in "Sept 94". Yes, you have to wonder. It was interesting the review didn't pick up on the running out of cards problem. Each turn you get four cards, you can play two and you might loose one from being in the descendent. You might also lose one from an assassination but generally you will get four and lose 2-3 cards. Given that each player can hold 13 in their hand and there are not enough non-vote cards for everyone to have 13 then it is inevitable that you will run out of cards. Then the game becomes distorted. Anyway, despite the negativities it is worth looking at. Especially if someone else is paying for it :-). Allan From: "" Subject: Re: 1630 something In a message dated 06/08/96 09:00:34, you write: >Good question! I think its attractiveness is that it is fairly simple to >learn the rules but is a good multiplayer game. The play is fairly quick >and there some opportunity for involvement when the other players are >having their turn. Also it has the feeling that if you are behind you >can pull back the leaders. The rules are short but its slow and the First Turn marker ensures you do nothing after your turn for a number of turns equal to twice the number of your opponents. There was a feeling in our games that the number of points players would score was predictable, so hauling back the leader could be a problem, more so if you have drawn both VP chits of one country. Have you read the "duffer's guide" [I think this may refer to the author rather than the confused player]. It suggests you try to draw the right cards. Good advice. >We've only played it twice so far so it is still early days. Both times >we had one player skip away for a big lead and then the other players >slowed him down and the number two player sailed past him on the line. i guess if you can't see problems then it must be good. >I like the way you can't predict the end of the game. Both of our games >finished early (eighth turn I think it was). We rolled a one each time. lucky... >Also, I lost both games - badly - but I had the feeling that with a >slightly different strategy I could have won. there is a strong "so what" quality about the whole thing. One of our players was tossing the vote marker in the air and not looking at it before votes - after all, it doesn't always matter. >Some comments were made in the review that if you draw low value >countries you will do poorly. I don't entirely agree. What we noticed >was that if you can get the ability up to three (I did it for Germany >which started with an ability of zero) and a size of two or three then >other players are a little reluctant to attack it without using bonuses >such as leaders and unrest. Once you get the armies strong it is easy to >find a weak opposition to attack. in our game all statuses ended on zero or seven, one end or the other. Army size has almost no meaning. >The other trick I liked was when I had control of a country that gave me >no points. I was able to use it in combats where I didn't care if it >lost. So the United Provinces (dutch) attacked the Austro-Hungarians and >if they won it was a bonus to me but if they lost I didn't care. exactly - now I put it to you that the same feeling applies to most countries for most players. >It is quite a fun game especially when you have an absolute majority of >the votes in a country and everyone is second-guessing your vote so they >are not on the losing side. again - who gives a damn? it is totally random and you may as well flick that counter in the airt. It simply doesn't matter and thinking about the situation is pointless. And if you don't make a conscious decision, you can't blame yourself if you lose the vote! >I think we have to play it a bit more before I can pass absolute >judgement. I don't agree that there are an endless supply of other >games. When you play regularly you need some new blood. I'm amazed you have the patience but i guess this attitude gives hope to other designers. > I'm sure there is a lot that could be done to it >but I suspect getting the other cards back in to play by limiting what >you can hold in your hand will make a major improvement. I would like to >force the assassination cards and unrest cards into play as well. This >tends to free up the other country cards. I found the leading players >tend to grab and sit on these cards as the last thing they want is the >balance being upset. I'm happy for them to do it as long as there is a >cost ie they have to throw away other useful cards. If this doesn't do >it I will suggest the variant that you must discard any unused >assassination & unrest cards not used in your turn. -why not join Warfrog and do some development for them? >>The obvious problem is that the cards are poorly distributed, but >>after our games my opponents mentioned many others. Its odd that >>we found so many things in a few hours, whereas most >>reviewers/players did not, and Warfrog et al didn't during their period >>of testing starting in "Sept 94". > >Yes, you have to wonder. It was interesting the review didn't pick up on >the running out of cards problem. Each turn you get four cards, you can >play two and you might loose one from being in the descendent. You might >also lose one from an assassination but generally you will get four and >lose 2-3 cards. Given that each player can hold 13 in their hand and >there are not enough non-vote cards for everyone to have 13 then it is >inevitable that you will run out of cards. Then the game becomes >distorted. er i think the Sumo review and revisit did rather strongly. As for Paper Wars this was a description not a review, there weren't too many incisive observations and this is a problem with reviewing in general and about half Paper Wars' reviews eg. the Dixie review was one I complained about in PA, clearly brevity was not among this reviewer's failings but afterwards he said that it was his first venture into print so i take it all back. >Anyway, despite the negativities it is worth looking at. Especially if >someone else is paying for it :-). what isn't or wasn't, in your opinion? From: Allan Bell Subject: Re: 1630 something >>>The obvious problem is that the cards are poorly distributed, but >>>after our games my opponents mentioned many others. Its odd that >>>we found so many things in a few hours, whereas most >>>reviewers/players did not, and Warfrog et al didn't during their period >>>of testing starting in "Sept 94". >> >>Yes, you have to wonder. It was interesting the review didn't pick up on >>the running out of cards problem. Each turn you get four cards, you can >>play two and you might loose one from being in the descendent. You might >>also lose one from an assassination but generally you will get four and >>lose 2-3 cards. Given that each player can hold 13 in their hand and >>there are not enough non-vote cards for everyone to have 13 then it is >>inevitable that you will run out of cards. Then the game becomes >>distorted. > >er i think the Sumo review and revisit did rather strongly. Hmmm, I reread the review at http://www.gamecabinet.com/reviews/SixteenThirtySomething.html which I presume is the Sumo review and it makes no mention of this particular problem that I can see. I guess with all the other flaws in the game it is just one more. Allan +---------------------------------------------------+ | Allan Bell | | Marketing Manager - Software | | Apple Computer Australia | | ph: 02 452 8058 (international +61-2-452-8058) | | fax: 02 452 8160 (international +61-2-452-8160) | +---------------------------------------------------+