Han and I met up at Carcasean boardgame cafe on Mon 2 Feb 2009, and we played Risk: Star Wars Original Trilogy Edition with Chong Sean. This really is a game that should be played with exactly 3 players. There are 3 factions in the game, the Empire, the Rebels and the Hutts. Each has a different winning condition. The Empire needs to completely eliminate the Rebels. The Rebels need to find and kill the evil Emperor. The Hutts need to control 10 resource planets.

The basic structure is very much like standard Risk. You get reinforcements at the start of your turn, then you attack, and after you are done, you can do one strategic redeployment. If you have successfully conquered territories, you gain a card(s). There are a number of tweaks and additions based on the Star Wars universe. The cards have special one-time-use powers, e.g. allowing you to add troops when you are being attacked. Each can also be used to gain a spaceship (there are 3 kinds), which gives some advantage in battles. The cards add a lot of flavour to the game. There are other situations which let the players gain more cards, e.g. when the Force meter tilting is far enough to the Dark or the Light side, and when the Hutts are in control of enough resource planets.

And there's a Death Star.

The Death Star in this game is a super defender for the Empire. When the planet where it is located is attacked, the attacker needs to roll a total of 18 to destroy it first, else all attackers are killed. This means you need to have 3 attackers (3 x 6 = 18). There are ways to improve your chances, e.g. power cards and spaceships. Some spaceships allow you to roll using an 8-sided die instead of the standard 6-sided die. There are some cards that allow the Death Star to destroy a planet and all defenders on it. No kidding.

The green Hutts pieces. The bigger ones represent 3 troops, and the smaller ones 1. There are three types of spaceships, capital ships, bombers and fighter.

Some of the Hutts' cards. I happened to draw one of each type, for capital ship, bomber and fighter. The cards can be used to build a spaceship, or for their one-time-use powers.

Each faction has its own cards. The game comes with both 6-sided and 8-sided dice.

The Death Star, unfortunately out of focus.

The Empire's pieces. Unfortunately, out-of-focus too. I think my digital camera is a Rebel... a relative of R2D2?

In our game, I chose to be the Hutts, simply because they are green, my colour. Han played the Empire, and Chong Sean the Rebels. At the start of the game, we took turn to claim planets, and then reinforce the planets claimed. The Hutts could claim the least planets, the Empire the most. The number of troops is similar. The Rebels move first, followed by the Hutts, and lastly the Empire. The Empire, although in control of the most planets at the start of the game, is usually at the receiving end of aggressions, because it moves last, and it is also spread rather thinly. So I think the starting setup is quite balanced.

I played the game like how I watched the movies. The Empire is supposed to be big and bad, and all good people should attack it. Big mistake. In our game, Chong Sean (Rebels) was more like a big empire than Han (Empire). He expanded quickly, being the first to manage to monopolise a sector (i.e. continent) and Han was soon left with very few planets. What was very funny was Chong Sean drew a card that allowed him to destroy the Death Star on Round 2. Oops. Not a chance for the Empire to strike back.

I should have started attacking Chong Sean earlier. I should have played the balancing factor. In this 3 faction game, whenever one faction starts to do better than the other two, the other two should be cooperating, at least temporarily, to bring the leader back in line. I was enjoying the fall of the Empire too much, and a bit too greedy for my own gains, to do the right thing. So our game finished quite quickly. The Rebels won decisively, completely destroying the Empire. That was supposedly the Empire's victory condition.

Our first game played on 2 Feb 2009. This was the start of the game. Han had placed the Death Star in the orange sector in the upper right, to prevent Chong Sean from monopolising that sector.

By this time Han's Empire (grey pieces) only had 6 planets left.

The game is fast and fun, and quite thematic. Han said this game has fewer troops than regular Risk, which makes it shorter, and I think that's a good thing. It is not much more complex than Risk, and the different victory conditions make it interesting. In some ways it is still very much like Risk. It is hard to keep control of complete sectors (continents). Another player will always try to break through and break your monopoly. You still amass big armies at the start of your turn and try to wreak havoc and capture as many territories as possible during your turn, and that means you are spreading your forces very thin. I think the game should be played in a very light-hearted manner. Decisions can be made quickly, and the game can be played very fast. When we played, the attacker rolled dice for the defender as well, saving some time.

On Thu 5 Feb 2009 we played this again, all controlling the same factions. Han wanted a rematch after the very unfortunate Round 2 destruction of the Death Star. This time, the game was probably even faster. Firstly because we were now familiar with it, and secondly because we had a runaway victory again. Han and Chong Sean were so busy fighting each other, they didn't defend against me enough. I was the first faction to monopolise a sector (albiet the smallest one awarding only 2 troops). I had the opportunity to control a big sector but didn't bother to because I knew the monopoly could easily be broken. I wonder whether that let their guard down a little. I drew quite a number of cards, and using them to gain extra reinforcements, I managed to conquer 10 resoure planets and won the game.

This was our 2nd game played on 5 Feb 2009. This was the start of the game.

The Death Star placed on a resource planet (green outline), to prevent me (green) from conquering it.

Towards the end of the game. My Hutts were doing well, having control of two sectors in the lower right.

On my second visit to Carcasean this year I played Um Reifenbreite, a Spiel des Jahres winner about bicycle racing. I played against Michelle and Chong Sean. I made an appointment with Chong Sean beforehand to visit him on a Sunday, and I didn't realise he is actually closed on Sundays. So he actually went to the cafe just to play with us, which is very nice of him.

In Um Reifenbreite, you have a team of 4 cyclists. To win, it is not only about being the first to cross the finishing line. This is a team game. Points are awarded for every cyclist, depending on the order of arrival. The first to cross the line gets the most points, the second gets less, but still a significant number, the thirds gets less than the second, and so on. The gaps between the earlier positions are larger, and the points earned by the later cyclists is few. So there is still emphasis to make sure most of your cyclists cross the line early. You cannot rely on only one star performer.

Movement is by rolling 2 dice. However you have some energy cards (numbered 5 or 6), which can replace one or both dice. One important aspect of the game is drafting. When the cyclist in front of you moves, you can choose to draft, i.e. following him. This is nice especially when he rolls a high number. You are basically piggybacking on his good fortune. There are some rules about when you can or cannot draft, e.g. terrain and breakaway. If you use an energy card, you can choose to declare a breakaway. When you do this, cyclists behind you cannot draft. Drafting is not just for taking advantage of your opponents' cyclists. You can also use it to help other cyclists in your team.

There are event cards in the game. Whenever 7 is rolled, an event card is drawn and executed. Use of energy cards is considered a die roll too. I know one of the events is a fall. Thankfully I didn't experience this in our game. When a cyclist falls, he causes other cyclists immediately next to him and behind him to fall too, and they in turn can cause other cyclists to fall. There can be quite a nasty chain reaction.

There are terrain effects too. When on cobblestones or when moving uphill, your movement is reduced. When going downhill, your movement in increased. There are corners, where if you are on the inner lane there are fewer steps, i.e. you can go past the corner faster.

We played a short game of this. I just wanted to get a feel for it. We played a route of our own design, not one from the rules. It had cobblestone, uphill stretches and downhill stretches. Michelle was not very fortunate, and had some laggards early in the game. Chong Sean had a star cyclist who lead the pack. He was quite liberal is using his energy cards. In contrast I was rather conservative. I had a few unlucky rolls, e.g. a cyclist about to pass the finishing line rolled a small number, to stop just before the line. Well, at least I didn't roll a 7 and get a "fall" card for that cyclist on the following turn. I was surprised I didn't come last. Michelle came last. She had a cyclist beating all of mine, but all her other cyclists did worse than most of mine too.

Cyclists in a pack, turning an uphill corner. Red terrain means uphill.

The board has cartoonish artwork, and the first thing Michelle said when she saw it was, "Is this a children's game?". The transparent dice tower is Chong Sean's and doesn't come with the game.

One of the drawings showing a cyclist cheating.

This is a light and fun game. I think the short game is probably not enough. It doesn't feel satisfying enough, and I think with a longer route there is a better chance for luck to even out. Although there is luck in the dice rolling, I think there is still a fair bit of strategy in the game, in drafting, in when to use your energy cards, when to break away, in how to position your cyclists. You don't need to move the full movement points that you roll, and sometimes it is better to move slightly less, e.g. you move to the position right behind another rider, i.e. you have the opportunity to draft later. Sometimes you can take a route that will prevent other cyclists behind you from drafting. So there are interesting decisions. There is also blocking to consider, although we didn't use this tactic much in our game. I think the game needs the full 4 players, i.e. 16 cyclists, to be at its best.

We played the advanced rules. There are three rule sets, basic, advanced and professional. The professional rules add things like cheating, i.e. you cheat and get to move faster, but risk being photographed and disqualified. There are also sprints, i.e. bonus points for the first three cyclists to pass interim checkpoints. They are a bit too much for me for the first learning game so I decided to play without them. But I don't think they will add too much complexity after you are familiar with the game.

I think Um Reifenbreite is alright. It's moderately light (Carcassonne + Inns & Cathedrals-light but not Coloretto-light) with enough interesting decision making. There are opportunities for clever play. There is interaction with your opponents. It is quite fun. I don't need to own it, but I wouldn't mind playing again.

Another game played at Carcasean on 1 Feb 2009. Downfall of Pompeii is designed by Klaus-Jurgen Wrede, the designer of Carcassonne. In this game, you place your people on various buildings on the board, and then the volcano erupts, and you try to save as many of those people from the city as possible. You win if you save the most people. But the tiebreaker is the least number of people killed. So being able to place many people in the first half of the game may not always be a good thing. More people can mean more people to save, but can also mean more people to have killed.

In the people-populating phase of the game, you play cards to place your people on the board. Many buildings on the board have numbers, and they have different number of spaces that your people can occupy. There is a rule for you to place more than one people on your turn, which we call "bringing your relatives". We tend to make use of this as much as possible to bring more people onto the board, and we will try to deny this from other players. There is also competition for spaces nearer to the city gates. The people there are more likely to be able to leave the city in time.

Then once in a while omen cards will be drawn. This is when you get to throw an opponent's people into the volcano. I think this is meant to be some kind of human sacrifice to appease the gods. This is a fun and nasty thing to do. When I explained the rules Michelle said that's nasty. But when we played the game she seemed to enjoy doing this.

The first half of the game will end when most of the buildings are populated. Mount Vesuvius erupts, and lava spews from 6 tiles in the city. The people need to run for their lives. Every turn you add one lava tile, which can kill people, or block city gates, or trap people. Then you can move your people, and try to save them by having them exit any of the city gates. The number of steps a pawn can take is the number of pawns (yours or your opponents') in the space when it starts its move. That means if you are in a crowd, you run faster. Hmm... not sure whether this makes sense in real life. Anyway, it works in the game. There is an element of trying to make use of your opponents' pawns.

The game ends when no more people can be saved. Either the remaining people in the city have all been killed, or they are all trapped.

The game does sound rather nasty. Pompeii was a big disaster, many people were killed, and we are playing a game about it?! But the game is fun! And exciting too. I'd say it is quite thematic too. I especially love it whenever I get to throw people into the volcano. Call me childish.

The gameboard, with the volcano in a corner. This was still quite early in the first half of the game, when we were placing our people onto the board, the city of Pompeii.

A close-up of the board. Some buildings are numbered, and there are grey buildings which are not numbered. Most buildings have more than one space for people to be placed on.

The cards in the game.

This was early in the second half of the game. Lava had started spewing out from quite a number of places inside the city.

Near the end of the game. The lonely black pawn on the left was about to run out of the city gates. That big group of pawns in the middle were doomed. Most of the city gates had been sealed off by lava. Some pawns were still trying to run towards the city gate in the upper left corner, but in the end they didn't make it.

In our game, Chong Sean was most efficient in placing people into the city. He had played the game before, but he told us he still hadn't quite grasped the strategy, because he had never won. There was one particular building that was quite jinxed. Whenever someone drew an omen card and had to throw a pawn into the volcano, a pawn was always picked up from that building.

The game moved at quite a quick pace. Turns are quick as the decisions within each turn are simple. When it came to the second part of the game, the turns were even quicker. This was when things get interesting. Which pawn to save? Where to place the volcano tile? Do I sacrifice this relative who had been mean to me so that I can trap this whole bunch of relatives of my opponent? (yes of course)

At game end, both Chong Sean and I had 8 pawns saved, and Michelle had 7. Tiebreaker was fewer pawns in the volcano. Chong Sean had more than I, so I won the game. I guess he still hasn't broken the curse of not winning this game.

I think the game is quite fun. Two drawbacks are firstly there are some small rules which are a bit fiddly, e.g. how the omen cards need to be set up, when you can start "bringing relatives", how many lava tiles to play before you can start moving your pawns; and secondly the last few turns of the game may slow down, as players start to count everyone's pawns and start to plan how to maximise each move. I don't think either are severe though. I quite like the game. How many other games do you get to throw people into a volcano?

Carcasean boardgame cafe, 1 Feb 2009. Witch's Brew is a game with some similarities with Citadels. Players all start with equal resources, and compete to gain the most victory points by brewing magic potions, acquiring bookshelves of (I assume) spellbooks. The theme in this game doesn't really matter. It is just for flavouring. The game is all about double-guessing your opponents.

Every player has 12 cards, which allow you to do different things, like collecting ingredients, earning money, brewing potions and buying bookshelves. However every round you can only choose five cards (or five roles). The start player declares which role he wants to play. The next player, if he has that role card in his hand, can decide to usurp the role to reap the full benefit, or let the previous player keep the role and settle for a lesser benefit. The reason for doing the latter is there may be other players behind you who may also have this role card. If you settle for the lesser benefit, you gain it immediately and do not need to worry about the role that you have just robbed from the player before you being in turn taken away from you by the player after you. Of course if you are the last player and you have the role card being played this round, you would (normally) usurp the role from the previous holder of the role. There is noone else after you to worry about. This is the gist of the game. It is about guessing what roles you opponents would choose, by studying what resources they have, and what potions and bookshelves are available on the table. It is about how to choose the roles yourself. Sometimes you may want to pick the same roles as your opponents (so that you can spoil their plans). Sometimes you may want to pick different roles, so that your own plans will not be interfered with.

As I played the game, I found yet another layer of thinking. When you "win" a role, you become the next start player, which is the most vulnerable position to be in. The role that you play when you are the start player has a high chance of being usurped by another player. So sometimes maybe you don't want to "win" a role, because it would make you the most vulnerable the next round.

There's more. When choosing your five roles, you can think of choosing offensively and defensively. Some roles can be bait. Let someone else win it and put yourself in a better position to usurp another role which you want to win.

Sometimes taking the lesser benefit can be better than taking the main benefit of a role, because the lesser benefit is effective immediately, while the main benefit is only gained after the round completes. Only at the end of the round, after every player has had the chance to show whether he has the role card, the final winner will be known.

The rest of the game is resource gathering and management, and converting them into victory points. Nothing very special about that.

The three types of potions and two types of bookshelves that can be won. The liquid drops and coins on top of each card are the cost, and the numbers in the lower right corner are the victory points.

One of the spellbook cards. With every set in the game (a set is when every player chooses 5 cards and all chosen cards are played), there is a new spellbook card. One of the 12 roles allows you to make use of the power on the spellbook card.

Five cards that I had chosen for one of the sets in the game. I like the artwork. The iconolgy and design are functional. The colour coding also helps. The green ones let you collect ingredients. The yellow ones let you do something related to money, e.g. the one here lets you buy vials (which are 1VP) using money. The blue ones let you brew potions. The red ones let you buy bookshelves.

The game that we played was quite fast. We enjoyed saying "

Carcasean boardgame cafe. 1 Feb 2009. Tempus was the 4th game that Chong Sean, Michelle and I played that day. We had quite a productive day.

Tempus is a minimalistic civilisation game. It is so simplified that it almost feels like an abstract game. Yet it is quite thematic. All the actions that you can do it the game correlates to something that civilisations do in history.

At the start of the game, the players construct a landmass, which has different terrain, e.g. grassland, mountains, farmland etc. Then they place three tokens onto the board, representing their starting population. Throughout the game, you grow your population, you migrate, you build cities, you attack other civilisations, and you advance your technology. Your technology level impacts all the actions that you can take in the game, e.g. how many token you can move, how far they can move, whether they can travel by sea, how many power cards you can draw, your hand size, etc. Technology progresses every round. Civilisations that are behind previously first catch up, and then all civilisations are compared to see which one (or more) will progress first to the next technology level. As the game progresses, there is more and more that you can do. Your actions become more powerful.

At game end, you score for cities you have build, the spaces occupied by your tokens, and for being the first to invent the aeroplane.

In our game, we created a landmass with lots of lakes. This is interesting because lakes allow you to move quite far. With one move, you can move a token from a space next to a lake to any other space next to the same lake. I was conservative and placed my tokens together. Chong Sean and Michelle split up their tokens. Throughout the game I wasn't very aggressive in pursuing technology, which requires placing tokens on specific terrain types. I think out of the whole game I only had a technological advantage for one era, out of 10 eras (I think). I also soon found myself hemmed in, when Chong Sean and Michelle still had space for expansion. So I schemed to start wars, to destroy their cities to make space for my own cities. Cities cannot be built on mountains or next to one another, so suitable locations are limited. I did manage to win some battles, but it was not enough to catch up. Chong Sean won with 24VP (10VP from cities, 11VP from spaces occupied and 3VP for flight). Michelle had 22VP (13VP from cities, 9VP from spaces occupied), and I had 18VP (16VP from cities, and a pathetic 2VP from spaces occupied).

Early in the game. I was yellow (no green available) and concentrated my people in the south east. Michelle (red) and Chong Sean (blue) were more spread out. I was the first to have built a city.

I had expanded across that long lake and built another city. Chong Sean had 2 cities and Michelle 1 at this point.

By now I had also used lake movement to expand to the central northern land piece.

This was at game end, I think. Chong Sean had quickly spread out his tokens to occupy as much non-mountain hexes as possible. Experience shows. I did manage to raze one or two of his cities, and built my own cities over the ruins. But Michelle had also razed one of mine and built over my ruins.

I find that the game is very spatial. Before the start of the game you need to study the board and strategise. Space is limited, forcing the players to compete, both in the form of a race to claim land and in the form of warfare after space starts to run out. Movement is rather limited, so moving your armies around and maneuvering in preparing to fight a war is very expensive (in terms of actions required, there is no money). There was less fighting than I had expected. Fighting is probably not the most effective way of gaining points, but I think towards the end game a well planned and executed war can mean the difference between winning and losing the game. So one should always be prepared for war, or even plan for it if it looks necessary. This feels right. Your civilisation needs to expand, you need to build cities, you want to improve your technology. But while you are busy with all this, you must not forget about the threat of war. I would say the game is 80% expansion and development, and 20% warfare. War may not be necessary, but the threat is definitely there.

I rarely talk about game components when I write about my gaming experiences. I think Tempus is probably the boardgame with the worst component quality I have ever seen. The publisher is cafe games, and I think this version is made in China. I think there is more than one version. Not that made in China means poor quality. I have no problems with Ticket to Ride Switzerland and other games made in China. For the copy of Tempus that I played, the components were literally falling apart. The printing on the cardboard tiles were coming off like dandruff. Chong Sean asked me to use a pencil to write the city size numbers on the city tiles where the numbers were fading. I did so. Then when I tried to blow away the tiny spots of paper that had broken off, my breath tore away a few big chunks of paper / printing. Oops. I felt like an amateur archaeologist accidentally destroying a precious thousand-year-old document. The tiles in the game were that fragile.

I usually return to Sabah for Chinese New Year, and one thing that I never miss when I'm in KK (Kota Kinabalu) is Carcasean boardgame cafe. I emailed the cafe owner Chong Sean a few weeks before I came back, asking him what new games there were. I read the rules and prepared concise reference sheets in anticipation.

On Sat 31 Jan 2009, Simon and I visited Carcasean, and we played Perikles with Chong Sean.

Perikles is a game about the battles among the Greek city states, after the Persians invaders have been defeated by their joint forces. There are 6 city states in the game. In the game, over three rounds, players compete to have their people get elected to be leaders in each city, and then upon taking control of the cities, send the citizen armies of the cities to battle. There are 21 battles, i.e. 7 will be fought each round. You gain victory points for winning battles, for getting elected as mayor, and for remaining influence it the cities at the end of the game.

The policital phase of a round is done by placing cubes, i.e. influence, onto cities. Sometimes you can assassinate an opponent's cube. Sometimes you can propose a candidate early. There are only 2 candidates allowed per city, so it is possible that even when you have the most influence in a city, you don't control it because you didn't manage to get your people nominated. Being mayor means a monument will be erected for your guy, and that monument is usually worth some points at game end, depending on how well the city did in battles throughout the game. That's an interesting consideration which intertwines city control and choice of battles.

The battles phase is done by players taking turns to deploy armies and fleets to the battle locations and to choose sides (attacker or defender). There are main and supporting attackers / defenders. Battle resolution is by dice. It is slightly convoluted and needs some effort to digest, but once you understand how it works, it is quick. Victory points earned from battles are fixed. They are printed on the battle tile (location tile).

That's the game in summary. But this being a Martin Wallace game, there are some quirks in the rules, which I won't describe. But I'd say these details are quite thematic. E.g. there is one special game end condition. If Sparta or Athens suffer 4 defeats, the game ends immediately. This is a kind of twist often seen in Martin Wallace games, e.g. Byzantium.

In our game, Chong Sean had a poor start, controlling only one city. However he had a good comeback in Round 2. In Round 3, he also did quite well, controlling 3 cities, when Simon and I had 1 and 2 respectively. In the policital phase I was overconfident and careless. I could have won 3 cities, but I made a mistake. What was worse was both Simon and I did very badly in the battle phase. We both decided to fight at two locations, and allowed Chong Sean to win the other 5 locations without contest. We were so absorbed in those two locations that we didn't realise who stupid our deployments were. Chong Sean had 3 armies. So we really should have worked together to hinder him.

Chong Sean won at 80. I had 72, Simon 60. I had the most cubes remaining on the board. In hindsight I probably should have used them up to deploy more armies, which Simon and Chong Sean did. I think with fewer players it is more worthwhile to use cubes this way, and especially so in the last round, because you don't need to leave cubes to contest for city control the next round. I overestimated the importance of the cubes. Or maybe I should say I underestimated the importance of winning battles. In hindsight, I should have treated cubes as a tiebreaker (it isn't).

Round 1. This was after the policital phase and after army deployment of the battle phase. We were about to start the battles themselves. I was (as usual) green, Simon was orange, Chong Sean red. There are 6 cities on the board, each of a different colour. The cities are where the policital aspects are played out. That complex-looking but actually not really complex table on the right is the battle table. The centre column is for the 7 locations being fought over each round. The colour of the location indicates which city the location belongs to, i.e. that city cannot attack its own location. Players place armies and fleets on both sides of the location tiles, to indicate whether they want to attack of defend that location. That grey stack of armies to the left of Argos is the Persians. If you fail to control any city, i.e. you have no army, this becomes your army for the battle phase. So this is a pity-army, to make sure you don't sulk in a corner when the other players are happily waging war.

One of the cities - Sparta. The newly elected mayor (small square tile) is sitting above the city. On the roof are the alpha and beta signs, which are the spots for candidates. Among the pillars are the influence cubes. The oval on the left is for placing monuments of past mayors. The rectangle on the right is for placing the stack of armies and fleets belonging to this city. The four squares below denote the possible values of a monument in this city. Whenever a location belonging to this city is conquered in battle, i.e. battle tile of this city's colour, a defeat token is placed on the highest number, thus reducing the value of the monuments.

Close-up of the battle area. Most battles consist of two phases. Either land then sea or vice versa. Only the result of the second phase determines the winner, but winning the first phase gives an advantage when you get to the second phase. Soldiers are deployed face-down so you don't know the combat strength of your enemies (which range from 1 to 4).

This was Round 3. See how many green cubes I had left on the board. I was in control of the green and yellow armies, and Simon blue. See how stubbornly we deployed to fight over those two blue locations, which basically handed the victory to Chong Sean. We were both kingmakers.

I think Perikles needs to by played with 4 or 5 to be good. With 3 players, I find it slightly lacking. In our game, there was a tendency for each player to have controlled a city exactly once. Since each player would have a monument, there was no point in trying to make that city lose a battle which would lower the value of its monuments.

I find Perikles alright. It feels very "Wallace". I would like to play it again, just not with three.

It has been quite some time since I last played Tikal, the previous play being in 2006. So we brought out this old classic. We needed a refresher before starting off.

17 Jan 2009, Tikal. This was near the end of the game. In this game Michelle was lucky with the treasures, while I was very lucky with discovering temples. My tent (natural wood colour) in the middle of the board helped me bring in researchers and place them at valuable temples.

This area used to be dominated by me, because of my conveniently placed tent. But later Michelle made some good moves and wrested away control of many temples, or forced me to be unable to score them.

Close-up of Tikal.

On 24 Jan 2009 I taught Chee Seng to play Agricola. I think he did quite well for his first game. Quite well balanced and no negative scores for any category except empty space. Also he even beat me to having a child.

These were Chee Seng's Occupations and Improvements. Quite nicely suited for baking bread. I spotted an error in his farm afterwards. He had the house goat, and thus should not have been able to place the wild boar in his home in the previous photo.

My farm. I had reserved some space for sheep. However Chee Seng took the 2 sheep on the last round, which I didn't expect, because he already had 6. He said he wanted to score the full 4pts for sheep.

My Occupations and Improvements played. I had a lot of clay because of the Clay Deliveryman and Clay Hut Builder. I actually had the Chief's Daughter Occuption card too, but too bad I didn't have enough actions to play it.

I also taught Chee Seng Dominion, which he also quite liked. We played 2 games, the first with the recommended setup for beginners, and the second with 10 random kingdom cards which were not from the previous game (except we swapped in the moat due to there being some attack cards). We enjoyed the second game much more.

Chee Seng happily having a fun "chain reaction", i.e. playing action cards one after another many times, because previous cards played allow drawing more cards and playing more cards.

Eventually he had 7 action cards played: Market, Village, Village, Cellar, Militia, Militia, Remodel. I was so happy to have my Moat card (the blue one in the foreground) in my hand when he played his first Militia card. Instead of discarding two cards, I got to draw two. But unfortunately he had yet another Militia card, and I couldn't defend against that, so I had to discard down to 3 cards afterall.

On 17 Jan 2009 when Han came to play, our main course was Axis & Allies, the 2004 edition, which is also called Axis & Allies Revised. We both planned to buy the Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition which just came out end of last year, and were keen to play it. Since neither of us had it yet, we decided to play the 2004 edition, to at least temporarily quench our thirst. We planned for this session about one month beforehand. That's how keen we were.

Actually I was so anxious for some Axis & Allies action, I asked Simon (who has played many games with me but is in no way a gamer, and has never played anything like Axis & Allies) to play with me when he was in KL, on 2 Jan 2009. We started at 11:30pm, explaining the game took some time, and we finished at 5:30am. It was a good game, but unfortunately I didn't take any photo.

I played the Axis, and Simon the Allies. USA mostly ignored Japan in the Pacific and both UK and US concentrated on preparing to attack Germany. Germany's excursion into Africa was slow but steady. USA only sent forces to Africa once and after that ignored the African theatre to concentrate on Europe.

USSR had some initial successes, but Germany won one big battle, using its big stack to kill off USSR's big stack. I had been careful in the positioning of my German troops, in pushing my infantry forward, and in preserving my tanks as much as possible. That big battle was a big blow to USSR, killing off many Russian tanks, and USSR immediately got on the defensive. Later Germany also took Caucasus, which had the industrial complex, and had been heavily defended throughout most of the game. However this was at the expense of not defending Western Europe and not trying to get it back, allowing an Allied foothold.

Eventually Germany fell to a one-two-punch attack from UK and USA which I had underestimated. I had thought it was too premature for Simon to attack Germany. But the USA forces won, despite only having one tank and one bomber surviving. That was a crushing blow to the Axis. Although USSR was on the verge of falling, it still had enough forces to withstand Germany's last desperate all-out attack. When Berlin fell, the German troops were too far away to take it back. They were all right next to Moscow, and there was a big swath of nothing in Eastern Europe.

Japan, having been left alone in the Pacific theatre, had been expanding aggressively. I tried a one-two-punch attack on Russia, but by then Russia had been reinforced with British fighters, and my attempt was too little too late. I conceded defeat after that last desperate failed attempt. The whole of Africa, Middle East, India, China and almost all of USSR were under Axis control, but Japan will not be able to fight against the combined forces of the 3 Allied countries. It was only a matter of time for USA and UK to take back all those vacant Axis territories.

I still think Kill Russia First is the best strategy for the Axis, and similarly Kill Germany First for the Allies. Not that I'm any expert in Axis & Allies. I may be just unimaginative. Supposedly the Anniversary Edition addresses this problem (assuming this is a problem).

In this game against Simon, my biggest mistake was probably underestimating the attackers approaching Berlin. In fact, the British attack, i.e. the first half of the one-two-punch attack, fared poorly. And I probably should not have allowed D-Day to happen so early. Anyway, good lesson learned, which prepared me for the game against Han two weeks later. I was playing the Axis too, since the last time Han and I played this game in 2005, he played the Axis.

So here's the session report of the game against Han on 17 Jan 2009, with lots of pictures.

~~~~~~~

Game setup. I like the game setup of Axis & Allies Revised. There are interesting, i.e. tough, decisions for each country. Of course some of the decisions will depend on the outcome of battles in previous players' turns, but I think Round 1 is interesting, and often its outcome will determine the strategy of the players for the rest of the game.

This was Round 1, UK's turn. USSR had taken West Russia, that territory right next to Moscow with Germans on it at the start of the game, and Germany had taken it back. Soviet forces consolidated in Moscow, Causasus and the eastern border near the Japanese. The Germans had used a transport to bring troops from Italy to attack Trans-Jordan. The German submarine in the Atlantic had gone to Canada and had sunk the British transport there. German forces in Algeria moved to Libya, to prepare to attack Egypt. Now the British battleship, with the support of the fighter in Egypt and the fighter in the Indian Ocean, was attacking the German battleship and transport in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea. This attack was successful, sinking both German ships, but the British also lost one fighter. The British sub south of Melbourne later attacked the lonely Japanese sub north of New Zealand, but only managed to get itself sunk.

Round 1, end of Japan's turn. The UK fleet on the west coast of UK had moved to the east coast. The UK fleet in the Indian Ocean had moved west. If you watch closely you'll notice that the British bomber is gone. Unfortunately (for Han) it was shot down over Berlin in its maiden strategic bombing mission. UK had built a factory in India, but it was immediately captured by the Japanese, which used the transport off Kwangtung to ship infantry over. Japan really went all out to capture India, including the support of the southern Pacific fleet. In hindsight, UK probably should have defended India more heavily. Japan attacked China, but that battle turned out to be mutual destruction. Well, at least the Flying Tigers (US fighter) were killed. Pearl Harbour happened, no surprises there. Japan built three transports.

Round 2, during UK's turn. USA had invaded the unguarded Algeria. The US infantry in Sinkiang came out to defend China. USA also started to rebuild its Pacific fleet. I think USSR took West Russia again, and then Germany captured in yet again, in the process destroying all Russian tanks. USSR has been very defensive, buying mostly infantry. Germany, which bought mostly infantry in Round 1, now bought mostly a mix of infantry and artillery. My plan was to buy slow moving units early, and then tanks later. Germany had conquered Egypt, leaving Algeria vacant. The Baltic fleet had come out to attack the British fleet (with some air support, of course), and won the battle! That was a bonus for me, because I didn't expect my Baltic fleet to survive. I only wanted to sink the British ships, which would help to delay D-Day. British aircraft were now attacking my Baltic fleet. This later ended as yet another surprise victory for me. He lost many precious fighters. I must have had a pretty good admiral. Han mixed his combat and non-combat moves, so you see his Mediterranean battleship had already moved west to Gibraltar, and his Indian Ocean fleet and Australian transport had already moved towards South Africa.

Round 2, after USA's turn. Japan had conquered China, and also broken through the eastern border of USSR. Now the path to Moscow was cleared. Japan had also conquered Persia, putting some pressure on Caucasus. Japan built 3 tanks in India, preparing to support Germany in executing Kill Russia First. The Indian Ocean fleet moved towards Japan to join forces with the Pacific fleet, because the Americans were threatening. The American troops in Algeria had another bloodless conquest - the vacated Libya. And finally the American fleet (from North Africa and the Atlantic Ocean) sunk my remaining German ships off Norway. UK was getting rather crowded so I put a marker on it and let Han place all the units off board (top left corner). I did the same for the American Pacific fleet which was building up off Los Angeles.

This was the American Pacific fleet being rebuilt. Two battleships, two carriers, one destroyer, one transport and three fighters.

This was where they were on the map.

These are the units in UK, now put off board because the populace was complaining about overcrowding.

The two Japanese fleets were about to merge into one giant fleet, in anticipation of the upcoming showdown with the Americans in the Pacific.

I think this was Round 3 after UK's turn. I can't recall what happened exactly on the Eastern Front. I know USSR attacked the Japanese-occupied Persia and won. Germany was now very close to both Moscow and Caucasus. I left West Russia vacant so that I wouldn't have to spread my forces thin. USSR didn't have land troops that could threaten my fleet of fighters in Belorussia anyway. I now dared to leave Western Europe lightly defended, because I had built a big group of tanks in Germany. I had also built a bomber to support the war on the Eastern Front. Rommel attacked the Americans in Libya and wiped them out, with some air support, of course. I left one infantry to guard Trans-Jordan against the Russians. I was betting the Russians would turn back to defend Caucasus. UK's battleship from the Mediterranean moved to the coast of France, and UK build two transports.

A zoomed out view to show the British ships from the Pacific Theatre still moving slowing to Europe. The Suez Canal wasn't an option since I had conquered Trans-Jordan in Round 1. You need to control both Egypt and Trans-Jordan at the start of your turn to be able to use the canal.

Round 3, after Japan's turn. The Japanese navy had joined forces off the coast of Tokyo. Now I was daring Han to attack me. If he dared to come close I'd probably attack with the support of my airforce.

Zoomed out view, to show that one of the Japanese tanks had blitzed through Sinkiang and was now at the gates of Moscow. The slower moving Japanese infantry and artillery had also conquered Yakut SSR. Actually, this was already USA's turn. The USA fleet off Norway joined forces with the UK fleet off Normandy. The bored US fighter in Algeria thought it would be fun to attack the lonely German fighter in Egypt...

... and got itself shot down. Oops.

I think this was Round 4, after Germany's turn. On USSR's turn, it attacked and conquered Trans-Jordan. It also got Novosibirsk back from the lone Japanese tank, and took the vacant West Russia. Germany tried to take Trans-Jordan back, but retreated back to Egypt when the battle went bad. However on the Eastern Front the battles went well, and both Caucasus and Moscow fell to the Axis. It was a costly victory, almost wiping out the German airforce (only that lone fighter surviving the battle of Caucasus). But the fall of Moscow was a big victory for the Axis. Han conceded defeat. D-Day never happened, and Midway never happened.

~~~~~~~

I had many lucky rolls in the early game. Han was very unlucky with his bombing runs over Germany. Not only he lost his British bomber on the first bombing run, he also later lost an American bomber, I think on its second bombing mission.

On the Eastern Front Han was mainly defensive, purchasing mostly infantry. He protected the factory in Caucasus well, and I didn't dare to attack until quite late in the game. On the Western Front the build-up for D-Day was too slow. So D-Day never happened.

We actually played with one random national advantage for each country. Russia had harsh winter - declare harsh winter at end of USSR round, and from then until USSR's next turn, Russian infantry defend on 3 instead of 2. Han used this, which made me delay my attack into Moscow by one round. Germany had wolfpack - when a group of 3 submarines attack together, they attack at 3 instead of 2. I never used it. UK had Middle East oil - if a British plane landed in an Allies-controlled Egypt, Trans-Jordan or Persia, it gets a free non-combat move. This was never used. Japan had entrenched defenders - infantry on islands defend at 3 instead of 2. Never used. USA had marines - infantry attack on 2 instead of 1 in the first cycle of an amphibious assault. Never used. Maybe next time we should play with 2 random national advantages instead. Or maybe more.

I definitely benefited from the recent game against Simon, in which I played the Axis too. Han was at a disadvantage because the last time he played was 3+ years ago, also another game with me. And there was a misprint on the UK chart. Fighter cost should be $10, not $12. He used the wrong price for all the Allies for almost the whole game, because the UK chart was the one right in front of him and he referred to it. Well, and the dice gods being on my side didn't help.

One thing about Axis & Allies Revised that I have a very different opinion of compared to other people is the graphics. I actually quite like the graphics. I like the dark map, more so than the 1984 version (lighter coloured), and also more so than the Anniversary Edition (natural coloured). I like the style very much. It has a feeling of doom. I prefer it over the 1984 version because of this. I prefer it over the Anniversary Edition because it is "cleaner". It has a serious tone. The one thing I didn't quite like is the production values. The cardboard pieces are quite thin. They also forgot that 6 and 9 look exactly the same when you don't know which direction to look from. They should have used a full stop or an underline on the army markers for 6 and 9. Well, I have never had to use 6 or 9, so this didn't impact my enjoyment of the game, but it just shows there was an oversight. The fighter cost on the UK sheet is a more serious error (and Han would definitely agree).

I used to read a lot of strategy articles about Axis & Allies, in the days when I played it more frequently with Ricky using the PC game version. That was still the 1984 version, way before the 2004 Revised version came out. Axis & Allies is very much about knowing what to purchase and knowing how to plan ahead. It is about preserving your units (especially so for the Japanese) and maximising your battle odds. It is easy to lose sight of the strategic view and the long term planning, when the game is long and there are many battles to absorb you into the tactical aspects. Naturally there is a fair bit of luck in the game, because of the dice. But I have learnt to not get frustrated with bad die rolls, and instead laugh about them. Before the dice are rolled, I should have done all I could to make the odds as good as possible, and if I haven't done so I should accept the risks of making the attack or the consequences of not preparing enough for the defense.

I just received my copy of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition. So the next time that we play, it will be this deluxe version!

Han was in town over the weekend of 17 Jan 2009, and came over for some games. He had just picked up his new game Ghost Stories, so we gave it a go.

Ghost Stories is a cooperative game, where the players are Taoist monks defending a village from an onslaught of ghosts. The big bad ghost Mr Wu Feng is trying to came back from hell to do bad things to humanity (something like that). His minion ghosts are trying to locate his urn which is hidden in the village. The monks have to work together with the villagers to hold the ghosts back. To win the game, they have to defeat all incarnations of Wu Feng that appear during the game. There are many ways to lose. If all the monks get killed, you lose. If a certain number of village tiles get haunted, you lose. If you can't defeat all incarnations of Wu Feng when the ghost card deck runs out, you lose. Sounds like Pandemic doesn't it? One way to win, many ways to lose.

On a player's turn, he first does the "bad stuff" (in the game, called the Yin phase), and then he does the "good stuff" (Yang phase). In the Yin phase, some ghosts already on the board will do bad stuff. Some will move towards the village, threatening to haunt a village tile. Then a new ghost (drawn from the ghost card deck) may appear. Ghosts sometimes do something when they appear, and sometimes they do something every time that they are activated while still in the game, and sometimes they do something when they are exorcised (is this last situation sometimes they give a reward). After this, the active player gets to do something good. He can move, and then either get some help from the villagers, or try to exorcise a ghost or two. Each of the nine village tiles can give some form of benefit to the monks. There is even one tile (the cemetary) where you can bring a dead monk back to life! To exorcise a ghost you need to roll dice and get enough rolls of the right colour matching the ghost's colour and strength. You can make up the shortage by paying Tao tokens of the right colour.

So during the game, ghosts keep appearing and doing bad stuff to you and to the village, and you need to hold them back while trying to stay alive. The ghosts have many different characteristics. Some are easier to defeat, some are harder. Some cause trouble every turn, some only when they appear / go away. Some prevent you from using Tao tokens, which is nasty. You not only need to survive, you also need to prepare for the showdown with Wu Feng. Depending on the difficulty level, there can be one or four incarnations of Wu Feng that you need to defeat.

This is how the game looks like when set up. 9 village tiles randomly arranged in the centre, and four player boards on the four sides. The ghosts appear on the player boards, and some of them get a black figure which will attack the village, e.g. the one on the blue board.

Two Taoist monks confronting a ghost.

The two buddhas still chatting about last night's TV show without realising the ghost sneaking up on them.

Han and I played one 2-player game. Well, actually we played three games, but in the first two we played wrong and restarted. The first one was too easy, because we forgot to do actions for the two neutral boards. The second one was too tough, because we did too much for the two neutral boards. We played that they can add new ghosts to the game. Of course that turned out to be quite a nightmare. Double the number of ghosts were appearing. On our third attempt, we finally played with what was quite close to the correct rules (we later found out we did make some mistakes afterall), and won.

I find the game quite interesting. There are quite many choices - which ghosts to defeat first, where to move, which village tile to make use of, when to use your YinYang tokens and Power tokens. The game is a constantly changing puzzle of how to use your actions and resources most effectively. Sometimes there is some tough prioritisation that you are forced to do. The basic game structure is not complex, but there are many small details (e.g. the powers of each of the nine village tiles, and the unique powers of each monk) which although individually are simple, give you a wide decision tree that can be daunting when you are learning the game. In our first game we have only used a few of the village tiles. I am sure each tile can be very useful if used the right way or at the right time, but in our learning game, we have not yet appreciated all of the nuances. We tend to use the Buddhist temple (get a Buddha figure which can protect a space and instantly kick a new ghost back to hell), the sorcerer's hut (spend Qi, i.e. health, to kill a ghost) and the circle of prayer (discount when fighting ghosts or a particular colour).

As we played, the situation became more and more bleak. The number of active ghosts was growing, and we were starting to fall behind in trying to exorcise them quickly. By the time that Wu Feng finally arrived (11th card from the bottom of the stack), it was actually a relief, because we knew we just needed to defeat him to win, and we could ignore the other ghosts. And that was exactly what we did. It so happened that the incarnation of Wu Feng that we got was the one requiring 5 different Tao tokens. I already had four, and could use my Power token to use the Yellow monk power to get the fifth colour. So I instantly defeated Wu Feng on my next turn. It was actually rather anticlimatic, as if he came to save us from losing the game.

After the game, Han read the rules himself (I was the one who had read it first and I taught the game) and found that we had made at least two mistakes, both of which had made the game easier for us. (1) When using the sorcerer's hut to kill a ghost, we should not have gained the reward for defeating the ghost. (2) The ghosts which haunt village tiles only need to take two steps, not three, to haunt the nearest tile. The second mistake would have made quite a significant difference. So the next time that we play (I definitely want to play again) we probably should stay at Introductory level.

1 Jan 2009. Michelle and Simon, playing Taj Mahal. I bought the German version a few years ago, at I think USD59, because the English reprint wasn't out yet. Unfortunately I have not played it many times. This is one of Reiner Knizia's classics.

Close-up of the game. Michelle did very well in this game. She ran out of palaces to place. Even by mid game she was already far ahead of us.

2 Jan 2009. Brass, with the 2-player variant. Non playable locations were covered with silver coins. This was at the end of the game. We had flipped the railroads to the canal side, to mark the railroads than had been scored.

Close-up. Hmmm... now that I noticed it, I wonder whether I forgot to score my railroad between Wigan and Bolton.

4 Jan 2009. Michelle and I played Age of Steam. This was the Korean map. The minimum number of players is 3, but since the Korean map seems to be quite tight, we decided to try it with 2. This was the start of the game. Two unique things about Korea is the hills are expensive to build on (+$3), and cities have no colour to determine what coloured cube they can accept. They accept a colour if there is a cube of such colour in them, which is an interesting twist.

Michelle started in the south east, and I started on the west.

Michelle built the two cheap tracks between Seoul, Suwon and Inchon. This is an anomaly of the Korean map. There are no hexes between these 3 cities, but you can put a marker on the circle between these cities as if you are building a track between them. Michelle's move didn't interrupt me much, as I later built another railway between Seoul and Inchon. It did help her deliver some goods though. Other than that, we delevoped our railroad networks quite separately.

Michelle did more urbanisation, and continued to expand northwards along the east coast. Korea turned out to be not as tough as I had imagined. Probably 2 players is not so suitable. You probably still need at least 3.

By now we are starting to build tracks for points and not really for delivering goods. Usually goods production in Age of Steam is a good thing, because it means there are more goods moved to the board for you to deliver. However on the Korean map this can be disruptive to your plans. Sometimes when you have planned to deliver a cube from one end of a long route to the other, a new cube suddenly gets placed in a city in the middle of that route, halfing your profit because then you would be forced to deliver the cube to this city in the middle rather than the originally intended destination.

This was the end of the game. No one wanted to build to Pyongyang in North Korea.

Aerial and "upright" view of the board at end game, for comparison against the starting photo.

I find it funny that sometimes after playing a game so many times and thinking that I'm already an expert, I suddenly discover some rule error which I have been playing with from the beginning. Usually they are not too bad. Else it probably won't be so funny, and the game probably won't work well enough to warrant many plays. I just discovered another error I made with Through the Ages. When you have discovered a more efficient form of farming or mining, you are not allowed to "upgrade" two or more blue tokens from older farm/mine technology cards to fewer tokens on the newly played farm/mine technology card. I have always thought that you can do this any time, i.e. you get a good efficiency boost the moment you discover the new technology.

However you can make change, i.e. if you have one blue token representing 2 stone, and you need to pay 1 stone, you can move that blue token down to the Level A mine, so that it now represents 1 stone.

If I have 3 blue tokens on my lowest level farm (each representing 1 food), I should not be allowed to convert them into 1 blue token in my higher level farm (where 1 blue token represents 3 food), thus returning 2 blue tokens to my bank.

I still have no news about the fix pack. My Through the Ages is the 2nd edition (or 1st edition published by FRED), which has the score track error and some non-critical errors on some cards. It is also short of some tokens, but since I have never played with 4 players, I have had no issue. But it would still be nice to receive the fix pack some day.

I am a Ticket to Ride game series collector. I have Ticket to Ride, Ticket to Ride Europe, Ticket to Ride Marklin, Ticket to Ride USA 1910 expansion, Ticket to Ride Switzerland, Ticket to Ride the Card Game, and now I have bought Ticket to Ride Nordic Countries too. The only game in the series that I don't have is Ticket to Ride the Dice Game, which I do not intend to get, at least not now. Ticket to Ride was big when it came out in 2004, winning the SdJ award. It was a big hit with many of my friends, and with my wife. I started off quite lukewarm towards it, and only later learned to appreciate its simplicity and to enjoy it for what it is. Each time I bought a new game in the series, I found that I usually liked the newer one more than the previous ones. I liked Marklin because of the additional passengers and goods, but when 1910 came out I liked the better tension for 2 players in the Big Cities variant, and Marklin's game setup felt tedious. When I got Switzerland Michelle and I played quite a lot of it and enjoyed drawing tickets a lot. TTR the Card Game was played a few times, but it didn't attract us back much. Unfortunately, with Nordic Countries, so far I do not see anything very outstanding that will attract us back either.

TTR Nordic Countries was initially only sold in the Nordic Countries, and only later Days of Wonder decided to do a small English version print run for wider distribution. It is a 2-3 player only game, like Switzerland, but unlike Switzerland it is a complete game, not just board and tickets, i.e. it is more expensive. It has ferries like TTR Europe, and tunnels too. Taking locomotives (jokers) don't count as taking 2 cards, like in Switzerland, because their use is restricted similarly (only usable for ferries and tunnels). One nice touch is the snow. There is snow everywhere. The train cards are the same as the original Ticket to Ride, but all the carriages are topped with snow. Good Christmas atmosphere. Even the guy on the cover looks like a version of Santa Claus.

I have played Nordic Countries four times. At least for now I don't see a strong differentiator, a uniqueness yet. I only feel I am playing on a different map, with unfamiliar names. That said, perhaps the value is that it is an additional option when you want to have a map more suitable for 2-3 players. So, probably this is a game only the heavy Ticket to Ride series players need to get. Nothing wrong with it, and I think it is nicely designed. Some people may not like the crazy card drawing in Switzerland. Then Nordic Countries is a more "normal" Ticket to Ride game suitable for 2-3 players. I'm happy to have both in my collection, and Michelle and I will likely play these two more than the other ones which were designed for 2-5 players.

Actually there is one unique thing about Nordic Countries, the long 9-length route to Murmansk. This scores 27 points, which is like completing a very long ticket by itself. Also only for this route, for each train of the right colour that you are short of, you can replace it using four cards of any kind (else getting 9 cards of the same colour would be very very difficult). This is an interesting quirk and adds some tension if the players want to compete to build it. It is indeed quite tempting.

Ticket To Ride Nordic Countries. A photo of the map taken from the east. This was the end of a game. We used the purple and black trains. The third colour it white.

The Murmansk-Lieksa route, needing 9 trains of the same colour (jokers not accepted in this game for such normal routes). However for each card short you can substitute with 4 cards of any type.

Lots of snow. The locomotive (joker) has the tunnel and ferry icons to remind you that you can only use it for such routes.

Some of the ticket cards. Even these have a little Christmas theme (bottom left corner).

First, some fancy statistics and diagrams. One note on terminology - "plays" mean how many times I have played a certain game, and "games" mean the game itself.

---

Fives and dimes of 2008, and some other statistics.

The dark blue line (total plays in 2008) uses the right axis. The others use the left axis. Total number of plays decreased in 2006 and 2007, but increased in 2008. Number of distinct games played increases every year regardless, which means I have been able to try more and more different games.

Number of distinct games played, and the breakdown into fives, dimes, others (i.e. played 2 to 4 times), and singles.

Same data, but looking at percentages.

Plays in 2008, with the breakdown of how many are of dimes, fives, etc. In 2005 the most played game was Mystery Rummy: Jack the Ripper. In 2008 it was Race for the Galaxy. 2004 was Carcassonne, there were many plays of Ticket To Ride in 2005, behind Mystery Rummy: Jack the Ripper. Mystery Rummy: Jack the Ripper was also the most played game in 2006. 2007 was a slow year, after my second daughter was born in Dec 2006. Most played game was Gulo Gulo, with my elder daughter.

Percentage view.

---

Number of plays (in brackets) for games played in 2008:

1. Race for the Galaxy (248)
2. Agricola (35)
3. Blue Moon (28)
4. TTR Switzerland (20)
5. Through the Ages (17)
6. 10 days in Asia (17)
7. Dominion (15)
8. Gulo Gulo (15)
9. Pandemic (12)
10. Carcassonne (11)
11. 10 days in Europe (10)
12. Mamma Mia (9)
13. TTR Card Game (8)
14. Galaxy Trucker (8)
15. Loopin' Louie (8)
16. Blokus 3D (7)
17. Ticket to ride (7)
18. Tribune (6)
19. Princes of Florence (6)
20. Chicken Cha Cha Cha (6)
21. R-Eco (6)
22. Carc Discovery (5)
23. Thebes (5)
24. In the year of the dragon (5)
25. Jambo (5)
26. MR3: Jekyll & Hyde (4)
27. Sticheln (4)
28. Risk Express (4)
29. Sole Mio (4)
30. Brass (4)
31. San Juan (3)
32. Babel (3)
33. 80 days around the world (3)
34. MR4: Al Capone & The Chicago Underworld (3)
35. Ca$h n Gun$ (3)
36. Dou4Di4Zhu3 (3)
37. Blue Moon City (2)
38. Louis XIV (2)
39. Hive (2)
40. Attika (2)
41. Taluva (2)
42. MR1: Jack the Ripper (2)
43. Age of Empires III (2)
44. Die Macher (2)
45. Lord of the Rings (2)
46. Power Grid (2)
47. Hacienda (2)
48. Zooloretto (2)
49. To Court The King (2)
50. Once Upon A Time (2)
51. Blokus Duo (2)
52. TTR Nordic Countries (2)
53. Lost Cities (2)
54. Diamant (2)
55. Glory to Rome (2)
56. Citadels (2)
57. Ivanhoe (1)
58. Pillars of the Earth (1)
59. Notre Dame (1)
60. Mykerinos (1)
61. Catan card game (1)
62. Elasund (1)
63. Felix: the cat in the sack (1)
64. Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage (1)
65. Starcraft (1)
66. En Garde (1)
67. TTR Marklin (1)
68. Axis & Allies: Guadalcanal (1)
69. Railroad Tycoon (1)
70. Beowulf (1)
71. Barbarossa (1)
72. Quo Vadis (1)
73. Shadows Over Camelot (1)
74. Mwahahaha (1)
75. Caylus (1)
76. Coloretto (1)
77. 6 Nimmt (1)
78. Goa (1)
79. Puerto Rico (1)
80. Dawn Under (1)
81. Niagara (1)
82. Thurn und Taxis (1)
83. Conquest of the fallen lands (1)
84. Frank's Zoo (1)
85. Gin Rummy (1)
86. Halli Galli (1)
87. On the Underground (1)
88. Twister (1)
89. Monopoly Here & Now (1)
90. China (1)
91. Caesar & Cleopatra (1)
92. Make You Gunfighters (1)
93. El Capitan (1)
94. Cuba (1)
95. King Arthur the card game (1)
96. Mordred (1)
97. Royal Turf (1)
98. Trendy (1)
99. Circus Flohcati (1)
100. Galactic Emperor (1)
101. Hoity Toity (1)
102. Pickomino (1)
103. Age of Steam (1)
104. Can't Stop (1)
105. Metropolys (1)
106. 300 the boardgame (1)
107. Winds of Plunder (1)
108. Through the Desert (1)
109. Magic the Gathering (1)
110. Hansa (1)

---

I record my games played religiously, since some time in 2004. I do it in an Excel sheet, and also on Boardgamegeek. There are some games where I even record the scoring breakdown (Race for the Galaxy, Agricola), or I write comments / mini session reports (like Through the Ages). I also record my game purchases - when I bought what, at what price, whether I have played it, what my rating is etc. I looked through these records, and found some interesting things (well, maybe only to me). So here are a lot of random observations, mostly about gaming in 2008.

Favourites - Through the Ages, Race for the Galaxy. And to certain extent Tribune too. Although the number of plays of Through the Ages is much much less that Race for the Galaxy, when considering how long the game is and how I need to set time aside for it, I am quite happy to have enjoyed so many games of Through the Ages.

10's - 2008 is the first time I rated a game 10, according to Boardgamegeek ratings. I gave two 10s, to Through the Ages and Race for the Galaxy. Agricola may get a 10. It is a 9.5 now.

Few-plays-doesn't-mean-bad - I only played these very few times, but I enjoyed them a lot and would love to play again. Axis & Allies Guadalcanal, Die Macher, Brass.

Correlation with BGG - I am mostly in sync with BGG. I think Agricola, Through the Ages and Race for the Galaxy should be in the top ten. I like Agricola more than Puerto Rico. Only Dominion I don't think of as highly as other BGGeeks. I have played 15 games. I appreciate some of the strategies, but it doesn't grab me like Agricola or Through the Ages. Admittedly I still don't feel I have a good grasp of it yet. I need to play more.

Other good buys - Ticket to Ride: Switzerland, a December 2007 purchase, was will worth the money. Michelle and I played many exciting games of this. I just bought Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries. I wonder whether I'll get to play this as much.

Probably need not have bought - Blokus 3D. This is interesting but I find that I don't really play it a lot. I bought it at The Mind Shop when visiting Melbourne. I often cannot resist the temptation when I visit a game shop overseas. Ticket to Ride Card Game, Carcassonne the Discovery, Mamma Mia, Sole Mio. These were OK. Interesting, at least at first. But after the initial few games, I find that I rarely have the urge to revisit them.

Glad I didn't buy - Power Grid China/Korea. It tempted me, but I already have too many other Power Grid expansions that I am not playing often enough. Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage. I actually like it, and I like the Mike Doyle artwork, but Michelle won't play this with me. Han has a copy anyway.

Played out - "out" as in I was starting to get tired of it. 10 Days in Asia, 10 Days in Europe, both were borrowed from Chong Sean. I actually quite like them. They are quite different from other games that I have played, and they give me a type of fun that I have not experienced in other games. But I simply played too much within too short a time. I had initially planned to buy 10 Days in Asia, but now I have decided not yet. This is a good game for new players and casual gamers, but probably not for a hardcore gamer, at least not after 27 plays.

Classics revisited - I played Princes of Florence 6 times in 2008. Despite all being the 2-player variant, I enjoyed myself.

Should play more - Lord of the Rings and its three expansions. I really like this game, but have not been playing it a lot. I think the Friends & Foes expansion really need more than 2 players or it will be too hard. I have played the Sauron expansion with 2 players (supposedly minimum 3), where I played 2 hobbits and Michelle played Sauron. It was too taxing for the hobbit player. So I think it does need 3. The Battlefields expansion should be OK with 2 players. I also should play more of Age of Steam and its expansions, In the Year of the Dragon and Puerto Rico. Come to think of it, I have never played any of the Age of Steam expansions that I own. I quite like In the Year of the Dragon, and especially after the big rule blunder in my recent game, I want to try it again with 4 or 5 players.

Surprised I played that many - Blue Moon. Michelle doesn't like it. Among the plays in 2008, about half were with Han, the other half with Michelle. Since it is always hard to convince Michelle to play it, I thought I didn't play many games. I guess Blue Moon is quite short, so it doesn't feel like I have played a lot. I have all the 8 races, both the Emissaries & Inquisitor expansions, and also the Buka Invasion expansion. That's one very expensive game if I add up how much I had spent. I really want to play more of this, and I continue to bug Michelle to play it.

Nagging suspiscions - Should I be mixing all the decks (E, I, K and Z) when playing Agricola? I checked the rules and the rules do allow this. However there are some disadvantages of "diluting" the cards. There are three roads (Minor Improvements) of different quality. If you build a road and noone else has built another road of better quality, then you score a bonus. Since we have so many cards, the chances of two roads being in play in the same game are very very slim. There's also the Chieftian (Occupation) and the Chieftian's Daughter. The Chieftian's Daughter can be played for free if the Chieftian is in play. The chances of them appearing in the same game are slim. There are more cards which depend on other cards, e.g. those depending on Plough cards. However, right now I just cannot be bothered to sort the cards, and anyway I like the variety. I like to be surprised.

Other non game specific observations:

Gaming group - Han, my only regular opponent other than Michelle for the past few years, moved to another city because of work. However this year Chee Seng introduced two new friends to me, Sui Jye and Jing Yi, who have become regulars at gaming sessions. Before Han left, I had planned to join the Cheras gamers, who play at Oldtown Kopitiam on Friday nights. However after more than half a year of talking about it I still have not gotten around to it. I only dropped by once to say hi to Jeff and Heng.

Games owned - 164 according to BGG. The actual number is probably less. I counted some games which I can play using components from another game.

Games acquired - 24 in 2008. Only one was self-made in 2008. One was free. So 22 paid games. I hope to buy less in 2009, and I hope to play all purchased games at least 5 times in the first year, except for long games (like Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition which is currently on by to-buy list).

19 Dec 2008. I took this photo of Agricola because I had the Maypole minor improvement in play. See the fence standing upright in the upper right corner. You can build the Maypole in the early game, and if you manage to not knock it over by game end, you earn 2 bonus points. Maypole is in the Z deck, and many cards in this deck are quite humourous or quirky.

The Occupations and Minor and Major Improvements I had played in this game. I usually have a habit of putting my house on the lower left corner of my board, fields on the top row starting from the upper right corner, and pastures occupying two rows starting from the lower right corner. In this game because I had the Planter Box in play, I had my fields next to my house, so that when I sowed, I received extra grain / vegetables.

The Maypole, and the sheep looking at it in awe. Or maybe they were just hoping it doesn't topple over.

20 Dec 2008. When we set up the game, we build little stacks like these, so that when at the start of each round, we can conveniently pick up a stack to refill the board quickly.

25 Dec 2008. Through the Ages. Michelle's red empire. Technologically very advanced, and she played many tech cards, even though she didn't intend to build anything on them. Because she had Einstein as her leader, every tech card played gave 3VP.

Michelle had 5 wonders. Only two leaders though. Somehow in this game the leaders didn't show up in a timely manner and we both didn't have any Age I or Age II leaders.

My wonders. Fast Food Chains gave me 21VPs. I used the Colossus and Taj Mahal to give me an early culture lead. Ocean Service Liner saved me lot of time and effort on my farms. I used to think it's not a very good wonder, but now I appreciate its power. Nowadays I usually prefer other Age A leaders over Hammurabi, however I didn't have much choice, and decided to go with him. Thankfully the game turned out to be quite peaceful, and the events turned out to be not too bad. Not having an Age I leader was also partially because I didn't want to let Hammurabi go so early, which would mean one less civil action. I still managed to get Game Designer, which gave me lots of points. Michelle had planned up front to deny that from me, but he appeared in the last spot of the card row when it was my turn, so Michelle couldn't stop me from picking him up.

I had 3 Computers, which were an absolute killer because I had Game Designer. 9VPs per turn (although it also meant 3 science points less per turn). Because of the Ocean Service Liner wonder, my farms stayed at the oldest technology. I only had enough food production to feed my people. I used the Ocean Service Liner to grow my population. I had originally planned to have 3 Movies to be my killer VP generator, but since Game Designer appeared at a convenient time, I switched strategy to go for Computers.

Michelle (red) was militarily stronger, and also more advanced in science. But I was a culture powerhouse.

27 Dec 2008. Chee Seng was in town, and Sui Jye and Jing Yi also came to play. We played Hansa. Chee Seng was absolutely enjoying himself, but Sui Jye was confused and stressed out. But it in the Jing Yi was the winner, by a big margin.

The ship.

In the Year of the Dragon. Chee Seng, Sui Jye, Jing Yi, Simon (visiting KL for 1 week+).

This was still in the early game.

My palaces and my people, still at an early stage of the game. I had prepared enough food to feed my people, and I had planned to use the two scholars to score points big time. Everything was looking rosy. At least that was what I thought.

... and I ended the game with this. It was a painful painful painful game for me, in the second half. I decided early to not bother with fighting for positioning on the initiative track. That was a very bad mistake, and I think it was especially so because it was a 5-player game. For many rounds, I did not have $3 to spare and was forced to choose the last action which noone wanted. That's how I ended up with 3 sacks of rice. Those were not surplus after the famines. I was forced to collect them after the famines had already passed. I had to fire people because I couldn't afford to pay income tax. Some people had to be "retired" when the plague came and I didn't have enough doctors. My palaces crumbled because there weren't enough staff for maintenance. All hell broke loose and I could only pray for the game to end sooner. So it was quite fitting that I was left with one old monk.

I have now played almost 250 games of Race for the Galaxy. I have played 30+ 2-player games with The Gathering Storm, the first expansion. Being a big fan of Race for the Galaxy, there was no doubt that I'd buy this expansion. I also fully intend to buy the next two expansions, although there is no confirmed date even for the next one.

I like The Gathering Storm, and will not be playing without it in future. It adds more to the game, and provides more variety. More start worlds, more 6-cost development cards, Improved Logistics, a development which indeed can change the pace of a game dramatically. In summary, more and better. And I also think of it as more complete, as strategies around gene worlds and alien goods worlds are more viable now. They used to be quite hard to execute in the base game.

I actually like the objectives aspect of the game. Every game, there are two 5VP most-of objectives (e.g. most novelty goods and rare elements worlds) and four 3VP first-to objectives (e.g. first player to have more than 10 cards at the end of a round and have to discard) randomly decided. When I first found out about them, I thought they would be quite tedious, and I didn't expect to like them. Something distracting and not fun, something that makes the game not pure anymore. Other players also think they introduce more luck. If your starting world and your starting hand are not helpful towards any of the randomly drawn objectives, then you are out of luck. So initially I played without the objectives.

Later I decided to try it out, just to see how it plays. It turned out to be quite alright. There is some luck, but I don't mind it. It isn't tedious. It adds another consideration when you play, which I find interesting. There are some games where neither of us have cards tending strongly to any particular strategy, and we end up choosing the strategy which can help us more towards the objectives. There is also a game of chicken in the first-to objectives. You have a 6-cost dev card that you can play, but do you want to play it now, depleting your hand, or do you play it later, hoping your opponent won't play one before you? I will likely continue to play with the objectives.

In this game I was very lucky with my card draws. My start world allowed me to settle rare element worlds very cheaply. The early Settles allowed me to Trade and earn more cards. Then I had both Tourist World and Galactic Trendsetters. I went for the consume strategy and scored 30VPs. The bigger tile is the most novelty goods / rare element worlds objective tile. The smaller tile is the first to gain 5 VP chips objective tile.