Mark Goadrich
United States
Shreveport
Louisiana
-
Tonight, I pulled out a throwback to my childhood gaming, Domination. I found this while visiting my parents over Christmas, and brought it back to see how it would fare with our tuesday night gaming group. We're already 0-1 for old Sid Sackson games, as Quinto was underwhelming, but I still had hopes.
Domination is a pure abstract described by Sackson in his Gamut of Games book, and can be played with a checkers set. The rules are simple, move a stack as many spaces as it is tall, split a tower and move as many pieces as you split from the top, or use a reserve piece to cap any tower on the board. If there is no legal move, you lose. Sounds simple and elegant, just what we like to play. (for a full rules description, see Greg Schlosser's session report).
Matt was the first to arrive, so we set up the board for two players and started building our towers. In no time, there were half as many pieces on the board, giving us the feeling of a fast game on the way to a quick resolution. But then we started splitting towers, which opened our field of options, as well as capturing pieces, giving us reserve pieces (or paratroopers as I like to call them). All of a sudden, the end didn't look so near, and we continued shuffling pieces around the board. It made sense to always try to capture, since you're either taking your opponents pieces out of the game, or giving yourself reserve pieces. In the end, it was the reserve pieces that made the difference, as I was down to two 2-height towers and Matt had two pieces in reserve, capping my towers for the win.
Meanwhile, Mike and Kathleen stopped by, and since Domination had pieces for up to four players (not many abstracts do) we gave it a go with all four of us. Once again, the pieces stacked quickly at the beginning, but the middle game bogged down in the capturing of pieces and splitting of towers. After a good amount of maneuvering, Kathleen was the first person knocked out of play. But not for long; her pieces were hidden in some of the tall towers on the board, and before long, these towers were split and she was back in the game. Next it was Mike's turn to be eliminated. While splitting and revealing your opponent's color wasn't such a big deal in the two-player game, it could cause large swings in the four-person game. Mike was back in soon enough, and then I was out, and Mike was out, so it was Matt versus Kathleen, but soon enough I was back in with a tower. We were down to two to three towers each, and Matt was trying to stack his towers just right and eliminate more pieces, but he couldn't split them to be the correct height without letting others back in the game. I pounced and removed Kathleen's towers, jumped around a while to get a tall stack again, but revealed Kathleen, who then eliminated Matt. By now, it was about 1.5 hours into the game, and to end our frustration, Kathleen committed suicide and set me up for the capture win. But I recorded it as a win for everyone, or at least a draw.
The game had the speed of Checkers moves, but without the quick resolution we were hoping for. It seemed to build and then go nowhere. It reminded me of Chinese Checkers, where the endgame is all but determined half-way through the game, but here, we couldn't tell who would win; the game seemed over and time for a resignation, but we couldn't tell who would win. In Yinsh, one of our favorites, there is a rising tension as the board is filled with pieces, and it becomes inevitable to have a line of 5 possible somewhere; here, there was no rising tension, only frustration. Pieces were removed from the board at a snail's pace; in the four-player game we had only about 10 pieces left in total, but the game could have gone another 10 minutes were it not for Kathleen's sacrifice. If we had taken some time for deep thought and planned out our next few moves, we might have had a chance at a quick end game, but we felt like we were in Chess, chasing a king with a king and rook, but having no ideas for a good endgame strategy.
So, it might be heresy, but Sackson struck out again, 0-2 with the Goadrich Gamers. Domination might be back as a 2-player game for Laura and myself, but the four player game is out.
-
Chuck Uherske
United States
Rockville
Maryland
-
I haven't played the four player game and I've always suspected it might not work so well. But I've played a lot of 2-person games of Focus, and I've never had the negative experience you describe here. In fact, I've found that once one player has a significant advantage of an extra reserve or two and a good position by mid-game, the endgame can usually be executed fairly efficiently unless an error is made.
In reading the description above, I have trouble understanding why both players were splitting towers. Since you capture pieces and create reserves by building towers above 5, why would both players start splitting towers? If my opponent started knocking his towers back down, I'd continue building mine up and generating the captures and reserves by piling large stack on large stack. I find that most of the game comes down to figuring out how to generate high towers that you control on lines with each other. If your opponent checks out of the competition, so much the better for you -- just plunge your tall towers into each other and reap the proceeds.
I can see why occasionally a tower gets split as a defensive move, if a large stack is threatened by a small one. But that's a specific tactical event and can usually be worked past. I don't understand why someone would willfully undo their own progress in building towers up and undercutting their own ability to generate reserves and captures.
-
|
|
