Tyler Durden
Germany
Goettingen
Visit my blog: www.brettspielblog.net
-
Battle for Hill 218 wird ja bekanntermaßen überall gelobt. Diese Begeisterung kann ich leider nicht ansatzweise teilen und ich sehe auch keinerlei Potential das sich das jemals ändern wird. Warum? Dazu im folgenden mehr.
Worum gehts?
Der Name sagt alles. Es geht um den Hügel 218. Um diesen kämpfen zwei fiktive, absolut identische Armeen, unterstützt durch Luftschläge. Wer den anderen zuerst vertrieben und seine Base besetzt hat gewinnt. Sind alle Karten gezogen und gespielt gewinnt derjenige der mehr Gegner getötet hat. Soweit, so einfach
Wie gehts?
Die Karten (und es sind sehr wenige Karten) stellen Einheiten dar. Jede Karte gibt an wo sie ausgespielt werden darf (man spielt auf einem imaginären Gitter), welche Einheiten getötet werden können und welche eigenen Einheiten für dieses Ausschalten die gespielte Einheit unterstützen müssen.
In die Tischmitte wird der Hügel 218 gelegt, an diesen muss immer eine eigene Karten, die Base angrenzen. Wird diese vom Gegner erobert gewinnt dieser.
Jeder hat drei Karten auf der Hand. In seinem Zug zieht jeder Spieler erst zwei Karten und spielt dann zwei, dabei werden eventuelle Effekte sofort abgehandelt.
Das wars eigentlich auch schon. Zusätzlich gibt es noch zwei Flugeinheiten, die an einen beliebigen Ort gespielt werden können, allerdings nur für den Support zuständig sind, Luftschläge mit denen man einfach eine Karte des Gegners aus dem Spiel nehmen darf, sowie Panzer und Artillerie, welche keine Unterstützung benutzen.
Worum gehts wirklich?
Das glücklichere Händchen beim Kartenziehen haben. Die Einheiten sind leider wenig abwechslrungreich und auch nicht wirklich zahlreich. Eine Partie sollte zwischen 5 - 15 Minuten dauern. Viele taktische Möglichkeitne gibt es nicht, man ist durch seine Karten ziemlich beschränkt. Die Infanterie ist naturgemäß sehr schwach und wirft einen meistens zwei Züge zurück. Muss ich mir mühsam mit Infanterie eine Schlachtlinie aufbauen, welche dann mit einer Aktion von der Artillerie des Gegners zerstört wird kann ich im Prinzip gleich aufgeben.
Meinung
Mit Schach oder gar Hive kann dieses Spiel nicht ansatzweise mithalten. Ich denke mal, das ich dieses Spiel im Alter zwischen 10 - 14 sehr geil gefunden hätte. Heute ist es allerdings absolut lahm. Letztlich trifft man in diesem Spiel absolut keine relevanten Entscheidungen, es wird einem alles durch die Karten vorgegeben. In der Regel wird man mehr gespielt, als das man spielt. Wer nur doof zieht, sieht keine Sonne, und dann kann das Spiel auch mal nach drei oder vier Zügen vorbei sein. Meistens dauerts wohl ein wenig länger, aber selbst dann kommt es eigentlich drauf an wer mit seiner Artillerie am meisten Einheiten abräumen konnte.
Das Spiel hat als Zweipersonenkartenspiel für unter 8€ sicher seine Daseinsberechtigung und dieses Spiel kann man sicher auch nett finden, aber der große Hit als der es überall angekündigt wird ist es definitiv nicht. Schade eigentlich. Ein Carddriven Wargame für zwei Personen in unter 30 Minuten klingt eigentlich sehr reizvoll.
And GoogleTranslate translate this to
Battle for Hill 218 is indeed known to be praised everywhere. This enthusiasm unfortunately I can not begin to share and I see no potential at this will ever change that. Why? Given in the following more.
===================
What's this?
The name says it all. It's about the hill 218th To fight these two fictional, absolutely identical armies, supported by air strikes. Who the other first sold and occupied his base wins. When all the cards drawn and played to win one of the more enemies killed. So far, so simple
Flow of Play?
The cards (and there are very few tickets) are units dar. Each map indicates where they may be played (played on an imaginary grid), which units may be slaughtered and their supporting units for this unit must be off the playing.
In the middle of the table down the hill is 218, this must always be at your own cards, bordering the base. If this gains won by the opponents of this.
Each has three cards in hand. In his first train each player draws two cards and then plays two, it will be immediately dealt with possible effects.
That's basically it. In addition, there are two air units that can be played at any location, with responsibility only for support would be air strikes with which one can simply take a map of the enemy from the game, as well as armor and artillery, which use no support.
What really are you?
have the knack for drawing cards. The units are unfortunately little abwechslrungreich and not particularly numerous. A game should be between 5 - take 15 minutes. There are many tactical Möglichkeitne it, one of his cards is quite limited. The infantry is naturally very weak and looks back usually two trains. Do I have difficulty with infantry build me a battle line, which is then destroyed by an action of the artillery of the enemy I can basically give up.
Feedback
With chess or even hive can not keep up this game basically. I think that I have this game at the age of 10 - would have found 14 very cool. Today, however, it is absolutely lame. Ultimately, you take absolutely no relevant decisions in this game, it is an all dictated by the cards. As a rule, is played more than that to play. Who draws only looks stupid, no sun, and then the game may be over after three or four times and trains. Usually took about a little longer, but even then it is actually on it to those who could clear his artillery on most units.
The game can sure as a two-person card game for up to 8 € its right to exist and this game can certainly find nice, but the big hit as it is widely announced, it is not definitive. Too bad. A Card Driven Wargame for two in under 30 minutes actually sounds very appealing.
-
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
-
Obviously I'm biased, but the idea that there are no relevant decisions to be made in a game of Hill 218 is simply not correct.
I was still improving after over 200 plays and even now I often encounter situations where I'm not sure what the optimal play is.
-
David Low
Australia
Canberra
ACT
-
Any thoughts I may have initially entertained along the lines of the original post were quickly (brutally, humiliatingly...) dispelled by the free AI. In the absence of human opponents for a while, the AI taught me a lot about strategy (="hand management" for the most part, perhaps, here).
Link to AI download: http://www.honte.org/Hill_218/Hill.html
-
Frank Domick
Germany
Duesseldorf
NRW
-
I'm with dlow here. Try a few games against the AI. I can't seem to win against it, even when it is in easy mode. I guess this game is quite on par with Hive when it comes to depth.
Give it another shot using the excellent AI.
-
Chris toph
Germany
Mannheim
-
dlow wrote: Any thoughts I may have initially entertained along the lines of the original post were quickly (brutally, humiliatingly...) dispelled by the free AI. In the absence of human opponents for a while, the AI taught me a lot about strategy (="hand management" for the most part, perhaps, here). Link to AI download: http://www.honte.org/Hill_218/Hill.html
Indeed. I took a lot of swearing and many tries before I could beat it (on hard). And it still beats me most games.
-
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
-
Yeah, after enjoying the game many times with human players, I finally played some games against the AI, prompted by this thread.
Man, on easy setting it took me about 8 games before I won! 
The game is not just a "luck of the draw" game with simple obvious decisions... 
-
Timo Haas
Germany
8.4.2012...
8.4.2012...
-
I play the game a lot on my pc in breaks between other tasks (working at home, you know...). After some hundreds of games on the harder difficulty I want to share some experiences:
1. Bad draws indeed can make you loose the game (no artillery for the first turns and you will be overwhelmed), but mostly you have chances to manage your cards.
2. Always keep in mind which cards have been played already. Your opponent is loosing possibilities as the game goes on - same with you...
3. Initiative is absolutly crucial! As long as possible prevent your opponent from playing two cards freely: attack his base or give him some threat to handle.
4. Learn how to defend and how to attack. Find the weak spots. The AI was a good and cruel teacher 
5. Learn about the right time to attack! Attacking too early is as bad as attacking too late.
At last here is a useful guide to strategy: Eklund's Hill 218 Guide.
Edit: typo
-
Andrew Gross
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
BTW, the AI doesn't even card count. It would play better if it kept track of which cards the human had played and took that into account when it made its moves.
-
David Low
Australia
Canberra
ACT
-
andrewgr wrote: BTW, the AI doesn't even card count. It would play better if it kept track of which cards the human had played and took that into account when it made its moves.
Don't tell me that - it makes me feel even more inadequate 
-
Mike Fox
United States
Fort Worth
Texas
-
Well, my review is the previous one on this game's BGG page, and obviously I wholeheartedly disagree with this review. The more you play The Battle for Hill 218, the deeper it gets. I said in my own review that it's somewhere between Chess and Checkers as far as depth goes, and I still stand by that assessment. There are lots of decisions and options that you can make on each turn, and every decision impacts the game.
I encourage anyone who read this review to read my own for another perspective. I've got a lot of plays in and still find it to be a very fun, satisfying game.
EDIT:
I forgot to say anything about the AI! I've only played it on "hard," and it's a huge challenge. I probably win about 1 out of every 5 or 6 games (maybe 6 or 7), with some larger losing streaks occasionally. Very satisfying when you beat the AI!
-
Tyler Durden
Germany
Goettingen
Visit my blog: www.brettspielblog.net
-
well i have never seen so much going on in one of my review posts
following your suggestions i played some more games, many against the AI (won 2 of 30 games till now) and some more against a human opponent.
i figured out that we played some important things (like killing all units in the range of an artillerie instead of just one) and so the game became more and more interessting, and i think i have to rewrite my review in the next days after some more plays.
but i think this review was good either way, especially for me. Without it, i wouldn't have give this game another chance.
so guys if you made the same first experiences like me, don't resign and give this small little game a chance. it's better than it first seems
-
Andrew Gross
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
I'm pretty sure that an entire thread where everyone disagrees in a polite, civilized manner, and the original poster graciously allows himself to reconsider his original opinion, is a sign of the Apocolypse. I'm gonna live it up tonight just in case there's no tomorrow.
-
Jason Sherlock
United States
Anaheim Hills
California
-
andrewgr wrote: BTW, the AI doesn't even card count. It would play better if it kept track of which cards the human had played and took that into account when it made its moves.
I am not sure about that. I saw the AI change how it was playing after I had used up my last Special Forces. It seems to be watch for whether I can play certain combos having to do with Heavy Weapons, Airstrikes and Special Forces, and adjusts its aggressiveness accordingly.
-
Andrew Gross
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
jackalope wrote: andrewgr wrote: BTW, the AI doesn't even card count. It would play better if it kept track of which cards the human had played and took that into account when it made its moves. I am not sure about that. I saw the AI change how it was playing after I had used up my last Special Forces. It seems to be watch for whether I can play certain combos having to do with Heavy Weapons, Airstrikes and Special Forces, and adjusts its aggressiveness accordingly.
I wrote the program, I promise it doesn't card count.
-
Jason Sherlock
United States
Anaheim Hills
California
-
andrewgr wrote: jackalope wrote: andrewgr wrote: BTW, the AI doesn't even card count. It would play better if it kept track of which cards the human had played and took that into account when it made its moves. I am not sure about that. I saw the AI change how it was playing after I had used up my last Special Forces. It seems to be watch for whether I can play certain combos having to do with Heavy Weapons, Airstrikes and Special Forces, and adjusts its aggressiveness accordingly. I wrote the program, I promise it doesn't card count.
You would know. However, I think that your AI is becoming self aware.
Great piece of programming. Thanks for putting it together. 
-
|
|
