Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
First of all, I like Magnate quite a bit. It is a fun and fast paced game with fairly interesting decisions to make throughout the game. I’ve played only with my wife, and we’ve probably played close 30 games over the past few weeks. However, I’m starting to have a few critiques and things I don’t like about the game.
At the end of the game (last 1 or 2 turns each) I can’t help but feeling like the winner is almost determined at random based on the final role of the dice and/or card draws. I don’t feel like there is much either player can do over the course of the game at a strategic level to position themselves significantly better than the other player going into the end of the game. If both players play smart and in an optimal fashion, the end game comes down to whether to you get a favorable die roll for resources and/or avoid a big taxation hit.
Sure, you can mitigate your risk by having a range of card numbers built and by holding onto mid/higher number cards to play in the last 1-2 turns to jump ahead, but if both players do this well, it forces the result back into feeling very random. Often whoever has the last say (play) determines the outcome.
Perhaps this situation results because my wife and I are both playing the game in a similar fashion and/or are evenly matched? We’ve both tried and discussed a variety of different play styles, but inevitably it keeps coming down to the rolls / card draws on the last 1-2 turns. Maybe we are missing something?
I think part of this problem might be a result of the binary scoring system. Since the districts are winner take all for points, it often forces a situation of very close competition in 1 or 2 districts, and as a consequence if you can’t keep pressing in a district you’ll likely loose. Even when it is close, the die rolls can swing the final play in one players favor, leaving the lagging player with no means of catching up.
I almost wonder if there is an alternative scoring system that has players calculate scores in the five districts based on the difference in score in each district, counting only their positive difference. That way there is an incentive to keep the gap narrow on multiple districts rather than just "give up" competing in a district your are unlikely to be able to win in. Plus I like more continuous scoring ranges (ala Lost Cities) rather than hard binary scoring.
Other ideas for possible variations, mainly to reduce randomness:
I wonder if the hand size should be increased, perhaps up to 5 cards. You could continue to play out your hand down to 2 cards each after the draw pile runs out at the end. This might give players more flexibility and options for stockpiling and/or sequencing card plays in the late game in a more strategic fashion. Plus nothing is worse than having a hand of 1’s and 2’s in the final turns, not much to do about it. Another option might be to allow players to draw the top card of the discard pile too?
Another option is what if instead of using dice (granted dice are clean) there were two stacks of cards numbered 1-10. You would shuffle each and work through the stacks instead of rolling dice, but it would otherwise work the same. This system could add more certainty into resource collection while preventing streaks in the die roll that can often put one player way ahead of another.
Anyway, I do like Magnate a lot. In its nature, it is a very tight and close game in terms of who is winning, but unfortunately the random elements feel like the game becomes less about making novel strategic/tactical choices and more about optimal play with a lucky winner.
-
Lacombe
Louisiana
It was a dark and stormy night.
-
Mezmorki wrote: At the end of the game (last 1 or 2 turns each) I can’t help but feeling like the winner is almost determined at random based on the final role of the dice and/or card draws. I don’t feel like there is much either player can do over the course of the game at a strategic level to position themselves significantly better than the other player going into the end of the game. If both players play smart and in an optimal fashion, the end game comes down to whether to you get a favorable die roll for resources and/or avoid a big taxation hit.
I'm not sure this is much different end-game vs. mid-game, but the criticism is valid.
Still, I'm pretty sure I've lost more games than I've won being the last person to play.
Quote: I almost wonder if there is an alternative scoring system that has players calculate scores in the five districts based on the difference in score in each district, counting only their positive difference. That way there is an incentive to keep the gap narrow on multiple districts rather than just "give up" competing in a district your are unlikely to be able to win in. Plus I like more continuous scoring ranges (ala Lost Cities) rather than hard binary scoring.
Ooooooh... that's definitely worth trying.
-
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
-
Are you playing with the Courts? I ask because they mitigate your worries to some extent. Unless you are ahead by 10, your opponent can take back a district that you thought was yours. In the late game, there are often enough resources to play one or even two courts.
-
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
Yes, we've been playing with the courts. They can certainly help.
Another idea ... what if players could play multiple cards from their hand each turn and then they draw back up to three? Still be limited to selling only 1 per turn.
I say this because often a situation results (being unlucky) someone ends up towards the end of the game with a hand of 1's and 2's. They don't have any high cards to play, they have a ton of resources, 1's and 2's aren't enough to sway the district scores, and there aren't enough turns left to play/sell the 1's and 2's and have a good chance of getting a better more useful card. You're kind of screwed at that point.
Anyway, just kicking ideas around for making the game slightly less dependent on the die rolls and/or luck of the draw. Giving people more options might open the game up a little more.
-
Lacombe
Louisiana
It was a dark and stormy night.
-
Mezmorki wrote: I say this because often a situation results (being unlucky) someone ends up towards the end of the game with a hand of 1's and 2's. They don't have any high cards to play, they have a ton of resources, 1's and 2's aren't enough to sway the district scores, and there aren't enough turns left to play/sell the 1's and 2's and have a good chance of getting a better more useful card. You're kind of screwed at that point.
One of the nicer things about the game is that you can both control and predict what cards you'll draw in the late game. If you don't want to be seeing lots of 1s and 2s, don't sell them off in the first half. If you're good enough at counting, you can know exactly which cards are available to draw in the late game [since you can see which have been sold and which have been played] and start making plans to get your resources to match the cards that you stand a 50-50 shot of drawing.
Near the end of the game, there are very specific cards available and very specific cards you need; winning the game seems to consist in making these two categories overlap as much as possible.
There's a lot of information in the game, and I think the subtleties of planning well for the end-game are a lot more interesting than you're giving them credit for. If you're just sitting there hoarding generic resources without an end-game plan in mind, I think it will come down to the luck of the draw / roll, but I really think there are ways that you can cleverly plan ahead to have an advantage over your opponent even though uncertainty and random chance will still play their part.
-
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
-
Also: Have you been playing with the new Ace rule?
It gives Aces more value in contested districts. It's now the default way to play for us.
-
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
-
We played yet more Magnate last night
We tired the Ace rule, but ended up not even using it. Maybe that was just coincidence.
Regardless, the ace rule doesn't seem particularly benefical to me. Having to pay three chips to play an ace isn't a great tradeoff unless you really don't have anything else do to and have excess money. It isn't all that often that you'll get more than thre matching suits for your ace unless you make a concentrated effort to build a lot in a district, but if you're doing that you are probably loosing elsewhere. Also need to keep in mind that playing an ace can limit your ability to build additional developments in a district.
I'd be incllined to keep the Ace rule as above but drop the ace's cost to 1 as the card would suggest. It might actually make ace's really worth having in the second half of the game and holding onto until the final rounds. Would level the play field against another player with a bunch of courts.
-
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
-
Mezmorki wrote:
I'd be incllined to keep the Ace rule as above but drop the ace's cost to 1 as the card would suggest. It might actually make ace's really worth having in the second half of the game and holding onto until the final rounds. Would level the play field against another player with a bunch of courts.
I suspect that it would always be better to build Aces then to sell them, then. That would mean that they'd all be built in the first pass through the deck, so there wouldn't be any left at the end of the game. This would also shorten the game a bit.
The idea of the present rule is that the Aces might count for enough to swing a contested district. So being stuck with mostly Aces at the end isn't as anti-climactic as if they're just worth one point.
If the weakness of Aces really bugs you, then you could try Nate's variant which makes them a kind of incremental Court. (In his variant, Nate actually swaps the Aces and Crowns and then makes Crowns the supercard. It makes no difference to game play, of course. Since a roll of '10' gives you resources in your starting cards, I think it's more natural to have the starting cards be Crowns even in the variant - but YMMV.)
-
|
|
