Brian Lee
United States
Northridge
California
-
It has many elements that I like. The game looks great. The board is well illustrated and bright. The train and development pieces are great to use and are preferred over plastic trains. The game can fit a great 2-6 players. The rules are relatively easy to learn. Finally and probably most importantly, the game packs a very deep game within 30 minutes to an hour.
The thing about the game that has to be emphasized is that it is REALLY opaque when you play it at first. There are numerous things that you should do at a given moment that will be missed by new players easily at first play. People are trained to control their own pieces from other Euros out there. That won't work in this game. Other people will bid massively high on shares that won't generate profit at all.
It's a great game no doubt, but it's playability for most players will be low because they will inevitably throw the game due to unconscious mistakes that they make. Playing with veteran players (or great math geeks) seem to be the only way of getting the most out of the game. The game also demands multiple plays to get players collectively better at the game.
With that said, I probably won't play it with the gamers I meet because there's just a LOT of hoops to watch out for like: the importance of getting an initial share when you are last in a 5-6 player game, saving off some money for an anticipated initial Wabash share, sabotaging a lopsided red, etc. It's like when you see these mistakes, especially early on, you can easily foresee the end of the game.
-
-
Yeah, a great game. You should also try German Railways.
-
Blorb Plorbst
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
I think we're all bozos on this bus.
-
I've ended up teaching this game at Gencon for the last 2 or 3 years. I try to emphasize to people that on your first play, regardless of how you do (win or lose) you will have no idea how you ended up there.
It's invariably true.
It took me about 3 plays before the lightbulb went on and I was finally ready to make meaningful choices.
You really need a committed core of gaming partners to play this game but I think when it works, it works quite well.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
AFAICT you have listed strong advantages of the game. There aren't many games with carefully thoughtful players still making basic mistakes and learning simple lessons on their 50th play.
-
Jake Waltier
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
Most of your post consists of thoughtful comment/criticism/warning and well-deserved praise, but this bit surprised me:
Revelade wrote: The game can fit a great 2-6 players.
I have never heard anyone speak favorably about the 5-6 player game, and I have only seen one BGG member speak highly of the 2 player experience. I consider CE an excellent 3-4 player game, and haven't bothered with more - in fact, I warn people away from it. Would you please elaborate on your experiences with 5-6 players?
-
Jake Waltier
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
RoadHouse wrote:
Thanks. I had no idea this existed. I'll check it out.
-
Brian Lee
United States
Northridge
California
-
TwentySides wrote: Most of your post consists of thoughtful comment/criticism/warning and well-deserved praise, but this bit surprised me: Revelade wrote: The game can fit a great 2-6 players. I have never heard anyone speak favorably about the 5-6 player game, and I have only seen one BGG member speak highly of the 2 player experience. I consider CE an excellent 3-4 player game, and haven't bothered with more - in fact, I warn people away from it. Would you please elaborate on your experiences with 5-6 players?
-
Jake Waltier
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
Revelade wrote: I don't see what makes a 5-6 player game worse than 4 players; you'll need to ask a veteran here for that.
Clearclaw, would you chime in on this?
Revelade wrote: That's why it's not as viable as say Ticket to Ride where you can focus on your own game almost ignorinc everyone else.
That's got to be the first time Ticket to Ride has ever been compared to Chicago Express.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
TwentySides wrote: Clearclaw, would you chime in on this?
There's no need. As he said, it is all about control.
-
Eric Flood
United States
Sunnyvale
California
-
Revelade wrote: With that said, I probably won't play it with the gamers I meet because there's just a LOT of hoops to watch out for
When you meet a fantastic game which you are interested in spending more time with, the proper response is not to discard it due to any conflicting preferences of those around you; rather, one should instead seek people which are a proper fit for the game(s) you love.
I believe this to be a correct statement if you replace "game" with "partner," and this is where the philosophy behind the sentiment stems from.
-
Brian Lee
United States
Northridge
California
-
Ticket to Ride was used to explain a feature of that game because it's a well-known game. The idea here is that all the players are able to play fairly independent of each other, therefore, 2 good players are able to compete with little harassment.
Chicago can have 2 good players, but the game will be thrown if a poor player decides to do poor play such as bringing red to Chicago even when he only has 1 red share to another player's 2 red shares. It's not that he is intentionally throwing the game, but because he is not able to understand what he is doing. This is why people call this game sensitive.
And don't get me wrong, I love the game. If I had the right gamers for it, it would see play a lot. But the people I know have never heard of the game, nor are many able to play it correctly, which leads to me giving strategic hints as we play. It's also an environment where people tend to bounce onto different games a lot, so any learning will probably be lost. So sadly, it's not really viable in my situation.
I'm on a new quest to find a game that has many of the great traits about CE, but is not as sensitive as this game. Specifically a game that has a lot of depth, quick playing time and medium rule complexity.
-
-
Telling that the owning % is important, not the number of shares is already a lot and the null auction is a way to protect your bigger owning percentage.
I think that the players should be made aware that CE is a tight game, not a light treatment by any means. The appearance is decieving if you only look at the components and the fairly simple rules.
I read the forums quite a lot before my 1st play just because that I or others wouldn't play this horribly wrong and then slandering game. The tips I was able to give to my very good fellow gamers were enough to create a satisfying first game, even though we probably have a ton of things to learn.
-
Doug Bass
United States
Winston-Salem
North Carolina
-
Revelade wrote: If I had the right gamers for it, it would see play a lot. But the people I know have never heard of the game, nor are many able to play it correctly, which leads to me giving strategic hints as we play. It's also an environment where people tend to bounce onto different games a lot, so any learning will probably be lost. So sadly, it's not really viable in my situation.
I can understand this, and agree it sounds like a problem for your group, which is a shame.
Revelade wrote: I'm on a new quest to find a game that has many of the great traits about CE, but is not as sensitive as this game. Specifically a game that has a lot of depth, quick playing time and medium rule complexity.
If the people in your group bounce around from game to game, I'm not clear on how any game with a lot of depth will work well.
As far as looking for a similar game, which trait(s) of CE are you most looking for?
-
Brian Lee
United States
Northridge
California
-
Well, the perfect traits are:
- fast play: 30 minutes or so
- good range of players: 2-5
- replay value: can be done with lots of depth or with lots of variety
- concise rules
The only game that almost gets it is probably Race for the Galaxy. The only turn off is that the icons are difficult for new players. However the thing about this game that I like is that just because a bad player is making mistakes, it does not necessarily give the victory to another player.
-
Mikko Saari
Finland
http://www.lautapeliopas.fi/ - the best Finnish board game resource!
-
Samarkand: Routes to Riches matches your requirements pretty well. It's not as deep as Chicago Express, but I find it quite deep enough for something that can be played as fast as in 20 minutes. It's also much easier to teach and understand than Race for the Galaxy. Newbies may have a hard time at first, but it'll click during the first game.
Samarkand plays in 20-30 minutes fairly easy, works for the whole range of 2-5 (but shines for 3-4). There's enough random variables to give good replay value and the rules are simple.
-
Brian Lee
United States
Northridge
California
-
msaari wrote: Samarkand: Routes to Riches matches your requirements pretty well. It's not as deep as Chicago Express, but I find it quite deep enough for something that can be played as fast as in 20 minutes. It's also much easier to teach and understand than Race for the Galaxy. Newbies may have a hard time at first, but it'll click during the first game. Samarkand plays in 20-30 minutes fairly easy, works for the whole range of 2-5 (but shines for 3-4). There's enough random variables to give good replay value and the rules are simple. This sounds absolutely perfect. Thanks!
-
Brian Lee
United States
Northridge
California
-
I just wanted to add an update that I think Samarkand is the Golden Game for me now. It's REALLY easy to learn, I mean you just need to either build or marry on your turn. The game plays really fast as well and fits 2-5. It's the PERFECT GAME at least for my situation. I hope to play it more often and maybe more of Chicago if I ever get a hardcore group in it.
-
|
|
