-
What would be your reasons pro Le Havre and Contra Ora et Labora besides the component aspect? Or otherwise?
I d like to hear your point of view, becasue probably in the Ora forum they will try to convince me to buy Ora.
I am aware that these games aren't the same, but there are a lot of parallels and i am not sure which one is my favourite.
-
Nick Case
England
Epsom
Surrey
-
I own both, I like both. I'm not against either of them. I can't see through your eyes so you'll have to decide for yourself but as you rate Puerto Rico a 10, you wont go wrong with either of these.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
My opinion
Pro Ora:
-Is available now
-Turn order solution ("governor" player plays first and last in turn)
-Two modes
-Less fiddly (elegant wheel solution)
-Settling phase instead of feeding (better theme integration and more satisfying as well)
-Geometric aspect of home base
-Prior mechanic is cool and adds another layer to gameplay
Pro Le Havre
-Decent components (just this makes le havre better IMO, they are really different)
-Random parts of set up
-Theme (highly subjective but I preffer Le Havre's)
-No problem seeing other players cards
-A tad faster (?? my impression but i am not sure ??)
-Established as a great game (although O&L looks like it is set to become a top 20)
-More interactive, using other players buildings is more common, blocking is easier, and digging for buildings add more interaction
They are both great games, I would buy the two if O&L had semi decent components. I am waiting for the next print runs of both.
-
David McGregor
United States
Flint
Michigan
-
Keep in mind I have only played Ora 3 times but my major concern is that it will become mechanical due to the lack of any randomized setup.
Le Havre features random special buildings and a semi random setup of the regular buildings which require slight strategic changes as the game goes on.
Ora has the same set up time after time. This could be remedied by a cheap card expansion adding special buildings. Maybe they are planning that?
Le Havre is my favorite game of all time. Ora is damn close.
P.S. The component issues talked about are blown way out of proportion and nearly make me angry. Ora is one of the best designed games I have played and I would happily play it on bar napkins. The fact people won't buy it because the "chits are hard to punch" or "the play mats are thin" is stunning to me. Why are people so whiny?
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
DavidMcGregor wrote: Why are people so whiny?
I am not going to get in a flame with you but in your point of view we are whiny, in my point of view you are a sheep that has no spine. You would accept napkins I demand value for my money, each one with their opinion.
Don't bring up that you think I am whiny and I don't bring up that I think you are a spineless sheep and everyone will be happy.
-
Jason Begy
United States
Cambridge
Massachusetts
I study games and gamers at the Singapore-MIT GAMBIT Game Lab.
I hate bowling. It's just multiplayer solitaire.
-
I agree that the components are mostly fine, though the copy I played with did require cutting some of the resource chits with a razor blade.
Anyway, even assuming perfect components, I think Le Havre is the better game. Here's why:
1. Theme. In Le Havre, what buildings do makes sense, in Ora et Labora, it often does not.
2. Visibility. In OeL it's hard to tell what your options are because you have to squint at everyone's crowded, tiny boards. In Le Havre it's much easier to know.
3. Variability. Le Havre is low on randomness, but I would say it's the perfect amount. Every game of LH is slightly different, while every game of OeL will be more or less the same. This is due to LH's random resource circles, and more importantly, the weighted randomness of the building order. In OeL the same buildings come out at the same time every time.
4. Information. I find OeL to have too many resource types, and the long supply chains make it much harder to learn than LH.
5. Resources. In LH the resource chits are much nicer. Yes they are thinner, but they have more information on them, and most importantly, the backs of the chits make sense! In OeL I am constantly asking, "what is on the back of what? and why?"
For me it's no contest. OeL is a good game, but LH is a great game.
-
Barry
United States
Perrysburg
Ohio
-
I would argue that Ora is more interactive than Le Havre. The only interaction in Le Havre is denial of resources and buildings. In Ora, you gain the added bonus of tying up the other players' clergyman. For example, you can use the next players' building and tie up his prior so he cannot use it for whatever he planned on building that turn.
Also in favor of Ora et Labora is the fact that people won't pronounce it incorrectly. I cringe every time someone says "Le Harv".
-
Häs Brommer
Massachusetts
-
tkzubaran wrote: DavidMcGregor wrote: Why are people so whiny? I am not going to get in a flame with you but in your point of view we are whiny, in my point of view you are a sheep that has no spine. You would accept napkins I demand value for my money, each one with their opinion. Don't bring up that you think I am whiny and I don't bring up that I think you are a spineless sheep and everyone will be happy.
-
Jeremy Oppenheim
United States
Reston
Virginia
-
I enjoy both Le Havre and Ora et Labora.
OeL definitely solves the 'fiddly' 'problem' of resource seeding each turn. But it doesn't have the 'pressure' where every few turns you need to feed. Sure, it has the settlement phase, but that's not mandatory. I feel it's a little more friendly.
Both games have a puzzle aspect, but Le Havre can be more punishing if you don't get your food engine running early. I like that about LH, but it's not for everyone.
-
Loren Cadelinia
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
-
Jasonbartfast wrote:
5. Resources. In LH the resource chits are much nicer. Yes they are thinner, but they have more information on them, and most importantly, the backs of the chits make sense! In OeL I am constantly asking, "what is on the back of what? and why?"
I definitely agree. The double resources are just better implemented in LH in a thematic and intuitive way.
-
Jason Rupp
United States
Cedar Rapids
Iowa
-
DavidMcGregor wrote:
P.S. The component issues talked about are blown way out of proportion and nearly make me angry. Ora is one of the best designed games I have played and I would happily play it on bar napkins. The fact people won't buy it because the "chits are hard to punch" or "the play mats are thin" is stunning to me. Why are people so whiny?
That's fine if you think Ora is a great game but I think it's foolish of you to get so upset about people unhappy with the component quality. That's fine if you'd be happy playing the game with napkins, but others would not.
It's not a case of "chits are hard to punch", it's a case of my chits are ripped up and look like crap because of the print issue.
Here's a picture of my chits... would you be happy with them?
-
Jason Rupp
United States
Cedar Rapids
Iowa
-
To stay on topic, here are my thoughts:
Pro Le Havre:
- More Stress
- Only 3 buildings available to build at a time compared to 10+ in Ora. 10+ is too many options and encourages AP.
- Ability to buy a building instead of build it.
- I love the choice of selling your building to do something grand.
- Settlements are a major factor for points in Ora (typically over 50% of your points) but the choices with them aren't fun or interesting. Everyone has the same settlements and the only difference is where you put them. They don't do anything for you besides give you points. It doesn't take long to figure out the best way to place your settlements. Future games you'll be forced to do the same thing over and over which will get stale. It's not a difficult choice but it's important.
- There's an extra step in Le Havre before you turn your goods into VP. In Le Havre you will often upgrade your goods (i.e. iron->steel) but then you also need to ship them off or build a ship to actually get the points. In Ora, you upgrade your goods and then you already have the points. This takes a bit of stress out of the game. Sure you can upgrade them even more but there is no dire need to. It's not like in Le Havre where you run out of time and you're left with worthless goods.
- The special buildings will often change your strategy when they come out.
-Buildings can be placed in the center of the table so everyone can easily see which actions are available. In Ora, you can use all buildings but they stay in front of each player which makes it very difficult.
Pro Ora:
- More choices and paths to victory
- 2 Variants
- Seems to play both 3 and 4 players well. Le Havre doesn't play 2,4 or 5 players very well in my opinion.
After my first game I thought Ora was JUST LIKE Le Havre but without my favorite parts. Le Havre is much tighter game. They added more choices but it felt blander. Do note that I've only played a single game of Ora so far though, so it's just a first impression. I enjoyed Ora, but it's so similar to Le Havre that I can't see myself playing it much unless I see the light in the next few games.
-
Matthew Tadyshak
United States
Allen
Texas
-
I have played Le Havre many many times, and Ora 6 times. Le Havre is one of my favorite games. I really like Ora, it's a very good game in it's own right I say.
-
Ryan M
Canada
Saskatchewan
-
I also love both games but here is my initial impressions after only play OeL a handful of times.
Pro OeL:
- less stress. The lack of a feeding phase and the seeming dedication of resource types gives players plenty of choices while always being clear what they will need different types for (ie. energy/food for settlements vs resources for building vs resources for points).
- many paths to victory
- I've found people really enjoy seeing what they build grow and develop in front of them. I noticed this with Agricola and now OeL.
- I personally love the work order and prior ideas as well as how your choices limit as you use your clergymen.
Con OeL:
- The static building set up and shared settlements makes the game less random. May start to feel "same-y" after a while despite the countless choices toward points.
Pro LH:
- more thematic. Building up your shipping empire and them eventually shipping your goods is great and you really feel you are doing this.
- more random. The special buildings as well as random layout of resource circles and buildings (semi-random) makes each game feel a little different.
- more complicated = (maybe) more strategic? I haven't play OeL enough to really be sure of this.
- nicer looking. This is a personal preference, but I just think LH is a great looking game visually.
- ability to block buildings for a number of turns. I like OeL for what it does, but I also like LH for how it handles using other people's buildings. They are different but equally good.
Con LH:
- more complicated = (maybe) more strategic? I've added this in both places. When I've introduced LH to people, they are really confused about what they are doing and the point. Even though both LH and OeL are basically about building up resources to convert into point, LH has some extra steps in the building ships and shipping concept. It requires more planning than OeL and until you've played a few times it is hard to know when you need to start shifting focus from building to shipping. Also, the increasing need to feed your workers adds another layer of pressure for players to worry about (as well as potential loan strategies). So these things are amazing if you are very familiar with the game but are way more confusing for new players I find, than OeL has been.
- Player number really changes the game. I put this as a negative because it REALLY changes the feel of the game. Even the rulebook warns against playing with 5p unless everyone is very experienced with the game already. I've only played 2p or 4p and they are almost completely different games, not just because of the cards but because of how many turns you will get before feeding phases and how that affects your planning/strategy. So far I feel OeL scales much better with 2 or 4 players.
- Lack of expansions. I think OeL will be more possible to expand with new regions or new settlements. Heck, maybe even new resources (replacing grapes? Or coming into play along side stone?) Unfortunately, for whatever reason, LH hasn't really had much expansion attention other than special cards and with that, you only ever use 6 (and they might not all come into play anyway) . I think it is because the games theme and balance all work just right making it much more difficult to start changing things with expansions.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
Mools wrote: Pro OeL:
- less stress.
rrrrupp wrote: Pro Le Havre:
- More Stress
-
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
For those that care, I found the two-player game of Ora & Labora to feel far too "easy", with almost no tension. Le Havre still maintains the tension by having increased food requirements.
I prefer both games with four players, and while Ora & Labora is a good game, I give the nod to Le Havre. I am concerned that my good feelings for O&L are strictly due to still being in the "figuring the game out" phase, but time will tell. I have played Le Havre quite a bit and the randomized buildings surprisingly do make the game very re-playable.
-
|
|
