Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
Brass is quickly becoming one of my favorite games. Along with Le Havre, Agricola and Hansa Teutonica: East Expansion this is one of my grade 10 games regarding gameplay. I do however have 3 things I would like to bitch about this game, here are them in order of which annoys me the most to the least:
1: The worst problem. It is hard to distinguish between flipped and unflipped tiles. Why there are not visual markings on the tiles so you can see which are flipped easily baffles me.
2: Price fixing. I think I got my money's worth for the game and would buy it again but when you compare with similar games such as Le Havre and Agricola that cost 30% less and are just as good component and gameplay wise I can't avoid but feeling icky I supported the company. I think it is a shame they made that vertical price fixing.
3: It is king maker prone. This is the thing that bothers me the least as I think there is no easy solution to this, but I decided the game between 2 other players last game night because I chose the iron from one of them and not the other and I got a bad feeling from it. I also got a big disadvantge in the beginning because I am one of the players who wins games the most and when people had an option people would flip other people ports, coal and iron instead of mine.
Even with this problems I think Brass is the master piece of Wallace and it gets better each time I play.
All Wallace games fora I visited had very big zealot followings lurking around, I expect this one to be the same so I assume lots of insults will follow.
-
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
1) The first edition (Warfrog) is easier to discern since the tiles have different shades of colour on each side. FRED "corrected" this in later printings, but they obviously should not have. Ironic that one of the few times the company gets colouring correct is on a game that was better without it correct.
2) Again, thank FRED.
3) The number of times I have played this as a face-to-face four-player game must be approaching 60 and there may have been two clear instances of kingmaking.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
dcorban wrote: The first edition (Warfrog) is easier to discern since the tiles have different shades of colour on each side. FRED "corrected" this in later printings, but they obviously should not have. Ironic that one of the few times the company gets colouring correct is on a game that was better without it correct.
OMG, I did not know that. What the hell.
You are right about king making, it is not a huge thing in the game and it should not even be a factor when everyone playing is somewhat skilled and the skill levels are more or less the same. I am setting really high standards to evaluate the game, and this is the only problem I had mechanics wise. It is remarkable how unique the game feels, how the theme shines through the mechanics and how intuitive the game feels considering in so rule intensive.
-
-
tkzubaran wrote: 3: It is king maker prone.
Rarely there is a situation that an experienced player wouldn't know who is winning the game and two or three players would be 100 % in an equal position to win the game. I think there are nearly always some gameplay factors why you shouldn't help a certain player and it has nothing to do with kingmaking. I would never raise kingmaking as an issue in Brass.
-
-
We've taken to using glass beads on unflipped cotton and ports, making them easier to distinguish.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
That is a fantastic idea! I have some clear glass beads that will be perfect.
-
Len
United States
Austin
Texas
-
tkzubaran wrote: Brass is quickly becoming one of my favorite games. Along with Le Havre, Agricola and Hansa Teutonica: East Expansion ... 2: Price fixing. I think I got my money's worth for the game and would buy it again but when you compare with similar games such as Le Havre and Agricola that cost 30% less and are just as good component and gameplay wise I can't avoid but feeling icky I supported the company. I think it is a shame they made that vertical price fixing. ...
Based upon your statement they are charging exactly what they should charge, i.e., the market price. 
By king-making, I would think only iron would be feasible (i.e., take one's iron over the others' as it is easy to transport). It seems it would be difficult to manage kingmaking in other ways due to the allowed movement of coal, and where you've built your network over the game. Is this the case in your games?
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
LSMB wrote: Based upon your statement they are charging exactly what they should charge, i.e., the market price.
A few points:
1- I am hopelessly addicted, I don't think I am that representative of the market.
2- I bet they lost more money than they made or else other companies would be doing the same by now.
3- You can't have many games on the level of Brass to extort you clientele. I recently bought Luna and Amyitis, I am happy with both purchases and I like both games but they are not on the level of Brass, I would not have bought either if the companies who sell them practiced the same policy as FRED.
4- You have aggregated value on your company's name, FRED is forever associated with sleazy market practices in my mind.
That said I prefer paying 50 euros for Brass than 35 for Ora et Labora which is cheaper but has really low quality components and quality control IMO (some people disagree).
LSMB wrote: By king-making, I would think only iron would be feasible (i.e., take one's iron over the others' as it is easy to transport). It seems it would be difficult to manage kingmaking in other ways due to the allowed movement of coal, and where you've built your network over the game. Is this the case in your games?
You can also choose which port to flip if you don't have a port of your own and the cotton market crashed or is about to.
-
Len
United States
Austin
Texas
-
tkzubaran wrote: LSMB wrote: Based upon your statement they are charging exactly what they should charge, i.e., the market price. A few points: 1- I am hopelessly addicted, I don't think I am that representative of the market. 2- I bet they lost more money than they made or else other companies would be doing the same by now. 3- You can't have many games on the level of Brass to extort you clientele. I recently bought Luna and Amyitis, I am happy with both purchases and I like both games but they are not on the level of Brass, I would not have bought either if the companies who sell them practiced the same policy as FRED. 4- You have aggregated value on your company's name, FRED is forever associated with sleazy market practices in my mind. That said I prefer paying 50 euros for Brass than 35 for Ora et Labora which is cheaper but has really low quality components and quality control IMO (some people disagree). LSMB wrote: By king-making, I would think only iron would be feasible (i.e., take one's iron over the others' as it is easy to transport). It seems it would be difficult to manage kingmaking in other ways due to the allowed movement of coal, and where you've built your network over the game. Is this the case in your games? You can also choose which port to flip if you don't have a port of your own and the cotton market crashed or is about to.
I would argue you are EXACTLY their target market.  As this is a hobby product, it seems extreme to classify this as "extortion". Of course, we are all free to choose to not do business with them.
I did not consider the choice of Ports. Good point, as it seem there is alot of port construction as the game nears the end, and with the built-up network you can choose just about any port.
-
Nathaniel Rounds
United States
West Lafayette
Indiana
-
Quote: 3: It is king maker prone. This is the thing that bothers me the least as I think there is no easy solution to this, but I decided the game between 2 other players last game night because I chose the iron from one of them and not the other and I got a bad feeling from it. I also got a big disadvantge in the beginning because I am one of the players who wins games the most and when people had an option people would flip other people ports, coal and iron instead of mine.
I'd like to respond to this charge of kingmaking in a little bit of detail. In summary, your charge is false, and the situations you describe only arise because the players in your games have made tactical or strategic errors.
1) Coal. In the rail era, coal will rarely stay on the board. If there is free coal, someone will invariably use it to build rail. If this isn't happening in your games, your group hasn't realized how lucrative rail are for VPs. In the canal era, it is certainly possible for coal to sit for a long time, and therefore you need to be careful about building too much coal. Moreover, it is possible for someone to build coal "in front" of yours, so that their coal must be used instead. For example, if you build coal in Burnley, say to build iron in Blackburn, someone else may build coal in Blackburn. Now you are going to have a hard time flipping that coal in Burnley. I would say that if your coal isn't getting flipped in canal, it's because:
i) you built it somewhere suboptimal
ii) you built coal when there were already several unflipped coal mines on the board
iii) you built your mill with the intent that it would not flip, as you intend to use it to build rail in the next era.
2) Iron. The situation you describe, where a player has multiple unflipped iron to choose from, should NEVER happen. Usually you want to build iron when it will immediately flip. Why? If you build iron that doesn't flip and leave cubes sitting on the board, you are giving the next player a free develop or the opportunity to build a cheap mill, or both. The next player should take the gift and use that free iron. Now, sometimes you have to build iron that doesn't immediately flip. But I can't imagine EVER building an iron when there is already free iron on the board.
3) Ports. Here I must finally agree with you; players certainly do have a choice about which ports to flip. However, this is a "known known" in choosing a ports strategy. You have to gauge what the demand for ports is going to be before you start developing ports. If 2 or 3 other players are developing cotton, well, probably they are going to need ports. If only 1 players is developing cotton, well, probably you can't count on him to flip all your ports. So if you pursue ports, you are probably going to have to build some mills of your own to make it work.
You didn't mention what is probably the strongest argument supporting the charge of kingmaking: overbuilding iron. It's certainly true that one tries to target the leader in overbuilding 2 and 3 iron. It's conceivable that there could be a game where player #1 has a choice between overbuilding the iron of player #2 and player #3 on the last turn of rail, and this choice will determine who wins. I haven't seen it happen, though.
-
Len
United States
Austin
Texas
-
Agree....kingmaker opportunities will be rare with better play.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
@garygarison
Used your idea, it is fantastic! The glass beads not only make an efficient visual aid, but they also look beautiful and it makes the building action more "constant", you always put something on the recently built building or flip it (in the case of the boat).
@LSMB
I used the word extort jokingly.
@prospero14
You may be correct in all counts as me and my group are learning the game as we play. No one of us reads strategy guides so we are probably making a lot of things sub optimally. It is somewhat common in our games to have more iron than needed, many prefer to delay their own factory build the iron themselves. One thing that gave an early lead in one game is that I (red) went for Manchester early on and went straight for the cotton mil there, my plan was getting the basic one two with the port and getting a central position early on. One friend (purple) built a cotton mil straight on Colne to try to flood the distant market. A third friend (yellow) made (what is in my opinion the mistake) of going for the port in Warrington, I think he thought I would flip his port. I obviously went for the distant market before purple. With that I got the best profit from the distant market while purple got the worst yielding and I was in a better position than him (later I actually used the distant market a second time with yellow's port and left it near crashing). All that because of yellow's port.
I think as everyone learns the game this sort of situation will happen less and less and what you said will be truth. Brass reminds me of Puerto Rico in this respect as unskilled players have huge influence in the outcome.
[edit] I stand corrected, all I got was constructive comments. Nice community in this board.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
Brass has shot to the top of my favorite games, every time I play it I like it more, it is now a legitimate contender to be my favorite game ever.
So I have a question, should I buy Age of Industry?
For what I see it is a streamlined version of Brass, I don't think the game needed to be streamlined but the fact that it is a different version of Brass got my attention. Is it different enough (so you have a grounding I, for instance, think Le Havre and Agriocla are very different games)? Is it as good as Brass?
-
Michael J
United States
Folsom
California
-
I don't think Age Of Industry is as good as Brass. It's not a bad game, but I think it removes some of the more interesting elements of Brass in favor of modularity. Modularity is a good goal, and Age Of Industry would still be considered a good game by most standards, but I think it removes some of the charm of Brass. The only reason you might want to buy it is to serve as a stepping stone for new players to Brass.
-
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
-
tkzubaran wrote: So I have a question, should I buy Age of Industry?
From my experience, no.
Brass is in my top three games. Age of Industry doesn't seem to be any more simple, other than coal and iron being treated the same. The game play is extremely tactical to a fault. There is little to no long-term strategy there, which is the complete opposite of Brass.
I received Age of Industry as part of the Treefrog subscriber program. My friends and I gave it a good shakedown, but ultimately it felt far inferior to me.
-
Tadeu Zubaran
Germany
Berlin
-
The more I read about it the less interested I get.
One thing in particular that bothered me is the removal of the canal era, one of the main pushes for research early is that you will score twice, also positioning for the era change is one of the highlights of the game for me.
Thanks for the feedback.
-
Len
United States
Austin
Texas
-
tkzubaran wrote: The more I read about it the less interested I get.
One thing in particular that bothered me is the removal of the canal era, one of the main pushes for research early is that you will score twice, also positioning for the era change is one of the highlights of the game for me.
Thanks for the feedback.
This is how I feel. A "streamlined" version sounds appealing if I want to play a shorter version at times, but I would miss having the canal period. I really like playing to set up the rail period.
I also read that AoI has about the same play time anyway...
-
-
Quote: 1) Coal. In the rail era, coal will rarely stay on the board. If there is free coal, someone will invariably use it to build rail. If this isn't happening in your games, your group hasn't realized how lucrative rail are for VPs. In the canal era, it is certainly possible for coal to sit for a long time, and therefore you need to be careful about building too much coal. Moreover, it is possible for someone to build coal "in front" of yours, so that their coal must be used instead. For example, if you build coal in Burnley, say to build iron in Blackburn, someone else may build coal in Blackburn. Now you are going to have a hard time flipping that coal in Burnley. I would say that if your coal isn't getting flipped in canal, it's because:
i) you built it somewhere suboptimal
ii) you built coal when there were already several unflipped coal mines on the board
iii) you built your mill with the intent that it would not flip, as you intend to use it to build rail in the next era.
2) Iron. The situation you describe, where a player has multiple unflipped iron to choose from, should NEVER happen. Usually you want to build iron when it will immediately flip. Why? If you build iron that doesn't flip and leave cubes sitting on the board, you are giving the next player a free develop or the opportunity to build a cheap mill, or both. The next player should take the gift and use that free iron. Now, sometimes you have to build iron that doesn't immediately flip. But I can't imagine EVER building an iron when there is already free iron on the board.
I have played roughly 20 games of Brass and from my experience, building for "on-board" demand is a inferior choice, except you are going to need that coal on your second action (best if combined by the opportunity to sell coal/iron to the distant market, leaving behind one cube for your own use.), preferably, one should try to build for the distant market autoflip on the first action of the round, supplying additional cash for the second action and leaving no free coal/iron for the other players.
As for the pricing, I payed 20EUR for a clearance bundle consisting of Brass and two other Pegasus games (forgot which, never played them), which I think is quite a bargain. But considering the many exciting hours of gaming fun, I would have paid 75EUR too. I usually approach it this way: For a cinema night with 4 People, you easily send 50EUR, which converts into rougly 3 hours of fun, a common price for a boardgame in germany is somewhere between 30-45EUR (excepting clearance, special deals etc.), which converts into much more hours of fun.
-
|
|
Posted Wed Feb 1, 2012 1:39 pm
