Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
13 Posts

Acquire» Forums » Variants

Subject: where have all the variants gone? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
A A
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I was surprised to find so few variant rules posted for this game. Wikipedia lists several variants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acquire). There is also the Special Powers variant (http://www.gamecabinet.com/rules/AcquireVariant.html).

I think an interesting idea, which I have yet to playtest, is allowing players one turn in the game to sell up to 3 stock cards at their current value (giving up the option to buy stock on that turn). This would give players a bit more flexibility, allowing them to make some money without a merger.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Blum
United States
Wilmington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
The special powers variant is in the links section and in the files section.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Teacher Fletcher
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What is really needed is a small variation in the rules to allow to help a player who gets shut out of the first 2 - 3 mergers and comes to a complete monetary standstill.

1) Allowing him to sell up to 3 stocks once per game could work, as is your idea.

2) Allowing him to take a loan at a certain percentage rate once per game could work, although I'm not sure what the limit of money should be and what the payback should be. This would probably unbalance the game too much by making it a viable strategy to overspend and then take big loans.

3) Giving the player a "welfare stipend" to allow him to somewhat stay in the game until he gets a merger payout.

4) Allowing the player to bow out of the game, and coming up with a way to have his purchased stocks be gradually reintroduced into the available stock pool. This is unforgiving and not fun or the eliminated player, but it's better than having to grind out a game where you have no chance of winning.

5) Starting the game with more money. Probably the least good option since I like the tightness of the game. The only problem is when it shuts out one of the players.

Thoughts?



 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Thompson
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The idea of "mortgaging" some of the stock you already own is probably the best idea. The game, Manila, does this exact thing for when players run out of money. No matter what the current value of stock is, players can get a loan from the bank for 10 pesos for every stock they choose to mortgage, but then at the end of the game they owe the bank 12 pesos. In Manila, 10 pesos would be enough to do two or maybe three things depending on what was chosen.

For me though, I would be hesitant to change the rules to Acquire in an effort to "fix" what people seem to think is a problem in the game with people running out of money mid-game. My opinion is that, one should realize that that scenario could happen to them and either plan for it or just expect it and deal with it.
Running out of money mid-game is less of a problem with only three players. I actually prefer to play with just three people. It is much easier to memorize and keep track of what stocks people have and for me it makes the game a very tense and tight competition for three people. In fact, a friend of mine refuses to play it if unless it is just a three player game.
Acquire is a fantastic game. I personally wouldn't mess with it or change it. Just play with three. It's awesome.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Trimmer
United States
Houston
TX-Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Acquire is for 4! Not more! Not less! 4!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Thompson
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How wonderfully narrow minded.
Have you ever tried it 3? It's "Da Bomb", Dude. You don't know what you're missing. In fact, IMO, most games are best with just three people with the obvious exceptions ( ie. El Grande, Taj Mahal, maybe a couple more)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
todd rehrig
United States
Stroudsburg
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
The game itself is well developed and fun to play. The biggest problem I've noticed is that if a player is stuck with bad tiles that prevent him from completing a merger, he has little chance of winning the game. I've seen suggestions such as trading in stocks, etc to alleviate this. The easiest solution is simply to allow a player to replace tiles, something that I was surprised to see isn't in the rules. When we play now, we allow any player to exchange as many tiles as he likes instead of placing one. he declares the number, takes that many new ones, and then shuffles his discards back into the mix.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Brian, the issue isn't simply that a player might run out of money mid game - the issue is that it's very possible that by sheer luck of the draw a player may simply not be able to create any merger that helps them. To an extent one can mitigate this by "doing a better job buying stock," but there is a certain, non-zero (not even that small) effect of getting screwed by no fault of your own. This is why I don't like to play Acquire, even though for the most part it's a really good game.

I've not heard of these variants, but the 2 that sound the most interesting and most obvious are:
1. Selling stock: Seems reasonable that a player should be able to sell stock at the market price instead of buying. Maybe the rule should be 3 transactions, not 3 purchases. Most of the time selling stock won't really be a good play, but the ability to do so could indeed keep an unlucky player from getting totally screwed.

2. Discard tiles: Like Scrabble, the option to dump any number of tiles and replace them (in lieu of your turn) makes sense here.

Frankly I'm not thrilled by the rule that states unplayable tiles drawn this turn must sit uselessly in your hand until the end of next turn either. That penalizes the player that happens to draw them, with no regard to how anyones been playing the game. Why not replace them right away?

- Seth
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Thompson
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Seth,
You have successfully described exactly what happens in Acquire, or most any game with some sort of random tile draw. That's just how that game is. I respect the fact that for that very reason you avoid playing it. I don't blame you.
I have to say this Again though ... I have just four words for you. "Try it with three."
It's alot better and you rarely run into this problem. Just try it with three. You'll be glad you did. It's the "Pure" Acquire playing experience!

Brian
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I definitely agree that 3 players is much better than 5 or 6. This is true of most games.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jared Heath
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've played this hundreds of times and never had a full table of happy people unless it was a 4 player game.

3 - somebody gets screwed after the initial early collusion merger by 2 people
5 - somebody gets screwed after the first two early collusion mergers happen. This player usually ends with less than 20K money at the end and never wants to play again (especially if it is their first time playing)

6 - this game does not work with 6. You get far too few turns to have any control and it is just a random fest

These observations don't apply to variants, but the base game, with the standard hidden holdings/money rules (open makes this game broken easy IMHO)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the variant that in the three player game the 3rd place stock holder of a company gets half the minority bonus. I've played 3 games that were all pretty close, one with only 5000 separating first and last.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kandrac
United States
Grand Prairie
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love Acquire but my pet peeve with the game involves the founding of corporations (or hotel chains.) In a recent four player game my wife, via the luck of her tile drawing, founded at least 75% of the corporations. She won the game, and the obtaining all of those free shares was an important factor.

I'm thinking that a rule that insures some founding equity would be a good thing. Perhaps a player doesn't get a 2nd start up until the other players have achieved their first?

Gg
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.