Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
6 Posts

Warriors & Traders» Forums » General

Subject: Dicetower's Problems with the "Warriors & Traders" rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Shane Hockin
United States
Tallahassee
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a game I have been eyeing. I love the theme and the map, and at a glance the game play appears to be something I would normally like--combining battles with resource management. I have been looking for a game that does a good job of recreating the early medieval era in a fun and somewhat comprehensive way (not just war, but not just worker placement), and the fact you can take control of so many different countries is appealing as well.

That said, being a smart gamer, I read and watch a lot of reviews to get a better idea on whether I might want to invest in a specific game. I do not tend to take one review to heart too much on a board game usually, but I recently watched Dicetower's review of "Warriors & Traders," and wondered what other people thought about some of the comments Tom Vassel makes. I often (though not always) agree wtih Tom, and he clearly did not enjoy this game at all, and that is fine--no game is for everyone! But sometimes a game just isn't that good, and some of his comments, if accurate, made me wonder. I am seeking clarification from people experienced with playing this game on whether this is a matter of "all games are not for all people" or "this game has some problems with it."

I am linking to the review below in case anyone wants to review the review, but the main arguments against "Warriors & Traders" found there that I am concerned with I am listing below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slAZLdpSe3g

First: Tom seemed to think that the actions in the game were very limiting. You only get two actions per turn, and the end result was that it was very difficult to climb up far on the technology ladder. The necessity in keeping your people fed, he added, made addressing that so imperative that he felt you spent so much time taking care of food that everything else fell to the wayside. So if you were not conquering like crazy, rather than working on technology or trade, then you were almost certain to lose.

Second: Tom believed it was too easy to knock someone out of the game early if anyone chose to play aggressively. If you managed to take one of someone's territories early on, which he suggested was very easy if someone did not focus on their armies, they could essentially be out of it from practically the beginning. For a game that is supposed to last 2 hours, that seems excessive, especially if you have a group of three or four people and one is unfortunate enough to be done in the first 30 minutes.

Third: Tom found the battles to be really boring. I am not an avid wargamer, so I do not expect this to be "Paths to Glory" or "Axis and Allies" or whatever. Still, any time I see the word "boring" connected to something as action-packed as "battles," it raises a red flag! On the whole, he thought the game aimed for "realism" at the expense of "fun."

Other points he makes seem really subjective, nit-picky, or unimportant to me, though maybe some of you feel more strongly. I would love to hear various opinions on the game, but particularly I am interested to see what fans (or those who did not enjoy it) of this game think about the three alleged "issues" I mention above. Is this clearly just a matter of personal tastes? I would hate to spend my child's college money on a game that is restrictive, unbalanced, and boring. LOL! Thanks in advance!
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M. S.
Germany
Illerkirchberg
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
here`s a discussion on the Tom & Sam`s review:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/video/18898/warriors-traders/mi...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Georg D.
Germany
Höxter
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I haven't played W&T very often. Unfortunately one member of my gaming group doesn't like it. So my experience is very limited. Perhaps Tom has a deeper understanding than I have.

espoon82 wrote:

First: Tom seemed to think that the actions in the game were very limiting. You only get two actions per turn, and the end result was that it was very difficult to climb up far on the technology ladder. The necessity in keeping your people fed, he added, made addressing that so imperative that he felt you spent so much time taking care of food that everything else fell to the wayside. So if you were not conquering like crazy, rather than working on technology or trade, then you were almost certain to lose.

The actions are limited but I don't think it is that bad. You till can do enough during game. Of course I sometimes wish to climb the tech ladder far more but would the game really be better when everyone could do everything?
The problems with the food are existent but not problematic if you use the revisde rules published here on bgg.

Quote:

Second: Tom believed it was too easy to knock someone out of the game early if anyone chose to play aggressively. If you managed to take one of someone's territories early on, which he suggested was very easy if someone did not focus on their armies, they could essentially be out of it from practically the beginning. For a game that is supposed to last 2 hours, that seems excessive, especially if you have a group of three or four people and one is unfortunate enough to be done in the first 30 minutes.

You have to play carefully - if your neighbour is raising armies and you ignore it you can get into trouble. But is it really bad?

Quote:

Third: Tom found the battles to be really boring. I am not an avid wargamer, so I do not expect this to be "Paths to Glory" or "Axis and Allies" or whatever. Still, any time I see the word "boring" connected to something as action-packed as "battles," it raises a red flag! On the whole, he thought the game aimed for "realism" at the expense of "fun."

The combat has no dice involved so it is boring ;-) I don't mind a combat where you can compute the reults beforehand.
But I don't see where the game aimes for realism...
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Switzerland
Bern
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My answer after 4 plays (3x original rules, 1 new rules)

"this game has some problems with it."

I dont know what rules version tom played for the review.
With the original rules our group thinks there is a problem with the builders path which is too strong, building a castle gives you a (almost) guaranteed 3 victory points, even if it is destroyed(because it will kill attackers).

the new updated rules make the military path much stronger so for our group it feels very overpowered even against the builders because you do not need food to support your armies. this we liked even less than the problems with the original rules.

I still think ("hope")the existing problems could be fixed with house rules.(no, I havent tested any)

I really want to like this game because it supports so many concepts I like, but until now it still has some big issues.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kev.
United States
Austin
Texas
flag msg tools
Read & Watch at www.bigboardgaming.com
Avatar
maybe they did not pay enuff for the review?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
D Chisholm
United Kingdom
Edinburgh
Scotland
flag msg tools

I would say this is a pretty old fashioned game with some very old fashioned problems.

Player order - can of course confer advantages and disadvantages - and this game has this problem big time. Especially last turnitis.

Strategy - actually very little once you get above the bookeeping - your luck will of course be dependant on what the other players do - and players do the funniest things.
 
 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.