The Other Gateway

Here’s a story (a true story) for you: I once met a person who refused to be introduced into board gaming via Ticket to Ride, just to eagerly delve into the first edition of Descent. That person, who had had no experiences with any kind of gaming – including Dungeons & Dragons – was my wife: today an avid gamer by any conceivable standards.

Would you like to read more? We're moving to the New NSKN Blog. You will find the rest of this article here. Oh, and do tell us what you think of our new blog!

__________________

FIND OUT MORE NSKN official website | Facebook  | BGG

Follow us on Twitter: @NSKNGames

A Short Story of Civilization

It’s no secret we like civilization games at NSKN. You could say that it’s a company thing, but I’ve liked them ever since I played Through the Ages, and it was some time before NSKN Games was actually established. This love, a love probably also shared by every other board gamer alive, is bringing me today to talk about civilization games that were able to do two things: present a new take on civ games and amuse us enough to remain in our collections.

Before I talk about newer games, let me first pay my due to the two most important and formative civilization board games – at least in my opinion. The first one is (obviously) Civilization (later upgraded to Advanced Civilization) designed by Francis Tresham. It’s a game a too young to remember in its original incarnation, but its second edition still sits on my shelf – and I do play it on a semi-regular basis.

The second civilization game that seems a cornerstone of not only civ games, but board games in general is Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization. It was one of my first heavier Euro games (yes, I do believe TTA is a Euro game as well as a civ game), and one of the most fascinating experiences in my personal history of gaming. It’s also the civilization game I personally love to go back most often.

Image Source: BoardGameGeek

Through the Ages is a game I wanted to mention also for another reason. Although the game is not new by any stretch of imagination, it was quite innovative for its time, and in a way has never been successfully imitated by another game. Some innovative elements from TTA surfaced in other games, but only two years ago a game with a truly similar approach to civilization games emerged. Nations (if you’re a fan of civ games you probably already knew which game I was referring to) with its strong design and depth managed to find its way onto many gaming tables – but failed (in my opinion at least) as a civ game, remaining “only” a rock solid Euro.

Over the years we’ve had some novel approach to civilization games – as well as some games that would simply take the rather obvious, but still quite entertaining route when it came to game design choices. While extremely fun, FFG’s Sid Meier’s Civilization follows a rather safe path, not really trying to re-define the genre, but solidify it and create a kind of a template many other civ games would be compared to. It also certainly fared much better than the previous Sid Meier’s Civilization which, over the years, has almost universally attracted scorn from its players.

Image Source: BoardGameGeek

It seems that the way to innovate civ games lies in making them shorter. While no less than impressive, Francis Tresham’s design takes six to eight hours to play properly, and with both of its expansions, the FFG Civilization may take a good few (five or six) hours to complete. Building a game that would have this civilization feel without actually taking a whole afternoon (and/or evening) is something many have dipped their toes in. 

This is how we got the spectacular 7 Wonders, which reduced a whole civ game to a few decks of cards, a bunch of player boards and a pile of tokens. This is also where Golden Ages probably came from, this time not doing away with the map component, but still managing to squeeze the civ feel into a much smaller frame – and a smaller footprint.

Image Source: BoardGameGeek

And speaking of 7 Wonders, we’ve also tried out hand at a civilization game that consists mainly of cards and player boards – for that reason many people would instantaneously compare our Progress: Evolution of Technology to Antoine Bauza’s phenomenal design (which only made us blush a little), and will try again in the not so distant future, this time with a completely different design (a light sprinkle of deckbuilding, anyone?).

Innovating in civilization games is no easy task, as it’s very easy to misplace those precious few elements that make a civ game what it is: the sense of building something grand, and the feeling of great progression, of one thing evolving from another. That is why I personally never found Nations appealing as a civ game, that is why Innovation never really spoke to me. And that is why when come around to making another civ game, we’ll not forget its basic building blocks while trying to innovate.

Just to wrap it all up: are there any smaller civilization games you love? Perhaps you know of some undiscovered little gems we should definitely check out? And before you say anything: yes, we’ve Olympos, Historia, Uruk and Uruk II. We like them.

__________________

FIND OUT MORE NSKN official website | Facebook  | BGG

Follow us on Twitter: @NSKNGames

Pros and cons of standardizing in board games (II) - Cards

We were talking last week about standardizing components in board games, covering the box, the rules and the game board. There's yet another type of components which come in various sizes, thicknesses and sometimes even shapes and while we all think we know all about them, they still hold many secrets.

I am talking about playing cards, of course.

Image source: ebay.com

Size

At one point in our lives we've all touched or, at least, seen playing cards. We're mostly used to the standard poker size or bridge size cards, but we are aware that there are more common types of sizes out there. Us gamers would probably have no problem with any size of cards if we didn't care so much about our game pieces that we want to sleeve them.

The most common types of cards used to be:
- standard poker size: 3,5 x 2.5 in / 88 x 63 mm
- standard bridge size: 3.5 x 2.25 in / 88 x 57 mm
- tarot size: 4.75 x 2.75 in / 120 x 70 mm

But with the rise of the board gaming phenomenon, we are now accustomed to:
- "7 Wonders" cards  - roughly 100 x 65 mm
- "Corey" cards - roughly 62 x 41 mm 
- square cards - 70 x 70 mm
and many more.

Luckily, sleeve manufacturers have upped their game and they're now offering a lot more sizes. To have an idea what are your options, have a look here. But having access to all these sleeves should grant game designers and publishers infinite freedom to make their own special cards?

We have discovered that any non-standard (bridge / poker size) cards come with an extra cost, other that the material. This cost covers custom die-cuts and it can be as high as a few thousand dollars. Overall, 5 decks of cards in a game printed in 5000 copies will cost roughly 50% more if they are a non-standard size compared to when they are a standard size.

I prefer standard poker size cards, they're easy to sleeve without passing by a hobby store with old sleeves from Magic: The Gathering, they usually come with better quality material than "special" cards and... I got used to them.

What are your preferred sizes of cards? Does this aspect of a game make a difference when you decide to buy a board game?

Material

This is when things get really technical, at least when you talk to a manufacturer ready to impress. Do you know the difference between Blue Core, Grey Core, Chinese Ivory Core, French Ivory Core, Casino Black Core, French Black Core and so on? I don't and I've been dealing with these terms for the past 5 years. I have a booklet somewhere where I wrote down all the specs for each of them and when I have to make an informed decision I check it out.

But I was intrigued by the price difference and the multitude of options, so I asked for samples and compared them from a gamer's perspective: I bent them, look "through" them using powerful light sources, shuffled them about 250 times to check wear and tear and I am probably missing some other tests. The truth is that I am still not able to distinguish between Blue and Ivory Core if the weight of is the same. In my opinion, putting casino quality core (light doesn't pass through, therefore it is impossible to cheat by seeing through the cards) into board game cards is a waste of money which is supported in the end by gamers - the final customers.

The industry standard for producing cards is a 290 gsm (grams per square meter) Grey Core. I have noticed that upgrading the cards to 320 gsm requires an increase in price of 30%, which of course, reflects in the MSRP. Upgrading to a 345 gsm cardboard is even up to 60% more expensive!

I was temped to think that thicker cards would deal a lot better with wear and tear and their life span would be a few years longer (without sleeves). I was wrong. The biggest difference is the finishing and the core only affects marginally the durability of the cards.

Did you notice differences in core quality of the cards between various games? Do you have and tips?

The part which does make a difference, both visually and when we look at the resistance of the cards in time is made by the finishing. I personally love the FFG linen finish, it gives a great feeling but I like even more the matte varnish on borderless cards.

I must admit that I am no expert when it comes to the type of finishing and I don't even have a strong preference between matte and linen paper. Most manufacturers I've talking to have failed to explain to me what is the advantage of a certain type of finishing. For example, we asked what is the best type of finishing for cards which require shuffling all the time - this has happened with Mistfall (our next release). The answers were:
- linen finishing (3 out of 9)
- matte AQ varnish (3)
- upgrading from Blue core to Casino Ivory core (1)
- upgrading from 295 gms to 320 gms (1)
- our quality is the best (seriously!) (1)

So, it looks like there is no consensus among the manufacturers on the best possible way to make more durable cards for an acceptable price.

What was your experience? Do you have a favorite finishing type? Or perhaps a publisher whose quality you admire?

__________________

FIND OUT MORE NSKN official website | Facebook  | BGG

Follow us on Twitter: @NSKNGames

Board Games in Application

The world of board games is no stranger to all kinds of digital aids, which rose in popularity with the introduction of smartphones. Unofficial scoring helpers for games such as Agricola or 7 Wonders, a life and status tracker for Sentinels of the Multiverse or set randomizers for different deckbuilding games seem as natural as a scoring pad or a simple sheet of paper and a pencil. But is this just a novelty or a great shift in gaming?

7 Wonders Scorer by Forrest Wang
(source: https://itunes.apple.com)

If you’ve been to Essen this year, you probably had a chance to play XCom: The Board Game from Fantasy Flight Games. Perhaps you were one of the people who bought Alchemists from Czech Games Edition. And you know that, in essence, both of these games require a digital component to play (with Alchemists introducing a token alternative to having at least one smartphone at the table).

Alchemists has recently been “ran through” by Richard Ham (known and loved by the gaming community as Rahdo). The naturally mouth-watering main part was then supplemented by Rahdo’s opinion on digital components in the runthrough finalthoughts. Suffice to say, that he his attitude was quite positive, with a few very good arguments against all the things people seemed most unhappy about when it came to fusing board games and digital applications.

Alchemists official cover by CGE
(source: BGG)

The truth is that I wholeheartedly agree with most of the points in the video. Making the argument that Alchemists would be unplayable in twenty years, which seemed to surface most often when it came to both the newest CGE outing, as well as when XCom was being discussed, is indeed not a very strong one - especially now, when finding all sorts of digital media from two decades ago seems easier than ever. The same goes for all sorts of “no smartphones” table policies. There is, however, one thing that surfaced in the general discussion – an argument mostly made by all those truly excited about including digital elements in board games.

Alchemists by CGE
Selecting another position
on an iPhone @ Spiel 2014.
(source: BGG)

On a somewhat personal note I should say, that I am not sold on the idea of mandatory application use for my board games. Although I love the social aspect of gaming, I also find the physical aspect of games very appealing. Simply put, I like touching and moving the components, and distancing the player from some of the game elements by putting them behind a touch screen is something I am not crazy about. Still, what the enthusiasts say is that this step allows for introduction of mechanisms simply too complicated or too fiddly to implement in a fully analogue game. And that resonates with me on a completely different level.

From a designer and publisher perspective it might be extremely tempting to start looking closely at the possibility of removing some of the in-game busywork and hiding it within the depths of a simple app. But there are broader implications everyone – those who make games and those who play them – should possibly consider. And it is one of the elements that makes board games what they are today, possibly even being responsible for their growing popularity in a world that seems completely submerged in its digital existence.

The Settlers of Catan cover
(source: BGG)

Since Settlers of Catan made its glorious appearance on the market, paving the way for games very unlike older American titles – complicated, heavy with rules, often convoluted or inconsistent enough to make them very niche products – tabletop gaming was about simplicity. Board game mechanisms can only be so complicated, and beyond a certain level lies a realm of games played only once a year, or only be their greatest and most devoted fans. The trick is – and has been for the last twenty years – to design systems that introduced interesting decisions or simulated complicated ideas in a simple, digestible form.

Make no mistake: introducing digital components to a tabletop game is a great opportunity, but I sincerely do not think that these elements will start taking over board gaming anytime soon for a simple reason. The more complex systems have already ruled the tabletop gaming world and (although still existing and doing well) they failed as its mainstream. Reintroducing them using mandatory apps is a novelty that is probably here to stay, but not dominate the scene. When it comes to high complexity simulations with internal systems hidden away from the players, we already have those: they are called videogames.

__________________

FIND OUT MORE NSKN official website | Facebook  | BGG

Follow us on Twitter: @NSKNGames

The strategy review - 7 Wonders

I must admit that I have never been a big fan of the game nor have I ever pushed for my gaming group to play it. Nevertheless, 7 Wonders is one of the board games which is part of  the history of the hobby industry for the revolutions it created. This game can be very well played with 3, 4, 5, 6 or 7 players in approximately the same time, it is a strategy game and it has amazing replay value.

So, you may ask, why am I not a big fan? Simply because I enjoy more difficult games. But this did not stop me from playing 7 Wonders more than 30 times, with every expansion and any number of player except two.

Now, let's jump straight to the strategy. For those of you who are computer geeks like myself what I am about to say will make somewhat more sense than for the rest of the world, but please bear with me... To win 7 Wonders you must accumulate Victory Points and there are so many ways to do that. For some the road from knowing the game to winning the game may seem too curvy. But there's a very straight path. There's a theory in programming which says that to reach an overall optimum you must seek the optimum for every single step. I will start from this assumption, 7 Wonders is an optimization game, meaning that a player who makes optimum decision every step of the way is the most likely winner.

Age I - resources and relying on your neighbors

While in the later stages of the game you may simply choose the card which brings the most VP, in the early game you must look for resources. Use your neighbors and figure out what can you buy from them. Play those resource cards which bring the most wanted resource for you and your neighbors. If you rely on the resources provided by players on your left and right, make sure that you have at least two resources that they need from you and that you also have enough income to support your strategy.

The second step is to select and play those cards which allow other cards to be played for free. In age I, have at least one blue (direct  VP) card and one green (tech) card which will open new horizons for you in ages II and III.

If there are multiple choices, choose the card with the most VP not only for the current step but two steps ahead.

Age II - optimization and building your wonder

The abilities or the Victory Points on your wonder are usually powerful enough to be worth the effort. In age II, try to achieve an average of 3-4 VP / played card. By mid-age you will already see most or all the resources you have access to for the rest of the game, so you can decide if the "build wonder strategy" is sound or not.

Since in age III you will have access to more powerful cards, age II is the perfect moment to build your wonder. Building your stages will also take out some cards very valuable to your opponents. A built face A wonder, one blue and one green card will usually give you the average of 4 VP / card.

War - "go" or "no go"?

This depends on your neighbors. If they invest massively in war cards, it's better to stay clear of them. The 6 VP you lose represent a lot less that the effort you might spend into become a warrior nation. Especially in age I, the VP from war are negligible in comparison to how much you gain on the long run from one blue card.

However, if your neighbors do not invest in war, in age II you have the chance of making easy 2-6 VP with a single war card. Especially if by the last round none of your neighbors has bothered to play war cards of total value 2 or more, it's worth spending one card on that.

Age III - optimizing your every step

If you have played the "wonder strategy" to the end in age II, you might find yourself without valid options for at least one round of age III. In age III, you should ideally add 6-7 VP with every card you play. You will find this is not possible most of the time, so leaving the last level of your wonder for age III is a good idea.

When you have many options, chose the cards which give you most VP and pay attention to what you spend (3 money = 1 VP). You can factor in what the other competitors for the first place may want and if you have more choices for the same amount of VP choose that one card which also denies the other players some VP.

The purple (special) cards can bring you a lot of VP during age III. If you see none of them in your starting hand, be sure you will see them later. Look at your neighbors and try to speculate their strong points and make the work for you. If you have two "techers" on your sides, the purple card which allows you to score 1 VP for every green cards they have might bring you as much as 12 VP.

Knowing the purple cards in the game is usually the small difference between two good players. You won't now what are the exact cards in your game, but you will know what is in the pool. 

Also, during age III you have easy access to the green cards. In the worst case, collect one of each technology and this will bring you 10 easy VP. If you are the player focused on technology, make sure that you have the 10 VP combo and that your focus is on one specific tech which was not developed by another player. This usually insures 16 VP, with the possibility to score 25 (or even 49 with an expansion).

These are my few cents in strategy. I will only add that 7 Wonders is fun even if you don't win and there are a lot of cool combos in the game which present specific challenges. As an example, try to score 40 VP or more without playing any resource (brown or grey) card. Or try to score all your point from technology and war.

__________________

Find out more on the NSKN official website | Facebook  | BGG |  ScoopIT Magazine 

Follow us on Twitter: @NSKNGames