|
Game Store Book Store Video Store Finding old games Game-related links Review updates Poker Variants Issues
Categories Game Reviews Book Report Eulogy Desert Island Games Grey Matter Letters to the Editor Miscellaneous Random Draw |
February 19, 2003
Tried Cannes for the first time last night, with 3 players, and was quite disappointed. I was utterly bored for much of the game, as there was simply nothing to do. The basic yellow goods were available in large quantities, but for at least half the game there were no green tiles in play for converting the yellow stuff into green stuff. Without green stuff you can't make movies, and if you can't make movies there's no point in playing the movie production tiles. Consequently they didn't appear until very late. Only two movies were produced in the entire game, both by the same player (me), as the game ended just when production seemed to become possible. There are simply too few conversion tiles in Cannes. It takes forever for them to come out, and then it can be ages before you're able to connect to them. So much of the game is spend jockeying in anticipation of something happening, which might not even happen for a long time. I very rarely say this about a game, but the end was a relief-- I couldn't wait for boredom to be over so we could move on to something fun. Direct to the trade pile. We followed up with two 4-player games of Puerto Rico. Since its release last April, we've played PR every Tuesday (often more than once) with only 2 exceptions. We didn't think it possible, but it's eclipsed Big Boss as the warm, fuzzy blanket. The expansion buildings have certainly helped, since the strategies change now with every game. Game 1 saw our first true exploitation of the Union Hall, as both Nate and I grabbed it and a small warehouse. Nate had a virtual monopoly on indigo and managed to get about 9 indigo at once time, holding onto them for multiple turns to generate easy VPs. I had only 3 corn, 3 tobacco, and 1 sugar, but nevertheless managed 5 Union Hall VPs each captain phase and often more by shipping. By the time we were done, I had 45 VP chits and the Customs House, for a total of 76 points. Nate finished a good 15-20 behind that for second. Game 2 I went a different way and got both the Hacienda and Forest House, nabbing 3 quarries, 4 forests, and the only coffee. While two other players built up Aquaduct production, I focused on building. With 3 large buildings (only 2 manned), I shut down the game before they could really get their shipping plan into gear and won by 10. I suspect, like the Office and Trading Post, the Hacienda and Forest House should be disallowed in the same game. It's extremely difficult to defend against a player who builds both. You simply can't ship fast enough, and you can't outbuild him. Posted by Peter at February 19, 2003 03:42 PMComments
Re Cannes: I noticed that you played a 3-player match. I contend that Cannes only works with 4 players. With fewer than that, you take out one each of the starts, scripts, and special effects hexes. The effect is that these tiles then become pinch points for the production tree; without the action film hex, you cannot make action films, whereas without the special effects hex, you can make neither action films nor sci-fi films. With four players and the full complement of tiles, the progression is more natural. Also, the contention for hexsides becomes more tense. If you do give this one a second chance, make sure you play with four players. On a final note, the new comment window is somewhat annoying. It's not wide enough, and you can't resize it. Posted by: dave on February 20, 2003 10:28 AMI can see how having those tiles back in the mix would help, but there's still a good chance that many won't appear until at least the second pass through the deck. Until you have access to the yellow production tiles, you have no incentive to place any green tiles. As for the comment window, I've changed it so that it's now resizable. Posted by: Peter Sarrett on February 20, 2003 11:52 AMI've played Cannes with 4 players (twice, yet), and didn't think it worked terribly well that way either. It worked better than in your game, to be sure, but it's still way too random. Posted by: Dan Blum on February 23, 2003 11:12 AMI'm just happy to see Peter's session journal active again on the TGR website. It's always been a favorite read of mine. -Mark Posted by: Mark Johnson on February 24, 2003 07:17 AMWhy is that, exactly? Seriously. Posted by: Peter Sarrett on February 24, 2003 11:59 AMBecause session reports are "poor man's game reviews," and you've always been one of the better game reviewers around. More analysis and opinion, less simple recitation of the rules & components. Posted by: Mark Johnson on February 25, 2003 02:30 PMPost a comment
|