A Game of Thrones LCG

I can probably count A Game of Thrones LCG as the 3rd time that I am trying a CCG (collectible card game) or CCG-like game, the previous two being Blue Moon (not really a CCG but an "expandable card game") and Magic: the Gathering (free copy of a Romance of the Three Kingdoms-themed starter set). I have played 30+ games of Blue Moon, and own all 11 decks (8 main races and 3 special expansions). I quite like it, and am starting to grasp some of the strategies, but I don't really play it often enough to be able to fully enjoy it. I have only tried Magic once, and can see how its simple system can expand to be very rich and interesting, but am far from appreciating the strategies involved. And of course, I have not tried deck-building at all (unless playing Dominion counts as a simple form of deck-building).

I was interested to try AGOT LCG mainly because of the novels, and also because of its new LCG format, that publisher Fantasy Flight came up with. I wouldn't say it's a completely new idea. This idea may have come from the Blue Moon model (also published by them). Han also likes the novels. Both of us bought AGOT LCG. When Han was in town on 17 Apr 2009, we gave it a go.

In AGOT LCG, you need to gain 15 power to win. The game starts with no power. Power comes into the game in different ways. You can earn them. You can grab some from your opponents. Sometimes power also exits the game, e.g. a character which has power tokens on him/her gets killed.

At the start of a round, all players select 1 plot card (out of 7) to play. Plot cards determine how much money you get for this round, initiative / turn order and how big the effect is when you win challenges (e.g. how many opponent characters you get to kill). All plot cards also have special rules which often affect all players for that round. Knowing your plot cards and your opponents' plot cards is an important aspect of the game, and you should plan the usage of your plot cards well.

You then put new cards into play by paying their costs. There are four types of cards. Character cards are the main type. They participate in challenges against your opponents. Attachment cards are things like weapons, pets, titles etc that can be attached to characters. Location cards usually give you extra money, or influence, and sometimes also some other benefit. Event cards do not have costs. They are usually powerful one-time-use cards. After everyone has put characters in play, each player take a turn to initiate up to three challenges. If you win a military challenge (as attacker), one (or more) of your opponent's characters get killed. If you win an intrigue challenge, you randomly discard a card from your opponent's hand. If you win a power challenge, you take one power from your opponent. Characters that have been involved in a challenge are "knelt", which means "used up for the round" (equivalent to "tapped" in Magic). After every player has had the chance to issue challenges, there is a dominance round where the player with the highest remaining strength among standing (i.e. not knelt) characters gain one power. That's basically how the game works.

However, almost every card in the game has some special text, describing some special power. Many cards also have one or more keywords like Renown, Deadly, Lord, Night Watch, Creature, Stalwart, describing some special ability or trait. Some cards also have an icon, e.g. a ring meaning noble-birth, crossed swords meaning an army. There is a lot going on, a lot to read, a lot to learn, a lot to remember.

Han and I played two games, in the first one he played House Stark and I played House Lannister. I was lucky with my early draws, getting Tywin Lannister (head of the house, and very powerful) and being able to play him. I was quite rich (Lannisters are rich). However, Han played the Valar Morgulis plot card, and killed off all characters, mine and his. That was painful. In hindsight I should have thought of that, since I had read all the cards beforehand. I should not have played so many good characters so early, or I should have tried to protect them from getting killed. After this "reset", House Stark's strength started showing. They are militarily strong, and tend to win military challenges. So they kept killing off my characters, and I could not slow their momentum. Han won decisively with about 16 power. At the time I only had 2 I think.

In our second game Han played House Targaryen and I played House Baratheon. Again I was quite lucky with my early draws. I had the three Baratheon brothers in play from quite early on - Robert Baratheon (the king), Stannis Baratheon and Renly Baratheon. I also managed to get many location cards early, which helped in providing additional income and influence. Han was not so lucky with his early cards. However we both had many cards in the early game. Han played a plot card that allowed us to draw extra cards.

House Baratheon has many characters with the Renown keyword, which means when they win a challenge, they earn a power in addition to the normal reward, to be placed on the character card (instead of the house card). Robert Baratheon's Renown power is double the normal! So I gained power at a great speed. House Targaryen has some characters which are hard to kill, or can easily come back after getting killed. It also has dragons, which are quite powerful. Gradually, Han started killing off my characters, and I could not keep up in trimming down his characters. One decisive play was him being able to take control of one of my armies of strength 6, which has both military and power challenge abilities. That was painful. Eventually, Robert Baratheon was killed (i.e. I lost all the power that he had accumulated), and then Renly Baratheon (I have been making use of him a lot, because he could stand up and fight again and again by paying influence), and finally Stannis Baratheon as well (also a lot of power on him). At the time Han was leading at about 9:6, but I conceded defeat. He had around 11 - 13 characters in play, and I only had a few left. No way I would be able to catch up. The closest I ever got was 12 power I think. I think House Baratheon's best strategy is probably to gain power quickly and reach the finish line before your opponents could do anything to stop you. Also you need to protect those characters who are accumulating a lot of power. I should have protected them better. Not sure whether I could have, but I think I should have worked harder at it.

I played House Lannister. The top row are the character cards, and the bottom row the location cards. There is one event card attached to Tywin Lannister on the top right. In this instance the event card is also treated as an attachment. Normally event cards are played once and discarded.

Stannis Baratheon. Top left corner is the cost to play this card. The flag icon on the left of the card name mean this is a unique character, and that if he dies, there can be no other Stannis Baratheon. The shield on the right shows the house this card belongs to. The number in the shield on the left is the strength. The red and blue icons below it means Stannis can participate in military and power challenges. The "B 72" on the right is a serial number. The ring icon on the lower right means Stannis is a noble.

Han looking through his cards. This was our second game, where he played House Targaryen and I played House Baratheon.

The three Baratheon brothers. There are two copies of the Robert Baratheon card in play, which means if something is going to kill him, you can discard one card and keep him alive. Stannis currently has one power token on him.

This was probably the peak of the game, when Han had 9 characters in play, and I had 7. I had 6 location cards in play. Soon after this things went downhill for me, and I never recovered.

Having played two games, I don't know yet whether I like the game. I definitely enjoyed seeing the many characters and aspects of the novels come to life in the game. The gameplay is more complex than I expected. Much more complex than Blue Moon or the version of Magic that have I played. This is because almost all cards have special text. This is daunting for first-time players, and I think it will turn off non-gamers. Having played the game now, I can completely give up hope of ever being able to convince my wife to play this. I'm not complaining about the game being complex. Just stating a fact. I wonder whether having special powers for every card is a tendency of CCG's. Afterall, a small pack of CCG is not cheap, so maybe having special powers (and not ones that exist for the sake of existing) helps publishers make customers feel the cards are worth their cost.

One thing I can definitely say about AGOT LCG is it is very rich. Maybe that's a more positive way of saying it is complex. I find that there is a lot to explore, and I am interested to explore it further. I think the game will get better when we get more familiar with the various cards and their powers, very much like Blue Moon. We will be able to anticipate what cards will come. We will learn the strengths and weaknesses of each house. The different houses play differently, and feel quite different. I like that. At the moment the many different powers of the cards are daunting to me. Our 2 games progressed very slowly because we need to read all those text, and also let each other read the text on our cards, or at least explain what the cards do. But my gut feel is each card has its uses, and there won't be many (if any) cards that are completely useless. I have a feeling that there will always be a strategy that you can weave a card in.

Han suggested that we try deck-building. He lent me his Lannister and Targaryen decks, and I lent him my Stark and Baratheon decks. So we focus on learning to play two houses each. We'll only have at most 2 copies of the same card (rules allow up to 3), but I think that should be good enough for our exploration. This will be the first time that I truly dabble in deck-building.

I have some doubts about whether I will be pursuing AGOT LCG further. I found out that their chapter packs cost RM55 (~USD16) each, which is not cheap, and each chapter pack will have 40 cards, 3 copies each of 10 cards, then 1 copy each of 10 other cards. That means you only see 20 new cards in each chapter pack. I think there are already about 8 to 10 chapter packs already released. And I am sure there are many more to come. That looks like a very deep hole to get sucked into, the very reason that I am not keen about CCG's. I will probably just stick to the core game for now, until I have played it many times and get very familiar with it. If I like it well enough, then I probably will buy some chapter packs or other forms of expansions that interest me, e.g. getting cards for House Martell and House Greyjoy.

AGOT LCG may be quite different, and probably better, with more players. With two players, some cards lose some effect. Also the gameboard and the titles are not used. Titles give special bonuses and abilities for the round in which they are chosen. You can use them to prevent an opponent from attacking you. You can use them to gain additional rewards when you attack someone. I think the game will be more interesting with more players, because there will be alliances and betrayals (just like the novels), and it is harder for one single house to dominate the game because the other houses will work together to stop the leader.

So, no verdict yet for AGOT LCG from me. I'll write more thoughts after I play more.

buying games, Wasabi

I bought some new games recently. Could not resist the temptation when I read about the latest shipment at Imagine Games. Actually when I first scanned through the list there were no must-buys, and I had initially told myself that I won't buy any new game, that I should only buy games that feel I cannot not own. I was even thinking of limiting myself to one game per month in 2009, i.e. 12 new games in a year, to force myself to be very selective when buying games. From 2004 to 2008, I bought on average about 24 games a year.

I ended up buying four new games.

The first was A Game of Thrones LCG (Living Card Game). I am a big fan of the novels by George R R Martin, and had previously pre-ordered this together with Han at Amazon. There was some problem with the pre-order at Amazon, so Han cancelled it. I was never into CCG's (Collectible Card Games), and do not want to spend money on a CCG. When I found out that A Game of Thrones CCG was getting converted into the LCG format (when you buy a set of cards you know exactly what cards you are getting, unlike the CCG format where you buy random packs of cards), I was interested. Since I had previously decide on impulse to buy it (cheap shipping), I should follow through on my decision right?

I also bought Wasabi. I was interested in it and wanted to try it. Not sure how much I'd like it, so ideally I can try-before-buy. It's something quite different from the games that I have. And the Japanese food theme definitely is quite unusual, and attractive too. Next, Metropolys, which I have played before in Hong Kong last year, and liked. Its spatial element and bidding system are quite unique. Lastly, Keltis (the German version, and not the English version Lost Cities the boardgame) is also a game I have played before earlier this year. I liked it more than I expected. Some similarities to Lost Cities, but it has some additional elements which I found interesting and liked. I didn't know Imagine Games stocks Keltis, and had thought they only have Lost Cities the boardgame. I prefer the artwork of Keltis, and also I'm interested in the expansions already planned for it, which have not yet been announced for Lost Cities the boardgame yet.

It's rather silly that I have to justify to myself (and even blog about it) why I am buying a game. Well, a few games.

And while I am trying to control my game buying, it doesn't help when my wife encourages me to buy. She says I am often so stressed out at work, I should reward myself. She says I can afford them, and they are something I can keep and play again and again, unlike some other pastimes which are "one-time-use". She says I don't spend much other on other hobbies / interests / addictions / vices anyway, so I should pamper myself occasionally. These all sound like excuses gamers give to their spouses when "seeking approval" to buy games, not the other way round. *grumble grumble* women and shopping... I guess I should be thankful and tell myself that it's a good problem to have.

I wasn't planning to go on and on and on about buying games. Let's move on. To Wasabi.

I think Z-man games, publisher of Wasabi is a good publisher, publishing many interesting games and having much variety. Zev, the man behind the one-man company (I assume), is an adventurer and explorer, trying many different things, publishing many first-time game designers. Very interesting publisher.

Wasabi is a game where players compete in making sushi. You get recipes requiring different numbers and types of ingredients. You pick and play ingredients onto a common board, trying to line them up to match your recipes. You complete a sushi when you get all the required ingredients together in the same row or column in an unbroken line. If the order of the ingredients is exactly like on the recipe, you, my young trainee chef, have got, ssssstyle! You earn extra wasabi cubes (worth 1VP each) for this achievement.

Every time you complete a recipe, you draw a new one. You also get to pick a special power card, which you can use to help complete other recipes. You get to do cool things when you play these cards, e.g. stacking an ingredient on top of another, playing 2 ingredients instead of 1, or even slapping down a nasty patch of wasabi to render 4 spaces (with or without ingredients on them) unuseable, annoying your opponents no end.

The game is very simple to explain, and looks gorgeous.

Gameplay is more thinky than the looks suggest. Sometimes you really need to sit and stare and think about how you can complete you recipe, especially for those tough 5-ingredient ones. I think this is unavoidable for beginners, but one should beware of slowing down the game to a halt because of analysis paralysis. Sometimes you feel like you are trying to solve a complex puzzle.

Michelle was very focused on Wasabi and couldn't even spare the distraction of smiling at the camera.

A menu...

... which is actually just a holder for your recipes. It can be tiring holding this menu. A Scrabble-styled tile holder or a Memoir 44-styled card holder would work better, but of course that wouldn't be as cool as a menu. Aesthetics vs practicality. I'm usually on the practicality side, but in this instance I'm OK with the menus.

Very colourful components.

The wasabi cubes. The saucer (which comes with the game) is a real saucer!

The recipes, and the markers showing the victory points scored for completed recipes.

I think there is a fair bit of luck in the game, in terms of what kind of recipes you draw and at what time, whether the starting 3 ingredients are useful or not, whether your recipes have overlapping ingredients, whether the ingredients played by other players happen to be useful to you, and also whether you are helping them when you play ingredients. Because of this I think the game should be played lightly. Don't take it too seriously.

There can be nasty play. If your opponent is trying to complete his/her 5-ingredient order, it will likely be easy to spot, and you probably can disrupt his/her plans easily, by playing a random ingredient, or switching ingredients etc. Completing the 5-ingredient recipe is not easy.

There are a few different approaches in deciding the order of completing your recipes. Everyone has a total of ten recipes at the start of the game: four 2-ingredient recipes, three 3-ingredient recipes, two 4-ingredient recipes, and one 5-ingredient recipe. Some players may want to do the harder recipes earlier, because there is more empty space on the board. Some players may want to do the easier recipes early and quickly, in order to collect special power cards which can then help to complete the harder recipes. Some players may want to take a middle path of doing the medium difficulty ones first, then doing the easy ones spread out throughout the game for collecting power cards, in order to help complete the hard ones before the game ends.

Having played a few games, I quite enjoy the game. One thing that I realised is the importance of the power cards. You use them quite often, and they are very very handy. When reading the rules I had expected them to be just a little extra spice, but they turned out to be quite central to your strategy. You need to compete with your opponents in grabbing the power cards that you need, sometimes you may even need to grab them simply to deny them from your opponents.

I look forward to playing more of Wasabi. It should easily reach my target of playing all new games bought in 2009 at least 5 times.

jiujiu

I was going to title this blog entry "session 20090328", but then I decided to use something else that I probably would not understand myself a few years from now, which would make me curious enough to check out what this blog entry is about.

On Sat 28 Mar 2009 Chee Seng, Sui Jye and Jing Yi came to play. It has been quite some time since they came to play. Last time was January for Chee Seng, and December for Sui Jye and Jing Yi. We also had a surprise visit from Ricky, who used to play occasionally but is now no longer interested. And we played many games that day. 6 different games, totaling 10 plays. That's rare.

Chee Seng arrived just slightly past 1pm, almost 1 hour early. He had had lunch and had nothing better to do. So we started with Monopoly Express, which he had wanted to try. This is part of a family of dice games including Risk Express (which I also own), Clue Express, and Battleship Express published by Hasbro, which are all quick dice games. I bought Risk Express in Manila, because it was designed by Reiner Knizia, and thought it was an OK game. Not spectacular, but good enough to be played once in a while. I bought Monopoly Express later, but didn't quite like it. Chee Seng was curious to try it, and was considering buying it, so I taught him to play.

He started the game, and did quite well every turn. Earning around $5,000 every turn ($15,000 to win). To catch up, I took some risks, and ended up not earning any money in any turn. The game ended after 3 rounds I think, $16,500 vs $0. Chee Seng told me flatly the game sucks. I'd have to agree. I would have been ready to give him the game if he had wanted it.

One problem I have with Monopoly Express is that it is easy to complete the most expensive set (Park Lane and Boardwalk) by using the chance icon (i.e. a joker). If your opponent gets lucky with that, it's hard to catch up. $3,500 for that set. Also the score keeping is tedious, and is actually more taxing than playing the game itself.

There was still plenty of time before 2pm, so I brought out Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation. I have not played this for a long time. Michelle doesn't like it because she finds it too stressful and too... erm... confrontational. Chee Seng and I have both played this before, but I gave him a quick refresher. He played the bad guys, and me the good guys. Experience put me at a strong advantage. I have played the game very many times, and managed to make good use of many of the common tricks and tactics, e.g. having Legolas pretend to be a lonely Frodo to tempt his Flying Nazgul into attacking (and dying instantly). I also used Merry to instantly defeat the Witch King. Enough of the good guys fought and died and killed the bad guys, to allow Frodo to advance to Mordor without encountering any danger. Not very true to the book or movie, but that's normal.

We had a rematch, this time swapping sides. Again, experience put me at an advantage. Chee Seng's Frodo tried to go through the mines of Moria so that he could bypass the mountains. I had a unit there, and if it were the Balrog, Frodo would die instantly. I warned him, but he decided to take the risk. My unit was the Balrog, and I found out his unit was Frodo. Game over.

I still quite enjoy LOTR The Confrontation. Just somehow I don't like the variant version that comes with the deluxe version (which is not designed by Reiner Knizia). Maybe I am prejudiced. Maybe I have not played enough of the variant game to appreciate it better.

Sui Jye and Jing Yi arrived when Chee Seng and I were playing LOTR The Confrontation. Once we were done, Chee Seng taught us to play Mag Blast, which he brought. I have played this before with Han, but had forgotten the rules. I only remember it is a simple and quick game about spaceships fighting. The game explanation actually took some time, and Jing Yi was intidimated into initially declining to play. I told Chee Seng it was his fault because he insisted that we make stupid sound effects whenever we fired a shot. We managed to persuade Jing Yi to play eventually.

Chee Seng, being the master of intrigue, encouraged everyone to attack everyone else and not himself. That backfired, and he was first to get eliminated. I think him being the game owner (and thus automatically assumed to be the strongest player), and being the common friend (he introduced Sui Jye and Jing Yi to me), spelt his demise. And his obvious sweet-talking definitely contributed too. Sui Jye's mothership was badly damaged very early, but he managed to recruit some ships to take the places of the ships destroyed earlier, and he lasted longer than expected. Jing Yi built up quite a strong fleet, and being the only lady at the table, wasn't attacked too much. Seeing that she had become quite strong, I attacked her, taking out the ship on one side to expose her mothership, and then using a direct hit card to instantly destroy her mothership. My race was the space Amazon-like female race, and my special power was for 3 times during the game I could play a direct hit effect card (usually very devastating) without first playing a direct hit card (normally required). This power sure turned out handy for me.

So it was down to Sui Jye and I. I lost many ships and my front and back were exposed. In a last desperate attempt, I managed to break through his left side, and eventually dealt the last 2 damage to kill his mothership. Victory for me!

The game is a lot of luck. It should be played as a quick silly game. This was the game in which we did a lot of "Jiujiu!" - the laser shooting sound effect. 蕉蕉 in Cantonese. 舅舅 in Mandarin. It actually took us maybe 1.5 hours to play it, including rules explanation. There was text on the cards, which took time to read and understand. I guess once you are familiar with them gameplay will be much quicker. After our game Sui Jye looked at the back of the box, read "game time 10 - 20 minutes" and cursed. How the hell did we manage to spend 1.5 hours on this game?! This should have been a filler game, but turned to be more like a main course.

A photo of Mag Blast which I took the previous time I played, at Han's place.

For the main course, I selected Amun-Re, which I have not played for some time. It was the first time for all of them. Chee Seng was earning good money. I focused on pyramid building. I was lucky to draw many master builder cards, which allowed me to build a pyramid with 2 stones instead of 3. In the Old Kingdom scoring Sui Jye led the pack, but I was close behind because of my many pyramids. My cash flow wasn't very good, but I never stole from the temple during prayer time. The gods always blessed me. I wasn't very lucky with the goal cards, not drawing the ones I needed, and drawing those that I could not fulfill.

At game end, I had the same score as Chee Seng, but he won because he had more pyramids. He was quite cash rich during the New Kingdom period (i.e. 2nd half of the game), and managed to buy good provinces which had pyramids carried over from the Old Kingdom Period.

I messed up some rules. When scoring for most pyramids on east and west of the Nile, it should be looking at a single province with the most pyramids, and not the total pyramids owned by a single player. I taught it wrong at the start of the game, and we only learned our mistake when we reached the first scoring stage at mid game. Also when playing the "earn $1 more per farmer" power card, it should only apply to one province, not all provinces. Chee Seng and I played this wrong, but Sui Jye played it right. He referred to the rules himself during the game. So Chee Seng and I had some unfair advantage. Amun-Re is quite a good game. I really should play this more often. But it is probably best with 5 players. 4 players seem to be quite good too, but I don't think 3 players is as interesting.

Halfway through Amun-Re, Ricky dropped by. What a pleasant surprise. I used to play a lot of Axis & Allies with him, using the Iron Blitz computer game version. But nowadays he doesn't play boardgames anymore. He watched us finish the second half of Amun-Re. By then Sui Jye and Jing Yi had to leave. It was about 5pm. We decided to play some quick games, and I chose Loopin' Louie, which neither Chee Seng nor Ricky had played before.

We played about 4 games of this, and it was quite funny. This is a game which is more fun if you are not good at it yet. You can make all sorts of silly mistakes, like hitting your lever too hard and causing your own chicken to fall off the barn roof. When the players get better, the game actually drags, because everyone is getting better at protecting their chicken. Anyway, we had fun. We started shouting "270!", "180!" (in Cantonese), these being the degrees we wanted Louie to turn in order to hit the chicken of the players to our left or right opposite. It is hard to hit the lever just at the right moment and with the right force so that Louie will take that exact flight path to hit your opponent's chicken at an angle that cannot be defended against. Even my 4-year-old daughter Shee Yun, seeing three 30-something grown-ups so absorbed in this silly game, repeated after us, "270!" (广东话∶二百七十).

Since Loopin' Louie was so quick, I decided to introduce Roll Through the Ages to them too. Michelle joined us. This was my first time playing Roll Through the Ages with more than 2 players, and I found that I like it more. There is some additional downtime, but we try to reduce it by having the next player start his turn when the previous player is still completing his turn, unless, of course, the decisions of the previous player can affect those of the next player. But at least the next player can roll the dice first and start planning what to do. With more players, there is more interaction (but this is still a pretty minimal interaction game), there are more monuments to compete for. There is a higher risk of getting hit by pestilence (if someone rolls 3 skulls, everyone else gets 3 disasters, i.e. -3VP), and in this game I was the one who dealt the 3 disasters to the other players.

I thought I wouldn't play Roll Through the Ages much anymore, but now that I have tasted it with more than 2 players, I will likely bring it out again when I have more players and introduce it to more people.

Risk: Lord of the Rings Trilogy Edition

Han was back in town on a short business trip, and he came to play on 7 Mar 2009. We played Risk: Lord of the Rings Trilogy Edition.

I think there are two versions of this game, and the one we played was the newer and more complex version. I'm not sure whether there are multiple rulesets. In the game we played, the good guys can win by delivering the One Ring to Mount Doom, and the bad guys can win by capturing the Ring. There is a ring in the game (nice gold coloured, with elven writing, very much like in the movie) representing the fellowship of the ring. It travels from The Shire to Mount Doom, a distance of 18 territories. The fellowship moves after every player's turn, but in some territories, a die needs to be rolled to decide whether it moves or not. Whenever the ring stops in a territory controlled by the bad guys, the bad guys can try to capture the ring by rolling 12 with 2 dice (or as low as 10 if certain conditions are met). So the good guys and the bad guys need to fight over the territories in the fellowship's path. That one of the main differences from regular Risk.

Then there are event / objective cards. You get to draw one at the end of your turn if during your turn you have captured a special territory. Some of these cards must be played immediately (and they don't always benefit you). Some of these are one-time special power cards, and can be played at your conveniece. Some are objectives that if you fulfill, give you some benefits.

And there are leaders. You get two at the start of the game. They give you a bonus in battle (add 1 to your highest die roll), and they are needed to fulfill objectives. If you lose all your leaders, you get a free one at the end of your turn. Some territories have strongholds. They give you a free soldier at the start of your turn, and when defending, you can add 1 to your highest die roll.

And that's about all the differences from the standard game. The rest is mostly like standard Risk.

The game can accommodate up to 4 players. Since we played a 2-player game, some territories are randomly designated as neutral territories, each defended by 2 neutral soldiers. The good guys (me) and bad guys (Han) get assigned some fixed territories at the start. Of course, it wouldn't be very true to the story if the good guys control Mordor at the start of the game, or the bad guys The Shire. For the remaining unclaimed territories, the players take turns to claim them.

This was around the start of the game. Green were mine (good guys), black were Han's (bad guys), and red were neutral. Most of the pre-determined territories for the good guys are on the western half of the board, and those for the bad guys are on the eastern and southern parts of the board.

The card backs of the two types of cards. The ones on the left are event / objective / special power cards. The ones on the right are territory cards.

The pieces for the good guys. The eagle represents 5 soldiers, the rider of Rohan 3 soldiers, the elven archer 1 soldier.

The bad guys - orc = 1 soldier, black rider = 3 soldiers, orc shield = leader.

The game has lots of die-rolling. I played it the same way I played Risk: Star Wars Original Trilogy Edition. I just attacked as much as I could to claim as many territories as possible on my turn, leaving my soldiers very very thinly spread, and knowing that my borders would be easily broken through, and that it would be hard to hold on to any control over any region (i.e. continent) until the start of my next turn. Because reinforcements are received at the start of your turn, you can always easily amass troops in one territory to break through your enemy's border.

I played the good guys, and in the first few rounds of the game I managed to control more territories than Han. That created a momentum that was hard for Han to reverse, because controlling more territories means getting more reinforcements, which in turn helps in conquering even more territories. I was also lucky to be able to get an extra reinforcement card early, and I had collected 3 eagle (the best type) reinforcement cards relatively early and used them to get 10 troops. The armies of the humans and elves spread across Middle Earth like they were the evil empire or the hordes of orcs. On Han's turns, he employed a similar tactic - attacking as much as possible and breaking through as many region controls as possible.

It was only Round 2 or 3, and I thought the momentum was well on my side to win the game by conquest. Then I drew an event card which gave the bad guys 10 free troops in one of their strongholds in Mordor. Oops... my previous conquest path stopped exactly in the territory next to that stronghold. If I had taken the stronghold, Han would not have received these 10 free troops. On Han's turn he made good use of these troops and launched a successful counter attack, leaving a swath of destruction. There are two such powerful event cards in the game, and the other one is for the good guys (getting 10 free troops in Minas Tirith if the good guys are holding it). It's a big dose of luck, and it is also thematic.

In the end, even that powerful event could not fully reverse the momentum that the good guys had. Han conceded defeat in I think Round 5 or 6, when he found that the reinforcements that he was getting was just too little, and he didn't have any good cards on hand that were helpful. So, the armies of the elves and humans had worn down the hordes of orcs and Uruk Hais and goblins and oliphaunts. And the fellowship of the ring was still leisurely strolling along the tourist trek. I guess in our version of the story the stars were the crazy battlefield commanders and not the lazy hobbits.

I think the game is still very much like Risk, but with enough differences to make things interesting. There is a lot of luck, so I would only play this with a light-hearted mindset. I think the game may be more interesting and slightly less "lucky" with more players. One thing that is more interesting are the rivers, bridges and mountain ridges that prevent / allow movement between territories. I'm not sure whether movement is really more restricted than Risk or these are just cosmetic, but my gut feel is Risk LOTR's movement between territories is more restricted.

Dominion on BSW

It was only after my 20th game of Dominion that I started to like the game more. And this happened after I started playing it on BSW. By being able to play it quickly and not needing to spend time shuffling and reshuffling my cards, I am now starting to appreciate the game more.

My early impression of the game was it seemed like just another economic / engine-building Eurogame where you spend the first half of the game building your economy / engine, and the second half using that engine to generate victory points. Now I am starting to appreciate the deck-building fun in this game. I realise that the most interesting decisions are actually in the early game, and in the buying. Every turn when you draw your 5 cards from your deck, the decision on what action card to play is usually quite trivial. In fact, sometimes there is no decision to be made, e.g. when you only draw one action card, and it is something that only has benefits and no harm. Now I realise that the most interesting decision is in choosing what cards to buy, not what cards to use, and most of this happens in the early game.

In my early games, I often felt helpless towards the second half of the game, when I saw my opponents happily buying up the Provinces. Even when I myself was the one buying up the Provinces, I felt there wasn't much that my opponents could have done. I wasn't very happy with that. Now I realise that by the time the game reaches this stage, you are already at the end game, and this stage is just the execution of a plan that has been made earlier. How good your deck is is determined by how you built it at the early stages of the game. So complaining about your deck by then is already too late. You should have done a better job of building your deck earlier, and not complain about the game being poor, not allowing a catch-up mechanism, having too much luck, etc.

Sometimes you need to respond to what your opponents are doing too. Michelle loves using the Witch card on me, so if we play with a set that has the Witch, I usually need to buy some myself, or buy Moats. And sometimes the interaction is not just about those interactive (attack) cards. You also need to see your opponents' strategies, and decide whether you can come up with an even more efficient strategy to either grab more victory points, or to end the game quickly while you are still ahead in victory points.

Analysing the 10 types of available action cards of a game is also interesting, and this is of course something done at the start of the game. Now that I am more familiar with the game and with the possible synergies between cards, this aspect of the game is becoming more interesting. Again, this is something that happens at the early stage of the game.

It does seem that Dominion is interesting mostly in the first half, and the second half is just execution or follow-up of the decisions that have been made in the first half. What's good about playing on BSW is you can play so quickly, the second half flies by without you feeling bored. There are still decisions that need to be made in the second half. The game is not really that clear cut that you can draw a clear line between the first and second halves. It is a gradual transition.

I look forward to playing more on BSW.

my problems with Axis & Allies

Having spent a lot of effort writing up two session reports for Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition (AA50), and also a review for the game, I now venture into the problems I have with the game. So, this is kind of an extension of my previous review.

In my previous review, I said that everything in AA50 has been improved, to different extents, and I definitely will not go back to earlier versions of the game. That still holds true. The problems that I have with the game are actually problems that I have with all versions of the game, and not specifically the Anniversary Edition. And I am talking about the world theatre versions, not the regional theatre versions (e.g. A&A Europe, A&A Pacific) or battle specific versions (e.g. A&A Guadalcanal, A&A Battle of the Bulge). I still think this is a great game, and writing about these "problems" is more like accepting limitations of the game rather than complaining about the game being poor. I don't really have solutions to all the "problems", and I am not trying to offer any.

1. Too simple and too clean. In translating World War II at the world level to a boardgame, Axis & Allies has simplified many things. Many details need to be abstracted away. Precision has to be greatly reduced. 0.1423 is rounded down to 0, 0.7253 is rounded up to 1. In the Atlantic Ocean, if a naval battle is fought between UK and Germany, the end result will likely be one of the navies will get completely wiped out. In A&A, the Atlantic Ocean is a small pond, that cannot really allow two big opposing navies to co-exist for very long. In real life, the German navy probably wasn't as strong as the Allied navy, but they definitely had presence. In A&A, I think Germany often loses all naval units, and doesn't bother rebuilding it. This is just one example. In other areas, e.g. Egypt, India, China, Soviet Far East, this problem can be seen too - the situation where one side is completely wiped out, and the victor becomes completely unrestrained. One sad thing about Italy is once it loses its navy, it will likely never be able to rebuild it. Italy cannot afford it.

2. Sometimes the game becomes not historical / realistic. Japanese fighters protecting Berlin, Japan conquering Africa, Russians defending India. This probably should not be considered a problem. You just need to stretch your tolerance for alternative history. Where's the fun if every game turns out exactly like real history.

3. Battles are usually fought to the death. Two big stacks that have taken many rounds to build up can be almost completely wiped out within one battle. This can be a big swing of fate, and a big change in the balance of power in that front. Compare this with A&A Guadalcanal and A&A Battle of the Bulge, where battles are only fought for one round, and both sides may have units surviving to fight again next round.

4. Technologies can be a big luck factor. If you get a useful tech at the right time, it can be a very big advantage. But there is quite a bit of luck in investing in technology, in whether you succeed in making a discovery, and also in what tech you discover. Well, techs are an optional rule, so you can play without it.

5. The fall of your capital is crippling. You lose all your money, and you can't build troops for at least one round. This gap in your production cycle of even just one round is devastating. It is a big loss of momentum, and it takes a while for you to catch up. Also it is painful to have given your opponent a windfall. Now indeed losing your capital should be bad. That's reasonable. But I prefer the penalty to be less severe. Sometimes it feels like winning or losing is determined by capturing enemy capitals. Well, at least it seems losing (or becoming a non-factor) is determined by losing your capital. This felt like the game is all about capturing enemy capitals, just like in the original (1984) game. That is a pity, because I think that makes things less fun and less varied.

6. The victory condition may not really matter. In my two games of AA50, we set 15 victory cities as the victory condition, which is the standard victory condition. In both games, one side conceded before the victory condition was met. In both games, it felt as if the victory cities didn't matter at all. We never got near 15 victory cities, and by the time one side conceded, it wasn't nowhere near being beaten down to 3 victory cities. So it seemed the victory cities didn't really matter. Capturing capitals was actually more important, because of how devastating it was to your opponent. So perhaps we should have set a lower number of victory cities as the victory condition. That would make capturing capitals less necessary, and both sides would need to pay much more attention to every victory city. It may be tricky to decide the ideal number of victory cities to use. Set it too high (I think the default of 15 is too high), and it becomes meaningless. Set it too low, and it may be too easy for the Axis to achieve it quickly, because they have more starting forces and these starting forces are better positioned to make quick gains.

Despite all these complaints, I am actually not very keen on introducing any variant. I'm generally not too keen on inventing variants for games, or using fan-created variants. I trust the designers and their play-testing teams more. Some fan-created variants may be unbalanced, or may make things too complex. But one thing that I may do when I play AA50 again is to play with fewer victory cities as the victory condition. That should be interesting.

Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition Game 2

On 23 Feb 2009 Han and I started our second PBEM game of Axis & Allies Anniversary Edition (AA50). This time we played the 1942 scenario, which is equivalent to the starting setup in past versions of the game. Spring 1942 was when the Axis powers reached their peak during World War II. This time I played the Axis and Han the Allies. We played with both national objectives and technology.

Playing the Axis is fun. You start with more units and they are better positioned to fight. I played quite aggressively at the start, making some gambles here and there. I didn't really think too much. I may have been overly aggressive. Playing the Axis feels very different from my previous game as the Allies. As the Allies, you start the game doing mostly damage control. You are desperately trying to contain the Axis expansion, trying to minimise losses, and trying to build up your forces to be able to halt the Axis advance. You need to be defensive mostly, and yet you need to plan for counter-attacking, and you cannot concede too much, lest the Axis build up too much of a momentum. All this while the Allies need to conserve their limited starting forces. Well, actually the Axis also needs to conserve their starting forces too, because being economically weaker, replenishing them will be harder. Definitely playing the Allies is quite challenging. You need to plan carefully to turn the tide, before it overwhelms you.

The starting setup of the AA50 1942 scenario.

In our game, we tried some different approaches from our first game. As the Germans, although I attacked the Russians aggressively with my starting troops, I spilt my production capacity between boosting my navy and building more troops to send to the Eastern Front. I even built a battleship and a carrier. Having a German navy is convenient for shipping troops to Scandinavia and to Karelia. It is also useful in delaying the invasion of Europe by UK and USA. My German navy destroyed the British fleet in Round 3, and also the small American Atlantic fleet by Round 4. During these early battles in the Atlantic, the legend of the German Yamato was born.

Germany invested in its navy, and defeated the initial UK fleet, gaining dominance of the Atlantic Ocean in the early game.

Sidetrack: The name Yamato comes from a Japanese manga (comic / graphic novel) Silent Fleet by Kaiji Kawaguchi (沉默的舰队 - 川口开治). In the story (which happens in the 1990's I think), a nuclear submarine built by the Japanese, manned by Japanese soldiers but belonging to the US Pacific Fleet went renegade, and renamed itself Yamato. It defeated many submarines and ships sent to hunt it down.

In the Atlantic Battles, there was this stubborn German U-boat that defied the odds multiple times and sank many Allied ships. It was eventually destroyed by the new British fleet, consisting of an aircraft carrier (with fighters, of course), but not without taking a British destroyer down with it.

The German Yamato, which later proceeded to sink those 2 British destroyers and also that American transport.

The German fleet lasted only into Round 5. UK built up its Royar Air Force and sank it. Germany, which could not afford to spend more money on its fleet, had its fighters desert their poor carrier, and diverted its money to building land troops to invade USSR. The new British fleet was born in Round 7, and became a constant threat to the European coastline. USA never spent much effort in Europe, but one well-timed troop shipment to Africa help a lot in recapturing the continent which was previously conquered by a lone German tank. The Americans did recapture Gibraltar for the UK, and also helped capture France and Italy later on.

In North Africa, the Italians were aggressive in attacking Egypt, but unfortunately weren't very successful at it. Egypt only fell in Round 4. The Italian navy was very handy, and in fact was critical, in supporting the push for Africa, and in threatening USSR from the south. It was lost to British bombers in Round 7, after which the Italians could only afford to build land troops. The Italians had only ever built one naval unit, a transport, and that was on the very first turn. The fall of Egypt allowed Germany to break through and capture most of Africa, but it was soon liberated by the Americans.

The Pacific Theatre was probably the most tense area. Japan attacked the starting American fleet in Hawaii, and the American Californian fleet retaliated. After that USA spent most of its effort building up its Pacific fleet. Japan had to do the same. It was an arms race. There was much maneuvering, with the two opposing fleets being just out of attack range, and not daring to come too close. Japan starts the 1942 scenario in a strong position, because it already fulfills two of its three national objectives, which the Allies will require much effort and time to deny. Japan can easily destroy the UK India fleet in Round 1, before it can do anything (Japan's turn comes first), which I did in this game. Unlike our previous game, Han commited much American money to the Pacific Theatre, and this threat caused Japan to hesitate and limit its expansion on the Asian mainland. China was subdued quickly, but Japan didn't have enough troops to threaten India or the Soviet Far East as well. The Red Army amassed at the border and did not return to Moscow. UK built a factory in India, and USSR even sent a tank to help protect it. This was a dilemma period for Japan. The Indian factory could become a serious threat in the future. The Red Army was about to break through the western tip of China and the Japanese-Russian border to the north of Manchuria. And all this while the American fleet was building up and threatening, even capturing the Solomon Islands and Wake Island. Also Japan had build a factory in Manchuria, which needed to be protected.

Now, even after the game has ended, I am still not sure whether I made the right decision at that point in time. I sent my Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) to capture India. The capture of India was a little risky, as USSR could have recaptured it quickly. Having my IJN in the Indian Ocean also allowed the American Pacific fleet to sail to Japan, and although it didn't have enough transports and land troops to invade Japan, it was able to capture my newly built factory in Manchuria. The eager Russians waiting at the border quickly came down to help secure Manchuria. A Russian tank also invaded from the western border of China, and converted the Chinese to communists.

Sidetrack 2: Now here's a bug of the TripleA program, if I understand the rules correctly. When USSR recaptures Chinese territory, they should revert to become American controlled, since the American capitol is not enemy-occupied. Instead the Chinese territory became USSR-controlled in our game, i.e. USSR earned money, and USA didn't get to receive Chinese infantry.

The IJN rushed back towards its beseiged island home, knowing that it was facing a formidable foe. USA had jet-fighters, which were as good as bombers on offense. The US Fleet met the IJN halfway, off the coast of Vietnam, and the biggest battle of the game ensued. That was Round 7 of the game. All ships from both sides were destroyed, and only one lonely American bomber survived to tell the tale. It flew back to Manchuria.

The Battle of South China Sea. Attacking US fleet: 1 heavy bomber, 8 jet fighters, 1 battleship, 1 cruiser, 3 aircraft carriers, 2 destroyers, 2 submarines, 1 transport. Defending IJN fleet: 6 fighters, 4 battleships, 1 cruiser, 3 aircraft carriers, 2 submarines, 2 transports. 1 US bomber and 1 US transport survived this battle.

This was probably the height of Russian expansion into Asia, at the end of Round 8.

Japan quickly recaptured Manchuria and rebuilt its navy. At the same time the Americans had already started rebuilding their Pacific fleet. They even sent a small force to liberate Borneo. That's where I was born (many years after the end of World War II though). Japan, knowing that it had to spend money on land troops to reconquer lost ground and to push outwards towards Moscow and Africa, could not afford to spend too much money on its new IJN. So it invested in submarines. It had previously made a breakthrough in technology, gaining super subs, which attack on a 3 instead of a 2. This certainly helped. In one surprise victory off the coast of Alaska, four Japanese super subs defeated a medium-sized American fleet of 2 carriers, 2 destroyers, 2 fighters and 3 transports. There were still 2 Japanese subs remaining. The US fighters retreated to land in Alaska, but the destruction of the 3 transports prevented USA from capturing a toe-hold on the Asian mainland. The second arms race continued in the Pacific, with a slightly different flavour. The Japanese favoured subs. The UK joined the fray, after building a factory in Borneo (hey that's where my hometown is!). It tried twice to start a new fleet, but twice the nucleus was destroyed by Japanese planes and submarines. Eventually the second big Pacific naval battle never occurred, although the new US Pacific Fleet had advanced to the South Pacific, and the new IJN had also built up considerably.

The factory on Borneo. I was born in Sabah, formerly known as North Borneo, a British colony. This was how much the new US Pacific Fleet had built up by game end.

On the Eastern Front in Europe, the initial battles left both the Russians and the Germans quite depleted. The Russians were able to advance to Baltic States, East Poland and Ukraine, but later the joint efforts of the Germans and Italians pushed them back. After the destruction of the German and Italian fleets, the game became the often-seen race between the Axis capturing Moscow and the Allies capturing Berlin. USSR was now being threatening by Japan from the east, because of the two factories in India and Manchuria. It tried to counter-attack, but wasn't very successful. Germany kept pumping out land troops to send towards Moscow. France went back-and-forth many times, greatly annoying the French. Eventually Germany was the first capitol to fall, in Round 11, to the British heavy bombers. Both the Americans and the British had heavy bombers at this stage. The fall of Berlin surprised me, and in hindsight I only had myself to blame. I should have paid more attention to those 2 British RAF heavy bombers. The Italians helped to recapture Germany. Germany went back-and-forth many times, this time greatly annoying the Germans, while the French next door just laughed.

Berlin was the first capitol to fall into enemy hands.

Moscow first fell in Round 12, being captured by the German army. The remaining Russian troops all rushed home to liberate Moscow, but it didn't last. Next round the Japanese captured Moscow, and there were no longer any Russian troops around to recapture it. Rome fell in Round 13, to the Americans. The game became a 2 vs 1 battle, UK and USA against Japan.

In hindsight, I made a very bad mistake of using German troops to capture Moscow. Germany took all the Russian treasury, but immediately all that money was lost to UK, when UK captured Berlin again. So UK looted the German treasury when it first captured Berlin, and then looted the loot from Moscow when it captured it the second time. This made Queen Elizabeth filthy rich (she became queen in 1952, and Round 12 is about winter 1945, assuming 1 round = 3 months, so I'm not exactly historically accurate here). And it made me want to strangle myself for being so stupid.

UK had $117 after the 2nd fall of Berlin.

Now a new world order was born. The Japanese Empire stretched across the whole of Asia and into the Middle East. Europe and Africa are solidly under Allied control. The main front was now Eastern Europe, with a smaller front in Egpyt, the gateway to Africa, and also South East Asia, where the factory on Borneo and the advancing US Pacific Fleet was making Japan rather nervous. Japan was now producing from the previously Russian factories. UK was producing in Germany, and USA in Italy. At this stage, the biggest fear of the Japanese was the heavy bombers of the Allies. With a fleet of heavy bombers, the attacking power of any reasonable size of land troops can be boosted tremendously. Japanese scientists desperately tried to make this scientific breakthough, but it was not to be. When Japan lost Karelia, and then Caucasus to the UK, it conceded defeat. The remaining production capacity of 6 in Moscow would not last. So, a victory for the Allied powers, at the end of Round 16.

This was the game end.

In the technology aspect of the game, Germany had improved artillery and rockets, which helped a little. It gained jet power later in the game, but it was too late to make much impact. Japan had shipyards earlier than the rest, which helped in building ships cheaply, allowing it to keep up with USA in the naval arms race. It's long-range aircraft also provided good flexibility. And of course, the super subs technology might have created a second legend of Yamato if the 2nd major Pacific naval battle had happened. So Japan got quite a good deal out of technology. Not as big of an impact for Germany. UK and USA gaining heavy bombers was a great advantage. This was the one thing that I had no counter for. Jet fighters also benefited USA much, especially in the Battle of the South China Sea (off the Vietnamese coast). At game-end the USA had all 6 of the naval/air technologies.

This PBEM game took us almost 2 weeks. Again, it was very exciting and addicting. And again, it was also very tense and very taxing. PBEM is too much tension for me and I needed to take a break from it. Some days I actually lost sleep over it. It feels too much like unfinished business, because the game was still in progress. I couldn't help thinking about how the game would progress.

In our second game we tried quite a number of different things. This time USA fought the Japanese with a vengence in the Pacific theatre, eventually avenging Pearl Harbour, and spent little effort in Europe. Germany gained naval supremacy for a while, and didn't put as much pressure on USSR. This in turn allowed USSR to expand, and it even made advances against Japan. The Axis broke through Egypt this time, and managed for a while to bring Africa under Axis rule.

gaming in photos

14 Feb 2009. I didn't expect to buy Um Reifenbreite after playing it at Carcasean boardgame cafe back in Kota Kinabalu. But Chong Sean offered me a good price and I couldn't resist. Also I think it's a game I can play with my children when they are older. This game is only available in the German version, so I had to download the English translations of the event cards before I could play my copy. I did it the easy way. I put the cards into card sleeves, and then the English translations on small pieces of paper into them too. No stickers required.

I didn't put these energy cards into card sleeves. I prefer to play games without card sleeves. I like the Joker cards (on the right). These are cards you can use on any rider on your team, and the artist literally drew a joker on them.

15 Feb 2009. I play Carcassonne with my 3-year-old daughter. The good thing about playing with her is we don't need to worry about the confusing farmer scoring rule. We don't score at all! We just take turns placing tiles to build the landscape of Carcassonne. We often don't even bother to place our meeples. In this photo she wanted to place the barn exactly this way, because she thought the barn door was a tunnel through which the road could run.

15 Feb 2009. When Michelle and I play Galaxy Trucker, we play 3 rounds, with Spaceships II, III and IIIA (as opposed to I, II and III). This is more challenging. In this photo I lost one very big chunk of the right side of my spaceship, including crew members and goods. Ouch...

22 Feb 2009. Agricola. Michelle's very nice 42-point farm. No wasted space at all.

These were her cards. They seemed to be rather unrelated, but they worked quite well together.

22 Feb 2009. Lord of the Rings with the Battlefields expansion. I was Frodo and Michelle was Sam. Michelle was rather distracted during the game because of the children, so she wasn't very focused. The game was tough, and not being able to concentrate made things worse. We didn't even make it past Shelob's Lair, the second last scenario board.

The top row are the 5 enemies that can appear on the battlefield board for the Moria scenario board. For each scenario board there are 5 enemies with different characteristics. The backs of these enemy pieces show a section of the scenario board.

Battlefields "completes" the fellowship of the ring. Boromir, Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn and Gandalf. These characters did previously appear as feature cards, even in the base game, but now they are pieces that can be played on the battlefield boards.

1 Mar 2009. Michelle and I had a very close game of Through the Ages. This was in the middle of Age II. I was amused to see 4 leaders appearing so close on the card row. Later Michelle took James Cook.

At one point I had too many stones and couldn't use them quickly enough. I managed to avoid corruption for many turns, but eventually my anti-corruption drive failed for one turn and I lost 2 stones due to "rasuah" (bribes, in Malay). Well, I guess that's not too bad.

My empire, at the end of the game.

My wonders and special technologies.

My past and current leaders.

This was how the game ended. Only two points apart! I was white and Michelle was red. These were the four final event cards. There were a few key actions near game end that could have swayed the game either way. I started building the First Space Flight wonder quite early, but completed it only on my last turn, because I wanted to make sure I played as many technology cards as possible before that to maximise the value of this wonder. It eventually got me 30pts. Michelle had one Age II action card that gave 4pts. Unfortunately she held it for a little too long, and by the time she wanted to play it, Age III had ended and she was forced to discard it before being able to use it. On my second last turn, overall I was militarily weaker, but my army was worth 10 strength and Michelle's 5 strength (most of her military strength came from technologies, wonders and colonies). I played an aggression against Michelle successfully, sacrificing all my soldiers, to destroy 2 of her computers (labs). I was hoping there would be some impact at game-end scoring. Then on Michelle's next turn, the event came up which awarded 10pts to whoever was more technologically advanced. This effectively gave me a 20pt lead.

Michelle's empire at game-end.

Michelle only had 2 leaders. She had more colonies though.

Michelle's wonders and special technologies. See how many gave her military strength (sword and shield icon).

Our culture rating and science rating. My culture rating was higher because of Game Designer. My science rating was higher because I had destroyer Michelle's two Computers (which would have given her 10 science points per turn). Michelle had Einstein as her leader, and Einstein gave her a lot of culture points. 3 culture points per technology played doesn't sound like much, but she was able to play very many technology cards. I was militarily much weaker by game end because I had sacrificed all my soldiers to launch that successful aggression against Michelle.