Puerto Rico's biggest flaw, in my mind, is the poor scaling. It plays extremely well with exactly 4 players. With 3 players, there's too little competition for scarce resources (esp. buildings, market access) and it can feel like multiplayer solitaire. With 5, there's so much competition that turn order/table position can be brutal on noise alone.
I like Dominion, it's got some of the same mechanics and is a an easier game to set up and explain.
But it's missing one key thing that Puerto Rico has -- the depth of subtle interaction. Yes, there's some interaction cards in Dominion, but with PR there's this level of play that goes beyond blocking other players and into providing incentives for them to do things with a timing that's advantageous for you (and slightly less advantageous for them, but not so much that they can resist :).
As someone somewhat new to this genre I must Puerto Rico is an amazing game. The online play is fantastic too (on board game area). Also pretty great is Hansa Teutonica and PowerGrid.
Currently I am pretty addicted to Puerto Rico online. The turn based or real time options are perfect.
I'm surprised that Puerto Rico hasn't been mentioned. My hacker friends and I dabbled in both Settlers and Carcassonne, but ultimately ended up playing mostly Puerto Rico. Great game. Unfortunately, I haven't had much luck getting my non-hacker friends to play.
A big hit in almost any group of people has been Speed Scrabble. Quick, easy to play in teams, and just great fun overall. If you like Scrabble, try it out.
Puerto Rico is indeed amazingly chess-like; deterministic to a point where you start to pull your hair out because you didn't take the corn field in the beginning when you could. It also has the nice point that the situation can turn extremely quickly and your opponents start pulling their hair :)
I would also add Agricola which is similarly deterministic but notoriously diffucult to develop a strategy for!
If you like Puerto Rico you are probably past the gateway stage. Similarly strategic games I can recommend
- Concordia, 5 players. 6 with Venus expansion.
- Lords of Waterdeep. 5 players. 6 with expansion iirc
- Istanbul. 5
- Power Grid. 6.
- Dominant Species. 6.
- Eclipse. 6.
- Dead of Winter. 5.
- Tiny Epic Galaxies. 5. Filler game.
- Agricola. Current edition is 4. 6 with expansion.
- 7 wonders. Up to 8 iirc.
- Scythe. 5. 6 with expansion.
- Viticulture. 5.
- Pandemic. 5.
Just stick to the top 100 until you know what you like. Anything in the top 100 is good even it’s not particularly to your taste. You’ll get a good taste of what makes a good game.
But once you have a good idea, you’ll find games you enjoy in the top 1000 or so.
I'll add a recommendation for Power Grid. Its interesting turn order and great build up to the end game is in contrast to the sudden halt that Puerto Rico seems to lurch into when it ends.
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2651/power-grid
A lot of good points but I still think Monopoly is a pretty poor game by design.
Games are about decision making, and there is very little decision making to be had in Monopoly (Real or not). There is no strategy shift for the opening, midgame, or endgame. There's no secret scoring or clever traps, there's no imperfect information of any kind. Assuming dice rolls are the same, playing against yourself and playing against another person or playing against a computer will have pretty much identical outcomes.
In other words, if you want to play Real Monopoly with me, just go ahead and play against yourself and do the rational thing for me if a decision comes up. Let me know if I win.
Even in the shorter form of the game, the winner is usually apparent quickly and then there's a long march that resembles the Trail of Tears more than it does board game turns.
If you're going for an interesting board game, instead of Real Monopoly, I'd highly recommend:
It think it's a bit shorter and a bit more simple to explain which means that it can be more practical for a gaming night with 4 or 5 players. I clocked a 2 player at 1.5u and a four player game at 3h, with experience that'll go down. More importantly this is with a 9 year old who picked up the game quicker then I did as a experienced board gamer and kept beating me. I personally like the theme a bit more.
On boardgamegeek there's a thread going about possible downsides, but I can't really comment on that as I've only played 5 games, and thoroughly enjoy that. I played a lot (> 100) of 2p Puerto Rico, another highly rated game - with the same person and as we know eachothers favorite strategies we actively try to block them, with randomization of the buildings (and expansions) we still like the game. I think that although the openings might tend to get scripted there might be enough variety for future replayability. I like it more then Terra Mystica personally.
The discussion thread about it is here: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1612607/scythe-are-people-re...
My son (9 next month) loves playing Munchkins, Risk, Monopoly, Settlers of Catan. We've also played Puerto Rico, but it's not very fun with only two players.
I love Bohnanza. Anybody played that? I know the premise of the game seems silly, but I've taught it to many (adult) friends, and it is pretty universally liked. I'm going to check out Puerto Rico based on some recommendations here...it has gone under my radar until now.
I've never been able to stand Carcassonne, and Ticket to Ride falls firmly into my "meh" category - with multiple players you optimize your chances of winning by taking a lot of routes, and it's then mostly a matter of luck whether you get a set that overlaps enough to complete. Settlers is good if you play it with people who pay attention, but if not you can easily be waiting half an hour while everyone asks everyone else several times over if they want to sell them any grain for their sheep.
So yeah, I've mentioned San Juan; Citadels is similar and conveniently is playable for 2-8. If you're a group of programmers then Roborally is fantastic (just ignore the life tokens).
Settlers of Catan is of course super popular/famous for a reason -- it's fairly easy to learn, the games are short, and it's well-balanced and fun (until you get sick of it).
Ticket to Ride is one of the simplest to learn fun "fancy" board games I know.
My current favorite is Power Grid, which I don't think is much more complicated than Puerto Rico, if any. If you can do Puerto Rico, you can do a game that isn't the _simplest_ out there.
The more of em you play, the easier other ones are to learn.
What's interesting to me is new board games aren't just variants on existing games; there's noticable innovation in board game "technology". If you ever play board games from the 80s and 90s, they often feel dated and clunky, even more so than video games from the same era.
I recently went back and played some classic Avalon Hill games that were popular when I was a kid. I can't believe me and my friends spent so much time playing them when we were younger. Depending on the game, a full game might take 5 or 10 hours. For many games, the majority of the time is spent rolling dice, looking things up in tables, and moving stacks of counters around. And that's when you're lucky enough to have a chance to do anything -- there's often half an hour or more of dead time when you're waiting for other players to make their moves. By contrast, if you play a game of Dominion, it's possible to finish a game in 15 minutes. You'll have to make a larger number of important tactical and strategic decisions than you would in most six hour long games from the 80s and there's zero idle time [1].
Even with games that use modern game technology, you can see a noticeable improvement over time. Puerto Rico introduced a move selection system that allowed for serious tactical planning (10+ moves ahead) in a lightweight [2] game that could be finished in half an hour (with experienced players). But, the game wasn't perfect. One weakness was that the player turn order was fixed and very important. If you play a game with one weak player and three strong players, whoever goes after the weak player is almost guaranteed to win. Conversely, if you have one strong player, whoever sits down to the left of that player is going to get crushed.
Caylus fixed that by building a mechanism to change turn order into the game itself. Caylus was wildly popular for a year or two, but it's rare to see people play it now. Ironically, the game designer was too good at removing the element of luck for the game to be popular. If you ever played on BSW (an online board game service), you probably ran into 'Alexfrog', who had a record of something like 431 wins and 2 losses. You can predict, with very high probability, the outcome of the game based solely on who's playing, and most people don't like being crushed by the same players over and over again. Another issue the game had was that the gameplay was almost purely tactical. There were only a few viable strategies, so games all had a similar feel to them.
Agricola and Dominion fixed the problems Caylus had by adding significant randomization. Not only does that add strategic variety to the games [2], it also means that anyone can win any given game.
It would be fun to sit down and draw out a board game tech tree. It might hard to make a decent visualization, though, because of the huge span, plus a high degree of multiple inheritance.
[1] There may be some idle time with certain strategies on some of the newer expansions, due to the incredible amount of shuffling required. You can avoid this by playing here: http://dominion.isotropic.org/. I tend to play on isotropic even when playing face-to-face games because it's 2x faster normally, and there are some pathological cases where it's over an order of magnitude faster.
[2] I'm using 'light' to refer to how cumbersome and complex the game mechanics are. Examples of 'heavy' games are Enemy at the Gates (which has over 1000 counters) and ASL (which has something like 500 pages of rules).
[3] Both games do this by strongly randomizing the initial state of the game, and adding a small degree of randomization throughout the game. Technically, Caylus also randomized the initial state, but the initial random state in Caylus was minor; it was just barely enough keep you from pre-computing an opening book, the way you can in chess. Even in Dominion tournament games, where most players have played thousands of games, it's common to see wildly divergent strategies, because neither player has played on a board with a similar starting state, so they both have to figure out the best strategy in real time. I always cringe when that happens, and I realize I'm playing an inferior strategy. It doesn't really help that you can see what they other player is doing, because if you realize that her strategy is superior and try to switch, you'll be doing the same thing, but N turns behind, which is pretty much a guaranteed loss [4]. Your only hope, at that point, is some combination of superior tactical play and luck.
[4] Well, not always. A hybrid strategy can work in some cases. It depends on the strategies and the stage of the game. It depends is a safe answer to pretty much any strategy question, which is what makes it interesting.
reply