F$@& Fixing Broken Games

Once we break a game, that game usually gets retired.  Since a primary motivation of mine is variety, that’s kind of a bummer.  Taking a game out of circulation is the same as not having it in the first place (practically speaking, or at least ignoring the replays it took to find out how to break it.)

This may be an ongoing series, so today I’m going to limit myself to some games we have previously reviewed:  Stone Age, Glenn Drover’s Age of Empires, and Fresco. 

[Editorial note:  Hoping to start discussion right now.  Not advocating we start play testing these right away, but if there is some support to give some fixes a try, I’m all for bringing games out of mothballs.]

Stone Age:

The problem:  Going 2^nd gives a tremendous advantage, and something along the lines of 75-80% of 2^nd players win the game.

Analysis of the problem:  Player 2 gets the highly desirable hut OR field on turn 1, then his choice of those spots on turn 2 (probably fields).  These spots are so much better than any other (tools, resource gathering and purchases) early on, that claiming them twice in the first two turns is game breaking.

So why, specifically is this game breaking?  This will probably require play testing (groan), but I feel it’s because of food upkeep.  Getting to the fields early and reducing your food upkeep, and limiting the amount of actions spent hunting is incredibly valuable. 

Proposed Errata:  I think the easiest thing to implement is to give players 1, 3 and 4 more food initially.  I am just spit balling here, but something like

Player 1:  2 extra food

Player 3:  3 extra food

Player 4: 6 extra food

Obviously this is going to require some testing, and the final numbers may change, but giving extra food like this buys non-player 2’s some time to get their infrastructure built up.

Age of Empires:

The Problem:  Inca Gold purchase.  Inca gold allows two first round purchases.  

Analysis:  Most first round purchases give more doobers (extra actions).  Even the generic actions are fantastic, when you get two of them.  Two specialty dudes?  Forget about it.

Proposed Errata:  Couple of ways to handle this.

First and easiest to implement, if Inca gold is drawn in the initial batch of purchases, it is replaced.

Second, make 1^st round purchase costs progressive.  $10 in round 1, $12 or $13 in round 2 or 3.   I think this might be more elegant, but it would require lots of testing.  Still means that Inca gold is worth buying, but some additional revenue is needed to really take advantage of.

Fresco:

The problem:  The combination of a generous money-VP ratio combined with reverse VP turn order.

Analysis:  Ok this is a  mess.  Money doesn’t count for VPs until end game, so the gold grinder is always last, thus gets to pick the ‘wake up times’ that allow him to keep the extra doober.  In addition, a players first doober in an action spot (excepting the gold grind spot) accomplishes the most; the economic term is diminishing returns and the mathematical term is learning curve.

Proposed Errata:  This one might not be saved, because the problems all intersect.  You can adjust the money to VP ratio from 2-1 to 3-1 or even 4-1, but that doesn’t address turn order or diminishing returns.  Resources are hidden, and you can unhide money and keep a separate tally of that to determine turn order, but that still doesn’t address diminishing returns.  Diminishing returns looks unsolvable unless you want to rewrite the game.  Like, add a dozen or so more paint tiles available for purchase (currently the game has all but one paint tile available in the buy paint phase) and/or change the VP totals in the paint the church phase (including the bonus for having the bishop nearby).

There I fixed it.