(edit: split post in two; part 1 of 2)
Originally posted by Aramis:
Playing settlers with all the expansions, it's neither quick nor concise.
I don't play it with all the expansions, nor does it say they're required. One or two are nice if you've played the original game many times but they’re not mandatory. Even with all the expansions in play it has to be much shorter than the weekend long monster games.
Puerto Rico has one expansion and it's just some more cards and buildings. I didn’t even know it existed until just now.
They're far from the only such games; I mentioned them as the two most popular that focus on economics and cooperation instead of warfare and direct competition.
Now, as for the games, I hope MWM actually has clear, concise, short rules.
Mayday was a little too short for the subject matter; BL was too long and complex, as way too detailed.
Which is a main reason I brought up newer games. Games don't *have* to be long playing, complex, and hard to understand or too simplistic. I’m all for clear, concise, and short rules that suit the subject matter.
Many of the Eurogames are quite fun, but very few are simulationist... most are gamist with thematic elements to justify the mechanic, not the other way around.
For example, I'd like to see a ship combat game with a detail level about on par with Bk2, but with a streamlined design system, and mayday style movement.
<shrugs> I'm not talking only about Eurogames (mention of GMT Games and reference to some DTP games previously), neither is
Reiner Knizia the only European game designer
, nor is a good "gamist" game necessarily a bad thing. Main point is a game doesn't have to have micro-detail to present a player with a plausible or historical situation and choices. Also that area maps (instead of hex), auction, bidding, cards, trade, vote, etc. are used more than they used to be for board/card game mechanics, wargame or otherwise.
And I thought Traveller was Gamist / Narritivist anyway.
