Shannon A. ([info]shannon_a) wrote,
@ 2006-02-17 11:40:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Reef Encounter v. Caylus
I played Reef Encounter last night, my first play after I received a review copy from Z-Man. I had high hopes for it; it was the one game from the recent batch that I would have bought if Z-Man hadn't sent a copy over. But I was astounded by what a great game it was.

After Keythedral I had some real trepidation with another Richard Breese design, because I do think that Keythedral is not a good game; it's too chaotic for almost any strategy, and the theme is as flat as a board. Reef Encounter, on the other hand, plays like a finely tuned machine. It's got great strategy and superb tactics. It also has two elements that I think really make a game: the constant fear over what your opponents will do; and the occasional look-what-a-brilliant-move-I-just-made moment. It's a little long. We were up around 2.5 or 3 hours when all was said and done, but it was well worth playing the whole time.

I'm surprised by the comparison to Caylus, which I also think is a long, but well-designed game, and which was also released to the U.S. market late last year. I was surprised by the comparison, because I don't think Caylus is actually in the same league as Reef Encounter, and thus I'm sad that it's Caylus that's gotten the groupthink adoration, not Reef Encounter.

I mean, they both have some of the sharp edges you find in indie games. Reef Encounter has a slow startup with not much chance for interesting moves for 30-45 minutes. If setup involved getting players on the board with some corals already in place, the game would have played better and more consistently. Caylus on the other hand has some severe mismatches between strategic & tactical decisions & outcomes. But looking at each game as a whole, Reef Encounter has a finely tuned set of individual game systems that work together, while Caylus feels much more haphazard.

I think Reef Encounter had two things going against it:

1.) The similarities to Tigris & Euphrates are obvious & meaningful. In many ways RE is a more complex T&E, with the random elements removed (much as Keythedral is to Settlers of Catan). It was probably harder to get people excited about a game so reminescent of something else (though the Caylus/Puerto Rico comparisons were there from the start, people also clearly stated how they differed from each other too).

2.) Reef Encounter was released in a limited ed. in 2004, then only pushed out to a wider release in late 2005, which probably killed any momentum that the game might have achieved, while Caylus went straight out into a Rio Grande edition.

In any case, I'm definitely going to sing Reef Encounter's praises when I writeup my review, and in the meantime Caylus and Reef Encounter are both going into my bag for a special Saturday gameday at EndGame tomorrow; hopefully I'll get to play both.



(Post a new comment)


[info]davidgoldfarb
2006-02-17 10:28 pm UTC (link)
Reef Encounter got quite a lot of favorable comment on spielfrieks -- it's just that the "groupthink adoration" was posted back when the first edition came out. Caylus is newer.

I'd definitely like to play both with you tomorrow, if possible. Maybe we can even get in Traumfabrik, if there's time. If not, there's always next Wednesday.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]shannon_a
2006-02-17 11:24 pm UTC (link)
Feeling sick this afternoon, not sure if I'm going to make it to EndGame at this point. We'll see if an afternoon & evening of rest does the trick or not.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dougo
2006-02-18 12:41 am UTC (link)
Frankly, I thought Reef Encounter sucked. And I thought the similarities with E&T were very shallow. But I should probably try it again some time.

I like Caylus, though I think it's overrated for a game with such a big potential kingmaker problem.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]davidgoldfarb
2006-02-18 02:55 am UTC (link)
I've played Caylus about a dozen times, and I've never noticed a big kingmaker problem. Can you expand on why you think so?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dougo
2006-02-18 03:37 am UTC (link)
Well, it's perfect-information, and in theory any multiplayer perfect-information game can come down to kingmaking. It might be that it's just too hard to see far enough ahead in Caylus to recognize when the situation occurs—the "fog of war" is equivalent to randomness or hidden information. But I would expect this to be less and less the case as players gain expertise and are able to see farther ahead. In particular, it seems like the movement of the provost can potentially swing the balance from one player to another. But maybe it's rare that this will end up making the difference in the endgame?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]shannon_a
2006-02-18 03:40 am UTC (link)
I see the provost as pretty pure brinkmanship. If you put yourself out near the end of the line of buildings, you're taking a risk and you're measuring that against everyone elses' interests, and then when someone else moves the provost they're making that same measurement.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dougo
2006-02-18 03:46 am UTC (link)
I don't see how that addresses the kingmaker issue. What if the person moving the provost doesn't have an interest either way, but others do?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]shannon_a
2006-02-18 05:43 am UTC (link)
If you don't have an interest, I don't see why you'd move the provost. It costs you money. Yes, you could purposefully throw any remaining position to hurt someone, but I wouldn't say moreso than in any other game where you can directly affect your opponent, from _El Grande_ to _Vinci_.

I only really see kingmaking where you can make a cost-free decision that might help one player or the other. Introducing a cost to the equation usually forces a player to act in his best interests, which is what's desired.


(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]dougo
2006-02-18 02:31 pm UTC (link)
If you don't have an interest, I don't see why you'd move the provost.

But not moving the provost might help someone else win the game. You can't avoid kingmaking just by passing, because that's still a choice.

Introducing a cost to the equation usually forces a player to act in his best interests, which is what's desired.

Suppose you have a worker two steps ahead of the provost that will give you 3VP, but an opponent has a worker one step ahead of the provost that will give him 25VP. Is it in your best interest to move the provost 2 or 0? Depends on the current score: if one of those moves wins you the game, then that's obviously the right move. But the presumption of a kingmaking situation is that it is no longer possible for you to win. You could choose to play to maximize your points, or to maximize your position, or to minimize the point difference between yourself and the winner, or to minimize the time until the game ends. But the point is that whichever you choose could give the game to an arbitrary opponent.

I'm not saying that this necessarily ruins a game. Like I said before, in theory it's part of every multi-player game with perfect information (and some with imperfect information). It depends on how often it comes up, and how much it makes the rest of the game feel pointless. Since I haven't heard people complain about it much in Caylus, I'm guessing it doesn't happen often enough to be an issue (or maybe it does happen a lot but only rarely is it obvious enough to bother people). But I'm a little surprised.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…