Rating distribution for asm
Ratings
Wed 13th May 10:07
Very nice, deceptively difficult. Requires a very gentle touch to emerge as the winner. Great with different fog levels; I've played with 3, 5 and 6 players and they've all been very stimulating games.
Very nice, deceptively difficult. Requires a very gentle touch to emerge as the winner. Great with different fog levels; I've played with 3, 5 and 6 players and they've all been very stimulating games.
Sun 29th Mar 12:20
Decent attempt, subpar execution. Definite potential here but a couple major issues hold this board back.
One, the elephant in the room: Yes, this board is ugly as sin. No sense denying it.
Two, there are a couple instances of a capital/port combination that, once controlled, become extremely hard for other players to overcome. In fact in my observation, the added complexities to this board mostly serve to exacerbate existing imbalance in the basic board (although the added territories and bonuses do smooth things out quite a bit).
Decent attempt, subpar execution. Definite potential here but a couple major issues hold this board back.One, the elephant in the room: Yes, this board is ugly as sin. No sense denying it.
Two, there are a couple instances of a capital/port combination that, once controlled, become extremely hard for other players to overcome. In fact in my observation, the added complexities to this board mostly serve to exacerbate existing imbalance in the basic board (although the added territories and bonuses do smooth things out quite a bit).
Sun 15th Mar 15:02
Wow, I really couldn't disagree more with M57. I understand that the momentum lately has been towards "prettier" maps with themes and such, but to my eye you still can't beat a classic, crisp, continent-grab board done well, and that's what this is. The borders are 'too thin'? I don't even know what that means. Take a look at an archived game and see for yourself - maybe this board doesn't have fancy textural overlays and disappearing capital territories or whatever but it's always simple to see who has what at a glance.
I'll agree that there's not much gameplay-wise to recommend this board over other boards with similar subject matter - aside from the crispness of its graphics and the fundamentally sound nature of its gameplay. It's good for small or large groups, with or without fog, teams or ffa, and there are remarkably few boards about which that can be said these days.
I'm honestly a bit shocked at comments like 'ill-considered' and that anyone could find the continental areas hard to discern - particularly blaming the board for the player's failure to remember to take advantage of the information on display. I find that review blatantly unfair, which takes my rating from 8 to 9 stars.
Wow, I really couldn't disagree more with M57. I understand that the momentum lately has been towards "prettier" maps with themes and such, but to my eye you still can't beat a classic, crisp, continent-grab board done well, and that's what this is. The borders are 'too thin'? I don't even know what that means. Take a look at an archived game and see for yourself - maybe this board doesn't have fancy textural overlays and disappearing capital territories or whatever but it's always simple to see who has what at a glance.I'll agree that there's not much gameplay-wise to recommend this board over other boards with similar subject matter - aside from the crispness of its graphics and the fundamentally sound nature of its gameplay. It's good for small or large groups, with or without fog, teams or ffa, and there are remarkably few boards about which that can be said these days.
I'm honestly a bit shocked at comments like 'ill-considered' and that anyone could find the continental areas hard to discern - particularly blaming the board for the player's failure to remember to take advantage of the information on display. I find that review blatantly unfair, which takes my rating from 8 to 9 stars.
Sat 14th Mar 23:14
I played with Hordes, and thank goodness. It was hard enough to track what was going on with an abstract bonus structure. I can't imagine having continents to keep an eye on as well.
This is definitely one of those boards that looks far too pretty for its own good. Certain player color combinations can be difficult to distinguish, and borders between territories are basically invisible. Too bad.
I played with Hordes, and thank goodness. It was hard enough to track what was going on with an abstract bonus structure. I can't imagine having continents to keep an eye on as well.This is definitely one of those boards that looks far too pretty for its own good. Certain player color combinations can be difficult to distinguish, and borders between territories are basically invisible. Too bad.
Fri 13th Feb 19:02
Just not fun in any way. A big board full of seeming random continents, very few choke points or defensible positions, sprinkled with territories that have dice advantages just to slow things down even further. The repeating card scale makes for interminable games - you just sit and wait for someone to screw up or someone else to get lucky.
Just not fun in any way. A big board full of seeming random continents, very few choke points or defensible positions, sprinkled with territories that have dice advantages just to slow things down even further. The repeating card scale makes for interminable games - you just sit and wait for someone to screw up or someone else to get lucky.
Fri 13th Feb 18:57
This board is horrible. The graphics are irredeemably ugly, from the boring background to the endemic bleed and anti-aliasing errors. There's no real rhyme or reason to the continent structure, and the description is rife with typos and misspellings. Bad.
This board is horrible. The graphics are irredeemably ugly, from the boring background to the endemic bleed and anti-aliasing errors. There's no real rhyme or reason to the continent structure, and the description is rife with typos and misspellings. Bad.
Thu 5th Feb 18:17
I really like this board. I will basically echo Ratsy's comments below. It actually works fairly well for 2 players as well as (slightly) larger groups. Very interesting tactical issues to contend with. I disagree with Stalinksi's comment - I don't think it's that hard at all to grasp the concept behind the continents, particularly since they're symmetrical - there are only 3 or 4 'types' of bonuses to gain on the board.
The one complaint is that I feel the capital in the middle should be made much more obvious. It's only mentioned in passing in the board description and not even explicitly.
I really like this board. I will basically echo Ratsy's comments below. It actually works fairly well for 2 players as well as (slightly) larger groups. Very interesting tactical issues to contend with. I disagree with Stalinksi's comment - I don't think it's that hard at all to grasp the concept behind the continents, particularly since they're symmetrical - there are only 3 or 4 'types' of bonuses to gain on the board.The one complaint is that I feel the capital in the middle should be made much more obvious. It's only mentioned in passing in the board description and not even explicitly.
Thu 5th Feb 12:40
It's pretty good. Graphics are mediocre although I do love the jaunty whale with the beret in the ocean. Balance has a lot of character. Some continents are clearly superior to others - this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The unique ruleset can create difficult situations - repeating cardscale makes fog almost a requirement, and while I see the challenging value of the lack of history, I can't say it ever makes me happy.
It's pretty good. Graphics are mediocre although I do love the jaunty whale with the beret in the ocean. Balance has a lot of character. Some continents are clearly superior to others - this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The unique ruleset can create difficult situations - repeating cardscale makes fog almost a requirement, and while I see the challenging value of the lack of history, I can't say it ever makes me happy.
Wed 4th Feb 17:26
This is the most deceptively complex board I think there is. There are SO MANY tactical and strategic tricks to master to win a game on this one. Playing games on this board has taught me a lot. Games are rarely boring. You're never out of it until you've been eliminated - coming back from a terrible start is not only possible, it's commonplace. Endgames can achieve and fall out of balance in an instant.
This is the most deceptively complex board I think there is. There are SO MANY tactical and strategic tricks to master to win a game on this one. Playing games on this board has taught me a lot. Games are rarely boring. You're never out of it until you've been eliminated - coming back from a terrible start is not only possible, it's commonplace. Endgames can achieve and fall out of balance in an instant.
Mon 2nd Feb 19:21
I'm very conflicted about this review. On the one hand, I love this game and its variations, including this updated board. On the other hand, having now played several games of it - including my first, which I lost in the same manner that MilesTeg describes in the previous review - I feel that Raptor made a mistake to focus on '23' rather than the function that number served in the previous version. Here's a reproduced comment that I wrote on my 5th or so game on the Redux implementation:
"I think I'm starting to think that Raptor missed something big when he updated this board. I think there's more/better tension if the win condition is actually held the same as the old version - just getting 23 isn't enough, you have to START THE TURN with 23. Which would mean, for this updated version, triggering the win condition at 24 rather than 23."
And having played some more games, I think I'm right. Alpha and Mongrel fine-tuned their board perfectly and Raptor's version, while slicker and cleaner, is slightly different. I actually think I prefer the original, although this is fun as well.
(for completion: I feel like the extra scenarios add nothing and as such I haven't played them. My suspicion is that they're probably not thoroughly play-tested anyway judging by the aforementioned major issue with the main version).
I'm very conflicted about this review. On the one hand, I love this game and its variations, including this updated board. On the other hand, having now played several games of it - including my first, which I lost in the same manner that MilesTeg describes in the previous review - I feel that Raptor made a mistake to focus on '23' rather than the function that number served in the previous version. Here's a reproduced comment that I wrote on my 5th or so game on the Redux implementation:"I think I'm starting to think that Raptor missed something big when he updated this board. I think there's more/better tension if the win condition is actually held the same as the old version - just getting 23 isn't enough, you have to START THE TURN with 23. Which would mean, for this updated version, triggering the win condition at 24 rather than 23."
And having played some more games, I think I'm right. Alpha and Mongrel fine-tuned their board perfectly and Raptor's version, while slicker and cleaner, is slightly different. I actually think I prefer the original, although this is fun as well.
(for completion: I feel like the extra scenarios add nothing and as such I haven't played them. My suspicion is that they're probably not thoroughly play-tested anyway judging by the aforementioned major issue with the main version).
Mon 2nd Feb 18:51
I actually totally disagree with the people saying initial distribution determines the outcome. Well, maybe it would for 2-player games, but that's always the case (with boards not designed for those games). I've played several three- four- and five-player games on this board and it's not an issue at all. At this scale, interestingly enough, the difference between 3 and 4 armies a turn just isn't that much. Everyone is very careful every turn so in fact the game becomes pretty challenging as you try to outmanuever your opponents. With so few territories and only 1 fortify, leaving a single army in the wrong spot can spell your doom.
However the limited number of colors available is simply unforgivable. There is just no reason to treat people that way. That alone frankly drops my review to 6 stars from probably 8.
I actually totally disagree with the people saying initial distribution determines the outcome. Well, maybe it would for 2-player games, but that's always the case (with boards not designed for those games). I've played several three- four- and five-player games on this board and it's not an issue at all. At this scale, interestingly enough, the difference between 3 and 4 armies a turn just isn't that much. Everyone is very careful every turn so in fact the game becomes pretty challenging as you try to outmanuever your opponents. With so few territories and only 1 fortify, leaving a single army in the wrong spot can spell your doom.However the limited number of colors available is simply unforgivable. There is just no reason to treat people that way. That alone frankly drops my review to 6 stars from probably 8.
Sun 1st Feb 17:58
This is my favorite board ever created. That should speak for itself. Do you know who I am??
This is my favorite board ever created. That should speak for itself. Do you know who I am??
Thu 29th Jan 14:09
I really found the graphics extremely difficult. I had a very hard time telling what was in what continent, and the legend on the map image is basically useless.
The board itself is fairly fun. In the Pirate scenario, the negative bonuses add an interesting twist although they don't have that big an impact on the game.
The overall unit scale on this map is a little silly. By the time you're in position to take and hold any of the larger continents, the seeming-large bonuses they offer aren't as significant as you would think.
I would never play this game without fog or with fewer than maybe 6-7 players.
And lastly, Pirate Space 69 should border Trantor 11 but doesn't.
I really found the graphics extremely difficult. I had a very hard time telling what was in what continent, and the legend on the map image is basically useless.The board itself is fairly fun. In the Pirate scenario, the negative bonuses add an interesting twist although they don't have that big an impact on the game.
The overall unit scale on this map is a little silly. By the time you're in position to take and hold any of the larger continents, the seeming-large bonuses they offer aren't as significant as you would think.
I would never play this game without fog or with fewer than maybe 6-7 players.
And lastly, Pirate Space 69 should border Trantor 11 but doesn't.
Wed 28th Jan 10:18
This board really makes you think, moreso than most I've seen. Its unique method of accumulating armies will challenge your preconceptions about how to play Risk and make you re-examine your approach to the game. Very fascinating. Great for groups and small teams.
This board really makes you think, moreso than most I've seen. Its unique method of accumulating armies will challenge your preconceptions about how to play Risk and make you re-examine your approach to the game. Very fascinating. Great for groups and small teams.
Mon 26th Jan 21:00
I really want to rate this higher because I like the concept quite a bit. In fact I'm surprised it hasn't been done before since it's such a great idea for a board.
My objection basically comes down to the fact that certain squares do not have knights, removing them from the attack sequence and creating dead ends. The challenge to a board like this, in my view, should come down to planning a route to maximize the utility and efficiency of your attacks and fortifies, given the constraint of knight-like movement - but in practice the greatest challenge is not your opponents or your strategy but in navigating the arbitrary path restrictions created by the board design.
I really want to rate this higher because I like the concept quite a bit. In fact I'm surprised it hasn't been done before since it's such a great idea for a board.My objection basically comes down to the fact that certain squares do not have knights, removing them from the attack sequence and creating dead ends. The challenge to a board like this, in my view, should come down to planning a route to maximize the utility and efficiency of your attacks and fortifies, given the constraint of knight-like movement - but in practice the greatest challenge is not your opponents or your strategy but in navigating the arbitrary path restrictions created by the board design.
Sat 10th Jan 11:38
This might be my favorite board ever made. It's strategic, nerve-wracking and it's ALL in the timing.
This might be my favorite board ever made. It's strategic, nerve-wracking and it's ALL in the timing.
Sat 10th Jan 11:05
Works fairly well for 3 or 4 over a good enough sample of games. This is a quick, somewhat systematic game that can reveal surprising complexity with a few playthroughs. Not so good for 2. As someone else already said, this was a very early iteration of the smaller, semi-symmetrical board concept, and as usual Cumberdale was right there at the cutting edge of innovation. This board is like an Apple IIC.
Works fairly well for 3 or 4 over a good enough sample of games. This is a quick, somewhat systematic game that can reveal surprising complexity with a few playthroughs. Not so good for 2. As someone else already said, this was a very early iteration of the smaller, semi-symmetrical board concept, and as usual Cumberdale was right there at the cutting edge of innovation. This board is like an Apple IIC.
Thu 8th Jan 20:58
Good idea, not in love with the execution. Games tend not to play as I think the designer intended.
Good idea, not in love with the execution. Games tend not to play as I think the designer intended.
Thu 8th Jan 20:56
This is SUCH a good board, and criminally underappreciated. Another innovative concept from Cramchakle that seems astonishingly simple after he thinks it up. This is never not fun to play.
This is SUCH a good board, and criminally underappreciated. Another innovative concept from Cramchakle that seems astonishingly simple after he thinks it up. This is never not fun to play.
I also don't find the graphics that great. Many of the troop-count numbers are hard to read, and although I LOVE the attempt to blend player colors with the board graphics in the transfer stations, in many cases it makes for a hard time telling who owns what.
Worse, though, is that the stations don't start neutral. Not only does this give an advantage to players who get a good starting layout, it exacerbates the disadvantage of going later in the turn order. In larger games it's quite possible to find yourself in a huge hole before you've ever had a turn.