Reflecting on Board Game Geek's Top 20 Strategy Games List

I want to write briefly about Board Game Geek's Strategy Game rankings, to which I've linked in this post. As far as I understand it, the Strategy Game rankings are based on user ("Geek") ratings, but I think those ratings are sometimes overly influenced by popularity and not influenced by the quality of the game enough. Here are some random thoughts about the top 20 games:

• Twilight Struggle does belong at number 1! That's NOT disappointing; what was disappointing is that, for a while, Caverna was challenging for the top spot.
  
• Caverna is higher than Agricola, which (besides just being the flavor of the month) doesn't make sense because Caverna is much more of a sandbox game. Sandbox games do require strategy as you need a plan to go in a direction towards victory, but Agricola seems to constrain the player more than Caverna. In my opinion, constraints challenge players to be creative and to truly consider possibilities and choose the most efficient, expeditious path. Thus, I would put the non-sandboxy Agricola over the sandbox Caverna, given that both games are otherwise strikingly similar (i.e. worker placement, resource gathering, and resource conversion to items that score victory points).
  
• Puerto Rico is at number 5, which redeems this list because though the game does have a bit of a linear progression of how roles are played, this game really challenges players to "get on the train" of progression at the right time and to put your opponents into a position of not playing certain roles because they know that those roles would benefit you.
  
• Conversely, I don't believe that Power Grid should be at 11 without having games like Ticket to Ride up there with it. Call it personal opinion, but Power Grid isn't that much more strategic than Ticket to Ride and is actually quite less accessible. Ticket to Ride earns its classic status because it can be played as strategically and cutthroat as you want.
  
• Caylus is still hanging on at 15, but many reviews I've read have rendered that game outmoded by subsequent worker placement games that superseded it. Despite that, this proves that older, "simpler" games can win out over the new kids in town.
  
• I really enjoy 7 Wonders, but does it really belong at number 16 for Strategic Games? I would definitely put it high up there for Family Games...

As you go further down the list, the games listed make less sense. I suppose that my disappointment lies in the fact that the user votes are counted from the beginning and remain, which means that though some games stay on the list based on the strength of past votes, newer games may pass them because people are conscious of the voting system and what it takes to vote one game over another. I don't know how to rectify this, but many older games should remain at the top; those games didn't become less strategic over time. I would argue that though one may argue that older games were "simpler," they were also eminently strategic and tactical. Look at chess, which should really be near the top of this list (though it's considered an "abstract" game on BGG).

Board Game Cleanup 3: My Firm Guidelines

As I have mentioned in my two previous posts, I try to be judicious and wise about which games I bring into my house. I have some rudimentary personal rules based on a combination of my faith in Christ and my own sensibilities of what is appropriate for me and my family.

For the sake of brevity, here is a list of my rules, which aren't necessarily hard and fast rules as much as firm guidelines that inform my selection process:

• No nudity or coarse language
  I will not tolerate either profanity in any game text or nudity in any game imagery; any game that has these elements will not exist in our household.

No religious content that is antithetical to Christ
Sometimes, this is a judgment call, but a good example is if a game involves offering money to a deity, even a make-believe one.

No bloody imagery
This is more related to certain violent acts portrayed in art, such as impalings, body explosions, graphic beheadings, maimings, and the like. Sometimes, this is also a judgment call, but I have replaced art for images that were "too bloody." I also reject games that have actions that result in those outcomes.

No overtly demonic imagery or acts that invoke demons
The criteria for identifying this is actually quite narrow; I'm referring to outright occultish depictions, such as pentagrams, ritual sacrifices, and portrayals of creatures that were meant to be demons. Also, I rule out in-game actions that involve summoning demons or devils, or appeasing such entities. (Note: I don't reject games if demons are portrayed as "demons" and meant to serve as antagonists).

No positive portrayals of drug use
I don't think that a game that assigns any positive value to illegal or narcotic drug use is "family-friendly."

As I said, these are firm guidelines that are open to assessment; in other words, I try to investigate the game before I reject it. That said, I do lean towards rejection and try not to justify buying games if justification requires long-winded excuses; for example, if a game allows a protagonist to behead people, I wouldn't justify it by saying that the "people were bad, and so they deserved it." Of course, you, the reader, may have your own convictions, but these are mine.

If you would like, please feel free to offer your own convictions and interpretations of the Bible in the Comments section. I'm always willing to engage a cordial commenter, and I have been known to change my mind if a fine point is made.

Nobunaga's Ambition: 1HN Confusion in Defeat

When I was an undergrad, I studied Japanese language, history, and culture. Admittedly, at the time, I wasn't much of a language student and much preferred the elective history classes I took over learning kanji and memorizing dialogues. One day, while I was browsing the game stacks at Electronics Boutique, I happened upon Nobunaga's Ambition, which instantly caught my eye because of my appreciation of Japanese history, particularly the warlord period before the Edo/Tokugawa period (1600-1868). It was during that period when Japan's three greatest warlords brought about events that would unify the Japanese archipelago. This game focuses on the time period of Oda Nobunaga's rise to power. He was the first of the three great warlords (who were technically not "shogun," but are often considered as such) and was probably the most fascinating of the three for his penchant for megalomania and ambition to establish himself as a leader to be worshipped.

Even knowing a little about Oda Nobunaga should interest anyone in a strategy game about conquering domains, forming alliances through marriage, and conducting trade, which is what Nobunaga's Ambition promised as a game. I remember when I first opened the game and inserted it into my Sega Genesis. I actually perused the rather substantial manual -- I didn't just scan it, but read it deeply. I started the game and duly chose to be Oda Nobunaga. I was assaulted with the bright 16-bit glory of Genesis graphics and inundated with information about my domain and my military strength. Things started out so well and I was fully prepared to engage in hours of strategic gaming...

Except it didn't last hours. In fact, my first game didn't last more than 10 minutes because in short order I invaded a neighbor, got routed, tried forming an alliance and failed, and then got routed by another neighbor who took advantage of my weakness. I recall not being upset or frustrated, but confused. What just happened? What on Earth could I have done?

Well, I tried again... and again. At the start of one game, I tried to boost my rice production and go with a trade strategy, but I would inevitably be tempted to expand militarily and be summarily slapped down. I would then try to stockpile my fighting units only to be taken out from all sides due to my refusal to act. There were some strategies I refused to try because I didn't agree with them, and probably failed as a result; one such tactic was marrying into alliances. Because it seemed dishonest to me to establish alliances only to break them, I never tried that approach, though it could have been a route to victory. (Actually, Japan was largely unified through alliances, diplomacy, and the Battle of Sekigahara, which wasn't a direct military victory for Tokugawa Ieyasu as much as it stoked the formation of a political coalition among the victorious domains). Anyway, I tried several tactics and avoided other tactics, but the results were always the same: failure to advance.

The common response to repeated failure in strategy games is to seek out whatever tips, tricks, and information out there to play and win, but because I was more of a sports gamer at the time, I didn't have the patience to find strategy guides to win at what was essentially a resource management game. In little time, I shelved the game, never to crack the case again. Today, I still own Nobunaga's Ambition. As I write this, I think about how my new-found interest in Euro-style board games, which has stoked a parallel interest in Nobunaga's Ambition. Perhaps I was in the wrong place at the wrong time with this game: as a 22-year-old sports fan, the game was too slow and too opaque for me to sit back and enjoy it. However, as a 38-year-old board gamer, I think I'll try this game again. With the Internet and mounds of potential strategy information at my disposal, I can approach the game with a renewed vigor, with optimism, and with an appreciation of the management of resources. Stay tuned for Part II, when I give Nobunaga's Ambition another try...