Musings On... New England (#15)

Tom Vasel: New England won Games Magazine's Game of the Year award in 2003, sparking many debates (as all awards generally do.) Designed by the team Alan Moon and Aaron Weissblum, and produced by Goldsieber and Uberplay, New England is a game about bidding, placement, and multiple options when playing.

In short, a "typical" Eurogame.

When I first played New England, I really enjoyed it, thinking that the game's mechanics were clever and original. I especially enjoyed the auction mechanic and how well the whole game fit together. After one play, I was ready to purchase the game.

Then a friend picked the game up, and I played it again. The second time through, and the plays after that, discouraged me from playing it much more. I just wasn't enamored with how constrictive the game felt. I didn't like the thin theme, but other games with just as slim of a theme have interested me, so that wasn't the problem.

It's just that New England felt, well - boring!

Games didn't have enough variance between them; and while there were several options, it just didn't have the "fun factor" that I so desperately seek for in a game. The game system itself appears to be flawless, but lacking fun.

Mark Jackson: I really had two issues with New England:
1. I just don't like the graphic design - which is weird, because I usually go ape over the look of Goldsieber games. But the muted colors & patterns don't make me feel like I'm settling New England... they remind me that I need to go out into the yard and rake up all the dang leaves.
2. There wasn't any "oomph" in the game. Well, maybe that isn't quite fair. There were nice "oomph-y" moments, as you had the opportunity to make clever plays and/or finally make the last piece of a plan fall in place... but overall, the order in which the cards/resources appeared either blessed or hosed your strategy and sucked the "oomph" out of the game.
Now, I'm a big fan of Alan Moon designs, which are often fraught with card order randomness, usually mitigated by some auxiliary system. In Union Pacific or Elfenland or Ticket to Ride, I find the balance of randomness & planning to be "just right". Not so much for New England, though.

Shannon Appelcline: I rated New England highly when I originally played it, and despite its large box size it continues to make it into my gamebag and gets a few plays a year.

The tile-laying aspect of New England is pretty unique, with its tight constraints on tile placement matched up with the need to create larger plots of land. The auction mechanism is entirely unique & there's always a lot of tension in seeing which cards and tiles other people will take, and where they will build.

It does have some flaws. I've more than once seen who takes each of 1, 2, 3, and 4 become really staid as the turns move around the table. However, I'd never say it was boring. The tension keeps it going for me, and the interesting & unique gameplay keeps it coming back to the table.

Larry Levy: For some reason, New England has never made it to the game table all that often, either today or when it first came out. Despite this, I find the game consistently enjoyable. While I disagree with Tom that the game is lacking in fun, it's true that it is a bit lacking in excitement. I feel it's a fairly subtle design with several different possible paths to victory. Almost every time I play, I find I'm reconsidering my theories on what it takes to win! I agree with Shannon that the auction mechanic, though innovative, seems to result in a "1, 2, 3, 4" result too often. Actually, I suspect that players may often be too conservative with their bidding, but even given that, I doubt that anything much more dramatic would work until the end of the game. This takes a bit of the luster off of the auction mechanic (which works far better, IMO, in Santiago). But even though the game might be less dynamic than it seems it could be, it's still a fine design.

It's interesting about the theme. It really isn't any thinner than most games we play, but it really bothers a lot of gamers, particularly, it seems, Europeans. I actually find using Pilgrims and farms as economic units to be rather charming. In any event, the theme doesn't bother me and there's enough of it there to keep me from considering this an abstract.

I think the reason New England's table time has been limited for us is that it fills a rather narrow niche. As mentioned, it isn't very exciting; it only works with four players and there are other, better games that fit that same description; the box is ungainly; and it was quite expensive when it was first released. All of this means that it will probably never be a highly played game. But I still consider it one of the better creations of the great Moon/Weissblum partnership, and a game I will happily play and suggest. I rate it an 8, which means it's definitely in my Top 75 games of all time and possibly in my Top 50.

Mark Jackson: Notice all the phrases that keep echoing each other here... "boring", "lacking fun", "staid", "a bit lacking in excitement"... and my ever-so-succinct "no oomph." (Can you tell I majored in English?) Note: these comments come from both the positive & negative takes on New England.

All of which begs the question: "Why no oomph?!"

Discuss this amongst yourselves. :-)

Paul Sauberer: I haven't played New England in about 2 years. It came out several times when I was still living on Long Island, and I joined in a few times. As with others, I never found it that exciting. I also did not come near mastering the strategy that I will admit is there. I was constantly misbidding and grabbing the wrong item. Still, I was intrigued and found myself wanting to play it once it left the rotation. It seemed as if it was something that didn't wear well on the group for very long, though, and it dropped off the radar.

Fast forward to our move to South Florida. Our new group also does not have a whole lot of interest in the game, no matter how often I suggest getting it to the table. There seems to be the same general feeling of "eh" whenever it is mentioned. No one hates it, but no one seems to particularly have a desire to play it either. If the BGG ratings were not stated to be a measure of replay desire and were instead a gauge of apathy, New England would probably gather quite a few 10s.

Now that I am trying to thin out my collection, New England is on the bubble. One of the almost automatic categories to keep a game is that it was a Games Magazine Game of the Year. New England may be an exception to that rule. I'd like to play it at least one more before I pass final judgment, but I can't get it to the table. Maybe that, in itself, should tell me all I need to know.

Shannon Appelcline: Larry said that players might be too conservative in their bidding in New England. That's possible, but the problem is that you never want to get in a position where you can't buy two items on your turn. Unfortunately, that's all too possible, even if you do bid conservatively.

Assuming that everyone always bids 1-2-3, then 4 in a round, on average you're spending 2.5 x 2 = -5 on a turn, and you're earning +4. In 12 turns you run out of your spending money due to this -1 a turn cashflow. (It's actually some number of turns less because you spend, then gain, not vice-versa, and how many rounds less depends on when you're forced to make your high bids.) As soon as you go through this cushion, and you go through it faster if you spend liberally, you end up in the spot where you can only buy 7 items every 4 turns.

Yes, pilgrims are the answer to this. One pilgrim makes you +5, which is break even; and two bring you to +6 a turn, allowing you to bid 1-2-4-5. However, I think that tight money at the start can really lock down peoples' spending, particularly if they aren't able to get pilgrims through gameplay.

Is that all good or bad? I dunno. I do think that the economic system is a little tricky, however, and that has the potential to put people off if they can't figure out how to play the game right.

Oh, and by the by, I agree with one thing that Mark said: the graphics on this game are BORING. Which is a shame.

D.W. Tripp: I've had my copy for nearly two years now, and I must say this: The shrinkwrap is of outstanding quality. I've moved it from storage to the shelf, to a box and then back to storage and now a game shelf and despite all the heavy traffic, the shrinkwrap doesn't even have a tear in it.

As for the game... haven't played yet. It looks bland, and the whole pilgrim thing fails to excite me. I suppose eventually one of you is going to say something that will kick-start me into motion, and I'll rip that oh-so-excellent shrinkwrap off and read the rules.

Rick Young: Now this isn't about something dumb, but a comment earlier from Andy Daglish in the WotR discussion caught my attention. It was about that thing called "theme." About how it seems to matter more to us here in North America than it does to European gamers (or designers for that matter?) that a game should have a theme. I took from that observation that European gamers can be happier with abstract games in general; and, the lack of a theme, or strong ties to a theme, doesn't matter to them as it might to us here on this side of the Atlantic. If true, it would explain a lot and resonates with me because I happen to think theme is an important ingredient in game design.

Larry Levy offered this regarding the theme of this game:

It's interesting about the theme. It really isn't any thinner than most games we play, but it really bothers a lot of gamers, particularly, it seems, Europeans. I actually find using Pilgrims and farms as economic units to be rather charming. In any event, the theme doesn't bother me and there's enough of it there to keep me from considering this an abstract.

Do Larry and Andy need to talk? Or am I reading this right? Did you mean "thicker" rather than "thinner" Larry?

Larry: (to Rick) That's exactly why the split was so surprising, Richard. Usually, you would see the Americans complaining that the theme was too weak. However, there are some mitigating issues. First of all, most of the gamers who seemed to take issue with the theme are from Britain, and Brits tend to be closer to Yanks in the way they view theme importance. (All massive generalities, of course, but true in the aggregate.) Second, the American fans are Euro-gamers, so we're used to pasted-on themes. Nevertheless, the dichotomy continues to surprise me, as New England is definitely a German-style design, rather than an American-style one but is more popular on this side of the Atlantic. I'd be curious to hear if any of you have a theory of why this should be so (and no, I don't think too many Yanks find Pilgrim-themed games to be irresistible!).

(to Shannon) My assumption, like yours, has always been that you really want to be able to buy two items a turn. However, my last two games featured players who were more free-spending than I would have thought prudent, but who nonetheless did very well. I'm afraid I haven't played New England enough to be able to determine whether their more aggressive bidding was responsible for their success, but the idea is intriguing and would definitely raise my opinion of the game if it were true. Maybe the idea is that it can be better to bid $4 (or even higher) and get the one good item you need than it is to grab two mediocre items for total of $2 or $4. I have no tangible proof of this, but just have a suspicion that the bidding and purchasing in this game is a little less straightforward than it first appears.

Shannon Appelcline: You know, when I wrote, "you never want to get in a position where you can't buy two items on your turn", I did immediately wonder if that was true or not, but then just shrugged my shoulders and let it be because that's how I've always played the game. That huzonfirst also offers that question up for consideration and brings it home again.

Economic systems in games can be tricky things.

On the one hand you have a game like Santiago where there's a very clear cost/benefit analysis. You can quickly calculate the value of your holdings before and after a particular move, and thus know the value of that move.

On the other hand you have a game like Ra where there's sufficient chaos based on what other players are doing and on unknown factors (the drawing of the Ra tiles) that all you can do is move in the best direction based on generalized cost/benefit considerations. (E.g., I'm ahead on pharaohs, so that pharaoh that maintains my lead is probably of high value to me.)

And then on the third hand you have games where the economic workings are sufficiently hidden that most people can't manage a cost/benefit analysis. I'm pretty sure that Fifth Avenue fits into this category, and that's why it largely failed. And I think the auction of New England might too. That even those of us who like the game can't say exactly what's a good move and what isn't is somewhat worrying.

Is that because no one has enough experience because the game just didn't reach critical mass out of the gate, or is the game sufficiently opaque that it could never have hoped to reach critical mass?

I dunno.

Larry Levy: Shannon, I'm almost certain the reason that we don't feel we have a good grasp of the bidding strategy is due to inexperience with the game. I mean, it just isn't that complex. I'm sure there are New England fans out there who can quote you letter and verse about how to bid, just as there are experts in other games of skill.

One of the reasons I feel this way is the very similar bidding system in Santiago. I feel the choices there are, if anything, more involved, because of the possibility of becoming the Overseer, as well as considerations about irrigation. I've played that game more often than New England, though, and probably because of that, I usually have a pretty good idea what a "proper" bid is. (BTW, this isn't because of any cost/benefit analysis I do; the uncertainty of how the board will develop, as well as which tiles will come out, make that difficult. It's just based on an intuitive feel of the value of the different tiles.) This is developed to the point that I'll look at what's available and think, "I'd bid $3 here" and, sure enough, the opening player will say, "$3." I just don't see where the issues in New England are any more complex than those in Santiago. I'm certain that with sufficient game time, I could have a grasp of the bidding in NE similar to the one I feel I have in Santiago.

By the way, I feel the same way about Fifth Avenue. I've only played it twice and am no closer to divining a coherent strategy than when I first played. But the game isn't rocket science; it's just a bit on-intuitive. I'm sure that with a few more plays I could have a pretty good idea of what good and bad moves are. Whether I'll have the chance to do that is up to the desires of other players. I think Fifth Avenue has been unfairly maligned, mostly by players who didn't grasp some elementary truths about good play when they initially tried it out. But as a result, it can be pretty hard to get to the table.

Shin Yoo: Greetings everyone - I was on board with WotR but have remained silent since I have yet to play WotR. I do own and enjoy New England, so here goes my humble, first post.

The bidding : the comments about "1,2,3,4" aspect of the bidding was interesting because I've only seen it in my last game(4 player). Indeed it happened almost through the entire game, and it resulted in a somewhat boring game too. However, in my previous games with 4 player, we've seen 6 and 7 taken in a heated competition; and the game was intense. Does it depend on players, or the particular development of game play? Honestly I don't know - I'll have to play the game more.

The components : what I admire most about NE is the use of cards and tiles. The components of this game are constructed in such an economical way that nothing feels redundant. There's no need to keep track of your score because the cards that you took sum it up nicely. Whenever I think about well-constructed game pieces, I think of NE.

The drama : I too think that there is no highly dramatic story-line in NE. But that does not make this game boring. NE is a game that slowly builds itself up to the finale, and I think it provides enough interesting, if not ground-breaking, decisions to make during the process.

Larry Levy: Shin, with regard to the economically designed bits in New England, I have to take at least partial exception, because of one item: those silly-ass black markers that nobody uses! I'd nominate them for stupidest component in a game, except that the scoreboard in Capitol has long since retired that award. I do agree with everything else you say.

Shin Yoo: OMG, how could I forget those black markers!? Yes, yes... those wooden markers were totally redundant. I mean, they are so pointless that their very existence was completely forgotten It's funny how our memory works, because all the time while I was writing that "economic bits" paragraph I was thinking hard about those score cards that are awarded for having the most pilgrims/ships/barns(was it barns?), wondering whether I should call them redundant or not!

Shannon Appelcline: I think those score cards are nice, because you can theoretically stack them up with all your other cards and quickly count your score. Unfortunately this doesn't work due to ties, in which case you can't actually hand the score cards out because two people share them.

I'd call that all a nice usability element for the game that doesn't quite go the whole race.

Wei-Hwa Huang: One of my gaming groups played New England quite a bit when it came out. Part of the reason was that it was one of the few Eurogames that one picky member of the group (I'll call him Jim) would actually play (Jim prefers trick-taking games and two-player abstracts). Throughout the sessions, we got to be pretty good at the game, especially Jim.

I think the main reason that the game feels boring to some is that unlike a lot of other growth strategy games, the growth in NE is linear instead of quadratic. What I mean by that is that every turn, the number of resources you get is about the same; you don't get twice as much stuff because you have twice as much stuff. (Compare with a game like Settlers of Catan, where someone with twice as many settlements tends to gets twice as many goods.) There's no feeling of a "snowball effect" where you get bigger and bigger and feel like you can take over the whole world if only the game wasn't ending.

Another factor is that the scoring is so balanced that the optimizations you make have a very teeny tiny effect on the final results. Let me do some number crunching to demonstrate this.

Let's suppose you're playing a "domino" 3VP card. It will cost you 2 actions to get the land, then 1 to get the card. 3 actions to get 3VP = average 1VP per action.

Next, let's suppose you're playing a "triomino" 6VP card. 3 actions for the land, then 1 for the card. 4 actions, 6VP = 1.5VP per action.

Finally, the red "2x2" 10VP card works out to be 5 actions for 10VPs = 2VP per action.

So, obviously the last one is a better deal, right? Ah, but we're forgetting that the players start with a "free" domino tile in each color! If we figure those in, then we have:

1 action to get 3VP = average 3VP per action
2 actions to get 6VP = average 3VP per action
3 actions to get 10VP = average 3.33VP per action

These are very nearly identical! What does this all mean? This means that early on in the game, players are all getting VPs at approximately the same rate (as long as they're all getting actions they can use). It isn't until most of the initial bonuses are spent that the disparities between the different strategies start making a strong difference in the score -- and even then we're talking something like 0.5VPs per action here. That means a good player is gaining on the medium-strength player something like only 1VP per turn, which sure doesn't feel like much. Not to mention that the player going for the 10VP card might be getting a better payoff, but only if they manage to do it before the game ends, which isn't a guarantee.

Playing New England well means that you have to be able to pay attention to tiny optimizations, because among players who don't make horrible moves, the game tends to be really close; often won by one point or even on tiebreaker. It means that timing the last turn is critical; if you're investing in something and you don't make it pay off before the game is over, you've lost. Not only have we had games that were decided on the last turn, but we've had games where on the penultimate turn we could calculate the exact probability that a player would win (because it all hinged upon the luck of the last draw).

But I think what this also means is that among casual gamers, the game doesn't really feel that exciting. Your moves rarely have giant repercussions. Often it seems like there isn't much difference between most of your options -- because there isn't! Playing well is about seeing those tiny differences and getting enough of them to win over your opponents.

I can see why a game like New England can seem exciting to a player like Jim, who loves analyzing the effects and values of individual moves, and not so very exciting to those who are more about theme and story, and expect their games to have more "oomph".


~FIN


And that's all folks! Hope you enjoyed it, see you next time!

Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com