There's a lot of arguing on the best "simple game". Simple for me. It's The Resistance.
You are all in the resistance, but some of you (less than half) are secretly government agents pretending to be in the resistance. You have 5 missions to perform sequentially, each of which has a different leader. The leader selects who the team is (it's never the entire group) for that mission. Each person on the mission secretly votes to perform the mission or sabotage it - 1 sabotage means it fails (except the 4th mission takes 2 sabotages), otherwise it passes. If 3 missions succeed, the Resistance wins. If 3 missions fail, the Government Agents win. That's 90% of the rules right there.
Do online board games count? I know it's not the same playing a board game on the compute
Yes they do. As an avid avid avid (as in my dad and I attend the World Boardgaming Championships in Pennsylvania every year and I would go to the Essen Spiel if I could afford to) boardgamer, I wish more board games would use this well to expand their market. Plus, there's also mixing them with playing turn-based games using PBeM aids (play by e-mail) where you send move files to each other (or explain your move in text for simpler games) and use neutral sites created for that purpose to roll the dice or draw cards.
similar for citadels.
Good game but you have to put time limits on picking the characters each round.
Has anyone here played 7 Wonders? Is it amazing?
Good game but everyone is sort of playing their turns almost at once and you don't really know what's happening on the other side of the board which can be annoying if you're like me and what to interact with everyone.
Hmmm, interesting. That's the issue I see with Risk. Too often I've seen games come down to which of the two superpowers can take out the third player, and usually the third player gets a large say in that. So instead of skill or strategy(yeah I know it's a dice game) victory is based on how much someone likes you.
There isn't much skill or strategy to Risk anyway, it's up there with Monopoly as far as overrated popular games that sadly serve to prevent potential boardgamers from exploring quality games more because they think most games suck based on their limited experience.
Betrayal at House on the Hill
Problem with Junta is the coups take so long to resolve compared to a normal game turn that most people don't want to try a 2nd one after the 1st one has happened.
Betrayal can randomly lead to horribly imbalanced haunts where the monster either has a near auto-win or has almost no chance but fully resolving it will take a while. If you play it for pure strategy you'll be disappointed. If you get into the theme of exploring a bizarre haunted mansion, you'll probably really like it.
Great little game. Unless you have an 8th player, don't bother playing with the expansions though. The basic game is the best version.
haven't played the Axis and Allies expansions though. Any good?
A&A: Pacific is a nice change of pace, especially since you get to have the big semi-historical naval battles that A&A is often missing (because the US and Japan each usually have better strategies).
A&A: Europe sucks. Germany can go for London or New York, but either is a losing business. So either they take Moscow and win, or they get to the point where taking it is impossible and know they will lose, and then the last 2 hours of the game is horrifically boring for the German player who has no chance, so he might as well surrender, which sucks for the USA player especially to not get the thrill of the endgame. I mean seriously, imagine playing 1944-1945 of WW2 out as a German general knowing you had no hope of winning.
One of the hallmarks of Eurogames (read: better games) is that all players are in until the end of the game- they might have a 0% chance of winning after a point, but they still have things they can do and are able to influence and enjoy the game.
Oh please, no need to get smug about Euros. Plenty (actually most) modern war games have the same factor. You might really love Successors - the premise is Alexander the Great's generals are squabbling over who inherits his empire. If you don't mind longer games with a lot of rules (thankfully, they are simple rules, there's just lots of them), this one is great because not only is nobody elminated, it's a 5-turn game (although auto-victory is usually a threat) and there's really no such thing as having 0 chance to win until at least the start of the final turn.
Successors is one of many very underrated niche games that even most who style themselves boardgamers don't know if that are simply fantastic designs. Some others include Age of Rennaisance (once you get past the crappy rulebook - it's a tech/resource games), Twilight Struggle (Cold War - THE best wargame-eurogame mix EVER and also one of the best at making the game match its theme), Victory in the Pacific (US vs Japan WW2), Russian Campaign (Germany vs Russia WW2), Here I Stand (The Reformation), Hannibal: Rome vs Carthage (guess what it's about), Hare and Tortoise (race game with virtually no luck elements), Football Strategy (brilliant simple, 20 plays cross index with 10 defenses on a matrix), Fury of Dracula (hide and seek hidden movement, 1 player is Drac, the others hunt him down) and possibly Imperial (I waver on this one, it's definitely good just not sure if it's quite as the standard of greatness of these others).
Have you played any Eurogames? How many board games have you played? Because, as telcontar42 pointed out, a lot of the most famous Eurogames beat Risk at your criteria
Sight. So do most wargames.
Most of my favorite games that I play as board games are unconventional, such as Blokus, Balderdash and Scattergories. They all technically involve boards...
Balderdash is one of the top 10 games of any sort ever created in history.
I just played Pandemic, and it was pretty awesome. You and your friends are a team of specialists trying to save the world from a killer disease. I lost twice and finally won the last game.
I'm very competitive but cooperative "beat the system" games are underrated. There's a great Lord of the Rings cooperative game out there that is really hard to win even on the easy setting but really fun.
The entire series of games (There were 4) made by the axis and allies company were all decent. I think one was called Shogun, in which you control armies in feudal japan and try to conquor, and there was also a Roman version game - again dominate the map
There were actually 5 in the Gamemaster series, not 4. The other two are Broadsides & Boarding Parties (really silly) and Fortress America (the best one of the five. It's finally getting a reprint pretty soon here.)
So I need a tip or two on a small issue I have concerning board games.
You see. I've never played anything that isn't Risk, Monopoly, etc. Games that everyone and their mother plays at a time or two in their lives. To me, such simple games are just no fun. On the other hand I've got a huge problem of finding anyone that plays such games near me.
So to my question. How do you find other people that are interested in such games that are close enough to actually play with on a regular basis? Is there some sort of online meetup board for different cities?
You might find some on http://www.consimworld.com
few years ago I played an old English board game called King Maker - it lasted about 6 hours, but was rather good
I don't mind the length, but KingMaker had the worst mapboard of any game ever. The idea was great but the execution needed some work.
Interesting thing about smallworld is that the vps are hidden information. I actually prefer it to be the other way round- as with all these kind of games its always technically possible to count, which is worth doing, because frequently I've been picked on because other players assume I'm ahead, when I'm really not. Having open information means people can actually do the maths correctly
I agree 100%.