UR is for me the most interesting innovation of this year.
A true offspring of the 18xy-family, but with a very special flavour.
The rules seem to be complete and well defined.
But the similarities to the normal 18xy-rules may lead to carelessness in reading, so the following questions are meant mostly to make sure, that we understood everything correctly:
1.) The owning player may use Enkidu even before assimilation - that means, one state can irrigate and earn money right in the first operating round?
2.) There is a violet hexagon below each phase-description on the map containing a 5. Does that remind of the stable income for the owner of irrigated fields? If so, the graphics (especially if compared to the picture for the state-income on the left) is not very instructive.
3.) Besides buying/selling of assimilated minors the states have NO opportunity to trade or to transfer money (especially, diggers cannot be sold like lokomotives are)?
4.) All states have 11 regions, only Elam has 12?
5.) Rules and map state there are 10 1+1-cards - but the game (at least my version) only contains 9?
6.) Who likes "Der" - is there (besides fear of phase 4) any clever reason to exchange an income of 30 for a forest field?
7.) Concerning non-assimilated minors: You may buy land there (bringing You a share of the state's income), You may place a pump there - but canals are forbidden?
8.) Every state can build everywhere, e.g. babylonian diggers can appear in Persia, build a canal and a pump there (perhaps sucking water from a Akkadian reservoir) and the income goes to Babylon?
9.) Several forest fields are depicted with a reddish background (Ashur and neighbours, Babylon), that has no meaning for the game?
10.) The primogeniture does not cost anything - just blocks up players liquidity during the settling round?
11.) Anything known if or when Dirk Clemens will include UR into his programm (would be extremly nice, because of all the land buying and selling)?
Concerning the bank-notes:
12.) What does "Splägel" mean?
13.) Why is the most attractive portrait only on a 5-note?
14.) Why do Joris Wiersinga and Jeroen Dommen as depicted on the side of the box cover look so differently from the pictures on the banknotes?
15.) On the banknote we find the promise to play 2 weeks of Siedler when copying the Splotter-notes - who will play, will it take place in Eindhoven, how good have the copies to be?
Well, just for the beginning of a wonderful friendship with UR ...
UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
Some days ago I asked that before, it nearly has vanished now, but I recommend reading that.
The major question for me still is: How to get to phase 5?
It just seems so unlikely that the rivers with their capacity to water only 18 (or 21) fields will last long enough to avoid a sudden end in or at the end of phase 3.
Joris answered and explained the benefits of taking advantage of rising land prices.
We tried that and of course that was true: Buying and selling lands to make profit out of the price differences are a crucial thing to win.
BUT: That doesn't solve the original question at all.
The amount of bying/selling will have influence on the game length in rounds or hours - but not in phases.
At the end of the settling it is really important for the players to own many of the irrigated fields (to get the small profits of 5 a field) and for the kings to irrigate as many fields as possible (to get the fat profit).
So still remains the question: Even moderate reservoir/pump-building (lets say 2 of each in every phase) leads to a lasting irrigation capacity of 12 in the first two phases, and one reservoir in phase 3 can be enough (and more will be) to drain all water.
Akko Monasso and Roland Nowicky confirmed that experienced longer plays reaching phase 5.
But I have no clue how that could happen if the kings defend their basic interest in getting high state-incomes.
The major question for me still is: How to get to phase 5?
It just seems so unlikely that the rivers with their capacity to water only 18 (or 21) fields will last long enough to avoid a sudden end in or at the end of phase 3.
Joris answered and explained the benefits of taking advantage of rising land prices.
We tried that and of course that was true: Buying and selling lands to make profit out of the price differences are a crucial thing to win.
BUT: That doesn't solve the original question at all.
The amount of bying/selling will have influence on the game length in rounds or hours - but not in phases.
At the end of the settling it is really important for the players to own many of the irrigated fields (to get the small profits of 5 a field) and for the kings to irrigate as many fields as possible (to get the fat profit).
So still remains the question: Even moderate reservoir/pump-building (lets say 2 of each in every phase) leads to a lasting irrigation capacity of 12 in the first two phases, and one reservoir in phase 3 can be enough (and more will be) to drain all water.
Akko Monasso and Roland Nowicky confirmed that experienced longer plays reaching phase 5.
But I have no clue how that could happen if the kings defend their basic interest in getting high state-incomes.
-
Akke Monasso
Re: UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
You'll probably get official answers soon, but I can answer some of your questions:
1.) The owning player may use Enkidu even before assimilation - that means, one state can irrigate and earn money right in the first operating round?
Correct
2.) There is a violet hexagon below each phase-description on the map containing a 5. Does that remind of the stable income for the owner of irrigated fields?
Correct
3.) Besides buying/selling of assimilated minors the states have NO opportunity to trade or to transfer money (especially, diggers cannot be sold like lokomotives are)?
Correct
8.) Every state can build everywhere, e.g. babylonian diggers can appear in Persia, build a canal and a pump there (perhaps sucking water from a Akkadian reservoir) and the income goes to Babylon?
Correct
10.) The primogeniture does not cost anything - just blocks up players liquidity during the settling round?
Correct
1.) The owning player may use Enkidu even before assimilation - that means, one state can irrigate and earn money right in the first operating round?
Correct
2.) There is a violet hexagon below each phase-description on the map containing a 5. Does that remind of the stable income for the owner of irrigated fields?
Correct
3.) Besides buying/selling of assimilated minors the states have NO opportunity to trade or to transfer money (especially, diggers cannot be sold like lokomotives are)?
Correct
8.) Every state can build everywhere, e.g. babylonian diggers can appear in Persia, build a canal and a pump there (perhaps sucking water from a Akkadian reservoir) and the income goes to Babylon?
Correct
10.) The primogeniture does not cost anything - just blocks up players liquidity during the settling round?
Correct
-
Akke Monasso
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
>Akko Monasso and Roland Nowicky confirmed that experienced longer plays >reaching phase 5.
I only played twice, so even inexperienced players can reach phase 5. I'll give you a simplified overview of what happened in one of our games:
In our games the early kingdoms bought a lot of diggers, which meant we were in phase 2 in the first round. New kingdoms bought more diggers causing the older ones to disappear. The older kingdoms had to buy new diggers, but the current Kings sold off all their land, causing someone else to become King. Since that kingdom did not have a lot of money because an expensive Independent was sold to it, no one wanted to own more land in it. Which means that almost no land was irrigated (unowned land will not be irrigated).
After this the highlands and forests were bought and we quickly got to phase 5. The game was over quite soon after that.
I only played twice, so even inexperienced players can reach phase 5. I'll give you a simplified overview of what happened in one of our games:
In our games the early kingdoms bought a lot of diggers, which meant we were in phase 2 in the first round. New kingdoms bought more diggers causing the older ones to disappear. The older kingdoms had to buy new diggers, but the current Kings sold off all their land, causing someone else to become King. Since that kingdom did not have a lot of money because an expensive Independent was sold to it, no one wanted to own more land in it. Which means that almost no land was irrigated (unowned land will not be irrigated).
After this the highlands and forests were bought and we quickly got to phase 5. The game was over quite soon after that.
-
Jeroen Doumen
Re: UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
> UR is for me the most interesting innovation of this year.
Thank you!
> 1.) The owning player may use Enkidu even before assimilation
> - that means, one state can irrigate and earn money right in
> the first operating round?
Correct (except that it's called Eridu ;-) ).
> 2.) There is a violet hexagon below each phase-description on
> the map containing a 5. Does that remind of the stable income
> for the owner of irrigated fields? If so, the graphics
> (especially if compared to the picture for the state-income
> on the left) is not very instructive.
Yes, this is the reminder of the player income. Graphics are that of a land field, since actually all are hexes.
> 3.) Besides buying/selling of assimilated minors the states
> have NO opportunity to trade or to transfer money
> (especially, diggers cannot be sold like lokomotives are)?
Correct.
> 4.) All states have 11 regions, only Elam has 12?
If that's on your gameboard, that's correct. I don't know by heart which state(s) had one extra land hex, but they all should have 11 or 12 hexes if I remember correctly.
> 5.) Rules and map state there are 10 1+1-cards - but the game
> (at least my version) only contains 9?
Send us an email and we will mail you a replacement card - there should be 10 1+1 cards in the game. Is there anyone else who is missing a card?
> 6.) Who likes "Der" - is there (besides fear of phase 4) any
> clever reason to exchange an income of 30 for a forest field?
I do - you'll get a forest land for free, which can be used strategically if you don't have enough money (for instance, to usurp the position of king)
> 7.) Concerning non-assimilated minors: You may buy land there
> (bringing You a share of the state's income), You may place a
> pump there - but canals are forbidden?
No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an independent nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of waterworks. These restrictions are lifted when the independent nation is assimilated or traded in.
> 8.) Every state can build everywhere, e.g. babylonian diggers
> can appear in Persia, build a canal and a pump there (perhaps
> sucking water from a Akkadian reservoir) and the income goes
> to Babylon?
Correct.
> 9.) Several forest fields are depicted with a reddish
> background (Ashur and neighbours, Babylon), that has no
> meaning for the game?
Correct.
> 10.) The primogeniture does not cost anything - just blocks
> up players liquidity during the settling round?
Correct. At the end of the settling round, the money is returned to the plyer's cash.
> 11.) Anything known if or when Dirk Clemens will include UR
> into his programm (would be extremly nice, because of all the
> land buying and selling)?
I don't know whether he will, but it would indeed be very nice.
> 12.) What does "Splägel" mean?
It's a shortening of "Splotter pegel" (and pegel is slang for money in the Netherlands).
> 13.) Why is the most attractive portrait only on a 5-note?
You must be male then ;-)
> 14.) Why do Joris Wiersinga and Jeroen Dommen as depicted on
> the side of the box cover look so differently from the
> pictures on the banknotes?
We dressed up for the banknote picture.
> 15.) On the banknote we find the promise to play 2 weeks of
> Siedler when copying the Splotter-notes - who will play, will
> it take place in Eindhoven, how good have the copies to be?
No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
Thank you!
> 1.) The owning player may use Enkidu even before assimilation
> - that means, one state can irrigate and earn money right in
> the first operating round?
Correct (except that it's called Eridu ;-) ).
> 2.) There is a violet hexagon below each phase-description on
> the map containing a 5. Does that remind of the stable income
> for the owner of irrigated fields? If so, the graphics
> (especially if compared to the picture for the state-income
> on the left) is not very instructive.
Yes, this is the reminder of the player income. Graphics are that of a land field, since actually all are hexes.
> 3.) Besides buying/selling of assimilated minors the states
> have NO opportunity to trade or to transfer money
> (especially, diggers cannot be sold like lokomotives are)?
Correct.
> 4.) All states have 11 regions, only Elam has 12?
If that's on your gameboard, that's correct. I don't know by heart which state(s) had one extra land hex, but they all should have 11 or 12 hexes if I remember correctly.
> 5.) Rules and map state there are 10 1+1-cards - but the game
> (at least my version) only contains 9?
Send us an email and we will mail you a replacement card - there should be 10 1+1 cards in the game. Is there anyone else who is missing a card?
> 6.) Who likes "Der" - is there (besides fear of phase 4) any
> clever reason to exchange an income of 30 for a forest field?
I do - you'll get a forest land for free, which can be used strategically if you don't have enough money (for instance, to usurp the position of king)
> 7.) Concerning non-assimilated minors: You may buy land there
> (bringing You a share of the state's income), You may place a
> pump there - but canals are forbidden?
No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an independent nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of waterworks. These restrictions are lifted when the independent nation is assimilated or traded in.
> 8.) Every state can build everywhere, e.g. babylonian diggers
> can appear in Persia, build a canal and a pump there (perhaps
> sucking water from a Akkadian reservoir) and the income goes
> to Babylon?
Correct.
> 9.) Several forest fields are depicted with a reddish
> background (Ashur and neighbours, Babylon), that has no
> meaning for the game?
Correct.
> 10.) The primogeniture does not cost anything - just blocks
> up players liquidity during the settling round?
Correct. At the end of the settling round, the money is returned to the plyer's cash.
> 11.) Anything known if or when Dirk Clemens will include UR
> into his programm (would be extremly nice, because of all the
> land buying and selling)?
I don't know whether he will, but it would indeed be very nice.
> 12.) What does "Splägel" mean?
It's a shortening of "Splotter pegel" (and pegel is slang for money in the Netherlands).
> 13.) Why is the most attractive portrait only on a 5-note?
You must be male then ;-)
> 14.) Why do Joris Wiersinga and Jeroen Dommen as depicted on
> the side of the box cover look so differently from the
> pictures on the banknotes?
We dressed up for the banknote picture.
> 15.) On the banknote we find the promise to play 2 weeks of
> Siedler when copying the Splotter-notes - who will play, will
> it take place in Eindhoven, how good have the copies to be?
No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
-
Jeroen Doumen
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
> The major question for me still is: How to get to phase 5?
>
> Joris answered and explained the benefits of taking advantage
> of rising land prices.
>
> BUT: That doesn't solve the original question at all.
Actually it does, let me try to explain below:
> At the end of the settling it is really important for the
> players to own many of the irrigated fields (to get the small
> profits of 5 a field) and for the kings to irrigate as many
> fields as possible (to get the fat profit).
Here you say it yourself: the 5 per field are only a minor profit, and by definition the king of a state will get the most money out of the harvest (since he owns the most land). So yes, it (mostly) is in the king's best interest to defend his postion. However, it is NOT in the other players best interest to keep their lands there - the 5 is only a small profit, and since it is financially better to be king (since that will earn you the most in that state, besides making the decisions) you should really strive to become a king yourself in order to win the game. So usually you will only want to hang to investments in other states until you can found your own kingdom (or do that together with another player). Thus, lots of land will not be owned by players and hence cannot be irrigated (the king usually doesn't have the money to buy all those sold lands).
It can even make sense to simply sell all your lands of a certain type (losing the 5 per irrigited land, but reaping the greater profit of risen land prices)even if it means you'll buy land that isn't irrigated next turn.
> But I have no clue how that could happen if the kings defend
> their basic interest in getting high state-incomes.
I hope this gives you some clues.
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
>
> Joris answered and explained the benefits of taking advantage
> of rising land prices.
>
> BUT: That doesn't solve the original question at all.
Actually it does, let me try to explain below:
> At the end of the settling it is really important for the
> players to own many of the irrigated fields (to get the small
> profits of 5 a field) and for the kings to irrigate as many
> fields as possible (to get the fat profit).
Here you say it yourself: the 5 per field are only a minor profit, and by definition the king of a state will get the most money out of the harvest (since he owns the most land). So yes, it (mostly) is in the king's best interest to defend his postion. However, it is NOT in the other players best interest to keep their lands there - the 5 is only a small profit, and since it is financially better to be king (since that will earn you the most in that state, besides making the decisions) you should really strive to become a king yourself in order to win the game. So usually you will only want to hang to investments in other states until you can found your own kingdom (or do that together with another player). Thus, lots of land will not be owned by players and hence cannot be irrigated (the king usually doesn't have the money to buy all those sold lands).
It can even make sense to simply sell all your lands of a certain type (losing the 5 per irrigited land, but reaping the greater profit of risen land prices)even if it means you'll buy land that isn't irrigated next turn.
> But I have no clue how that could happen if the kings defend
> their basic interest in getting high state-incomes.
I hope this gives you some clues.
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
Thanks for the quick answers and thanks for:
> Send us an email and we will mail you a replacement card -
> there should be 10 1+1 cards in the game.
Actually I only needed the correct number. As there always one card at least will be discarded for a pump or reservoir, nine will do (perhaps with a photocopy to remind of the currect number).
> No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an independent
> nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of waterworks.
Oops. I can't find that in the rules!
Digging is explicitly forbidden: "Man darf nicht auf den Ländereien von unabhängigen Nationen graben, ..." (p. 10).
Building pumps is forbidden too (p. 10).
But buying land (p. 6) is only restricted by:
- ownership of other players
- river land
- having sold this type previously this round
- having sold from the same new state previously this round
Ok, it's clear now. But perhaps the rules should add that in future.
> No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
Confess: You didn't expect someone would read this ;-)
Anyway, if I ever will have the chance to go to Eindhoven again, I'd prefer playing UR with You ...
> Send us an email and we will mail you a replacement card -
> there should be 10 1+1 cards in the game.
Actually I only needed the correct number. As there always one card at least will be discarded for a pump or reservoir, nine will do (perhaps with a photocopy to remind of the currect number).
> No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an independent
> nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of waterworks.
Oops. I can't find that in the rules!
Digging is explicitly forbidden: "Man darf nicht auf den Ländereien von unabhängigen Nationen graben, ..." (p. 10).
Building pumps is forbidden too (p. 10).
But buying land (p. 6) is only restricted by:
- ownership of other players
- river land
- having sold this type previously this round
- having sold from the same new state previously this round
Ok, it's clear now. But perhaps the rules should add that in future.
> No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
Confess: You didn't expect someone would read this ;-)
Anyway, if I ever will have the chance to go to Eindhoven again, I'd prefer playing UR with You ...
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
Thanks for the quick answers and thanks for:
> Send us an email and we will mail you a replacement card -
> there should be 10 1+1 cards in the game.
Actually I only needed the correct number. As there always one card at least will be discarded for a pump or reservoir, nine will do (perhaps with a photocopy to remind of the currect number).
> No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an independent
> nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of waterworks.
Oops. I can't find that in the rules!
Digging is explicitly forbidden: "Man darf nicht auf den Ländereien von unabhängigen Nationen graben, ..." (p. 10).
Building pumps is forbidden too (p. 10).
But buying land (p. 6) is only restricted by:
- ownership of other players
- river land
- having sold this type previously this round
- having sold from the same new state previously this round
Ok, it's clear now. But perhaps the rules should add that in future.
> No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
Confess: You didn't expect someone would read this ;-)
Anyway, if I ever will have the chance to go to Eindhoven again, I'd prefer playing UR with You ...
> Send us an email and we will mail you a replacement card -
> there should be 10 1+1 cards in the game.
Actually I only needed the correct number. As there always one card at least will be discarded for a pump or reservoir, nine will do (perhaps with a photocopy to remind of the currect number).
> No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an independent
> nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of waterworks.
Oops. I can't find that in the rules!
Digging is explicitly forbidden: "Man darf nicht auf den Ländereien von unabhängigen Nationen graben, ..." (p. 10).
Building pumps is forbidden too (p. 10).
But buying land (p. 6) is only restricted by:
- ownership of other players
- river land
- having sold this type previously this round
- having sold from the same new state previously this round
Ok, it's clear now. But perhaps the rules should add that in future.
> No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
Confess: You didn't expect someone would read this ;-)
Anyway, if I ever will have the chance to go to Eindhoven again, I'd prefer playing UR with You ...
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
> I only played twice, so even inexperienced players can reach
> phase 5.
Well. And Jeroen, who should be VERY experienced, says the same.
And only dumb AND inexperienced little me sitting here and wondering, if that could be a good strategy.
> In our games the early kingdoms bought a lot of diggers, ...
OK, that's the key of this discussion.
My first idea was that getting too much diggers ("too" meaning more than 2 per state) isn't very sensible ...
> New kingdoms bought more diggers causing the older ones to
> disappear.
... especially if they die so soon.
In 18xy many 2-lokos may be a good idea - because they are earning money.
Diggers alone earn nothing, if not coupled with reservoirs and pumps.
> ... but the current Kings sold off all their land, causing
> someone else to become King.
Well understandable, after having ruined them so fast ;-)
OK, I can imagine that a "race to buy in the privates" could lead to such a result.
But it's a bit strange. The owner of "Frühakkadier" should be more content to build up his state - he cannot buy in.
The owners of A, B or C will not get much out of selling them.
While the owners of D and E will need some time to acquire a kingship.
> Since that kingdom did not have a lot of money because an
> expensive Independent was sold to it, no one wanted to own more
> land in it.
Well, someone had to had the kingship. Why shouldn't he buy the irrigated lands? They should be cheap, and giving big profit (in contrast to 18xy, profits are not dependent on actually having a good digger).
Conclusion:
Let's try it again!
> phase 5.
Well. And Jeroen, who should be VERY experienced, says the same.
And only dumb AND inexperienced little me sitting here and wondering, if that could be a good strategy.
> In our games the early kingdoms bought a lot of diggers, ...
OK, that's the key of this discussion.
My first idea was that getting too much diggers ("too" meaning more than 2 per state) isn't very sensible ...
> New kingdoms bought more diggers causing the older ones to
> disappear.
... especially if they die so soon.
In 18xy many 2-lokos may be a good idea - because they are earning money.
Diggers alone earn nothing, if not coupled with reservoirs and pumps.
> ... but the current Kings sold off all their land, causing
> someone else to become King.
Well understandable, after having ruined them so fast ;-)
OK, I can imagine that a "race to buy in the privates" could lead to such a result.
But it's a bit strange. The owner of "Frühakkadier" should be more content to build up his state - he cannot buy in.
The owners of A, B or C will not get much out of selling them.
While the owners of D and E will need some time to acquire a kingship.
> Since that kingdom did not have a lot of money because an
> expensive Independent was sold to it, no one wanted to own more
> land in it.
Well, someone had to had the kingship. Why shouldn't he buy the irrigated lands? They should be cheap, and giving big profit (in contrast to 18xy, profits are not dependent on actually having a good digger).
Conclusion:
Let's try it again!
-
Jeroen Doumen
Re: UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
> > No, you can do absolutely nothing on the land of an
> independent
> > nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of
> waterworks.
> Oops. I can't find that in the rules!
Hmm - strange. I don't have the last version of the rulebook here, but I seem to recall that it's at least stated in the paragraph about assimilating independent nations:
"As soon as an independent nation has been assimilated, all its land is open for buying, selling, digging and building waterworks."
I'll give you a page number (of the german rules) tonight - I don't have the rulebook with me at work.
> Ok, it's clear now. But perhaps the rules should add that in
> future.
I think it's there, just not in the place it should (also) have been in :(
> > No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
> Confess: You didn't expect someone would read this ;-)
Actually we did expect some people to find it, but it was more like a little joke on our part...
> Anyway, if I ever will have the chance to go to Eindhoven
> again, I'd prefer playing UR with You ...
Let me know when you're in the neighborhood, if I have time we can setup a game (Ur or something else).
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
> independent
> > nation - no buying, no digging, and no placing of
> waterworks.
> Oops. I can't find that in the rules!
Hmm - strange. I don't have the last version of the rulebook here, but I seem to recall that it's at least stated in the paragraph about assimilating independent nations:
"As soon as an independent nation has been assimilated, all its land is open for buying, selling, digging and building waterworks."
I'll give you a page number (of the german rules) tonight - I don't have the rulebook with me at work.
> Ok, it's clear now. But perhaps the rules should add that in
> future.
I think it's there, just not in the place it should (also) have been in :(
> > No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
> Confess: You didn't expect someone would read this ;-)
Actually we did expect some people to find it, but it was more like a little joke on our part...
> Anyway, if I ever will have the chance to go to Eindhoven
> again, I'd prefer playing UR with You ...
Let me know when you're in the neighborhood, if I have time we can setup a game (Ur or something else).
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
> So yes, it (mostly) is in the king's best interest to defend
> his postion. However, it is NOT in the other players best
> interest to keep their lands there ...
Granted.
> the king usually doesn't have the money to buy all those sold
> lands
Not all - but 4 or 5 shouldn't be a problem.
And it's so easy to get those irrigated with a minimum of diggers and reservoirs/pumps.
Multiplied with only four kingdoms that is sufficient.
Thanks for Your help. We will try another time ;-)
> his postion. However, it is NOT in the other players best
> interest to keep their lands there ...
Granted.
> the king usually doesn't have the money to buy all those sold
> lands
Not all - but 4 or 5 shouldn't be a problem.
And it's so easy to get those irrigated with a minimum of diggers and reservoirs/pumps.
Multiplied with only four kingdoms that is sufficient.
Thanks for Your help. We will try another time ;-)
-
Jeroen Doumen
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
> > the king usually doesn't have the money to buy all those
> sold
> > lands
> Not all - but 4 or 5 shouldn't be a problem.
4 or 5 would be quite a lot I think - what land prices did you have approximately?
Did you play with the rule that land prices drop 1 box per sold land, with a maximum of 3?
> Thanks for Your help. We will try another time ;-)
No problem - have fun playing next time!
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
> sold
> > lands
> Not all - but 4 or 5 shouldn't be a problem.
4 or 5 would be quite a lot I think - what land prices did you have approximately?
Did you play with the rule that land prices drop 1 box per sold land, with a maximum of 3?
> Thanks for Your help. We will try another time ;-)
No problem - have fun playing next time!
Jeroen Doumen
Splotter Spellen
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - several minor questions
> "As soon as an independent nation has been assimilated, all its
> land is open for buying, selling, digging and building
> waterworks."
> 'll give you a page number (of the german rules) tonight
Ah, right. That's on page 12.
Well actually that does not really forbid to buy land before that time - but that's the more logical conclusion.
> I think it's there, just not in the place it should (also)
> have been in
The "also" is the point.
The list of "do nots" when bying land looks so definite it should include that case.
I forgot one "question" (which like most of the others isn't really a question) which is interesting for old 18xy-players:
Is there still only one "operation round" after each "stock market round", even in later phases? Yes.
> land is open for buying, selling, digging and building
> waterworks."
> 'll give you a page number (of the german rules) tonight
Ah, right. That's on page 12.
Well actually that does not really forbid to buy land before that time - but that's the more logical conclusion.
> I think it's there, just not in the place it should (also)
> have been in
The "also" is the point.
The list of "do nots" when bying land looks so definite it should include that case.
I forgot one "question" (which like most of the others isn't really a question) which is interesting for old 18xy-players:
Is there still only one "operation round" after each "stock market round", even in later phases? Yes.
-
Akke Monasso
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
>>> I only played twice, so even inexperienced players can reach
>>> phase 5.
>Well. And Jeroen, who should be VERY experienced, says the same.
>And only dumb AND inexperienced little me sitting here and wondering, if that >could be a good strategy.
Hey, I never said it was a GOOD strategy. :) It's too early to say, and it will completely depend on the other player's strategy.
>> In our games the early kingdoms bought a lot of diggers, ...
>OK, that's the key of this discussion.
>My first idea was that getting too much diggers ("too" meaning more than 2 per >state) isn't very sensible ...
With digger, I meant the cards, which could either have been diggers, reservoirs or pumps. Around four or five of these were bought per kingdom.
>> New kingdoms bought more diggers causing the older ones to
>> disappear.
>... especially if they die so soon.
But they were cheap, and people did not want to wait and pay more.
>In 18xy many 2-lokos may be a good idea - because they are earning money.
>Diggers alone earn nothing, if not coupled with reservoirs and pumps.
If coupled, they allow for a quick buck.
>> ... but the current Kings sold off all their land, causing
>> someone else to become King.
>Well understandable, after having ruined them so fast
Right.
>OK, I can imagine that a "race to buy in the privates" could lead to such a result.
>But it's a bit strange. The owner of "Frühakkadier" should be more content to >build up his state - he cannot buy in.
>The owners of A, B or C will not get much out of selling them.
If two are sold to the same company at double the price, it can add up. :)
>While the owners of D and E will need some time to acquire a kingship.
Not when other people help...
>> Since that kingdom did not have a lot of money because an
>> expensive Independent was sold to it, no one wanted to own more
>> land in it.
>Well, someone had to had the kingship. Why shouldn't he buy the irrigated >lands? They should be cheap, and giving big profit (in contrast to 18xy, profits >are not dependent on actually having a good digger).
But buying irrigated land wouldn't put money in the coffer of the kingdom. Which was sorely needed. Buying previously unsold land in a kingdom is basically free money if the kingdom has no diggers or money and you are King.
>Conclusion:
>Let's try it again!
Always :) Please keep in mind that my description is very condensed, so all this didn't happen in two turns.
>>> phase 5.
>Well. And Jeroen, who should be VERY experienced, says the same.
>And only dumb AND inexperienced little me sitting here and wondering, if that >could be a good strategy.
Hey, I never said it was a GOOD strategy. :) It's too early to say, and it will completely depend on the other player's strategy.
>> In our games the early kingdoms bought a lot of diggers, ...
>OK, that's the key of this discussion.
>My first idea was that getting too much diggers ("too" meaning more than 2 per >state) isn't very sensible ...
With digger, I meant the cards, which could either have been diggers, reservoirs or pumps. Around four or five of these were bought per kingdom.
>> New kingdoms bought more diggers causing the older ones to
>> disappear.
>... especially if they die so soon.
But they were cheap, and people did not want to wait and pay more.
>In 18xy many 2-lokos may be a good idea - because they are earning money.
>Diggers alone earn nothing, if not coupled with reservoirs and pumps.
If coupled, they allow for a quick buck.
>> ... but the current Kings sold off all their land, causing
>> someone else to become King.
>Well understandable, after having ruined them so fast
Right.
>OK, I can imagine that a "race to buy in the privates" could lead to such a result.
>But it's a bit strange. The owner of "Frühakkadier" should be more content to >build up his state - he cannot buy in.
>The owners of A, B or C will not get much out of selling them.
If two are sold to the same company at double the price, it can add up. :)
>While the owners of D and E will need some time to acquire a kingship.
Not when other people help...
>> Since that kingdom did not have a lot of money because an
>> expensive Independent was sold to it, no one wanted to own more
>> land in it.
>Well, someone had to had the kingship. Why shouldn't he buy the irrigated >lands? They should be cheap, and giving big profit (in contrast to 18xy, profits >are not dependent on actually having a good digger).
But buying irrigated land wouldn't put money in the coffer of the kingdom. Which was sorely needed. Buying previously unsold land in a kingdom is basically free money if the kingdom has no diggers or money and you are King.
>Conclusion:
>Let's try it again!
Always :) Please keep in mind that my description is very condensed, so all this didn't happen in two turns.
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
> 4 or 5 would be quite a lot I think - what land prices did you
> have approximately?
Normally a bit below the original price.
Well: In the OR 2-3 regions get water, price for each land type (in the first round: no hills) rises accordingly. Then the first player sells 2-4 areas of a kind, the next player some areas of another kind, the next player some of the third kind.
Perhaps there is a second sell in one or another kind of land.
Then all prices are at or below original values and further selling doesn't make sense.
While usually it makes sense to buy the kind of land the others sold (if You can't start a new state).
> Did you play with the rule that land prices drop 1 box per sold
> land, with a maximum of 3?
Yes, the hard version ;-)
> have approximately?
Normally a bit below the original price.
Well: In the OR 2-3 regions get water, price for each land type (in the first round: no hills) rises accordingly. Then the first player sells 2-4 areas of a kind, the next player some areas of another kind, the next player some of the third kind.
Perhaps there is a second sell in one or another kind of land.
Then all prices are at or below original values and further selling doesn't make sense.
While usually it makes sense to buy the kind of land the others sold (if You can't start a new state).
> Did you play with the rule that land prices drop 1 box per sold
> land, with a maximum of 3?
Yes, the hard version ;-)
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - now the major question
> Hey, I never said it was a GOOD strategy.
Well, it certainly will be closer to the experts of Splotter than ours ;-)
> With digger, I meant the cards, which could either have been
> diggers, reservoirs or pumps. Around four or five of these were
> bought per kingdom.
OK, that's quite the same overall.
Giving approximately the about 20 fields which can be irrigated I calculated; Provided that the irrigated fields stay in players hand (not necessarily the original owners hand). That seems to be the main difference.
>> While the owners of D and E will need some time to acquire a
>> kingship.
> Not when other people help...
Right. But why should they.
They have to be players interested in a "slow" game, like the F-owner.
And others, who want a "fast" game to quickly buy in their expensive privates.
It should not be a good idea for the players with low privates-value to help the others speeding up play.
And with 18 cards to buy before phase 3 starts, that should be feasible.
> But buying irrigated land wouldn't put money in the coffer of
> the kingdom. Which was sorely needed.
OK, one thing leads to the next.
If all players rush - then there is quick need for replacing old diggers, and need for fresh money.
Well, it certainly will be closer to the experts of Splotter than ours ;-)
> With digger, I meant the cards, which could either have been
> diggers, reservoirs or pumps. Around four or five of these were
> bought per kingdom.
OK, that's quite the same overall.
Giving approximately the about 20 fields which can be irrigated I calculated; Provided that the irrigated fields stay in players hand (not necessarily the original owners hand). That seems to be the main difference.
>> While the owners of D and E will need some time to acquire a
>> kingship.
> Not when other people help...
Right. But why should they.
They have to be players interested in a "slow" game, like the F-owner.
And others, who want a "fast" game to quickly buy in their expensive privates.
It should not be a good idea for the players with low privates-value to help the others speeding up play.
And with 18 cards to buy before phase 3 starts, that should be feasible.
> But buying irrigated land wouldn't put money in the coffer of
> the kingdom. Which was sorely needed.
OK, one thing leads to the next.
If all players rush - then there is quick need for replacing old diggers, and need for fresh money.
-
Volker L.
Re: UR (1830 BC) - The money
Jeroen Doumen schrieb:
> > 12.) What does "Splägel" mean?
>
> It's a shortening of "Splotter pegel" (and pegel is slang for
> money in the Netherlands).
>
> > 13.) Why is the most attractive portrait only on a 5-note?
>
> You must be male then ;-)
>
> > 14.) Why do Joris Wiersinga and Jeroen Dommen as depicted on
> > the side of the box cover look so differently from the
> > pictures on the banknotes?
>
> We dressed up for the banknote picture.
>
> > 15.) On the banknote we find the promise to play 2 weeks of
> > Siedler when copying the Splotter-notes - who will play, will
> > it take place in Eindhoven, how good have the copies to be?
>
> No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
OK, here is something I wanted to remark concerning the money.
It is a very nice idea to have your faces printed on the banknotes.
But, as I already pointed out at your booth in Essen, you should
have also created a 20-Splägel-Note; the gap between 10 and
50 is to large [b]and[/b] you also have another nice face to
print it on that note (the other young lady at your booth)
Whenever I purchase several games of the same company which have
banknotes, I am always happy if they look the same so that I can
substitute a to small amount of money from other games, and I am
rather disappointed if they look different (different style or
just a change of the colors for the same value).
The fact that you called your currency "Splotter Money" instead
of something like "Babylonian Denars" makes me hopeful that you
intend to use the same banknotes in future money-based-games.
Yours sincerely,
Volker
> > 12.) What does "Splägel" mean?
>
> It's a shortening of "Splotter pegel" (and pegel is slang for
> money in the Netherlands).
>
> > 13.) Why is the most attractive portrait only on a 5-note?
>
> You must be male then ;-)
>
> > 14.) Why do Joris Wiersinga and Jeroen Dommen as depicted on
> > the side of the box cover look so differently from the
> > pictures on the banknotes?
>
> We dressed up for the banknote picture.
>
> > 15.) On the banknote we find the promise to play 2 weeks of
> > Siedler when copying the Splotter-notes - who will play, will
> > it take place in Eindhoven, how good have the copies to be?
>
> No comment, but you're welcome to play in Eindhoven....
OK, here is something I wanted to remark concerning the money.
It is a very nice idea to have your faces printed on the banknotes.
But, as I already pointed out at your booth in Essen, you should
have also created a 20-Splägel-Note; the gap between 10 and
50 is to large [b]and[/b] you also have another nice face to
print it on that note (the other young lady at your booth)
Whenever I purchase several games of the same company which have
banknotes, I am always happy if they look the same so that I can
substitute a to small amount of money from other games, and I am
rather disappointed if they look different (different style or
just a change of the colors for the same value).
The fact that you called your currency "Splotter Money" instead
of something like "Babylonian Denars" makes me hopeful that you
intend to use the same banknotes in future money-based-games.
Yours sincerely,
Volker
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - The money
> you should have also created a 20-Splägel-Note; the gap between
> 10 and 50 is to large
Right.
A 2-Note would also be useful for the same reason.
I recommend mixing 1830 banknotes in - as the total amount does not matter in UR.
> and you also have another nice face to print it on that note
> (the other young lady at your booth)
Oh, seems I missed her.
Could some "Errata Essen-booth" be arranged? ;-)
> 10 and 50 is to large
Right.
A 2-Note would also be useful for the same reason.
I recommend mixing 1830 banknotes in - as the total amount does not matter in UR.
> and you also have another nice face to print it on that note
> (the other young lady at your booth)
Oh, seems I missed her.
Could some "Errata Essen-booth" be arranged? ;-)
-
Volker L.
Re: UR (1830 BC) - The money
Ralf Arnemann schrieb:
>
> > you should have also created a 20-Splägel-Note; the gap
> between
> > 10 and 50 is to large
> Right.
> A 2-Note would also be useful for the same reason.
>
> I recommend mixing 1830 banknotes in - as the total amount
> does not matter in UR.
rather difficult, for not only I don't [b]have[/b] any game from
the 18xx series, I even have [b]never[/b] played one, which made
it almost impossible for me to make any reasonable move
in the testgame on sunday (but I bought a copy anyway and hope
things will become clearer once I have the time to read the rules
on my own).
Gruss, Volker
>
> > you should have also created a 20-Splägel-Note; the gap
> between
> > 10 and 50 is to large
> Right.
> A 2-Note would also be useful for the same reason.
>
> I recommend mixing 1830 banknotes in - as the total amount
> does not matter in UR.
rather difficult, for not only I don't [b]have[/b] any game from
the 18xx series, I even have [b]never[/b] played one, which made
it almost impossible for me to make any reasonable move
in the testgame on sunday (but I bought a copy anyway and hope
things will become clearer once I have the time to read the rules
on my own).
Gruss, Volker
-
Ralf Arnemann
- Kennerspieler
- Beiträge: 2447
Re: UR (1830 BC) - The money
> for not only I don't have any game from the 18xx series, I even
> have never played one,
Good gracious. Creatures from outer space invading the forum ;-)
Who ever heard of a gamer like that ;-)
> have never played one,
Good gracious. Creatures from outer space invading the forum ;-)
Who ever heard of a gamer like that ;-)
Wer ist online?
Mitglieder in diesem Forum: 0 Mitglieder und 60 Gäste