3 ms·

Playing a game immediately after learning the rules is my favorite challenge - especially when the other players are all new too. At this stage, tactics are mo

Playing a game immediately after learning the rules is my favorite challenge - especially when the other players are all new too. At this stage, tactics are mostly about keeping all the rules in your head and thinking hard before each move. But strategy is really interesting. Everyone is guessing blindly, and you can often win by guessing slightly less blindly. I have two meta-strategies: (1) Game phases While learning the rules, whenever possible, mentally categorize game mechanics as opening-related or endgame-related. For example, a lot of board games have some engine-building in the opening and some point maximization in the end. During the game, constantly estimate the distance to the end of the game. On the first playthrough, most people transition to endgame too late. (2) Mechanics comparison Whenever a game has different types of mechanics or resources, search for reference points that compare them. For example, in Dominion, you must choose between buying treasure and action cards. So on the first playthrough, you should deduce that 1 silver is similar to an action with (+2 treasure, +1 action). The article talks about the metagame transition in Splendor, when players realize that a strategy with minimal engine-building is viable. I deduced that on the first playthrough by trying very hard to estimate the value of a 2-cost card vs taking resources. Of course, you need to continuously re-evaluate as you understand the game better. By I have a very high winrate on first playthroughs relative to my general ability. Does anyone else have meta-strategies for this situation?

317070 7y ago
Yes. I am like you, I love playing first games. My playbook is usually: 1) create chaos. Everybody plays the same game where they pick a boring strategy, which makes the best calculator at the table win. Instead of trying to maximize my points, I try to increase the chaos around the table, increasing the complexity for everyone and pushing them to make mistakes. 2) in games where this is possible, I will try to sprint to trigger the end condition. As you say, people underestimate how soon the end comes. 3) be unexpected. A bad but unexpected move can be better than the good move in the first game. Try to identify which moves would have an excessive impact on the complexity and which makes everyone go back to the drawing board on their calculations. In general, chaos and havoc around the board have helped me usually.
- kyuudou 7y ago
  All these are why I think Bobby Fischer was so dominant in his time.
Spellman 7y ago
I do a similar calculus when learning a new game. However, I break things down a little differently. 1) How to win. What gets counted to win, usually VPs. If you understand that, and how to efficiently accrue them, then you're a few steps ahead. Then, how to end the game. Can you control how it ends? You use this in engine vs endgame, but I prefer breaking it out because not all games have two phases. Some simply generate VPs as you go (no compounding engine mechanic), and what you really care about is turn efficiency. 2) My other rule is compare to similar mechanics from other games. I have heavily studied other games, so spotting how a draft system works or engine-building and turn efficiency is easily recognizable and I can calculate sorta optimal moves. Similarly this gives you an easy framework to figure out how the specifics of this game compare to each other. 3) Table dynamics. Almost always you can get a huge edge just by knowing what you need to do NOW vs latter. This is mostly about efficiency. If you know player X is going to take Red next turn, then you can decide if denying them is worth it, or that means you're safe to take/ignore Blue. So sussing out what other players are doing, especially if they're cooperating, is especially helpful. To accomplish this, I actually try to turn the table dynamics to friendly and talkative. Usually in the guise of it's a friendly game and look at my sharing my insight/knowledge. So others freely share what they're thinking. Means discovering strategies in the game happens faster, but I also glean important tips from others.
empath75 7y ago
Interestingly I played splendor for the first time against some experienced players a couple of weeks ago, and after they explained the rules and how the best strategy is to slowly build up resources, I googled ‘how do you win at splendor’ and everyone said to try and grab the most expensive cards first. So I did that, then they said it was beginners luck after I won. Then I won two more times, and they said ‘wow you just must be good at games’, and I said no, I’m good at googling. That’s my whole IT career in a nutshell.
- ningen 7y ago
  This strategy is only viable if nobody is blocking you from the tier 2 and especially tier 3 cards either by reserving what you're obviously going for, or shorting the supply of a colour you clearly need - But it works great otherwise. Splendor has clever subtle player interaction here which I think is a real strong part of its design.
  - empath75 7y ago
    Oh sure, the point was more that sometimes just googling is the best meta strategy for an unfamiliar game :)
  - banannaise 7y ago
    I've played a lot of four-player Splendor, and went two years and three tournaments without losing a game. One of the lessons from that is this: Even if three players are all jockeying for the expensive cards, it is still a losing strategy for the fourth to try to build an engine. Good players playing against other good players will often grab one or two cheapies in the midgame to deal with resource scarcity. But you simply cannot win by buying cheap cards, building an engine, and picking up nobles. It's just that much slower. The metagame in Splendor is more subtle, as you say. It's about clever play interaction and depends heavily on the early-game tableau. Does the tableau strongly favor a single color? Then your choice is to jockey for position on that color, or avoid the resource scarcity and go for weaker and/or less-coordinated cards. Does it have a lot of strong cards? Then it's about finding one or two you can get without someone else tying up your resources. Does it have a lot of weak cards? Then it's about finding ways to gain an upper hand for when the stronger cards come out. Are players holding a lot of chips? Then you need to avoid getting stuck with a poor "hand" of chips - either a full hand that can't buy anything useful, or an empty hand when the chip supply is weak. Are they hoarding the wilds? That's much like the above, but with even more pitfalls. Unfortunately, there's a skill ceiling to Splendor, and it's fairly low. Once you approach it, improvement is asymptotic, and the luck element of the game spikes tremendously. These days, I don't really like playing without the expansion. But in good news, the expansion refreshes the game wonderfully.
lalaithion 7y ago
This is why I like dominion so much; you can play with random sets of cards, and watching the meta develop over ~an hour as you play the game is really fascinating. Sometimes someone will see a combo which is really powerful, and other times we get caught up in something useless before realizing.

317070 7y ago

Yes. I am like you, I love playing first games. My playbook is usually: 1) create chaos. Everybody plays the same game where they pick a boring strategy, which makes the best calculator at the table win. Instead of trying to maximize my points, I try to increase the chaos around the table, increasing the complexity for everyone and pushing them to make mistakes. 2) in games where this is possible, I will try to sprint to trigger the end condition. As you say, people underestimate how soon the end comes. 3) be unexpected. A bad but unexpected move can be better than the good move in the first game. Try to identify which moves would have an excessive impact on the complexity and which makes everyone go back to the drawing board on their calculations. In general, chaos and havoc around the board have helped me usually.

kyuudou 7y ago
All these are why I think Bobby Fischer was so dominant in his time.

Spellman 7y ago

I do a similar calculus when learning a new game. However, I break things down a little differently. 1) How to win. What gets counted to win, usually VPs. If you understand that, and how to efficiently accrue them, then you're a few steps ahead. Then, how to end the game. Can you control how it ends? You use this in engine vs endgame, but I prefer breaking it out because not all games have two phases. Some simply generate VPs as you go (no compounding engine mechanic), and what you really care about is turn efficiency. 2) My other rule is compare to similar mechanics from other games. I have heavily studied other games, so spotting how a draft system works or engine-building and turn efficiency is easily recognizable and I can calculate sorta optimal moves. Similarly this gives you an easy framework to figure out how the specifics of this game compare to each other. 3) Table dynamics. Almost always you can get a huge edge just by knowing what you need to do NOW vs latter. This is mostly about efficiency. If you know player X is going to take Red next turn, then you can decide if denying them is worth it, or that means you're safe to take/ignore Blue. So sussing out what other players are doing, especially if they're cooperating, is especially helpful. To accomplish this, I actually try to turn the table dynamics to friendly and talkative. Usually in the guise of it's a friendly game and look at my sharing my insight/knowledge. So others freely share what they're thinking. Means discovering strategies in the game happens faster, but I also glean important tips from others.

empath75 7y ago

Interestingly I played splendor for the first time against some experienced players a couple of weeks ago, and after they explained the rules and how the best strategy is to slowly build up resources, I googled ‘how do you win at splendor’ and everyone said to try and grab the most expensive cards first. So I did that, then they said it was beginners luck after I won. Then I won two more times, and they said ‘wow you just must be good at games’, and I said no, I’m good at googling. That’s my whole IT career in a nutshell.

ningen 7y ago
This strategy is only viable if nobody is blocking you from the tier 2 and especially tier 3 cards either by reserving what you're obviously going for, or shorting the supply of a colour you clearly need - But it works great otherwise. Splendor has clever subtle player interaction here which I think is a real strong part of its design.
- empath75 7y ago
  Oh sure, the point was more that sometimes just googling is the best meta strategy for an unfamiliar game :)
- banannaise 7y ago
  I've played a lot of four-player Splendor, and went two years and three tournaments without losing a game. One of the lessons from that is this: Even if three players are all jockeying for the expensive cards, it is still a losing strategy for the fourth to try to build an engine. Good players playing against other good players will often grab one or two cheapies in the midgame to deal with resource scarcity. But you simply cannot win by buying cheap cards, building an engine, and picking up nobles. It's just that much slower. The metagame in Splendor is more subtle, as you say. It's about clever play interaction and depends heavily on the early-game tableau. Does the tableau strongly favor a single color? Then your choice is to jockey for position on that color, or avoid the resource scarcity and go for weaker and/or less-coordinated cards. Does it have a lot of strong cards? Then it's about finding one or two you can get without someone else tying up your resources. Does it have a lot of weak cards? Then it's about finding ways to gain an upper hand for when the stronger cards come out. Are players holding a lot of chips? Then you need to avoid getting stuck with a poor "hand" of chips - either a full hand that can't buy anything useful, or an empty hand when the chip supply is weak. Are they hoarding the wilds? That's much like the above, but with even more pitfalls. Unfortunately, there's a skill ceiling to Splendor, and it's fairly low. Once you approach it, improvement is asymptotic, and the luck element of the game spikes tremendously. These days, I don't really like playing without the expansion. But in good news, the expansion refreshes the game wonderfully.

lalaithion 7y ago

This is why I like dominion so much; you can play with random sets of cards, and watching the meta develop over ~an hour as you play the game is really fascinating. Sometimes someone will see a combo which is really powerful, and other times we get caught up in something useless before realizing.