Game #54: Neolithic: Chieftan by Eugene Charron (onew0rd)

Hi Eugene ...

I like this game.

On first pass, my comments are mainly on writing/language-related things in the game rules itself (although there are some game-play clarifications in there too). Most of those are due to inconsistency in the terms you used. I'll go section-by-section:

Components

• "Tribesmen Markers (5 colors)" ... might be clearer to state "5 Types" to distinguish that they are not related to the 5 player colors (like you did with the description for "Goods")
• "5 sets of Action markers (9 per set)" ... might be better stated as "Action Markers (9 per set, in each of the 5 player colors)" or something similar
• You don't list the 2 player markers used for the Condition and Bonus tracks

• "1. Each Player takes 1 player board and a set of colored Markers" ... might be better as "1. Each Player takes 1 player board and a set of Action Markers and Player Markers in the same color"
• "3. Each player places a marker on the Condition Effects scale" ... might want to specify "player marker" (so not to confuse with the action markers -- same for step #4), and since that section on the player board is called "Condition Meter", you should probably use the same term here

• "During the plan phase, players place numbered markers" ... should stick with "Action Markers" to be consistent with the components list and setup (or switch those previous sections to "numbered markers"
• Play order tie breaker for Hunt/Work phases ... If there are 3 players tied with the same number, are there 2 action card drawings done in order to get a true 1st, 2nd, 3rd order? If so, does this mean that the 3rd place person (lost twice) gets to keep both action cards?
• What's the use of the action/numbered marker that's labeled "Same"?

• In both phases, you state that players can buy items under the phase's specific section or under the "Special" section ... is this the "Plan" section shown on the game/season board? If so, then consistent naming is needed.
• Can players spend more than the number he/she personally assigned to hunt/work that turn if there are enough points left on the AP scale? For example, if the player had put a 3 forward for Work and when his turn comes to buy something in the Work phase there are still 8 Action Points left on the AP scale ... could he buy a Hut?
• Can players buy Bonus points during Hunt and spend them during Work?

• "Now using a Generic Marker to track progress, move down the list of Condition Effects for the given season and have each player resolve those effects in order." ... I can't figure out what is meant by this. I can see the "Condition Effects" board, but I'm not catching on to how it's used. It might be good to spell out a step-by-step example.
• My assumption is that you go point by point on the condition effects and adjust your Condition Meter accordingly ... if this is the case, then I would suggest consistency again in the terms "Good/Bad" on the meter versus "Good/Unhappy" on the effects board.
• (Also based on my assumption ...) A number of the effects are based on First/Last or Most/Least ... if 2 or more players are tied for the position, does it apply to all of them or none of them?

• I like the look of the Player Boards, especially the way the Food & Hut sections are layed out to show how many tribesmen they support
• What are the purpose of the thumbs-up/thumbs-down rows on the player board?
• What is the definition of "Happy Tribesman" ... is it a tribesman that has the proper good assigned to his need?
• Another language-consistency item. I think each tribesman has a "Need", but it is fulfilled by a "Good". So, the term on the player board should probably be "Goods" instead of "Needs"

It looks like an interesting game ... and one that is probably easily taught by simply walking through how a turn works.

-Bryk

-Bryk

Eugene,

Thanks for sharinr game with us! I haven't been following the discussion, so forgive me if anything is redundant. Also, I can't view the board file, so that may be a problem that makes understanding things more difficult.

First, the rulebook is awfully sparse, and it's rather hard to figure out what is supposed to be happening in the game, but here's my rough sense:
First, there's a blind bidding round where you put markers down in 2 area, Hunt and Work. Next, each of those actions is resolved in bid order. On your turn, it seems like you can either buy some subset of items available for that action this season, or you can buy advancements and such. After all the actions have been taken, the effect of what you've bought is resolved, and your tribespeople become happy or angry or whatever according to a "condition scale".

Again, I can't see the supporting components, but the lack of description of the condition scale in the rulebook is troublesome. My sense is that if it can't be described in the rulebook, there's a good chance it's analogous to a lookup table, which is potentially a source of unnecessary complexity. I'd be interested to see an algorithmic view of the "condition scale", although I suppose having a flexible track would allow certain seasons to emphasize different needs -- e.g., in winter, you need food and shelter in big amounts, whereas in summer you can get by with less (or no) shelter.

It seems like the shifting seasons are really the potential innovation in this game, and I hope you've played it up to full effect. Again, since I can't see the board, it's hard to say, but the important consideration there should again be that the number of properties for each season should be as compact as possible.

The one idea that confused me was the Action Cost track; it seems that this is a common pool that all players can spend out of. Ok, well and good. But what I don't see in the rules is a limitation on what the first player can buy; couldn't he just spend ALL of the action cost track on his purchases? Or is there a limitation that you can only buy one thing per phase? (and if so, are the costs small enough that no player could spend the whole pool in one shot?)

It seems that if it's the latter, you've got a problem where people won't have enough actions in a turn to make stable progress in the game -- they'll always be behind. If it's the former, that's just a basic conceptual flaw in the design. I assume there's something I'm missing; what is it?

Overall, the game sounds like there are some interesting bits, and I wish you the best of luck as you work on it further!

-Jeff

I should explain why I did the test of the game.

onewOrd did some work for me (in this case corrected the spelling and grammas on the Feeeeed Meeeee game (and did an excellent job)) and I tested his game. He sends me the components via mail and I printed them out, read the rules and the test group that I am a part of did the test. Then I send the result to him.
He decided that it would be better to have a public discussion on the Forum.

I'm willing cooperate with other members at the forum (I have a couple that indicated an interest to get there games tested) and I will create a new tread about that later (that is another subject).

// Johan

P.S. This game is much easier to understand when you have the components.