"Eurogames overrated?" Topic

I only found one of these that I enjoyed. That was Serenissima, and even it I found a little esoteric.

For all the rest, I find the rules to be so abstracted that it is often extremely difficult to figure out how to get to the victory conditions, or even what strategies make sense. Combine this with a rather neurotic hatred of imaginary warfare on the part of the company's designers, and you often end up with very unrealistic situations in which the strongest player -who pursued a military policy- can actually end up losing because of the artificiality of the victory conditions(had this happen in Serenissima once, where my aggressive Turkish fleet ended up with a stronger fleet than all the other players put together, and yet I had the least victory points).

Now, I'm sure that somebody who is heavily invested in these games will be happy to tell me what an idiot I am, but try this experiment. Play a eurogame with people who have never played it before, but change two things:

1. Replace the snazzy components with checkers, chess pieces, dominoes or whatever, and the board with something that maintains the spacial relationships but is simply drawn on posterboard without names or other designations.

and

2. Explain the rules as if you were playing an abstract game like chess or ludo.

Now, at the end of the game, ask the players if they have any idea what period or actions the game was supposed to represent.

I have done this twice now, and no one had a clue. Makes ya think.

I'm with ya! I've tried many. The only Eurogame I like is Ticket to Ride. I also find them overpriced.

Eurogames? You mean those things Games Workshop makes?

Okay, I'll bite. I think with "Eurogames" (and I hate that stereotypical term), the game is not designed around the theme (or historical period), but the other way round.

What I like about these games is the level of involvement they give to those playing and that those playing don't need to have graduated from ASL-U to understand the rules. Furthermore, they generally don't take that long to play. And lastly, that there's no being completely knocked out of the game like Risk or Monopoly. So they make good games to play with casual gamers – which probably explains why the best rated game on boardgamegeeks.com is a "Eurogame" and not a traditional wargame.

I have done this twice now, and no one had a clue. Makes ya think.

Nope. It's exactly what I'd expect.

Eurogames, in general, are "rated highly" on speed of play, fun, skill, ease … NOT on realism. Realism is simply not a key design spec.

Kinda like saying a corvette is over rated cause you can't get 6 and their luggage into one.

Blasphemy! Only joking.

If it wasn't for Eurogames I wouldn't have made the annual pilgrimage to Essen for the last 5 years.

I agree there are some poor eurogames but there are some absolutely wonderful games out there that have given us hours of pleasure…Puerto Rico, El Grande, Wallenstein and too many train games to mention

Some of the games have too much of a "mutual masterbation" theme about them…
Specifically, your interactions with other players around the board is fairly limited beyond who does what first, whcih may or may not influence the other players…

Ask this simple question at the end of the experiment – Did you have fun and do you want to play again? With the good games, the answer will be "Yes" on both accounts. Isn't enjoyment the point of playing the games? So if people are enjoying the games, how can they be "overrated"?

Granted, many Euros will not satisfy the real Grognard who wants a wargame with a lot of detail and chrome. But that's not the target market for those games. That's a completely different market (although MUCH, MUCH smaller).

There are a number of us who do both wargames and Euros (and the ones that try to appeal to both). The key to enjoying both is to accept each for what it is and not to use one set of criteria to judge both.

Forgot to mention the mutual masterbation – This is true in some games and completely wrong in others. Some of them require you to work togehter on one turn and compete on the next. Certainly player interaction is key in many if not most of them.

These sorts of things aren't simulations, they're games. They are designed around a nifty game mechanic first, and then a theme is grafted on later.

Doesn't mean they aren't fun, you just have to know what to expect.

The best thing about them is that I can find people (even non-gamers) that will actually play them, since they take a couple hours and are easy to understand. Don't much get to play board wargames any more…

-Kle.

I find them engaging and fun, which is good enough for me!

Cincinnatus "Ask this simple question at the end of the experiment – Did you have fun and do you want to play again? With the good games, the answer will be "Yes" on both accounts. Isn't enjoyment the point of playing the games? So if people are enjoying the games, how can they be "overrated"?"

No on both accounts for me. Rules too esoteric and too difficult to figure out reasonable strategies. When I'm playing a game representing the 16th century Mediterranean conflicts, well, that's what I want it to represent.

For those of you who don't, have at…

I like carcossone, which I think qualifies. I've not played any others. The play is complex enough to be interesting, easy enough to not be tiring, and the resulting landscapes are visually attractive. Hardly a sim, but my younger son doesn't care for wargames; we started playing it together when I got tired of his beating me a chess.

Well Euros aren't for everyone but I don't think your two arguments (esoteric and difficult to figure out strategy) are valid criticisms of Euros in general.

But if you're concerned that they can be too high level or abstract to represent situations, then I would agree that can be true.

I liken the "settings" in Euro Games to some of the "fluff" in Games like 40k.

It's there if you want it, but doesn't actually add (or detract) to the game…

I think they're great. They're totally different from wargames, and if you try to see them as wargames, they will be a disappointment, but as long as you see them as a category that stands on itself, they are very worthwhile (ymmv).

And I get to play them more often than wargames.

I like the mechanics of most of those games. They give you a lot of different options, but you have a limited number of things you can do per turn.

IMHO, changing the bits and board are counter-productive to giving the players the full flavor of the game. Today's games are geared around the graphics and the finally-designed gaming pieces.

Let them play the game the way it was marketed, put some enthusiasm into your rules explanations and generally be a showman, then ask them what they think.

Setting them up for a fall is, again, in my opionion, just getting the answer you're looking for.

JW

Sorry, didn't notice this was from August until I sent.

I could have deleted, but on the off chance it's seen, I wanted to throw in my two cents.

JW