Into the Gamescape - Show 10
January 23rd, 2007 by MikeShow ten (double figures!) of ‘Into the Gamescape’ is now available for your delectation and delight.
First up is an extensive look at Batteground: Fantasy Warfare which we’ve been trying out over the last couple of weeks.
We follow this up with Paul’s new feature ‘Short, sweet and not very deep’ where we discuss a particular strategy for a particular game – this show it’s the third beanfield in Bohnanza. Is it a surefire recipe for success or will you just be shouting in the wind if you use it?
As ever, any feedback will be gratefully received!
January 25th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Regarding Bohnanza…if one is extremely particular, and has to have everything “just so”, then Bohnanza is certainly not the game for you. But, there certainly is more there than perhaps you all are seeing.
I don’t agree that it’s totally random what people have planted. Obviously, if someone already has a field of red beans growing, you’re going to think twice about planting that, aren’t you? Is it worth more to plant it or to trade with that person to get something else worthwhile? How many of those beans have already been harvested and are now coins? How many are still in the deck? Now, I don’t sit there counting cards, but I do try to remember what went on to get at least a feel for what’s left.
I also disagree with Si’s assertion that trading isn’t a good thing in Bohnanza. If you don’t trade, you get to go through your hand at a rate of (at most) two cards per turn (plant one, optionally plant another). If you trade, you go through it at three cards per turn (the three with which you refill your hand at the end of your turn). That seems a benefit, no? I mean, a bean is only worth something if it gets planted and then harvested. Additionally, trading is far better than not trading, generally speaking. After all, if you trade with Player A, you both benefit. If you then trade with Player B, you both benefit. And then you trade with Player C, you both benefit. Now, you’ve acquired three benefits, while A, B, and C each only have one. You’re now two benefits ahead. Seems like a winner to me.
The fun part of the game, for me, is offering a bean for trade that two people want, and playing them off each other, and looking for the opportunities for a little extortion. One past session one player enacted his “Bean Removal Service”. Another player had a blue bean he just didn’t want. The first player agreed to take it, if he was also given a wax bean as well. Yup, a 2 for 0 trade. And for the other player, it was worth it.
As for the third bean field. I rarely buy it, myself, and don’t know many (if any) who do. But I do think it could be beneficial, if done early enough to help you recover your investment *and then make profits*. And that would be done by allowing you to keep fields that you would otherwise have to throw away early. The difference between a 3 stinkbean field and a 5 stinkbean field is a coin. If you’d have to harvest that three stinkbean field without the field, but you could grow it to 5, 7, or best yet 8, then buy the thing. Maybe it’s a good response to someone like Si, who won’t trade.
January 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Great review guys! (And I’m sorry, but you’ve still got to wait for the Historic armies…)
People should also check out our Yahoo Group at http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/BGFW/
All the best,
Chad
January 25th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Dave
Thanks for your comments on Bohnanza - it’s really interesting to get someone else’s views on playing the game.
Actually I don’t believe trading is a bad thing and didn’t mean it to come across that way in the show, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify things here
As you rightly say trading is far better than not trading and I’ll be shouting as loud as anyone else if the current player has something I want!
What I was trying to counter was the idea that came up in the discussion that trading until you have an empty hand is a good thing in its own right - in fact I believe you just want a hand that’s empty of the beans you don’t want to plant. If I have two cards in my hand and I can plant them both next time, then I won’t be trading! Otherwise count me in!
For me the randomness comes in due to two aspects of the game 1)having to keep all your cards in the order you pick them up and 2) being forced to plant (at the start of your go and if you can’t trade away your two face-up draws). If I have a card I don’t want at the top of my hand and I can’t trade it away because no one’s collecting that type of bean, I’m going to be forced to dig something up and plant it. Same goes for the face up draw - if I draw something no one else wants they’re not going to take it off me out of the goodness of their heart!
In your example with the Red Bean, I totally agree that you’re going to think twice about planting it - if you get the luxury of choice. If it comes up as a face-up draw you don’t have time to try and offload it, you either plant it or trade it straightaway. If another player is collecting Red Beans at the time but has nothing you want, you have the not particularly appetising choice of giving your opponent free points or digging up something you want and planting it yourself. There are a whole lot of random elements here - getting the Red Bean in the draw, how many have already been harvested by that time, whether someone else is currently collecting Red Beans, and whether that player then has something I want. I don’t have control over any of this.
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with the randomness in Bohnanza - it’s all part of the fun. But to my mind there’s enough randomness there to make this a purely tactical game where you do the best you can with what you’ve got at a given moment. As a result I’m not sure you can make a strategic decision on whether or not the third beanfield is going to give you a return on your investment over the course of the game. For me the answer to ‘Third beanfield or not?’ is therefore ‘It depends’!
Thanks again for sharing your insights into the game - I never would have thought Bohnanza could generate such an interesting discussion!
Si
January 26th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Guys - great show. Probably the best of the in depth pieces you have done. You really sold it. Quick question which I don’t think I heard you answer on the show…What would be best to get in the first instance? I have read that there are 5 starter kits in each flavour and also 5 reinforcement kits in the same 5 flavours.
Am I correct in understanding that you only get one race with each starter kit but that the starter contains enough for 2 armies to play against each other. This would mean that the minimum you need is only one starter kit but it would restrict you to same-race battles?
The better approach might be buying at least a couple of starter kits so you can at least do different race battles and each army would have a choice of the content of their army too.
I agree with Dave (above) about Bohnanza, great game with some deep trades. The look on people’s faces when you say “i’ll trade you my blue bean for your blue bean…”. They just don’t get it.
Best wishes
Russell
ps Mike - i trying hard not to sound like too much of a fan boy…
January 26th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Hi Russell,
You are right, there are 5 Stater Kits (Human, Dwarf, Elf, Ork, and Undead) and each of those has a expansion deck to supplement it. You can play easily with one starter kit, but yes, both of you will need to play teh same race, but that’s not really a problem. Having said that, I promise you, you will almost immediately buy a second starter kit so that you both have a better selection to build an army with.
I think your idea of buying two starter decks is the best one, that way you can swap around a bit and try out different tactics.
Let us know if you get a set!
Cheers
Mike
January 29th, 2007 at 3:20 am
I’ve not had the chance to play Bohnanza, but when I do I surely will not be planting a third bean field.