Rating distribution for Mongrel
Ratings
Sat 23rd Oct 14:36
The last unrated board on my list, so I guess I have the least to say about it. Definitely needs the right starting scenario to work. 3v3 teams works well. The neutral bash is a bit off-putting. Conceptually, it's a great idea and that part of it is pulled off. there just seems to be too much farting around in the barbarian territories and much of the board remains unoccupied. Rally nearby troops, get a little bonus, then go after your neighbors. Gives the whole map a slow feel.
Fall of Rome rated 
Average
Average
The last unrated board on my list, so I guess I have the least to say about it. Definitely needs the right starting scenario to work. 3v3 teams works well. The neutral bash is a bit off-putting. Conceptually, it's a great idea and that part of it is pulled off. there just seems to be too much farting around in the barbarian territories and much of the board remains unoccupied. Rally nearby troops, get a little bonus, then go after your neighbors. Gives the whole map a slow feel.
Sat 23rd Oct 14:29
Seems to be some favorable starts, though the board is quick enough so that you don't have to pay for it with turn after mind-numbing turn. Having to figure out connections by constantly going to the design tab is annoying. That said, I still had fun playing it, so there must be that undefined something about the map.
Seems to be some favorable starts, though the board is quick enough so that you don't have to pay for it with turn after mind-numbing turn. Having to figure out connections by constantly going to the design tab is annoying. That said, I still had fun playing it, so there must be that undefined something about the map.
Sat 23rd Oct 14:25
I agree. This is an elimination style board, but with appropriately placed neutrals there's a bit of bonus jockeying that goes on before that. It may be in your best interest to set up eliminations for others, I like that. You can also take the center to cause absolute mayhem, and a good strategy in many standard dice maps is to initiate mayhem as opposed to reacting to it. This board also confirms my philosophy that most wins on standard maps, ultimately, come down to "that one turn". Good stuff.
I agree. This is an elimination style board, but with appropriately placed neutrals there's a bit of bonus jockeying that goes on before that. It may be in your best interest to set up eliminations for others, I like that. You can also take the center to cause absolute mayhem, and a good strategy in many standard dice maps is to initiate mayhem as opposed to reacting to it. This board also confirms my philosophy that most wins on standard maps, ultimately, come down to "that one turn". Good stuff.
Sat 23rd Oct 14:16
Though in the shape of a helix, the strategy is as straight as an offensive lineman. Go bucks.
Though in the shape of a helix, the strategy is as straight as an offensive lineman. Go bucks.
Sat 23rd Oct 14:06
I liked it, the subduel aspect is novel, and planning the five attacks provides some thought without melting your brain. Aggression is rewarded, but stay too aggressive and a well trained player can reverse the tide. My only complaint (and this is substantial) is that the board can lock up in the bottom duel when two evenly matched players enter at the same time. I wonder how many boards are won by the player first to control their respective mini-duel (my guess is: every), so replayability points are severly diminished. I really like boards that cut out the boring clean-up rounds and to this end the capital-quickening idea is ingenious. Kudos to risky, as usual, for trying something different.
I liked it, the subduel aspect is novel, and planning the five attacks provides some thought without melting your brain. Aggression is rewarded, but stay too aggressive and a well trained player can reverse the tide. My only complaint (and this is substantial) is that the board can lock up in the bottom duel when two evenly matched players enter at the same time. I wonder how many boards are won by the player first to control their respective mini-duel (my guess is: every), so replayability points are severly diminished. I really like boards that cut out the boring clean-up rounds and to this end the capital-quickening idea is ingenious. Kudos to risky, as usual, for trying something different.
Sat 23rd Oct 13:52
The special connections are wonky, take away form the intuiton but don't add anything, the board is too big and overly connected, and I just didn't enjoy myself while playing it. I'm with other reviewers- this is a prime example of fortify within connected being abused. And I am no fan of fog. I held off on reviews of boards I didn't like but I'm trying to review all the boards I've played so far, so...
The special connections are wonky, take away form the intuiton but don't add anything, the board is too big and overly connected, and I just didn't enjoy myself while playing it. I'm with other reviewers- this is a prime example of fortify within connected being abused. And I am no fan of fog. I held off on reviews of boards I didn't like but I'm trying to review all the boards I've played so far, so...
Sat 23rd Oct 13:45
There's a nice graphics update to this version that puts an extra star on my review. The board never really seems to get off the ground (absolutely a pun), but triggering an elimination cascade is always enjoyable, so long as your not on the business end of it. Must be played with intelligent, passive players, else, the odds are substantial that a player going later in the turn order is decimated/eliminated before taking a turn. Owning Kong is fun.
There's a nice graphics update to this version that puts an extra star on my review. The board never really seems to get off the ground (absolutely a pun), but triggering an elimination cascade is always enjoyable, so long as your not on the business end of it. Must be played with intelligent, passive players, else, the odds are substantial that a player going later in the turn order is decimated/eliminated before taking a turn. Owning Kong is fun.
Mon 18th Oct 16:02
The defensive minded land-grab boards just have a stagnant quality to them. I think it's implemented well, and one can pull off some marooning tactics that play out well. Just never excited to take my turn. Matter of taste than quality of map. Graphics push it from a 6.1 to a 6.7.
The defensive minded land-grab boards just have a stagnant quality to them. I think it's implemented well, and one can pull off some marooning tactics that play out well. Just never excited to take my turn. Matter of taste than quality of map. Graphics push it from a 6.1 to a 6.7.
Mon 18th Oct 15:53
Definitely something special to it. I'm forever tainted with the board, as blue is my favorite color, but appreciate the thought-provoking discussions it spawned. Any map that gets the strategy flowing in a nonstandard way gets the gold seal from me.
Definitely something special to it. I'm forever tainted with the board, as blue is my favorite color, but appreciate the thought-provoking discussions it spawned. Any map that gets the strategy flowing in a nonstandard way gets the gold seal from me.
Fri 8th Oct 13:43
Certainly many routes to win. What I liked most about playing was the evolution of strategy, as players watched tape for counters. The rushing strategy works very well, and many neutrals remain at the end of the match. Though fog is essential, the Zerg rush strategy reduces the game, mostly, to a series of hunches. 10 for creativity and implementation, 4 for replayability.
Certainly many routes to win. What I liked most about playing was the evolution of strategy, as players watched tape for counters. The rushing strategy works very well, and many neutrals remain at the end of the match. Though fog is essential, the Zerg rush strategy reduces the game, mostly, to a series of hunches. 10 for creativity and implementation, 4 for replayability.
Tue 14th Sep 05:15
It seems that a board in this style should have been created already; if so, it didn't leave an impression quite like DATR has. I love boards where the play, not just picture, fit the theme. This board encourages racing for a bonus, and I haven't seen a stalemate yet. As with any Alpha map, it's not the most eye popping, but the effort spent making it look pretty is replaced by sound, well tested, well thought-out play. I can't think of any way this board might be improved. 3 players is just right, and the starting unit levels match the bonus growth. The card cycle is appropriate. Unlimited fortifies within connected components, an often misused feature, is perfect here. He's making a name for himself as a board fixer, and DATR is a start-to-finish solo project that I could see myself playing many times over. In fact, I'm starting one right now...
It seems that a board in this style should have been created already; if so, it didn't leave an impression quite like DATR has. I love boards where the play, not just picture, fit the theme. This board encourages racing for a bonus, and I haven't seen a stalemate yet. As with any Alpha map, it's not the most eye popping, but the effort spent making it look pretty is replaced by sound, well tested, well thought-out play. I can't think of any way this board might be improved. 3 players is just right, and the starting unit levels match the bonus growth. The card cycle is appropriate. Unlimited fortifies within connected components, an often misused feature, is perfect here. He's making a name for himself as a board fixer, and DATR is a start-to-finish solo project that I could see myself playing many times over. In fact, I'm starting one right now...
Tue 14th Sep 04:36
Chunky and clunky, with enough going on to keep you busy until the cards catch up. Traditional risk X 5.
Chunky and clunky, with enough going on to keep you busy until the cards catch up. Traditional risk X 5.
Sat 11th Sep 22:07
I'll admit- there are turns on this map that I avoid... simply because there are so many decisions to make, especially during the beginning and end of the game, though there are only 5 attacks per turn. One can either risk units in the "bonus making" chain-building area of the board, or bank them in the clowns, ultimately the way to win. Once all players "dig in", it becomes riskier to affect player bonuses, and with the high defense, the decisions become more difficult. However, the growth of bonuses, I think, are in good proportion to the high defense of the board.
Credit must be given to El Conquistador for the first live map of this type, but chain game (and the idea for the circus series in general) was the prototype of the disjoint areas style. It took many versions and much testing before it was in working order, but I think the final result is very fun. My favorite part of the game happens during the first 3 and last 3 rounds of the game. In the beginning, unlimited fortifies and return to attack allows a player to bomb up, setting up their camp, to get the bonus faucet flowing. The endgame is absolute mayhem. With players that know what they're doing, games are highly enjoyable, though there is an unsavory amount of work each turn, bombing up to break bonuses, then redistributing units to hold ones own bonus supplying areas. In the end, I still like figuring out the best way to distribute units to protect my bonuses, I've just been spoiled with the streak of quick, to-the-point, strategy maps.
The hit-and-run style in the chain area was inspired by "chimps in space", a wonderful map by Riskyback, a board that hopefully makes it from WF to WG.
There's lots to like about the map. Highly underrated (and underplayed).
I'll admit- there are turns on this map that I avoid... simply because there are so many decisions to make, especially during the beginning and end of the game, though there are only 5 attacks per turn. One can either risk units in the "bonus making" chain-building area of the board, or bank them in the clowns, ultimately the way to win. Once all players "dig in", it becomes riskier to affect player bonuses, and with the high defense, the decisions become more difficult. However, the growth of bonuses, I think, are in good proportion to the high defense of the board. Credit must be given to El Conquistador for the first live map of this type, but chain game (and the idea for the circus series in general) was the prototype of the disjoint areas style. It took many versions and much testing before it was in working order, but I think the final result is very fun. My favorite part of the game happens during the first 3 and last 3 rounds of the game. In the beginning, unlimited fortifies and return to attack allows a player to bomb up, setting up their camp, to get the bonus faucet flowing. The endgame is absolute mayhem. With players that know what they're doing, games are highly enjoyable, though there is an unsavory amount of work each turn, bombing up to break bonuses, then redistributing units to hold ones own bonus supplying areas. In the end, I still like figuring out the best way to distribute units to protect my bonuses, I've just been spoiled with the streak of quick, to-the-point, strategy maps.
The hit-and-run style in the chain area was inspired by "chimps in space", a wonderful map by Riskyback, a board that hopefully makes it from WF to WG.
There's lots to like about the map. Highly underrated (and underplayed).
Sun 5th Sep 15:27
I don't play dungeon much anymore, but just want to give Nygma props, again, for successfully building a one of a kind map.
Typically, I don't care much for fog maps, but torches remove enough of the blind luck associated to fogged play. The torches are great.
Completely agree with Alpha about the evolution of vision, and how a player can use that information to their advantage.
A Nygmap rarely throws just one new thing at you, there's also the jail cell aspect and releasing your teammate/yourself. Works well with the theme, and enhances tactical considerations. "slamming the door" on a opponents cell, locking in their much needed reserves, is intensely satisfying.
While I do think the layout is intuitive, there are enough dice mods around to require patience during the first game or two.
But the payoff is well worth it.
Excellent stuff.
I don't play dungeon much anymore, but just want to give Nygma props, again, for successfully building a one of a kind map. Typically, I don't care much for fog maps, but torches remove enough of the blind luck associated to fogged play. The torches are great.
Completely agree with Alpha about the evolution of vision, and how a player can use that information to their advantage.
A Nygmap rarely throws just one new thing at you, there's also the jail cell aspect and releasing your teammate/yourself. Works well with the theme, and enhances tactical considerations. "slamming the door" on a opponents cell, locking in their much needed reserves, is intensely satisfying.
While I do think the layout is intuitive, there are enough dice mods around to require patience during the first game or two.
But the payoff is well worth it.
Excellent stuff.
Sun 5th Sep 14:48
Fallout is anything but normal- probably my favorite Cramchackle board. The game plays like hordes on cocaine, and I love the gigantic bonus swings that can happen- easy to get greedy, and have your bonuses torn down to nothing. Fallout supports many interesting starting scenarios and play styles, another plus. I think 4 or 5 players is the magic number for this board, with 3 players, one can usually get an early lead. With frugal purchases of roads/cities, the leader can avoid setting their own bonus traps and typically take a lead to a victory (cards don't catch up in time). The cities function as insurance against open roads- another well thought out point. I know, from previous games, that the board can seize up late, if three evenly matched empires remain. But most boards suffer from this problem, and I fault the risk rules more than I fault any board that has this issue.
Few boards make me think "Damn, I wish I had thought of that." Fallout is on this short list. Genius.
Fallout is anything but normal- probably my favorite Cramchackle board. The game plays like hordes on cocaine, and I love the gigantic bonus swings that can happen- easy to get greedy, and have your bonuses torn down to nothing. Fallout supports many interesting starting scenarios and play styles, another plus. I think 4 or 5 players is the magic number for this board, with 3 players, one can usually get an early lead. With frugal purchases of roads/cities, the leader can avoid setting their own bonus traps and typically take a lead to a victory (cards don't catch up in time). The cities function as insurance against open roads- another well thought out point. I know, from previous games, that the board can seize up late, if three evenly matched empires remain. But most boards suffer from this problem, and I fault the risk rules more than I fault any board that has this issue.Few boards make me think "Damn, I wish I had thought of that." Fallout is on this short list. Genius.
Thu 22nd Jul 18:56
This board speaks more to the need to playtest extensively, as I think it's a fantastic idea, 273 of the design decisions are correct, and it was playtested with many versions, but with 1 or 2 things not set correctly causes a substantial reduction in fun. I don't agree that the super aggressive strategy works every time, as I've played a game where that was countered effectively (though I'd say it's still a >50% likelyhood for a 1st player win in that scenario). My issue lies in the high potential for stalemate if the board "fills in", and the inability to break out of it.
As always, a sound effort by nygmatic.
This board speaks more to the need to playtest extensively, as I think it's a fantastic idea, 273 of the design decisions are correct, and it was playtested with many versions, but with 1 or 2 things not set correctly causes a substantial reduction in fun. I don't agree that the super aggressive strategy works every time, as I've played a game where that was countered effectively (though I'd say it's still a >50% likelyhood for a 1st player win in that scenario). My issue lies in the high potential for stalemate if the board "fills in", and the inability to break out of it.As always, a sound effort by nygmatic.
Thu 22nd Jul 07:09
I never played the "easy opening" version, but I can attest that the latest version has no easy win for the first player. There's a good amount of bonus breaking/retaking that goes on, and that part is really great. As always with limited attacks/fortifies, planning is essential. The idea behind the game is great and is implemented well.
As to dice deciding it, when the average game is only a few rounds, it's just more noticeable, so I don't fault the board for that, though it takes away considerably from replay value as an optimal strategy emerges.
The layout is very "tangled" and a board become less intuitive with each edge crossing. This board has lots of edge crossings, and I like intuitive board layouts.
Well done on the fix, nice board!
I never played the "easy opening" version, but I can attest that the latest version has no easy win for the first player. There's a good amount of bonus breaking/retaking that goes on, and that part is really great. As always with limited attacks/fortifies, planning is essential. The idea behind the game is great and is implemented well. As to dice deciding it, when the average game is only a few rounds, it's just more noticeable, so I don't fault the board for that, though it takes away considerably from replay value as an optimal strategy emerges.
The layout is very "tangled" and a board become less intuitive with each edge crossing. This board has lots of edge crossings, and I like intuitive board layouts.
Well done on the fix, nice board!
Thu 22nd Jul 03:34
Map making duo- sillyness.
Be willing to lose a couple games to learn the basics. Read the about or watch past games to get a flavor for how things work. Think 3 turns ahead, not just one turn ahead. The rest is up to you!
CiscoKid is correct in stating that it would be a mistake to let your opponent get a bonus. Solution: don't let your opponent get a bonus.
EDIT: the board has been found to have a guaranteed solution for one of the players. It's not obvious, but once found, the board will probably be over for you.
Map making duo- sillyness. Be willing to lose a couple games to learn the basics. Read the about or watch past games to get a flavor for how things work. Think 3 turns ahead, not just one turn ahead. The rest is up to you!
CiscoKid is correct in stating that it would be a mistake to let your opponent get a bonus. Solution: don't let your opponent get a bonus.
EDIT: the board has been found to have a guaranteed solution for one of the players. It's not obvious, but once found, the board will probably be over for you.
Tue 20th Jul 11:05
This board has gone through so many iterations it's hard to comment on all of them. Out now is version 3 (and will most likely be the permanent version). I held off on a review, being a co-designer, although I was tempted to rate this as a 10 simply to balance out other reviews from previous versions.
I love it. Not for beginners.
Did you like your first game of chess? Probably not. Did it grow on you with time (and understanding)? Probably. Take that mindset- you won't be disappointed.
This board has gone through so many iterations it's hard to comment on all of them. Out now is version 3 (and will most likely be the permanent version). I held off on a review, being a co-designer, although I was tempted to rate this as a 10 simply to balance out other reviews from previous versions.I love it. Not for beginners.
Did you like your first game of chess? Probably not. Did it grow on you with time (and understanding)? Probably. Take that mindset- you won't be disappointed.
Tue 20th Jul 03:20
I'm torn. This board is filled with so many contradictions that it's hard to parse my true feelings about it.
Taking the time to study the board before the first game, It became clear that this would be an altogether different kind of board. The supply line idea is great, I just wished the board made better use of it (cut off BIG lines of troops). I can see what M57 wanted the dynamic to be, I just wish it happened in more games!
Most turns require some blend of: troop management, judicious advancement, and maintaining defensive and supply positions. These are all awesome features of the board, and implemented well.
Unfortunately they can be masked by other issues. Bashing against the neutral wall can seriously deplete reserves, and many games reduce to either a lucky win, or a rebuilding phase. While this phase can be interesting, it can also feel like a standstill. With constant production, the game will never stalemate, but there can be many rounds where you feel like nothing happened. There can be aggravating streaks of losses, and one can deplete their reserves quickly, regardless of strategy.
In conclusion, 100% of the matches require some thought, 90% of the matches have too many aggravating rounds of dice, 80% have a few exciting turns, and 10% are a real nice back and forth. Overall, a good execution of a great idea!
I'm torn. This board is filled with so many contradictions that it's hard to parse my true feelings about it. Taking the time to study the board before the first game, It became clear that this would be an altogether different kind of board. The supply line idea is great, I just wished the board made better use of it (cut off BIG lines of troops). I can see what M57 wanted the dynamic to be, I just wish it happened in more games!
Most turns require some blend of: troop management, judicious advancement, and maintaining defensive and supply positions. These are all awesome features of the board, and implemented well.
Unfortunately they can be masked by other issues. Bashing against the neutral wall can seriously deplete reserves, and many games reduce to either a lucky win, or a rebuilding phase. While this phase can be interesting, it can also feel like a standstill. With constant production, the game will never stalemate, but there can be many rounds where you feel like nothing happened. There can be aggravating streaks of losses, and one can deplete their reserves quickly, regardless of strategy.
In conclusion, 100% of the matches require some thought, 90% of the matches have too many aggravating rounds of dice, 80% have a few exciting turns, and 10% are a real nice back and forth. Overall, a good execution of a great idea!