I fully backed the kickstarter for Tsukuyumi. I personally like the AI system setup for that because of how unique it is. As well how it has a zero luck factor.
Just traded my copy today, but I recognize the qualities of the game and the semi-coop aspect. My group understood this characteristic since the first game, so we never lost to the old ones, but I heard and read about grupos that are so competitive that this does't work.
I've been wanting to try Auztralia since I first saw the kickstarter pop up, and my friend was going to pick up a copy, so whenever that happens, I will get to try it. As for integrated AIs? I hear the new Root expansion was going to integrate the AI so you could play with say a 2 player game and 2 AI opponents. Looks interesting!
AuZtralia is a unique game, but didn't quite work for me, despite my love to some of Martin's other titles. Yes, AI is acting like one of the players, but it doesn't prevent tanking the game on purpose or because of poor play. Even if points are scored for everybody at the end the whole "you lost to an AI" is still there. In my opinion the best competitive-cooperative system is impemented by Cole Wehrle (Pax Pamir, Root) in John Company boardgame. In fact it provides players with one collective engine they can be a part of - the only way to get resourses and points in the course of the game. If East India Company collapses (it happens through bailouts and further deregulation) the game ends and all players immidiatly score points and deal with penalties for every one of their executives responcible for the fall. No win or scoring for AI. This provides game system with interesting twists. Firstly, you don't want Company to drown if you are not winning, this just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, the person who benefits the most from ending the game asap is the one in the lead, cause it brings the victory. Thirdly, you don't want a lot of executives of you colour to be presented on the board - the punishment is huge. But you need to have some, or you won't have enough leverage to make the failure happen. The game has it's flaws (fairly long/complex/fiddly), but there's a lot to enjoy. If you like negotiation games you have to try this one, Jamey. I'm sure you will also find "promises" mechanism very exciting.
They're pretty similar, as far as I know. In both cases, all players can lose to the game itself. I think maybe the subtle difference is that in Auztralia, players act individually and independently to solve problems that potentially only hurt them in the short-term, opposed to CO2, where players can act together to solve problems that impact all of them.
Jamey Stegmaier so which game that in semi coop scenario can be “if I am behind, I will screw up everybody”? You mentioned that in Auztralia nobody knows who is behind or who is leading so it’s kinda secret but how about in CO2?
I'm wondering how much this game still gets play these days. Are you going to back the expansions? It's got three days left. I'm thinking I may back it and order the base game separately.
There is also the recently published Donning the Purple which execute this mechanic beautifully. You play as Romans against the hordes of invaders meanwhile everybody tries to stab the others in the back. If you haven't tried yet, give it a chance. It's gorgeus.
People speak about semi-competitive or semi-cooperative games, when they refer to game such as AuZtralia (which I own and like very much). It's interesting to me that nobody uses the most proper term in my opinion: coopetitive games, which renders perfectly the idea of players who have to collaborate but still in competion among them.
I think the reason people might not want to use the word ‘coopetitive’ is that it clearly means ‘opetiting together’, but opetiting isn't actually a thing ;). (I grant that ‘peting’ isn't a thing, either, but the existence of ‘repeat’, ‘perpetual’, ‘impetus’ and so on, from the same root, grant the -pete morpheme some stability and semantic coherence-they'd give you a useful headstart on understanding ‘competition’ if you didn't already know the word. -opetitive, by contrast, is an unkind puzzle.) My purpose is not to be weirdly pedantic, but to point out that language, too, has some underlying game theory!
@@stephenspackman5573 Coopetition is a neologism created by Nash in his dissertion on game theory. I don't think he had in mind any etymology of the word -opeting or -peting, rather than a syneresis between the two words competition and cooperation. Indeed, he used the word to describe the cooperative competition, which in the real economy is quite the rule rather than the exception. I don't think to borrow a term from game theory science to describe game mechanics is a heresy, even linguistically speaking :-)
@@giuseppemangialardi Well-I agree with you in part. But the problem with ignoring etymology in one's academic neologisms is that one is closing the door of understanding on those who have not read one's paper-which is quite the gamble. It's a good idea, and deserves a good word, but I think we still need a better one than this.
Mark Herman calls his game Churchill coopetitive. In this Churchill, Roosevelt (laterTruman) and Stalin are trying to defeat the Axis powers in WW2, while at the same time shape the post war world in their interest. It is not completely comparable to AuZtralia, because a winner of some kind is declared other then Hitler and Tojo, even if the Axis does not surrender. Probably because of fear, that otherwise loosing players would tank the game, like Jamey Stegmaier expressed it here, still I think, people should rather play it with some focus on the cooperative goal as well, otherwise it would become shallow.
I fully backed the kickstarter for Tsukuyumi. I personally like the AI system setup for that because of how unique it is. As well how it has a zero luck factor.
Just traded my copy today, but I recognize the qualities of the game and the semi-coop aspect. My group understood this characteristic since the first game, so we never lost to the old ones, but I heard and read about grupos that are so competitive that this does't work.
I've been wanting to try Auztralia since I first saw the kickstarter pop up, and my friend was going to pick up a copy, so whenever that happens, I will get to try it.
As for integrated AIs? I hear the new Root expansion was going to integrate the AI so you could play with say a 2 player game and 2 AI opponents. Looks interesting!
AuZtralia is a unique game, but didn't quite work for me, despite my love to some of Martin's other titles. Yes, AI is acting like one of the players, but it doesn't prevent tanking the game on purpose or because of poor play. Even if points are scored for everybody at the end the whole "you lost to an AI" is still there.
In my opinion the best competitive-cooperative system is impemented by Cole Wehrle (Pax Pamir, Root) in John Company boardgame. In fact it provides players with one collective engine they can be a part of - the only way to get resourses and points in the course of the game. If East India Company collapses (it happens through bailouts and further deregulation) the game ends and all players immidiatly score points and deal with penalties for every one of their executives responcible for the fall. No win or scoring for AI.
This provides game system with interesting twists. Firstly, you don't want Company to drown if you are not winning, this just doesn't make any sense. Secondly, the person who benefits the most from ending the game asap is the one in the lead, cause it brings the victory. Thirdly, you don't want a lot of executives of you colour to be presented on the board - the punishment is huge. But you need to have some, or you won't have enough leverage to make the failure happen.
The game has it's flaws (fairly long/complex/fiddly), but there's a lot to enjoy. If you like negotiation games you have to try this one, Jamey. I'm sure you will also find "promises" mechanism very exciting.
Jamie what’s the difference the semi co-op between Auztralia vs CO2 2nd Chance? Planning to get CO2 but still indecisive about it.
They're pretty similar, as far as I know. In both cases, all players can lose to the game itself. I think maybe the subtle difference is that in Auztralia, players act individually and independently to solve problems that potentially only hurt them in the short-term, opposed to CO2, where players can act together to solve problems that impact all of them.
Jamey Stegmaier so which game that in semi coop scenario can be “if I am behind, I will screw up everybody”? You mentioned that in Auztralia nobody knows who is behind or who is leading so it’s kinda secret but how about in CO2?
@@harrygthang7389 I'm sorry, I don't know--I haven't played CO2.
I'm wondering how much this game still gets play these days. Are you going to back the expansions? It's got three days left. I'm thinking I may back it and order the base game separately.
I was happy with just my one play, but I can see it being a good fit for people who like this genre.
Dude! You forgot about Charterstone!
Good point. :)
Republic of Rome is one of the examples where all players can lose (Rome can collapse for a few reasons).
There is also the recently published Donning the Purple which execute this mechanic beautifully. You play as Romans against the hordes of invaders meanwhile everybody tries to stab the others in the back. If you haven't tried yet, give it a chance. It's gorgeus.
People speak about semi-competitive or semi-cooperative games, when they refer to game such as AuZtralia (which I own and like very much). It's interesting to me that nobody uses the most proper term in my opinion: coopetitive games, which renders perfectly the idea of players who have to collaborate but still in competion among them.
I think the reason people might not want to use the word ‘coopetitive’ is that it clearly means ‘opetiting together’, but opetiting isn't actually a thing ;). (I grant that ‘peting’ isn't a thing, either, but the existence of ‘repeat’, ‘perpetual’, ‘impetus’ and so on, from the same root, grant the -pete morpheme some stability and semantic coherence-they'd give you a useful headstart on understanding ‘competition’ if you didn't already know the word. -opetitive, by contrast, is an unkind puzzle.)
My purpose is not to be weirdly pedantic, but to point out that language, too, has some underlying game theory!
@@stephenspackman5573 Coopetition is a neologism created by Nash in his dissertion on game theory. I don't think he had in mind any etymology of the word -opeting or -peting, rather than a syneresis between the two words competition and cooperation. Indeed, he used the word to describe the cooperative competition, which in the real economy is quite the rule rather than the exception. I don't think to borrow a term from game theory science to describe game mechanics is a heresy, even linguistically speaking :-)
@@giuseppemangialardi Well-I agree with you in part. But the problem with ignoring etymology in one's academic neologisms is that one is closing the door of understanding on those who have not read one's paper-which is quite the gamble. It's a good idea, and deserves a good word, but I think we still need a better one than this.
Mark Herman calls his game Churchill coopetitive. In this Churchill, Roosevelt (laterTruman) and Stalin are trying to defeat the Axis powers in WW2, while at the same time shape the post war world in their interest.
It is not completely comparable to AuZtralia, because a winner of some kind is declared other then Hitler and Tojo, even if the Axis does not surrender. Probably because of fear, that otherwise loosing players would tank the game, like Jamey Stegmaier expressed it here, still I think, people should rather play it with some focus on the cooperative goal as well, otherwise it would become shallow.