Ever since Trajan, I find myself drawn to Euros that make use of a clever central conceit/mechanism around which any number of sorts of "mini-games" revolve. Gugong is an excellent iteration of that. As far as other mechanisms in the game that I enjoy: I'm likely in the minority on this, but I actually really enjoy the central track, which simply allows you to score at the end of the game, but gives you (virtually) nothing in terms of bonuses during the game. There's something kind of awesome about that: make it to the end of the track and you can score! Don't, lose. Simple, clean, and a little bit nasty. I dig.
I loved the worker allocation interaction as well. The ability to allocate more to take stronger actions, the ability to allocate to take a higher card from the table, as well as the building/allocation on the board (wall/ships), leading to shortages. They turned out to be quite valuable to have at the right times, but plenty of means of recovering them. The double worker was also really clever - as an achievement to earn, then allowing greater value when "spent" and lower cost when recovered. Finally, there was a sneaky little mechanism for achieving the Destiny Dice bonus (most matches - 3 VP and Palace advancement). If you had a number in your hand at the beginning of the turn, you could "sacrifice" it into your discard pile by playing it as the cost of playing a lower numbered card against a higher numbered one (e.g., if a 3 was on the destiny dice, and you had one in hand, you could play a low card like a 2 against a higher one on the board, say a 4, and pay for that action by discarding the 3 to your pile, where you could then add it to your destiny dice total. You lose one action that round, but it sometimes is a way to amp up your position on the destiny dice). Lots of great interactions. I think the canal and the travelling actions were a little wonky sometimes, but it was a fun game overall.
I can't say I've played many games with this mechanic. The most likely candidate is the station tile exchange in Great Western Trail. In that respect, I think using the mechanic is amazing. A simple take action now requires a player to math the delta. Thanks! I hadn't even considered the wider implications of this mechanic.
I also played gugong for the first time this past weekend, on saturday. It was daunting at first, as there is a lot being thrown at you in the beginning. I like that the played the cards could also get you a secondary action, if the card you play has an icon corresponding to another action. So you can essentially get two actions, if you can meet the costs. And the exchanging gift thing was neat... bypassing it was a little tricky to wrap my brain around, but not that hard once I got it down and it is quite important at key moments when you need access to that action. What if you weren't all the way at the top of the wall yet and had no other way to get up the final action? You don't score at all then. You either need to burn one of your cards, going into your discards (and this can be a good way to get certain cards from hand into your discards for the night bonus), or burn extra people. It gives you tight space for choices on what is worth what. I also liked how the different parts of the board seem to work together with other parts. Moving your horse around the top gets you bonus actions that can help rather well in other parts of the boards or bonus resources, and then they turn into a token that can be exchanged for a couple things depending on how many you exchange. I used a boating first strategy that ended up being very effective, but there seems to be a variety of different strategies that could potentially work, depending on the end game scoring tiles. As an aside, I finally got to play Wingspan last night and see what all of the fuss was about. It's a nice design, liked the components, and the way I was playing worked better than I thought it was going, given I had less birds than everyone else and less activated abilities. and I was struggling for resources the entire game. I picked up two extra end game bonus cards and was able to plan for them, netting me 16 points, which wasn't too shafty given how close the scores were at (between 80 and 93 with 4 players, and I had like 90).
Ra's auction system is similar. When you win the auction you take the existing bid tile and yours goes on the auction block. So Gugong didn't do it first.
thanks for doing a great service to Gu Gong. What Andrea Steding did is to create something that is GREATER than the sum of its parts - the card exchange, destiny dice... as William mentioned. That is a masterpiece, although I like Hansa Teutonica more. I also agree with William the rules are very straightforward, minus the Grand Canal and Great Wall (maybe).
I watched a half play of it just before watching this video and it looked really interesting. I think the thing that struck me most was just how powerful some of those bonuses were - This wasn't 'and you get to draw a card' style things - though there were some like that (take two servants from your supply') but 'take this separate action as if you made the exchange there instead' level of bonuses. I'm sure the game's balanced around that, and it looks like it can be expensive to be able to be able to play low numbered actions, but... That's a level of bonus I'm more used to being difficult to earn - It's not quite as good as an extra go since it directs how you use it but it's close - rather than seemingly as easy to get as Viticulture's bonus spots.
Have a review copy of this coming in shortly, your video has me a bit more excited to get it to the table ASAP. Did you get a chance to try the deluxe edition? How was the component quality either way? How long did it take you to get the game’s rules down? Thanks for the thoughts Jamey. Please keep these favorite mechanism videos coming, they’re fun and interesting.
Thanks! Yes, I played with the deluxe edition, and it was very nice. As for the rules, I'm the type of player who doesn't need to know anything before I start the game, so it didn't take long at all. I just tried out each of the minigames while I played until I understood them all.
Has there been another game that you saw a brand new mechanism in it that you thought "this is revolutionary, like deckbuilding and will show up everywhere" only to see it not really used by anyone else? I thought the Legacy concept when we got Risk Legacy was going to be like that, because we didn't get anyone else trying it until after Pandemic Legacy, but now it's everywhere.
Probably, though I don't think it's occurred to me at this level for quite a while. I think the legacy mechanism is awesome, though with only around 10 legacy games existing out of the 15,000+ games published over the last 6 years since Risk Legacy, I wouldn't exactly say it's everywhere. :)
Jamey Stegmaier You're right. I was a little hyperbolic there. I just meant that it's a very visible mechanic to someone who is neck deep in the hobby. Anyway, I look forward to trying this game and it's unique mechanic at some point in the near future, as well as watch out where other designers take this mechanic.
I wanted to share with you a concept I thought of. When you said aging mechanism, I have an example of my own, a mechanism over which I want to design a game further on. Basically, you'd have a clan, or tribe, with 4 "age sections", for simplicity named "Youngster", "Adult I", "Adult II" and "Old". Each turn, or each 2-3 turns, for that matter, each group would age to the next one, and the Old people would die. Thematically, this could be the passing of some years, for example. This would also easily set an endgame condition. Different factions could have different configurations, such as Old I, Old II, or having Adult III, for example. Youngsters would not work, but would need to be fed. Adults are fully functional workers, that need to be fed more, can fight and work. Old people would also need to be fed, but they would contain some resource such as "wisdom" or "culture" higher than others and that would feed the engine of the game through another mechanism. If the game could be complexified further, I would also add policies that players could adopt in-game (such as, youngster labor, or more education, more militarism etc.) So, essentially, it would still be negative for the player to lose workers when they would become old, but it would still be thematically natural for players to replace these workers through reproduction, re-starting the life cycle. Players who would risk and create a lot of Youngsters early on, would have to feed them well thus having less assets for the adults and old people. This player would in turn be vulnerable to others, etc. It's not related to a dice, but I still saw some connection. Hope to hear from you. Cheers!
Thanks for sharing, Artur! It's interesting that each group would have different needs and abilities based on their age. Would you do anything like in Teotihuacan where there's a special bonus when someone in the elder group passes on?
@@jameystegmaier Thanks for the reply! So I thought of something related to "Honor", that ultimately could be one the forms of score. If a military tweak was to be added, a soldier that won for example 3 battles, could have a boost to his honor when passing away. Honor could also be collected during the lifetime of each worker, through quests, culture/science etc. This is actually thematically related to many ancient civilizations/tribes that could fit well.
Sounds fun & unique👍 I'm researching to learn Gugong so I can teach my gaming group Wednesday. I'm excited to play it!
Ever since Trajan, I find myself drawn to Euros that make use of a clever central conceit/mechanism around which any number of sorts of "mini-games" revolve. Gugong is an excellent iteration of that. As far as other mechanisms in the game that I enjoy: I'm likely in the minority on this, but I actually really enjoy the central track, which simply allows you to score at the end of the game, but gives you (virtually) nothing in terms of bonuses during the game. There's something kind of awesome about that: make it to the end of the track and you can score! Don't, lose. Simple, clean, and a little bit nasty. I dig.
I loved the worker allocation interaction as well. The ability to allocate more to take stronger actions, the ability to allocate to take a higher card from the table, as well as the building/allocation on the board (wall/ships), leading to shortages. They turned out to be quite valuable to have at the right times, but plenty of means of recovering them. The double worker was also really clever - as an achievement to earn, then allowing greater value when "spent" and lower cost when recovered. Finally, there was a sneaky little mechanism for achieving the Destiny Dice bonus (most matches - 3 VP and Palace advancement). If you had a number in your hand at the beginning of the turn, you could "sacrifice" it into your discard pile by playing it as the cost of playing a lower numbered card against a higher numbered one (e.g., if a 3 was on the destiny dice, and you had one in hand, you could play a low card like a 2 against a higher one on the board, say a 4, and pay for that action by discarding the 3 to your pile, where you could then add it to your destiny dice total. You lose one action that round, but it sometimes is a way to amp up your position on the destiny dice). Lots of great interactions. I think the canal and the travelling actions were a little wonky sometimes, but it was a fun game overall.
I can't say I've played many games with this mechanic. The most likely candidate is the station tile exchange in Great Western Trail. In that respect, I think using the mechanic is amazing. A simple take action now requires a player to math the delta. Thanks! I hadn't even considered the wider implications of this mechanic.
I also played gugong for the first time this past weekend, on saturday. It was daunting at first, as there is a lot being thrown at you in the beginning. I like that the played the cards could also get you a secondary action, if the card you play has an icon corresponding to another action. So you can essentially get two actions, if you can meet the costs.
And the exchanging gift thing was neat... bypassing it was a little tricky to wrap my brain around, but not that hard once I got it down and it is quite important at key moments when you need access to that action. What if you weren't all the way at the top of the wall yet and had no other way to get up the final action? You don't score at all then. You either need to burn one of your cards, going into your discards (and this can be a good way to get certain cards from hand into your discards for the night bonus), or burn extra people. It gives you tight space for choices on what is worth what.
I also liked how the different parts of the board seem to work together with other parts. Moving your horse around the top gets you bonus actions that can help rather well in other parts of the boards or bonus resources, and then they turn into a token that can be exchanged for a couple things depending on how many you exchange.
I used a boating first strategy that ended up being very effective, but there seems to be a variety of different strategies that could potentially work, depending on the end game scoring tiles.
As an aside, I finally got to play Wingspan last night and see what all of the fuss was about. It's a nice design, liked the components, and the way I was playing worked better than I thought it was going, given I had less birds than everyone else and less activated abilities. and I was struggling for resources the entire game. I picked up two extra end game bonus cards and was able to plan for them, netting me 16 points, which wasn't too shafty given how close the scores were at (between 80 and 93 with 4 players, and I had like 90).
Ra's auction system is similar. When you win the auction you take the existing bid tile and yours goes on the auction block. So Gugong didn't do it first.
You're absolutely right! I love Ra.
thanks for doing a great service to Gu Gong.
What Andrea Steding did is to create something that is GREATER than the sum of its parts - the card exchange, destiny dice... as William mentioned. That is a masterpiece, although I like Hansa Teutonica more.
I also agree with William the rules are very straightforward, minus the Grand Canal and Great Wall (maybe).
I watched a half play of it just before watching this video and it looked really interesting. I think the thing that struck me most was just how powerful some of those bonuses were - This wasn't 'and you get to draw a card' style things - though there were some like that (take two servants from your supply') but 'take this separate action as if you made the exchange there instead' level of bonuses. I'm sure the game's balanced around that, and it looks like it can be expensive to be able to be able to play low numbered actions, but... That's a level of bonus I'm more used to being difficult to earn - It's not quite as good as an extra go since it directs how you use it but it's close - rather than seemingly as easy to get as Viticulture's bonus spots.
Have a review copy of this coming in shortly, your video has me a bit more excited to get it to the table ASAP.
Did you get a chance to try the deluxe edition? How was the component quality either way? How long did it take you to get the game’s rules down?
Thanks for the thoughts Jamey. Please keep these favorite mechanism videos coming, they’re fun and interesting.
Thanks! Yes, I played with the deluxe edition, and it was very nice. As for the rules, I'm the type of player who doesn't need to know anything before I start the game, so it didn't take long at all. I just tried out each of the minigames while I played until I understood them all.
I guess Jamey has his 10,000+ hours in, so he's in the "rule books are for amateurs group". 😀 I wonder if there's a game that stumps him?
Has there been another game that you saw a brand new mechanism in it that you thought "this is revolutionary, like deckbuilding and will show up everywhere" only to see it not really used by anyone else? I thought the Legacy concept when we got Risk Legacy was going to be like that, because we didn't get anyone else trying it until after Pandemic Legacy, but now it's everywhere.
Probably, though I don't think it's occurred to me at this level for quite a while. I think the legacy mechanism is awesome, though with only around 10 legacy games existing out of the 15,000+ games published over the last 6 years since Risk Legacy, I wouldn't exactly say it's everywhere. :)
Jamey Stegmaier You're right. I was a little hyperbolic there. I just meant that it's a very visible mechanic to someone who is neck deep in the hobby. Anyway, I look forward to trying this game and it's unique mechanic at some point in the near future, as well as watch out where other designers take this mechanic.
I wanted to share with you a concept I thought of. When you said aging mechanism, I have an example of my own, a mechanism over which I want to design a game further on.
Basically, you'd have a clan, or tribe, with 4 "age sections", for simplicity named "Youngster", "Adult I", "Adult II" and "Old". Each turn, or each 2-3 turns, for that matter, each group would age to the next one, and the Old people would die. Thematically, this could be the passing of some years, for example. This would also easily set an endgame condition. Different factions could have different configurations, such as Old I, Old II, or having Adult III, for example. Youngsters would not work, but would need to be fed. Adults are fully functional workers, that need to be fed more, can fight and work. Old people would also need to be fed, but they would contain some resource such as "wisdom" or "culture" higher than others and that would feed the engine of the game through another mechanism. If the game could be complexified further, I would also add policies that players could adopt in-game (such as, youngster labor, or more education, more militarism etc.)
So, essentially, it would still be negative for the player to lose workers when they would become old, but it would still be thematically natural for players to replace these workers through reproduction, re-starting the life cycle. Players who would risk and create a lot of Youngsters early on, would have to feed them well thus having less assets for the adults and old people. This player would in turn be vulnerable to others, etc.
It's not related to a dice, but I still saw some connection. Hope to hear from you.
Cheers!
Thanks for sharing, Artur! It's interesting that each group would have different needs and abilities based on their age. Would you do anything like in Teotihuacan where there's a special bonus when someone in the elder group passes on?
@@jameystegmaier Thanks for the reply! So I thought of something related to "Honor", that ultimately could be one the forms of score. If a military tweak was to be added, a soldier that won for example 3 battles, could have a boost to his honor when passing away. Honor could also be collected during the lifetime of each worker, through quests, culture/science etc. This is actually thematically related to many ancient civilizations/tribes that could fit well.
@@arturthekingg I like that!