#boardgame folk: how do you feel about opaqueness - where the outcome of your decisions may not be felt for a long time?
The opening #18xx auctions can be opaque as hell - particularly during early plays. Almost every decision in my own Emu Bay prototype doesn't seem to hit for a while.
@lachlan If the game is worth replaying many times and doesn't involve a lot of luck then it can be good.
The common adage in 18xx is that you can't win during the auction but you can lose. However, you have to play many games before you see how all the parts fit together, and the auction is (imho) one of the last to click. Once everyone in the group understands its significance, it adds to the strategies.
1/
@lachlan On the other end, it'll only take you a single play to realize that you shouldn't put your first Catan settlement bordering the desert and a portless coast.
I've played Catan against people much better than me. When I look back after losing, I see how their starting spots gave them the edge that turned into cities and development cards.
But in the end I don't care enough for Catan to actively work on improving.
2/
@lachlan For a final example, the most-played game at my house is Wingspan, usually between my wife and me.
I try to make a vague strategy out of my first birds. My wife looks at each bird individually and chooses based on whether they have interesting powers, without regard to how they will fit into an overall engine.
Not surprisingly, I win most of our games. From my wife's perspective, it's opaque how my first couple turns set the field for my ultimate win.
3/
@lachlan Wingspan is a fun game and doesn't target the same audience as 18xx. In that case I'd say opaqueness is bad, but there's no way to completely remove it without making the game pointless.
4/4
lachlan slowly taming rust
Guy Montag