Wings of War (Dawn of War) Review

For today's review, I will be talking about Wings of War. The version I played was Dawn of War, but I believe that the review should be appropriate for the whole system. As a note before getting started I should mention a couple things about the picture 1) Wings of War did not make an exciting picture and 2) I never claimed to be a good photographer... sorry about that. (Of course, I never claimed to be a good writer, either...)

In Wings of War, each player controls several airplanes and attempts to maneuver them in order to be able to shoot down the other player's planes in a dogfight (or potentially trying to bomb things depending on the scenario). In order to move the planes, the players select both a maneuver card to execute and a speed at which to execute it; the interesting thing is that the players must decide on the next move that will be executed before the previous move actually occurs (essentially, you're always thinking two steps ahead). After this, the front movement card is played and the movements occur. From here, each player determines if his planes are in range and have a clear shot at any of the opposing planes - if so, the opposing planes take damage related to the distance between the two planes and the type of plane that is firing. Turns continue like this until one player has successfully shot down all of the opposing aircraft.

The first pro of Wings of War is how the movement system works. Each of your movement cards has a line and one (or two) different colored arrows on it. When moving, you align the movement card with the front of your plane and then you lift your plane and align the arrow on the plane with the correct arrow on the movement card (based on how fast you were going). This is a really neat system and works pretty well in execution. The only down-side that I found to it was that, since the game was new and the cards were slick, the planes would slide and thus wouldn't be in the exact position that they were supposed to be.

The next pro is the historical nature of the games. Each of the games in the series is based on actual fighters from World War I and World War II (depending on which game you have). I'm definitely not an expert in history, but I enjoyed getting to look at the different planes from these eras and I also enjoyed that, depending on which plane was used, the planes had different movement cards (in order to more historically depict the actual movement of those planes).

To go along with the historical nature of the game, the last pro was the number of scenarios that were available. Between bombing runs and different kinds of dogfights, I think that the people who enjoy this game will be able to have a large amount of replayability because of the scenarios that are included.

However, there was one serious con to me about Wings of War. This con was that we wound up circling each others' planes much more than actually shooting at each other. There are several reasons for this; obviously one reason is that we weren't good at the game - I'm sure if we played it more we would get better at maneuvering our aircraft. The next problem is related to the historical realism in the game; airplanes (unfortunately) can't make turn at a right angle. This means that you have two options to turn around: play a sharp turn for about 5 turns in a row, or play an Immelmann turn (where you flip your plane around 180 degrees). Either way, if you miss your shot at your opponent, you will probably spend the next several turns getting yourself back into position. Whereas some people may find this enjoyable, I was not one of them.

The more I think about the cons of this game, the more focused I become on the one above (the only others I can think of are that 1) the cards get bumped as mentioned above and 2) sometimes it is hard to remember which movement cards go with which plane). There were no real significant flaws to the game other than this. If you enjoy strategically positioning yourself and attempting to outwit your opponents maneuvers, and are willing to have large amounts of time where you are flying past each other, than this con should even be ignored. However, whereas I really enjoyed the game when we started, by the end of the fight I was fairly bored since we spent a significantly larger portion of our time trying to reposition ourselves so that our planes were near each other than we did actually get shots fired. (And most of our shots were directly facing each other as neither of us was very successful at getting a shot in from the side or behind the other person's plane.)

Overall, I give Wings of War a 6.5/10. I feel somewhat bad about giving it such a low score when I can really only name one con, but the con was essentially the crux of the game.  As a final note, I would like to re-point out that this is what I thought of the game; with the giant bias that the primary concept of the game (positioning your plane to get a good shot off) didn't hold my interest.

Dixit Review

A game that I recently played strictly based on the online reviews I had read was Dixit (honestly, when I looked at the game at the store, I thought it looked stupid; but I bought it anyway). In full disclosure, party games are not really my favorite genre. They can be fun occasionally, or in the right setting, but for the most part, I'd rather play a strategy game. However, when I went to visit some friends, Dixit seemed much more appropriate than a 2-3 hour mental workout game.

In Dixit, players each have 6 cards with weird pictures in their hand. They take turns being the "storyteller", who selects one of his cards and makes up a sentence about it - it can be a one word sentence, can be sung, or whatever else you can think of. Often we would have sentences like "All dressed up with nowhere to go", or "I'm thinking of fish for dinner", or "Lucky devil". After the storyteller states his sentence, everyone else picks one of their cards that they think matches the same sentence and throw it in the middle. The cards are shuffled up and flipped over and then everyone (but the storyteller) uses their numbered pieces to secretly vote on which picture belonged to the storyteller. From here, points are awarded based on who voted for what, and the storyteller gets points if some (but not all) of the other players got the picture correct. The game goes on like this until the entire pile of cards has been used, at which time the player with the most points wins.

Over the rainbow?

Here's what sets apart Dixit from any other party game that I can remember playing: the storyteller's goal is to get some of the people to guess correctly. If he is so ambiguous that nobody can figure out his card, he gets no points and all the other players do; if he is so direct that everybody is able to get it correct, then, again, he gets nothing but all the other players score. Therefore, it is very fun and interesting to try to think of something just ambiguous enough to trick some people (and then hope that other players throw down other good cards that go well with the story that was used). This mechanic works really well, and is really the heart of Dixit.

The next pro to Dixit is the ambiguity of the images themselves. The images are really just random fantasy pictures about nothing in particular. There are images of toys, cats, paintings, feasts, etc, but none of them are really about anything. On just about any of them you could say to yourself, "I have no idea what is going on there", and that's really the point. The art was very wonderfully created about... nothing. I can just imagine the designer of this game talking to the artist and saying, "Hey, I need you to create about 80 pictures of nothing in particular. Do you have a 5 year old kid around that we can use as a consultant? Maybe you can talk to him about what's going on in his mind and then draw it. Oh, he thinks that the sky is green and that it'd be neat to have raindrops that were filled with animals? Even better!"

I make music?

My final pro for Dixit is really that you don't have to know how people think in the game. Whereas in a game like Apples to Apples, how different people decide which card to pick is really important, in Dixit, you never know because the pictures are all so random. This prevents people from having a big advantage because they have known each other longer, or because they know that someone thinks certain things are funny - instead, it's all about how accurately you can adapt pictures about nothing to a story with no plot.

My only real concern about Dixit is that you go through all of the cards every time that you play the game. Because of this, you are going to be reusing the pictures with each play.  This means that it's up to you as the player to come up with creative new uses for the cards each time. Whereas this is something that will work wonderfully for artistic people, I think this might push the limits for my engineering friends' imaginations. Either way, this is really a neutral point more than a negative, because I think that part of the fun of the game may be in the challenge of seeing the same image over and over and making up new stories for it each time.

Overall, I give Dixit a 9.5/10. This game has jumped to the top of my party game list, as it is something that is creative and fun, but is also something that could be engaging to both extroverts and introverts (no standing up and singing, or acting, or anything like that.... unless you want to).  If you even mildly enjoy party games, I would definitely recommend trying Dixit out.

If you like Dixit, you might also enjoy Say Anything, Fictionaire, and Rory's Story Cubes, or the Board Game Family's Dixit: Odyssey Review.

Spooks Review

Now for a simple review for a simple game: Spooks.

Spooks is a card game in which each player is attempting to get rid of their entire hand. This consists of being able to play something on top of whatever card was played last. If the last card played was a red card, then you had to play a card of the same number or suit. If the card was a blue card, then you played a card that was numerically one number higher. If the card was a green "goblin" card, there are special rules, etc.

The biggest pro of Spooks is that it is appropriate for all ages. If you are looking for a game that you can play with your kids and not have to worry about whether it is too complex, this would be a valid candidate. Also, though Spooks is about "monsters", the art is cartoonish enough that it would not be scary for children.

The next pro for Spooks is that it is a very quick game that is easy to carry. (Yes, you can read this as "Spooks is a filler game.") It shouldn't take more than about 10 minutes to play, and so it can easily be played while sitting around at an airport, coffee shop, or waiting on friends to arrive at a local board game store.

There are, however, two major cons for Spooks. First, the instructions (though very short) seemed to be poorly laid out and confusing. It was difficult upon first looking at them to figure out what was actually part of the basic game and what was related to a game variant.

The next con for Spooks is it has the depth level of the card game War. (The people I played with disagreed with me on this - they claimed that it was closer to Old Maid or something in that vein.) Either way, this is not on my top list of games to play, as I'm not sure that it would entertain me more at an airport than staring out the window would.

Overall, I give Spooks a 5.0/10. It is the epitome of that grade for me - the game is fully functional, but I am not really interested in playing it again because I did not think it was fun.

Through the Ages Review

A game that I made a point to play because of all of the great things I had heard was Through the Ages.

In Through the Ages, each player represents a civilization that is attempting to gain the most culture (victory) points. Since you each represent a civilization, you each have a government; which then determines how many civil and military actions you have each round. Each turn starts with the oldest cards from the "card row" (available developments, essentially) being cleared off, the cards being shifted down, and then the card row being refilled. From here, the active player has the option of playing a Political Action (attack an opponent, setup a global event for later, etc), and then they are able to take their normal actions. The actions available can include taking card(s) from the card row, building or upgrading buildings, training military units, discovering new technology (assuming you have enough science), and working on a wonder (among other things). Once the active player has completed all of their actions (that they choose to perform), he cleans up his turn - generate victory points, science, and food, consume food, generate resources, see if you're corrupt, draw military cards. The game continues like this until one of the Ages is over (which one depends on if you're playing the basic, advanced, or full game) - at which time a few extra things score points. Finally, whoever has the most points wins.

My first pro about Through the Ages is how well the game "flows." Once you understand the basics, the game mechanics are not very complicated. Each turn, you follow the same steps (though with many options because of the cards) - the question boils down to who is able to most efficiently use their actions. While most civilization based games can be very intimidating - between how the mechanics work, the setup time, and how the actual components are designed - Through the Ages is pretty easy to follow.

The next pro that I have for Through the Ages is that it is a "light" civilization game yet still has depth. I often hear Through the Ages described as a "civ-lite" game. To an extent, that is true - you can play Through the Ages in closer to 2 hours (even in the full game) than 2 days. However, Through the Ages definitely still has the depth to it that people who enjoy empire building games crave - your civilization can go to war, make raids, have leaders, build wonders, and discover technologies. Whoever is able to best capitalize on all of these elements will be victorious.

The third thing that I like about Through the Ages is how the "card row" works. This is really the mechanic that the entire game hinges on. Each turn, there are several cards that are available to the active player (I think it is 13, but I'm not sure). The cards that have been available the longest cost the least number of actions to put in your hand, whereas the new ones cost the most. At the start of each player's turn, a certain number of cards are removed from the front of the row; therefore you can wait to purchase a card so that it will become cheaper. But, if you wait, you risk one of your opponents taking the card. And if you wait too long, the card will go away of its own volition! This really does a good job of depicting the concepts of seizing opportunities, missed chances, and opportunity cost. Also, because the cards from the front of the line are discarded each turn, it really keeps up the pace of the game.

The final thing (that I will mention) that I liked about Through the Ages was how you kept track of everything. There are several different elements to the game - victory points earned each round, military strength, current amount of science, science earned each round, happiness, etc. The components for Through the Ages were brilliantly designed to allow you to easily see all of this at a (few) glance(s). This is another area that helps keep the pace of the game up without getting you as bogged down in the details. Specifically, you have a track not only to keep track of VP and science, but also to keep track of how much VP and science you gain each round - this way you don't have to re-add them up each turn. Whereas, this is by no means a game mechanic, it is definitely a wonderful aspect to the game that any other developers of empire building games need to shamelessly steal (quick, Eagle Games, go get it patented somehow)!

Ok, so I lied.  Here are a few more pros (with little to no explanation).  I liked:

• Multiple paths to victory
• How the Current/Future Events worked
• How the Aggression/Military worked - important but not too overpowering
• How building a Wonder worked

Unfortunately, there is still a con for Through the Ages that I have to mention. And that is, this game is "fiddly." Though the maintenance of this game works much better than most empire building games, there are still lots of things to adjust throughout the game (and on each turn) - and if you fail to adjust them, you might not notice for several turns. Not noticing that you should have been gaining one extra science per round can cost you a lot of valuable points. Again, this works better than in most empire builders, but it still is a nuisance to keep track of all of your civilization's different statistics, spent actions, and available resources.

Overall, I give Through the Ages a 9.5/10 (I only really debated between 9.0-9.5). It is by far my favorite empire building game. Unfortunately, since it still can take approximately 2 hours to play and is very intimidating looking to new players, it probably won't get as much playtime as it rightly deserves.

Through the Ages on Noble Knight Games (about $49.50)
Through the Ages on Funagain Games (about $49)
Through the Ages on Amazon (about $47)