Re: Session report: Hanging Gardens, Chariots

["James K Droscha" <jdroscha@...>]

--- In piecepack@yahoogroups.com, Ron Hale-Evans <rwhe@l...> wrote:

> I played a game of Hanging Gardens (by James Kyle) last night

Thanks for taking Hanging Gardens for a spin!

> This makes symmetry very fragile and hard to obtain;
> the seven-coin group GGRBRGB would score seven symmetry points, 
except
> that the two end flower beds don't match.  It would be nice if
> symmetry were a little more robust and played a larger part in the
> game; at the moment, you have very little ability to block someone
> from breaking the symmetry of one of "your" rows.

Hmm, perhaps.  Though, if you are careful, an opponent costing you 
symmetry in a row will often be trading one full turn and 2 points 
for it (plus another 1 to 4 points in opportunity cost.)  In a 3-
player game you get, oh, maybe 17 turns (depending on how often you 
move your gazebo) so perhaps that's not disincentive enough to wreck 
a single row, but they probably won't spend all game doing it.  If I 
think of a simple way to score partials that I like, I'll test it.

> There's also a weird Icehouse thing going on wherein string, dental
> floss, and laser pointers may be needed to determine whether a 
gazebo
> can "really" see a flower bed.

Yes, any one of those that the group chooses to use.  BUT, those are 
only suggested last resorts in case players cannot verbally 
agree:  "If there is any question during scoring regarding whether or 
not a particular bed is visible from a
particular gazebo, the players should endeavor to come to an 
agreement. If none can be reached, use the
following guidelines..."

> The present "debatable bed visibility"
> calculation ("A particular bed is obscured by a plateau unless its
> distance from the plateau is equal or greater than the following: 
the
> product of the bed's distance from the gazebo multiplied by the
> plateau's height all divided by the gazebo's height. Ignore any
> remainder.") doesn't help much, in our experience.

Yeah, I agree, it's downright awful.  (But again, it's only there as 
a last resort, and is only one of the options available for 
argumentative players.  I don't remember ever stooping to use it in a 
game.)

> 1. Chad and John tied, and we thought the game needed a tiebreaker
>    rule.

Can you share what tiebreaker you used?  (I note in your final scores 
that you did not leave it at a tie.)  Incidentally, James _loves_ 
ties, and so will smilingly refuse to add a tie-breaking rule.  But 
James also loves people to make up any rules they like better.

> 2. Question: Does one coin alone directly on the sight line count 
for
>    two points?  (One point for colour, one point for symmetry.)  We 
ruled
>    that it did.

Yes, a row of 1 coin _does_ get the symmetry bonus.  I should add 
that clarification.

> Again, the game would be more interesting if some of the
> other tactics were strengthened, such as the symmetry rules.
> Fortunately, this is only version 0.2b of the ruleset, so it seems
> James intends to improve the game.

Hmm, "intends" might be a bit strong here.  Oh, I'll update it 
someday.  Someday.

I'm glad you enjoyed the game, and thanks very much for the 
suggestions!

Cheers,
James