inconsequential ruminations

I miss the old Board Game Geek ratings correlation functions. They were disabled about six months ago because of server load. Luckily you can still compare your ratings profile to others, even though there is no visible link at the Board Game Geek.

Just substitute the usernames you are interested in to the string below:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/viewusername.php3?fromuser=icheyne&username=Dan+Bosley&action=viewmatches

You can see from this link that my correlation with Dan Bosley is 0.54, the highest I have found.

I find this handy when reading comments from users I am not familiar with. Also, I have found it useful when choosing GeekBuddies, so I can use the GeekBuddy Game Analyzer or the GeekBuddy Game Ratings.

According to GeekBuddy Game Ratings, I should check out Dune, Memoir ‘44, Union Pacific, Goa, Santiago and Hammer of the Scots. They certainly look good.

My brother and I played War of the Ring for the first time the other day. I will only give my initial feelings about it as our first game was more about learning the rules than anything else, plus War of the Rings zealots will probably start a blood feud with me.

Bear in mind that I have never really played any wargames, so this is a massive step up for me:

• There is an overwhelming amount of stuff to consider when taking a go.
• The combat system does feel a little like Risk in that you are fighting with dice, moderated by Combat Cards.
• I lost, by missing the possibility of the Free People capturing four victory points worth of cities. Apparently, that’s difficult to do if you know what you are doing.
• There were no serious problems with the components. I will probably spray the figures different colours, depending on their race, but it is unnecessary.
• The theme is handled sensitively. It could have been mucked up by a clumsy implementation.
• There are a few rules ambiguities and the FAQ is not great.
• The War of the Rings page on the Geek is almost unusable, due to the massive amounts of rubbish posted to it.
• We played for about five hours. If I had not been suckered into a quick loss, we felt it could have taken longer. Of course, if we had both read the rules thoroughly beforehand or been experienced wargamers, it would have been shorter.
• I suspect it is OK with three or four players, but the game was primarily designed for two. It is the opposite/same problem playing Tigris & Euphrates with two.

I have never been really interested in wargames because of the subject matter, but finally here is a wargame that fascinates me. I am surprised it is now the third highest rated game on the Geek, but it might eventually live up to that after a few more plays.