7 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2021
    1. I really like the ideas in this game: the theme, what it's trying to accomplish (explore the problems with imperialism, if I understood correctly), the game board, the game in general. I want to like it.

      but, I don't think I would like this one enough due to the luck and relying on other players' whims (trading) mechanisms:

      • Dice Rolling
      • Push Your Luck

      You can risk a lot getting an expensive estate, but if you push your luck too much, your risk/gamble won't pay off and you'll permanently lose that [pawn] and those victory points.

    1. Luck over-rides strategy
    2. You can't avoid the comparisons to Carcassonne even though the scoring mechanic is very different. It just looks the same, and the tile placement phase feels close enough to be familiar. However, this familiarity starts to nag at you, only adding to the frustration when tile placement is clumsy and luck-driven unlike Carcassonne. The comparison is not favourable for Fjords.
    3. You can strategise to a degree by trying to block off a potential peninsula (cut off between two mountains for example). This can start a little race to claim this area. e.g. I cut off an area with one of my houses.
    4. Luck is a major factor. As discussed above, sometimes the map seems to build itself and you draw tiles which you HAVE to place even though they are aiding your opponent.
    5. f you cannot place it, it is set aside for use later in the game if an opportunity arises. (Tiles are set aside a lot.)
    1. My wife's first description of playing Fjords was that it felt a bit like playing Othello, in that you had to think too far ahead. I don't see it that way. I think that the luck of the draw & the fact that a tile must be played if it can, means that you can't always plan too far ahead. Often you have to try to work out how to make use of what you've got.