Board Games For... Travellers

The first shoots of spring are threatening to burst through, and with them, the first embers of the wandering spirit are kindled for the ardent traveller. The highest slopes still hold the potential for skiing, while Paris approaches its springtime. Long journeys, however, demand distractions that are both portable and sustainable. Presented here are those that return the greatest diversion in the smallest package; since they're so small, I can justify discussing five alternatives rather than my standard three.

Since these must provide the most play in the least volume, I have applied the following exclusion criteria to the list:

• They must be small - not much bigger than a couple of decks of cards, so they can fit in and be accessible from a rucksack pocket. Regrettably, this excludes some of my favourite portables; Jaipur, Citadels, Skull & Roses, I must bid you all adieu.
• They must be of a type which sustains repeated play. That doesn't mean that they must necessarily have great depth, merely that players can get several matches on a long journey without boredom. It is at this point that games such as Zombie Dice leave our selection.
• Finally, they must be playable on public transport, ideally on no more than the tray of a train or aeroplane, without any pieces that would be easily dislodged by movement. This excludes anything with standing pieces, as well as games which cover fair bit of space despite coming in a small package (e.g. the excellent Hanabi).

With these restrictions in mind, my suggestions are as follows:

1. Coloretto 

 

One of the simplest card games in modern gaming is also one of the best. Less that two packs of

Picture by the author

cards produce a suprising amount of gameplay. On your turn, either draw and place a card from the deck, or pick up cards into your score piles; once you've picked up, you can't get any more until everyone has picked up. Try to collect three colours; if you collect too many different types, they score against you. The rules can be grasped in moments, and a game rarely takes more than 20 minutes. Nonetheless, for a simple game, it frequently throws tough choices; do you place cards that you want together, and risk an opponent taking them? Do you poison an opponent's well with a card they don't want, at the cost of losing it yourself? Do you cut your losses and take a part-filled row, or gamble on the turn of the next card? Simple rules, nothing but cards, but plenty of lighter gaming fun to be had.

Players: 2-5
Game duration: around 5-10 minutes per player
Best for: non-gamers, groups including children, those too tired for more demanding games.
Not so good for: serious gamers seeking tough intellectual challenges.
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: I would recommending getting the anniversary edition from Amazon; the superior art of the anniversary edition is definitely worth it, and even though this version has German instructions, you can just find and print the English version.

2. Mr Jack Pocket

Picture by kdsz

The closest thing on this list to an actual board game, Mr Jack Pocket could best be described as Hide-And-Seek: The Game. Tracing its lineage back to such classics as Scotland Yard, this is an asymmetric game where one player acts as the eponymous Mr Jack, who is trying to keep his identity hidden until time runs out. The other player controls Sherlock Holmes, Dr Watson, and the ever-adorable sleuthing hound Toby, as they try to identify which suspect is really Mr Jack. Both players manipulate the nine tiles which make up the game board, as well as the positions of the detectives, trying to either see or conceal the suspects on each tile. The random factor on this game is fairly low; it is very much a game of anticipating and neutralising your opponent's move. Attractive pieces and tight battles of wits makes this a wonderful game for those who find the combination of spatial manipulation and psychological duelling compelling.


Players: 2
Game duration: 15-20 minutes
Best for: strategists needing a quick fix, fans of Victoriana, hiders, seekers
Not so good for: any more than two players, casual gamers
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: Gameslore

3. Love Letter

 

One of the most successful of the new breed of so-called "microgames", Love Letter consists of

Picture by Casey Lynn

merely 16 cards, a few cubes to keep score, and a delightful velvet pouch to transport it all in. Like Coloretto, this is another easily-grasped card game; unlike Coloretto, where all information is open, Love Letter is all about concealment and bluffing. The game plays quickly and simply; you have a hand consisting of a single card, and on your turn you draw from the pile.You must then discard one of your cards to return to a single-card hand; its special power will activate when discarded. Some cards allow you to eliminate an opponent by correctly deducing the contents of their hand; others allow you to eliminate them in other ways, gain information, or protect oneself. Players are attempting to woo the Princess by getting a letter to her through the persons represented by the cards; the winner is whoever ends the round with the highest-rated card, or whoever is the last person not exposed. Each round is short, and luck of the draw is definitely a factor, but the game still delivers lots of bluffing and deduction in a small, accessible package.

Players: 2-4
Game duration: around 20 minutes
Best for: honestly, pretty much anyone you would want to play a game with. I've yet to find someone who didn't find it accessible and fun, with its easily-grasped but compelling psychological gameplay.
Not so good for: Killjoys who find the theme off-putting or the game "too dependent on luck". These people just don't know how to have a good time.
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: boardgameguru

4. Hive Pocket

Picture by Markus A

Back to more serious strategy games now. Hive, and it's travel-friendly Hive Pocket version (which is the same game with smaller pieces and convenient travel pouch), is a serious game which clearly shows chess in its DNA. Unusually for an abstract game based on pieces, rather than cards, there is no board; instead, the lovely ceramic tiles are both pieces and board. On each turn, a player either places or moves one of his/her pieces. The aim of the game is to surround the opponent's queen bee, while protecting one's own. The game is smaller and quicker than chess (due partly to the much more fluid piece movement), but many of the same tactics are present; play is heavily reliant on trapping the opponent's pieces to prevent their movement, while keeping one's own pieces in play and jockeying for openings to move them into aggressive positions. Personally, I'm not a fan of chess, but I find Hive's more rapid pace and tighter spatial elements much more enjoyable.
Players: 2
Game duration: 20-30 minutes
Best for: Strategists; reformed chess-players; entomologists; anyone who would enjoy beautiful, ceramic tiles.
Not so good for: Casual gamers, arachnophobics.
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: Amazon; German version again, so you will need English rules again if you get that version.

5. The Resistance/The Resistance Avalon

 

And finally, we head into social gaming for our last pick. Derived from the classic "Werewolf" (and

Picture by Nuno Sentieiro

designed to evade that game's player elimination and narrator requirements), The Resistance is a game of bluff and misdirection for entire groups of people, with gameplay focused on social interaction rather than cards or pieces. Players represent a resistance cell fighting valiantly against an oppressive regime in a totalitarian future; however, some of the players are secretly spies, doing their best to serve the government and maintain order in the face of anarchist extremists. Spies know who other are, but genuine members of the cell have no idea who anyone is. Players take turns to try to form mission teams; if their team is voted acceptable by the group, those on the mission then perform a secret ballot regarding the mission's success. If the team pulls together and all vote for success, then the mission will indeed succeed; however, if a viper in the nest votes for failure, the mission is a loss. The teams race to win best three of five, with player's roles only definitively revealed at the end.
The result is a game of bluff, deduction, and above all, wild accusation. If a mission fails, the saboteur could be anyone. Do you the trust the team leader? Or do you think they are genuine, but you don't trust their proposed team. Is the team leader choosing his companions so as to frame them in the case of a failure? Why is that person so determined to accuse you of being a spy? Is it because they're the real spy? Or are they a fellow spy, trying accuse you to either gain the trust of the group, or make the group trust you instead? Half an hour of debate, accusations and lies ensue. Well, no lies from me. I'm telling the truth. You're the one who's lying because YOU'RE A FILTHY SPY GET HIM EVERYBODY

(There is also The Resistance: Avalon, which is the same underlying game with the addition that players receive Arthurian roles with special powers, as in most versions of Werewolf. I haven't played it, so can't comment directly, but if I had a choice, I would by the Avalon version.)
Players: 5-10
Game duration: around 30 minutes (relatively unaffected by player number, as the game has a 5-turn limit irrespective of player number)
Best for: Friends travelling together, social gamers, dirty-dealers
Not so good for: The compulsively honest, the quiet carriage of the train
Recommended source for UK buyers at time of writing: The Resistance at boardgameguru, and the Avalon version at iguk.

Return to the Strategy of... Battle Line

Dear all,

Since my original post on the strategy of Battle Line, many such games have come and gone. Greater exposure has inspired  many further thoughts, which I am now minded to share with you all. This article has been rather difficult to lay out, as the concepts at work tend to run into one another. I shall separate it into hand management, where to place, and when to place, and hope that this structure proves helpful. Again, the tactics cards will not be discussed here... though I have had thoughts on that subject as well...

Thinking about the contents of your hand

As discussed in the original article, one should always start by playing for a straight flush (since they can be easily converted to a straight or a flush), and play a higher-value (preferably centred around an 8) against a lower-value, or (if not possible) a lower-value (preferably centred around a 3) against a higher-value straight flush. From these considerations, the following definitions of cards in hand at the beginning of the game can be thought of in two ways:

High in value: higher cards beat lower cards with the same formation. That's easy to grasp. Slightly more subtle is the concept of...

High in probability: the chances of a successful formation being completed. At this beginning of the game, this refers to the likelihood that a straight flush is possible. Two cards of the same suit with adjacent values (henceforth a "double") are high in probability; provided that neither is a 1 or a 10, there are two cards which can complete the straight flush. By comparison, a "split" (i.e. two cards with a number in between, such as 7 and 9) require a single specific card to complete the straight flush; in short, there are fewer ways of completing the formation. (Note that this is also the reason why, considering single cards, an 8 is better than a 9; there are more ways to complete the formation around an 8, as it has three potential straight flush formations, whereas a 9 can only be in two formations.) At the beginning of the game, a double has a better-than-average chance of completing; a split has slightly less than a 50/50 chance (as cards still in the deck will be evenly split, but there are those in the opponent's hand, as well as those which will never be picked up, which reduces the odds of acquiring a specific card).

These considerations are crucial when deciding what to play in a certain position (given the priorities below). If one wishes to win a position where the opponent has already placed, it is generally best to play something higher in value (if possible); however, depending on the game state, you may decide you have better odds of success by playing something low in value but high in probability (i.e. if, given what is in your hand and already played, you think it is unlikely the opponent can complete their higher-value formation). By contrast, when playing to an open position, high in probability is generally better than higher in value.

The junk pile: At the beginning of the game, any card has the potential to form a straight flush. As the game proceeds, this will no longer be the case. Those cards which are no longer valuable for completing straight flushes should be considered separately - I call it the "junk pile", though that is rather glib, as these cards actually play essential roles. Specifically, they are the cards that will be used to fill out straights and flushes where the straight flush has failed, as well as collect three-of-a-kind to defeat the opponent's failed straight flushes. Thus the "junk pile" is really the second string, where unbroken straight flush cards as the first string. Try to keep track of which cards can be used to complete which formations!

Trash: finally, we have cards which cannot be used for any purpose. In practice, these won't accrue until the late stages of the game - until you have played cards to every position, and as least some of these are closed, most cards will still have potential (in the junk pile at worst). Cards only become useless trash when they cannot contribute to any hypothetical position. Trash cards have a single potential purpose - to demonstrate, where possible, that the opponent's formation cannot be completed (and therefore that you have won the position). Generally, try to keep them in hand until the opponent has lost the position, and then reveal by playing on a position with the lowest possible priority (you'll lose that position, so try to hold back until you can win essential positions by revealing the opponent's failure).

Placement priority

... that is, which are priorities to win (and hence positions where you will want to play high probability and value), and those which are lower priorities. These considerations mainly come into play when considering which open position to begin strongly, but may be relevant where a single card may be used in more than one active formation, or where timing is important. In practice, this will usually be a judgement call, and depends on the current game state, but I would generally prioritise positions in the following order:

1. Positions which win you the game (usually by breakthrough). This much is self-evident.
2. Positions which prevent the opponent winning, again usually by breakthrough. If an opponent has won two adjacent positions, you must prioritise winning one of the next adjacent positions to prevent their success.
3. Positions which will build towards a breakthrough. If you are strong in one position, try for the adjacent positions.
4. Positions which will impede your opponent's breakthrough; that is, play strong to an adjacent position, particularly if it fills the gap between positions in which your opponent is already strong. (At this point in the list, game state becomes increasingly important in choosing priority... depending on the board, your hand, and deductions about your opponent's hand, it may make sense to increase the priority of this).
5. Anything from here is a judgement call between playing against positions your opponent has begun, or opening strongly at positions where you may build towards a breakthrough.

When to place

Advice often given to beginners is that Battle Line has a second-player advantage, as the second player can choose the most relevant card to play after seeing what the first play has placed. I do not necessarily agree with this; sometimes, I believe it is better to choose to play to an open position, even when there is the option to play responsively. Of course, if you are the first player, you may have little choice; however, even when you are the second player, you might want to start a new position rather than responding to the first player. This is because, if you are lucky enough to have a starting hand which is strong (particularly in probability), it may be smart to establish a potential breakthrough position at the beginning. By the same token, if you only ever play in response to the opponent's starting card, you may end up giving away a breakthrough (i.e. by playing three lower-in-value cards where the opponent succeeds in delivering their higher-value formation). Thus, deciding whether to open a new position or play in response to the opponent is a judgement call based on your own hand and the opponent's placings. All I can offer as guidance are the hand considerations and placement priorities above.