Jon, I just wanted to say that your reviews are great. They are really well organized (much like Dice Tower) but also seem comfortable and conversational (much like Rahdo). It's a really good mix!
Minor clarification at 6:38. #1 step in the game end section is to determine stock holder majority. The majority holder gets $10k. If there is a tie, every tied player gets $5k (even if there is a 4-way tie). After majority, then stocks are sold. We have had games where there was a guy that had the least amount of money on the table win because he got majority in 5/6 companies. That combined with the value when he sold all his stock (he was holding a lot), pushed him just over the top. We had counted him out but the majority bonuses were enough to push him over the top for the win. I actually am not to fond of the majority payout as it encourages card counting which to me takes away from the fun. I don't like to card count (not fun), but I am disadvantaged to other players if someone is counting (also not fun). But it does provide interesting opportunities when a stock busts to pick it up to get quick majority. Even if it isn't worth much.
It's very strange that you bring up AP issues during the auction. I've never seen this happen in all the game I've played. Usually we just jump one ahead and move on. I love this game, but I do agree with your negative. We never play with the special powers.
Another great review! :-) A point on the rules explanation: If it makes a difference, the different phases are shown on the players boards. I find it easy just going by those keywords to figure out which phase we're in and what we're about to do. I have found a few flaws in the game though. Going first is a huge disadvantage, especially in the selling phase. Knowing nothing about the stocks, except your own stock and the common one isn't a lot to go by and there's a chance that you'll get completely screwed over. (where as the later players can get a feel of what's being sold) This leads to the other big complaint I have with the game (and why I think it works best with 5) - with fewer than 5 players someone will have to go first twice, while others only have to go first once. This gives some players an obvious advantage. 5 players is really where this game shines for me. Also players should be aware that rounds can be very swingy - but usually only in a bad way. I've seen people with a lot of stocks loosing it all very quickly - I haven't seen people gaining a lot all of a sudden. If you loose a lot on the first few rounds it can be very hard to come back. All of this sounds like it's a bad game - but overall I definitely agree with your points - it's a great game :-)
This is some great insight Rasmus, thanks! I've been bugged by first player issues in other games, and mentioned it as a negative in reviews, but it never stuck out to me while playing. That being said, I think you make some really good points and that is definitely a big plus for playing with 5. I think the biggest reason I didn't notice this wrinkle is that I was too focused on figuring out why I was doing so badly :P
Definitely true that going first is a disadvantage. Do you think that each round is equal for the disadvantage though? I'm not sure (haven't played it many times with 5 players), but it seems like it might be better to have your 'going last' turn be during a certain round in the game.
I've actually been considering the same thing, but can't quite decide. I think I'd probably want to give first in the second or third round (in a five player game) - that way, in the final two rounds, you'll have a lot of information in the selling phase as you'll be going last and second to last. Having more information is obviously better if you have more stocks (and thus going first in the final rounds is probably worse than during the first few rounds).
I've been considering house ruling the "selling phase". I haven't tried this yet, it is just an idea brewing in my brain to try some day. I dislike how the first player of the round gets no information in the sell phase where the last player has lots of potential information. Yes, everyone gets to have this advantage at some point in the game, but later rounds have a larger impact as players probably have more stock to sell/lose in a bust. So here are a couple of ideas I am thinking about. Both will make the game a longer, but will also increase the player interaction and deductions available. This will make it more fun for some but also more painful if you have AP-prone players: #1) as long as you sell one stock, once it goes around you can sell again. This continues until each person has passed (sold nothing). So on the first go round you can sell one stock. If you see the last player ditch a ton of stock, you can then have another shot at selling. If you passed, then you are done for the round. #2) do a two-pass then you are out sweep. Rather than forcing you to sell something to stay in the selling phase, you can have a two-pass out of selling. Then players that passed on the first round can sell on the second. The immediate question is why doesn't this immediately devolve into #1 because everyone will just just pass the first round. And the answer is, it often might. But it also opens the window for fun plays. You can sell one or two stock in the first round which might cause others to jump in and sell theirs making you more likely to be majority holder at the end or fooling them into selling before a large positive move or dividends. #3) Have a "selling fee". For the first round of selling, it is free. To go into the next round of selling, you have to pay "$2" to enter that selling round (maybe $3, I don't know what will be the right balance point, but $2-3 feels about right just thinking about it). Once you opt not to pay to enter a selling round, you are out for the rest of that game round. This way if someone makes a large move, you can pay to make a similar move. #4) Similar to #3 you have different selling rounds, but instead of a fixed fee for entry to that selling round, you can have a fee per stock sold. So the first selling round (game default round) the fee is obviously $0 but increases $1 per round after that. So if you want to sell stock in the second sell round, you have to pay $1 per stock to sell. If you want to go another round, you'll pay $2 per stock to sell. So on. Anyway, just some ideas to increase the deduction and remove some of the 1st player effect. They will increase game time an AP issues, but could be fun.
I like the idea of selling one type of stock and then going to the next player so you can maybe sell a stock to put feelers out before doing a big dump at the end of that selling round maybe.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jon! I greatly appreciated how you segmented the positives, neutrals, and negatives of the game. I'm happy you enjoyed the game, despite being soundly beaten. ;) For you or anyone else looking to improve their Stockpile skills, we wrote up a few strategy pointers with our friends at the Cardboard Republic, which can be found at the link below. www.cardboardrepublic.com/spotlight-material/insider-information-stockpile-strategy-tips
Cool, thanks for sharing the link! It's looking likely that the game itself will stay within my friend group so I may have another change to play it again and try to have a good shot at NOT coming in last now :P
As far as the powers - in your experience has one character won more than another? So far I've played it 18 times and the characters we thought were OPed keep losing.
No, which is why I am really hesitant to say they are imbalanced. My perspective and critique is that some FELT more powerful than others and merely having that feeling hurt the atmosphere of the game.
This game totally fell flat for my group... A gamer version of stock ticker without the fun... The sum of its parts should make for a better game than this
Jon, I just wanted to say that your reviews are great. They are really well organized (much like Dice Tower) but also seem comfortable and conversational (much like Rahdo). It's a really good mix!
You bid for the asymmetric powers, and they start with different amounts of money. That creates balance once you know the roles and rules.
Ah, easy self-balancing, one of the reasons why auctions are among the best mechanics out there :)
Minor clarification at 6:38. #1 step in the game end section is to determine stock holder majority. The majority holder gets $10k. If there is a tie, every tied player gets $5k (even if there is a 4-way tie). After majority, then stocks are sold.
We have had games where there was a guy that had the least amount of money on the table win because he got majority in 5/6 companies. That combined with the value when he sold all his stock (he was holding a lot), pushed him just over the top. We had counted him out but the majority bonuses were enough to push him over the top for the win.
I actually am not to fond of the majority payout as it encourages card counting which to me takes away from the fun. I don't like to card count (not fun), but I am disadvantaged to other players if someone is counting (also not fun). But it does provide interesting opportunities when a stock busts to pick it up to get quick majority. Even if it isn't worth much.
Nice review! I've never heard of this game but your review makes me want to give it a try
You really should, it's a great collection of good design decisions.
It's very strange that you bring up AP issues during the auction. I've never seen this happen in all the game I've played. Usually we just jump one ahead and move on.
I love this game, but I do agree with your negative. We never play with the special powers.
Another great review! :-)
A point on the rules explanation:
If it makes a difference, the different phases are shown on the players boards. I find it easy just going by those keywords to figure out which phase we're in and what we're about to do.
I have found a few flaws in the game though. Going first is a huge disadvantage, especially in the selling phase. Knowing nothing about the stocks, except your own stock and the common one isn't a lot to go by and there's a chance that you'll get completely screwed over. (where as the later players can get a feel of what's being sold)
This leads to the other big complaint I have with the game (and why I think it works best with 5) - with fewer than 5 players someone will have to go first twice, while others only have to go first once. This gives some players an obvious advantage. 5 players is really where this game shines for me.
Also players should be aware that rounds can be very swingy - but usually only in a bad way. I've seen people with a lot of stocks loosing it all very quickly - I haven't seen people gaining a lot all of a sudden. If you loose a lot on the first few rounds it can be very hard to come back.
All of this sounds like it's a bad game - but overall I definitely agree with your points - it's a great game :-)
This is some great insight Rasmus, thanks! I've been bugged by first player issues in other games, and mentioned it as a negative in reviews, but it never stuck out to me while playing. That being said, I think you make some really good points and that is definitely a big plus for playing with 5. I think the biggest reason I didn't notice this wrinkle is that I was too focused on figuring out why I was doing so badly :P
Definitely true that going first is a disadvantage. Do you think that each round is equal for the disadvantage though? I'm not sure (haven't played it many times with 5 players), but it seems like it might be better to have your 'going last' turn be during a certain round in the game.
I've actually been considering the same thing, but can't quite decide. I think I'd probably want to give first in the second or third round (in a five player game) - that way, in the final two rounds, you'll have a lot of information in the selling phase as you'll be going last and second to last. Having more information is obviously better if you have more stocks (and thus going first in the final rounds is probably worse than during the first few rounds).
I've been considering house ruling the "selling phase". I haven't tried this yet, it is just an idea brewing in my brain to try some day. I dislike how the first player of the round gets no information in the sell phase where the last player has lots of potential information. Yes, everyone gets to have this advantage at some point in the game, but later rounds have a larger impact as players probably have more stock to sell/lose in a bust.
So here are a couple of ideas I am thinking about. Both will make the game a longer, but will also increase the player interaction and deductions available. This will make it more fun for some but also more painful if you have AP-prone players:
#1) as long as you sell one stock, once it goes around you can sell again. This continues until each person has passed (sold nothing). So on the first go round you can sell one stock. If you see the last player ditch a ton of stock, you can then have another shot at selling. If you passed, then you are done for the round.
#2) do a two-pass then you are out sweep. Rather than forcing you to sell something to stay in the selling phase, you can have a two-pass out of selling. Then players that passed on the first round can sell on the second. The immediate question is why doesn't this immediately devolve into #1 because everyone will just just pass the first round. And the answer is, it often might. But it also opens the window for fun plays. You can sell one or two stock in the first round which might cause others to jump in and sell theirs making you more likely to be majority holder at the end or fooling them into selling before a large positive move or dividends.
#3) Have a "selling fee". For the first round of selling, it is free. To go into the next round of selling, you have to pay "$2" to enter that selling round (maybe $3, I don't know what will be the right balance point, but $2-3 feels about right just thinking about it). Once you opt not to pay to enter a selling round, you are out for the rest of that game round. This way if someone makes a large move, you can pay to make a similar move.
#4) Similar to #3 you have different selling rounds, but instead of a fixed fee for entry to that selling round, you can have a fee per stock sold. So the first selling round (game default round) the fee is obviously $0 but increases $1 per round after that. So if you want to sell stock in the second sell round, you have to pay $1 per stock to sell. If you want to go another round, you'll pay $2 per stock to sell. So on.
Anyway, just some ideas to increase the deduction and remove some of the 1st player effect. They will increase game time an AP issues, but could be fun.
I like the idea of selling one type of stock and then going to the next player so you can maybe sell a stock to put feelers out before doing a big dump at the end of that selling round maybe.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jon! I greatly appreciated how you segmented the positives, neutrals, and negatives of the game. I'm happy you enjoyed the game, despite being soundly beaten. ;)
For you or anyone else looking to improve their Stockpile skills, we wrote up a few strategy pointers with our friends at the Cardboard Republic, which can be found at the link below.
www.cardboardrepublic.com/spotlight-material/insider-information-stockpile-strategy-tips
Cool, thanks for sharing the link! It's looking likely that the game itself will stay within my friend group so I may have another change to play it again and try to have a good shot at NOT coming in last now :P
As far as the powers - in your experience has one character won more than another? So far I've played it 18 times and the characters we thought were OPed keep losing.
No, which is why I am really hesitant to say they are imbalanced. My perspective and critique is that some FELT more powerful than others and merely having that feeling hurt the atmosphere of the game.
Did you manage to play any 2-player games since? If so, how is it with two?
Unfortunately I never did, and ended up selling it on so it likely won't happen.
Ah, too bad. Thank you anyway for the review and the quick response!
good game but too simplistic
This game totally fell flat for my group... A gamer version of stock ticker without the fun... The sum of its parts should make for a better game than this