At 1:41:30 when it was noted that Shrey's ship was going to be loaded first, the card revealing supply was flipped and cubes added. Why? It meant that the players could send out their ships knowing the available supply already. I don't have the game, so I can't check the rules, but that certainly doesn't seem right. Surely the ships are supposed to choose their destinations (phase C) before the adjustment to supply (phase D). The fact that Shrey's ship would load first (having stayed there from the previous round) would only become relevant in phase D. Presumably.
“Exploitation is horrible”, says dude wearing Apple Watch likely made using Uyghur labor and/or at Foxconn in China. Also I assume then he plays no Viking or Pirate themed games, or games set in ancient Egypt, right?
I have to say, I respect where Martin's objections come from, but I'm not sure I agree. Does the game ignore some history? Sure. But lots of games do that. Petty much every westward expansion game comes from the white point of view and didn't address the injustices of the era. Pretty much every rail building game doesn't address the injustices in the labor and land exploitation. Edward and his guests really liked the game "Carnegie", which goes a step further and explicitly glorifies Andrew Carnegie's philanthropy (as enhanced victory conditions, no less) with the game not really making any mention of the various types of exploitation used to amass that wealth. (Edward gave that passing mention in the review, but easily skipped past the objection while the game mechanic itself was praised.) And I certainly don't agree that many games even approach the level of deception in "Puerto Rico", in which essential laborers were termed "colonists" in the game, but were in fact slaves or indentured labor in the setting the game actually purports to represent. It's an entirely different level of disrespect to not just ignore history, but to revise it. And all of that is a completely separate conversation from whether or not the theme is tired or overused. Let me just conclude by saying that I think it's fine to note this as a shortcoming, but that I'm disappointed it seemed to become the primary focus. Most of you (with the notable exception of Shrey) seemed to enjoy the game and seemed to think it would be worth a replay.
"Sure, but lots of games do that" is some epic hand-waving I must learn to still accept in 2022... It's not that the game "ignores some history." Ken perfectly puts the fine point on it around 3:28:27.... The game is approaching its setting "as a value-neutral proposition." It's exactly because that's this game, that the setting could be a myriad of other settings: except this one has chosen one of the most inhumane & horrific settings possible. It takes this setting & makes it a worker placement game. Such mechanics are rarely thematic for euro-style games; they are right to call it out here, even listing alternatives, because any game intentionally picking *this* theme as window dressing over worker placement mechanics earning points in a value-neutral proposition, that is so not neutral...is so willfully responsible, if not indeed "lazy" as they conclude. If the response to that is "well but lots of games do that...." ...I guess there isn't a better counter than the one they use: John Company & An Infamous Traffic.
@@malexander4094 So why aren't we offended at 18XX games, or Brass (both versions)? What's the essential difference? Both games don't mention the labor exploitation that lie behind the mechanisms. Arguably, the 18xx series is worse, because that was largely immigrant labor on our own soil. Yet NOBODY is offended by that one. Why? Where is the magical line between a historical game that should offend me and one that should not? Should we stop mentioning Glory to Rome? The Romans were wildly exploitative and engaged in slave trade, too. Heck, that culture was the foundational root of Western colonialism itself. Are you offended by GtR? If not, why not? If so, why are you willing to let Heavy Cardboard off the hook for highlighting that game virtually every single play-through? To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that there is Bad Stuff hidden behind the game. I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that therefore we shouldn't be playing it.
@@adamkuehn8505 "I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that therefore we shouldn't be playing it." Who has made that conclusion...? "So why aren't we offended at 18XX games, or Brass (both versions)?" I don't know who "we" are, & wouldn't say I'm offended per se: but this is also one reason I don't care for 18xx, or Brass (both versions). "Should we stop mentioning Glory to Rome?" Glory To Rome does not represent a false value-neutral proposition, like East India Companies. It's about rebuilding after the Great Fire. You aren't armies or merchants, going into Greece trading & buying goods, while ignoring how the Romans also enslaved Greeks at the same time. The analogy is so nonsequitor, that I think you're really just trying to say something else. What I think you're trying to say is this: you're against some very broad categorical censoring, banning, canceling, etc., of themes or settings about morally problematic situations. Like, broadly & categorically speaking, trains, the industrial revolution, & ancient Rome. Fortunately for you, no one here has said that. In fact, that's the opposite of what Shrey says. "Where is the magical line between a historical game that should offend me and one that should not?" You decide what that is to you, I suppose. For me, there's no such thing as a magical line. It's just very clear when a design has intention behind its setting, & is thoughtful about how it represents itself, & understands its own arguments....and when a design isn't even trying to do at least one of those things. East India Companies is not: no magical lines necessary. Again: probably my best response can only be exactly the same as Shrey's (& everyone else's) ...John Company, John Company, John Company. And, An Infamous Traffic. Not that these are inherently better games: but that they doing literally everything East India Companies does not. And from recognizing that, to being offended by Brass? Or Glory To Rome? Or to conclude we shouldn't play them, or to stop mentioning them? That is a wildly slippery slope.
@@malexander4094 I disagree with your characterization of Glory to Rome, and I apologize for the "magical line" expression. What I was actually looking for is an analysis of the differences that you find meaningful between East India Companies and the other I mentioned. However, it seems clear that the two of will not come to an agreement on the topic over a chat on UA-cam, so I'll refrain from further comment. If I ever see you in person at a convention or something, I'd be more than happy to discuss with you in more detail. I'm honestly curious where you think distinctions should and should not be made, as I can't see at the moment see clear reasons for how you arrive at your specific conclusions. Perhaps you could teach me something. Cheers!
I mostly agree with the theme discussion, my one problem is the idea that this game has a problem for being uncritical of it's setting. Lots of games that are lauded are that way (as in they aren't critical of, discussing, or even presenting the reality of what's going on one level below their gameplay). Games that see good coverage without discussion of their theme on this channel even. For example, any 18xx game, Age of Steam, Brass, The Great Zimbabwe (granted, that's a time period where it's more "most likely" than fact). All of those involve a lot of terrible stuff happening in how you got the resources in the game, what was involved in placing them and working them in game, and all depict victory in a manner that basically means those who exploited everything best wins. Why is it that this game, and really I think this broadly applies to colonization topics in general compared to other themes often seen as problematic, is held to a different standard?
I don't believe the thematic of a game to be that important. I love crusaders as a theme but I don't think what they did was right, I still don't think every game should be a lecture on the horrors of whatever topic is being handled. Sometimes you just wanna send some ships over to india to buy some tea and make beacoup bucks. If anything I'm tired of the overmoralization in every topic, you just cannot escape the constant barrage of the bad things that happened everywhere at all times, just calm down and play a bit, it won't kill you and bring slavery back.
I think the problem with colonialism is that it was and is used so often. It Is a defining theme or setting for the whole board game hobby. And it is talked about a lot in different circumstances as well. Like politics or academics. But you just dont get the same level of public discussion about something like working class abuse in early 1800s or abuse of railway workforce in 1850. So i think it is only natural, that it works the same way in board games. Some topics are just spicier than others.
I think the ongoing damage that the global majority population suffers due to Western colonialization is a big part of why the theme is held to a higher standard than say, the worker exploitation of the railroad workers that is implied by free track laying in 18xx for example. I'd love to see a exploration of that damage, but the colonialization theme is just so overdone and its real world damage so extensive that it gets criticized more easily.
@@alyssagambone5544 "ongoing damage that the global majority population suffers" is an extremely surface level view of colonialism that excuses a lot of the "global majority" by blaming someone else. For example, the EIC didn't conquer and plunder India, Iranians and then other Indian nations conquered and plundered the Mughal's after a couple terrible emperors failed in keeping it together. Then the remnants fought the EIC for cash, the EIC fought back to force a status quo trade deal, and the Mughal's lost so badly and had a strong reputation from their mercenary work (for other Indians) in previous years that they literally fell into being the de facto provider of safety in India, thus "conquering" it. That doesn't excuse everything the EIC and then the Raj did in India, but it presents a drastically different situation to what most people think happened, and shows that there wasn't some sort guarantee of prosperous golden age would exist had colonialism not happened or that the colonial powers (at least in Africa/Asia) were especially terrible over what was already there. Hell, the first Mughal successor to challenge the EIC following Plessy toured across India seeking support and noted the poverty and terrible conditions of Indians at the hands of the Indian nobility, well away from any territory with an EIC presence. Also you used the railroad example but ignored Brass, a game which is literally about British families who made a ton of money off the EIC seeking to invest in industrialization to compete with those who were already established with profitable factories in India or for alternate revenue sources as the EIC declined. There is a reason Industrialization was funded most and found the early initial success in the countries which had successful trading companies. The only difference, in theme and setting, between something like John Company and Brass is in one you're playing the representatives of the families sent to the EIC in India and in the other you're playing the families who stayed home. Yet as far a I'm aware there isn't a locked thread on BGG about the Brass theme and no one is making responses to recommendations for it calling out the fact that the game is about how you're spending your gains from EIC shares. Aside from that you didn't really answer why can't a game just not deal colonialism beyond it's setting and be accepted for it while others can. There is nothing wrong with wanting something more and saying this doesn't provide, which is really what Martin was really saying, but the way in which it was said doesn't get repeated for any other theme and that's the issue.
People prefer to see Pirate dogs instead of a face, learn, and confront the past with maturity and responsibility. The theme is not a problem, the problem is talking about themes without a deep introspective about them. Maybe the problem here is neutrality.
I’m going to assume everyone outraged over board game themes, is doing their utmost irl to not support or indirectly support: modern slavery, inequalities, modern imperialism, social injustice, third world exploitation etc. But ofc, we all know that’s not the case. Either by supporting businesses, investments or your employer, your quiet support helps uphold these problems. These are real problems around the world daily, we’re living it now, yet you seem more upset about how something that happened over 200 years ago is portrayed in a board game.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen Should you shy away from a theme because it upsets people? Is the critique valid, if you’re directly or indirectly supporting similar problems in todays world? Or is it just catering to a vocal minority? 🤷♂️
@@ormstunga7878 no, the two are not related not matter how hard you try to make them. Are you saying people should shut up about criticism unless they also criticize all of them? Very "all lives matter" of you.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen It’s not about criticizing all or nothing. I’m saying why criticize board games with one hand, claiming it somehow hurts anyone if a game like this is published, achieving nothing at all but relieved conscience. While with the other hand enabling a post imperialistic world of exploitation. Which is what most of us are doing. The kind of outburst from Martin wont get any points with me. It’s hollow. It’s hypocrisy 🤷♂️
@@ormstunga7878 But you make assumptions about the people criticizing the theme with no knowledge about them, just because they don't address the other issues at the same time? How do you know they don't do so in other venues where it makes sense? Also, Martin is British so he has a tighter connection to the theme than you seem to have anyway...
Thank you Martin for addressing an issue in a way that hits perfectly. Im so tired of the lazyness or whatever causes this theme to being used in this way. And there are still SO MANY people who just cannot grasp what the big problem is with colonialism being used so casually as a theme for a fun little game. As a historian this hurts me so bad in so many different ways. So thank you for not holding back.
At 1:41:30 when it was noted that Shrey's ship was going to be loaded first, the card revealing supply was flipped and cubes added. Why? It meant that the players could send out their ships knowing the available supply already. I don't have the game, so I can't check the rules, but that certainly doesn't seem right. Surely the ships are supposed to choose their destinations (phase C) before the adjustment to supply (phase D). The fact that Shrey's ship would load first (having stayed there from the previous round) would only become relevant in phase D. Presumably.
“Exploitation is horrible”, says dude wearing Apple Watch likely made using Uyghur labor and/or at Foxconn in China. Also I assume then he plays no Viking or Pirate themed games, or games set in ancient Egypt, right?
1:41:41 wrong, you reveal the cards in phase D and not in C. So you have to place your ships and don't know what the card will bring in addition...
I have to say, I respect where Martin's objections come from, but I'm not sure I agree. Does the game ignore some history? Sure. But lots of games do that. Petty much every westward expansion game comes from the white point of view and didn't address the injustices of the era. Pretty much every rail building game doesn't address the injustices in the labor and land exploitation. Edward and his guests really liked the game "Carnegie", which goes a step further and explicitly glorifies Andrew Carnegie's philanthropy (as enhanced victory conditions, no less) with the game not really making any mention of the various types of exploitation used to amass that wealth. (Edward gave that passing mention in the review, but easily skipped past the objection while the game mechanic itself was praised.) And I certainly don't agree that many games even approach the level of deception in "Puerto Rico", in which essential laborers were termed "colonists" in the game, but were in fact slaves or indentured labor in the setting the game actually purports to represent. It's an entirely different level of disrespect to not just ignore history, but to revise it. And all of that is a completely separate conversation from whether or not the theme is tired or overused. Let me just conclude by saying that I think it's fine to note this as a shortcoming, but that I'm disappointed it seemed to become the primary focus. Most of you (with the notable exception of Shrey) seemed to enjoy the game and seemed to think it would be worth a replay.
"Sure, but lots of games do that" is some epic hand-waving I must learn to still accept in 2022...
It's not that the game "ignores some history." Ken perfectly puts the fine point on it around 3:28:27.... The game is approaching its setting "as a value-neutral proposition." It's exactly because that's this game, that the setting could be a myriad of other settings: except this one has chosen one of the most inhumane & horrific settings possible. It takes this setting & makes it a worker placement game. Such mechanics are rarely thematic for euro-style games; they are right to call it out here, even listing alternatives, because any game intentionally picking *this* theme as window dressing over worker placement mechanics earning points in a value-neutral proposition, that is so not neutral...is so willfully responsible, if not indeed "lazy" as they conclude.
If the response to that is "well but lots of games do that...." ...I guess there isn't a better counter than the one they use: John Company & An Infamous Traffic.
@@malexander4094 So why aren't we offended at 18XX games, or Brass (both versions)? What's the essential difference? Both games don't mention the labor exploitation that lie behind the mechanisms. Arguably, the 18xx series is worse, because that was largely immigrant labor on our own soil. Yet NOBODY is offended by that one. Why? Where is the magical line between a historical game that should offend me and one that should not? Should we stop mentioning Glory to Rome? The Romans were wildly exploitative and engaged in slave trade, too. Heck, that culture was the foundational root of Western colonialism itself. Are you offended by GtR? If not, why not? If so, why are you willing to let Heavy Cardboard off the hook for highlighting that game virtually every single play-through?
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that there is Bad Stuff hidden behind the game. I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that therefore we shouldn't be playing it.
@@adamkuehn8505
"I'm disagreeing with the conclusion that therefore we shouldn't be playing it."
Who has made that conclusion...?
"So why aren't we offended at 18XX games, or Brass (both versions)?"
I don't know who "we" are, & wouldn't say I'm offended per se: but this is also one reason I don't care for 18xx, or Brass (both versions).
"Should we stop mentioning Glory to Rome?"
Glory To Rome does not represent a false value-neutral proposition, like East India Companies. It's about rebuilding after the Great Fire. You aren't armies or merchants, going into Greece trading & buying goods, while ignoring how the Romans also enslaved Greeks at the same time. The analogy is so nonsequitor, that I think you're really just trying to say something else.
What I think you're trying to say is this: you're against some very broad categorical censoring, banning, canceling, etc., of themes or settings about morally problematic situations. Like, broadly & categorically speaking, trains, the industrial revolution, & ancient Rome.
Fortunately for you, no one here has said that. In fact, that's the opposite of what Shrey says.
"Where is the magical line between a historical game that should offend me and one that should not?"
You decide what that is to you, I suppose. For me, there's no such thing as a magical line.
It's just very clear when a design has intention behind its setting, & is thoughtful about how it represents itself, & understands its own arguments....and when a design isn't even trying to do at least one of those things. East India Companies is not: no magical lines necessary.
Again: probably my best response can only be exactly the same as Shrey's (& everyone else's) ...John Company, John Company, John Company. And, An Infamous Traffic. Not that these are inherently better games: but that they doing literally everything East India Companies does not.
And from recognizing that, to being offended by Brass? Or Glory To Rome? Or to conclude we shouldn't play them, or to stop mentioning them? That is a wildly slippery slope.
@@malexander4094 I disagree with your characterization of Glory to Rome, and I apologize for the "magical line" expression. What I was actually looking for is an analysis of the differences that you find meaningful between East India Companies and the other I mentioned. However, it seems clear that the two of will not come to an agreement on the topic over a chat on UA-cam, so I'll refrain from further comment. If I ever see you in person at a convention or something, I'd be more than happy to discuss with you in more detail. I'm honestly curious where you think distinctions should and should not be made, as I can't see at the moment see clear reasons for how you arrive at your specific conclusions. Perhaps you could teach me something. Cheers!
Thank you so much for the discussion at the end, led by Martin Fowler's comment... or outcry more like.
awesome guys, you keep me from buying it i like everything about the game but unfortunately it's not good for two
Glad we could help you make a good decision for you and your playing partner!
The Ant Lab duo have a video of this at two and say they enjoyed it at that player count
I mostly agree with the theme discussion, my one problem is the idea that this game has a problem for being uncritical of it's setting. Lots of games that are lauded are that way (as in they aren't critical of, discussing, or even presenting the reality of what's going on one level below their gameplay). Games that see good coverage without discussion of their theme on this channel even. For example, any 18xx game, Age of Steam, Brass, The Great Zimbabwe (granted, that's a time period where it's more "most likely" than fact). All of those involve a lot of terrible stuff happening in how you got the resources in the game, what was involved in placing them and working them in game, and all depict victory in a manner that basically means those who exploited everything best wins. Why is it that this game, and really I think this broadly applies to colonization topics in general compared to other themes often seen as problematic, is held to a different standard?
I don't believe the thematic of a game to be that important. I love crusaders as a theme but I don't think what they did was right, I still don't think every game should be a lecture on the horrors of whatever topic is being handled. Sometimes you just wanna send some ships over to india to buy some tea and make beacoup bucks. If anything I'm tired of the overmoralization in every topic, you just cannot escape the constant barrage of the bad things that happened everywhere at all times, just calm down and play a bit, it won't kill you and bring slavery back.
@@aelix56 this is such a sad statement
I think the problem with colonialism is that it was and is used so often. It Is a defining theme or setting for the whole board game hobby. And it is talked about a lot in different circumstances as well. Like politics or academics.
But you just dont get the same level of public discussion about something like working class abuse in early 1800s or abuse of railway workforce in 1850.
So i think it is only natural, that it works the same way in board games. Some topics are just spicier than others.
I think the ongoing damage that the global majority population suffers due to Western colonialization is a big part of why the theme is held to a higher standard than say, the worker exploitation of the railroad workers that is implied by free track laying in 18xx for example. I'd love to see a exploration of that damage, but the colonialization theme is just so overdone and its real world damage so extensive that it gets criticized more easily.
@@alyssagambone5544 "ongoing damage that the global majority population suffers" is an extremely surface level view of colonialism that excuses a lot of the "global majority" by blaming someone else. For example, the EIC didn't conquer and plunder India, Iranians and then other Indian nations conquered and plundered the Mughal's after a couple terrible emperors failed in keeping it together. Then the remnants fought the EIC for cash, the EIC fought back to force a status quo trade deal, and the Mughal's lost so badly and had a strong reputation from their mercenary work (for other Indians) in previous years that they literally fell into being the de facto provider of safety in India, thus "conquering" it. That doesn't excuse everything the EIC and then the Raj did in India, but it presents a drastically different situation to what most people think happened, and shows that there wasn't some sort guarantee of prosperous golden age would exist had colonialism not happened or that the colonial powers (at least in Africa/Asia) were especially terrible over what was already there. Hell, the first Mughal successor to challenge the EIC following Plessy toured across India seeking support and noted the poverty and terrible conditions of Indians at the hands of the Indian nobility, well away from any territory with an EIC presence.
Also you used the railroad example but ignored Brass, a game which is literally about British families who made a ton of money off the EIC seeking to invest in industrialization to compete with those who were already established with profitable factories in India or for alternate revenue sources as the EIC declined. There is a reason Industrialization was funded most and found the early initial success in the countries which had successful trading companies. The only difference, in theme and setting, between something like John Company and Brass is in one you're playing the representatives of the families sent to the EIC in India and in the other you're playing the families who stayed home. Yet as far a I'm aware there isn't a locked thread on BGG about the Brass theme and no one is making responses to recommendations for it calling out the fact that the game is about how you're spending your gains from EIC shares.
Aside from that you didn't really answer why can't a game just not deal colonialism beyond it's setting and be accepted for it while others can. There is nothing wrong with wanting something more and saying this doesn't provide, which is really what Martin was really saying, but the way in which it was said doesn't get repeated for any other theme and that's the issue.
Well stated Martin.
I only apply thumbs when martin the elder reminds me. Its my favorite part aside from the glory to romes
People prefer to see Pirate dogs instead of a face, learn, and confront the past with maturity and responsibility. The theme is not a problem, the problem is talking about themes without a deep introspective about them.
Maybe the problem here is neutrality.
John Company does this theme right. This game seems like something a group of college freshman would find intriguing.
I’m going to assume everyone outraged over board game themes, is doing their utmost irl to not support or indirectly support: modern slavery, inequalities, modern imperialism, social injustice, third world exploitation etc. But ofc, we all know that’s not the case. Either by supporting businesses, investments or your employer, your quiet support helps uphold these problems. These are real problems around the world daily, we’re living it now, yet you seem more upset about how something that happened over 200 years ago is portrayed in a board game.
Why do you connect criticism of a board game theme with activism? Exaggerate much?
@@TorIverWilhelmsen Should you shy away from a theme because it upsets people? Is the critique valid, if you’re directly or indirectly supporting similar problems in todays world? Or is it just catering to a vocal minority? 🤷♂️
@@ormstunga7878 no, the two are not related not matter how hard you try to make them. Are you saying people should shut up about criticism unless they also criticize all of them? Very "all lives matter" of you.
@@TorIverWilhelmsen It’s not about criticizing all or nothing. I’m saying why criticize board games with one hand, claiming it somehow hurts anyone if a game like this is published, achieving nothing at all but relieved conscience. While with the other hand enabling a post imperialistic world of exploitation. Which is what most of us are doing. The kind of outburst from Martin wont get any points with me. It’s hollow. It’s hypocrisy 🤷♂️
@@ormstunga7878 But you make assumptions about the people criticizing the theme with no knowledge about them, just because they don't address the other issues at the same time? How do you know they don't do so in other venues where it makes sense? Also, Martin is British so he has a tighter connection to the theme than you seem to have anyway...
Thank you Martin for addressing an issue in a way that hits perfectly. Im so tired of the lazyness or whatever causes this theme to being used in this way.
And there are still SO MANY people who just cannot grasp what the big problem is with colonialism being used so casually as a theme for a fun little game. As a historian this hurts me so bad in so many different ways.
So thank you for not holding back.
Round four Ken did not pay for his ship and he took to money owed to blue paid by white for his ship. What a cheater.