|
Games Games Games (Issue 137 - November 1999)
Expanding Into The Millennium - Mike Siggins colonises with 6 Billion
(Published with permission)
(The original article featured a top-down image of just the board)
I am not sure if this counts as nepotism (or worse), but David Coutts is one of my oldest and most loyal subscribers, is related by marriage to one of my best friends [DAC: Refer Dave Farquhar page], and is generally a good chap. Of course having designed this game, I feel just a little odd reviewing it, hence this qualifier – I didn’t playtest it, and needless to say I have no financial interest in the game - in fact the rat didn’t even give me a credit for the undoubted inspiration I have been to him (!).
Colonies Ho!
Right. Lots of interesting stuff here, and for a debut game, much to applaud. The game’s title derives from the population of the Earth, which surpassed a cool six billion peeps a couple of months back. The core notion is that the Terran population will continue to grow at a worrying rate, so that our only option is to move people to the planets – by forming colonies or sending migrant ships. So the board shows us all the planets plus the asteroid belt, and the population capacity thereof. Around the edge of the board is the familiar victory point track, which is largely filled at the end of the game. Points are scored for being the dominant, i.e. most numerous, race on each planet, with bonus points for the ‘home counties’ – Earth, Mars and the asteroids, and for your secret objective (“You have always wanted to live on Neptune. Score double points”). Variant rules, strongly encouraged, give an added dimension to card play and victory, and allow basic research. [DAC: Link to Variants page].
The game’s main driver is event cards, and many are of the ‘Take That’ variety, but thankfully with some clever twists. This factor alone marks out the game as one that has been considered, and properly developed. The first type of card is played on your own faction, and usually permits varying distances of movement to other planets – initially a colony, and then migrants follow. The second type of card is a beneficial action played on a rival (yes, that’s right) but in return for some instant victory points. This I liked, especially since the timing of such a card can occasionally backfire on your opponent. It strikes me that balancing such cards with the ‘right’ VP benefit, is a positive design step forward. I wonder if it would work vice-versa as well? With negative effects costing you VPs? Too fiddly? Next up are cards that affect neutral factions, which like a dummy player, always seem to be in the way. Finally there are reactive cards, which cancel or escalate – the nicest effect being a war if too many cards are played in sequence.
The game is simple in structure. Wherever you have population markers, they breed and ‘double’ in size – moving up to the next slot on the track. With the right cards, you may then reduce one of those populations and send them off to another planet. If the colony is established, they too start to procreate. Later on, you may reduce them and send the colonists further out into the solar system. All the while rivals will be keeping an eye on you and playing cards to slow your progress, so it pays to have ‘defence’ cards in hand. The key is that the game ends when either all the planets have at least one population marker, or one of the planets has reached saturation point – usually the Asteroid Belt which has no limitation on expansion. This trigger point has been taking us around two hours to reach.
Room to grow
Another clever element is the population growth rule. Each planet has a track which can accommodate one population marker from each player. These ‘double’ in the normal way until the planet is effectively full, or getting that way. After that, your population can only grow again by playing double cards, which are commensurately valuable later in the game. Indeed, there have been games where they are the only card worth trying to pick up. The play balance downside to this is that a player who manages to get a head start on a new planet, perhaps by fortunate movement card draws, will quickly fill the planet with his own people, denying the growth opportunities of late comers. The tactical upside is that this is well worth aiming for – it usually accrues valuable points at game end.
Graphically 6 Billion is a mixed bag. I personally like the overall ‘cutting edge’ vector graphic approach, reminding me very much of 1990’s club culture or recent web trends (and not the 1970’s look that many people think it represents). The box is impressive, sporting a Hubblesque starscape, and it looks very good on the shelf. But the common complaint is that only the first five orbits are circular, and the rest are reduced to rectangular tables around the board. I can see that the board would be too large otherwise, but I know what they mean. And then there is the colour choice of some of the important numbers on the board. Some are white or yellow and get lost, others are coloured implying significance, but they are in fact normal spaces. On the plus side, the cards are very good, and are clearly marked with their meaning and when they can be played. Clearly years of my pushing the gamekit approach to minimise your publishing risk has had little effect on David, he has simply gone for the full professional package. And very nice it looks.
6 Billion is a decent first effort. Let me quantify that. If I had designed, developed and published it as my first game, I would be feeling proud right now. It is above average, looks good, it has a good theme, remains loyal to that theme, and the tactical situation is at least entertaining and diverting (but not really challenging). Overall, I enjoyed my three games and would only hesitate about playing again if there were slow players present. Sadly though, with four or five players it can drag, and it is not a game that merits two and a half hours or more, so keep the pace of play high and you will not suffer too much. But in the final analysis, the game length is the problem that every player alluded to. It can be solved by ignoring Mercury and Pluto, but that rather spoils the feeling. The minor graphics issue I have already mentioned, and the luck of the draw in the cards is probably acceptable for this type of game which is ‘Take That, Plus’. The curious aspect is that there is nothing much wrong with anything in the game, nor is it particularly time consuming, but it does seem to add up to less than the sum of its parts in the same way that many of Mr Knizia’s are often greater. Sadly, I have no idea why.
Should you buy it? Yes if you play games with non-gamers, perhaps not if you only play against hard-nosed hobbyists. Will it sell outside the hobby market? I have no idea. It is an entirely appropriate theme for a Millennium pitch, and it is instantly recognisable to gamers, familiar or otherwise with science fiction. Apart from the length it has essentially Germanic systems, it is good on interaction thanks to the cards, and grasping the concepts and rules is not difficult. So… yes. Okay to good. A middling design but clearly above the norm. I hope David didn’t sink too much money into production (DAC: Over AUD 45,000 of my own money), or was happy to take a hit if he did, and I wish him all the best at the Essen launch.
Mike Siggins
Copyright © 1999 Mike Siggins
Issue 139 of Games Games Games (January 2000) not only contained the following response from me to Mike's review, but also included my Spiel '99 report when I took 6 Billion to Essen. This was the one and only time I ever met Mike.
Mike, you dirty rat! You ratted on me! Now everyone will know that I owe it all to you...
When I sent copies of my 6 Billion to Chart/SFCP I never expected to make the front cover of Games Games Games, nor get the centrefold review. Nor did I expect Chart to fold (pity about that...)! So, thanks to all concerned at SFCP - especially for getting it out in time for Essen.
Overall a positive review, and my debut game even got compared to the great Reiner Knizia's many designs But, I can't understand why I came off second best...just kidding!
I'd like to pick up on a couple of points. You recommend that people use the variant, or 'optional' rules (DAC - refer Discovery Track Rules 14.0), so you obviously used them. Everyone seems to agree, making them the mandatory Optional rules! People seem to especially like the increased opportunity for scoring (for wealthy, happy and environmentally friendly populations), the fact that each card can now be used for 2 different purposes (so I didn't understand you comment about Double cards being the only useful cards in the late game), and the opportunity to be able to adjust the otherwise random turn order. I did spot one error in your review - the 8's and 32's are coloured for a purpose (and this is in the rules). Others have missed this, so I have added it to my FAQ (question 1 relates to Rule 8.2, in fact). [DAC: Deleted from FAQ as Rule 8.2 is now much clearer in the Online Rules Version 2]. This brings me to an important point. 6 Billion is fully supported via the 6 Billion homepage:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/bnbg6billion/6billion.htm
(DAC: This changed since this response was written)I strongly encourage all players to read the material there. This is my 90s, internet-based, approach to self publishing. I also welcome feedback which I would consider for publication on the web page. And, in a first for self-published games, I fully intend to add translations into all the world's major languages. [DAC: Refer Translations page. I'm slowly getting there.] My market is comprised of 6 Billion people (if only they'd all get on the internet!). Obviously a large part of that is too poor to afford the luxury we all take for granted - a board game!
Back to the mistake. In summary, a population on 8 or 16 doesn't have to halve when generating a single colonists or migrant, and a population on 32 or more does not have to halve even when 2 colonists or migrants are generated. [DAC: Refer Rule 8.2 Generating A Population].
This should speed your games slightly (you would have always halved your populations in your games). I didn't like your suggestion to skip Mercury and Pluto to shorten the game (but, nor did you...). The variants on the 6 Billion homepage [DAC: Refer Variants] provide a few better ideas, I think, principally playing to 256 or 512 instead of 1024. Doug Adams suggests using only 1 Neutral (regardless of the number of players). This isn't 'pure' 6 Billion, and reduces opportunities for the Smiley ability (in a 3- or 4- player game with 2 Neutrals) on the Discovery Track, but it would save time.
You didn't mention the ability to reveal Discovery cards to generate free colonists at the destination planet [DAC via the matching Holding Box, as usual. Refer 12.3 Make A Discovery, and Discovery cards]. Novice players often miss this (or are cautious in its use); more experienced players often use it. It tends to open up the outer Solar System much quicker, speeding game length.
I also feel that familiarity with the game will reduce the perceived downtime, though this won't help with slow players (but then, don't many games suffer with slow players?). I suggest using a cattle-prod!
Sorry for ignoring your years of advice on the low-risk game-kit approach. Whilst I admire many of the designs done this way, I don't admire the cheap look. Always preferred Avalon Hill to SPI for that reason. Call me shallow, I don't care.
I have to say that 6 Billion was designed for gamers, and was largely playtested by gamers.
have quite hard noses, for gamers. I also intended the game for pro-space and science-fiction fans, and the game was actually launched at the 57th World Science-Fiction convention right here in Melbourne in September, prior to Essen. [DAC: Also refer Mars Society Australia - I just donated 200 copies to them. I am also an MSA member]. But, given the significance of the subject matter (namely the future of humanity), my hope is to appeal to non-gamers. I hope to highlight, in my own small way, the perils and the power of exponential population growth. It's something I'm passionate about (DAC: I still am - refer my Exponentialist web site].
Yes I sank a lot of money into 6 Billion. If I sell half of the 2,500 copies made then I will break even (including my excursion to Essen). I believe I can do that. [DAC - Pretty much there].
David Coutts
Board Not Board Games
Copyright © 2000 David A. Coutts
Additional comments by DAC 16th September, 2004.
For a list of articles by me, see the Articles page.
