Dominion

[Gerald]

Hyped as one of the best games of 2008 and a recent Mensa select winner.  I guess it would be an understatement to say that Dominion is on a roll.  I got this game last week and I've already played it around 30 times (give or take a game or two) with varying number of players (mostly 2 or 4 players, rarely 3). 



So what exactly is Dominion?  And how can I possibly have played it 30 times in a span of a little more than a week?  Well, let's start with the first question.  Dominion is a deck building game.  Basically you want to build a smooth running deck or "engine" that maximizes the potential of whatever strategy you are trying to conduct.  At the end of the game, whoever has the most victory points will win.  As for the second question, I've played it around 30 times thanks to my now addicted friends and online play via BSW.

Playing Time:
With experienced players, a game will take roughly around 15-25 minutes.  Which is good.  Because you're gonna want to play again.  And again.  And again.  So for the brief playing time, I give it a 9/10.

Components:
All you get for your dollar or peso is a box filled with cards.  Granted, they all have respective roles and names... but in the end, its still a box full of cards.  You might think... Race for the Galaxy is also just a box full of cards... and you'd be right.  But, Race for the Galaxy is alot cheaper.  The artwork is decent and the cards themselves are well-made.  So, I'll give it a 7/10 (for the price you pay, you either have to get MORE cards or at least something more solid).

Flow of Play:
This is where this game shines.  It takes about 5 minutes to explain it.  Another 2-3 minutes to conduct a brief demo.  And after a turn or two, the players just "get" it.  Its very intuitive.  In fact, I was able to teach it to someone just via Yahoo! Messenger when we played it online.  I didn't have to demo or show him anything.  AP is kept to a bare minimum, and your ever-changing hand keeps things interesting.  While there is a luck factor, you can minimize it by streamlining your deck.  A perfect 10/10.

Conclusion:
Dominion is definitely one of the better games to come out last 2008, and I can see myself playing it alot more in the foreseeable future.  Heck, I even shelled out $5.00 to buy the promo cards thru BGG and I intend to get my hands on the expansion coming out this June.  But, as much as I like this game (in fact, I REALLY like it), and appreciate the fact that more of my friends appreciate playing it (some are addicted)... I don't LOVE it.  My final rating, an addictive 8/10.

[Gaebril]

I'll say it now: Buy LOTS of silver and gold. This is very simple advice but everyone can forget it.

This is an entirely strategic game; there are almost no tactical decisions to be made. Maybe you'll feel that you've seen all the combos after a while, but that's why the game has multiple expansions in the pipeline.

About components: It's funny that you decide to compare it to RftG, since Dominion (with 500 cards) costs less than RftG + expansion (with 200 cards and a few cardboard tiles and tokens). Honestly, I don't know how much less you should expect to pay for 500 cards.

Speaking of RftG, the two are really not comparable. RftG is almost entirely tactical, without much room for long term plans, while Dominion is the opposite. Of course, I have space for both in my collection.

[Gerald]

I never meant to compare RftG and Dominion based on how they play... I was merely illustrating two games that have similar component contents right off the bat.  Hehehehe... sorry if di clear. 

And with regards sa price, again sorry medyo unclear.  I simply meant that the game's cost is high if compared to similar priced games that contain a board, cards, wooden bits and/or chits.  Hehehehe... di ko naman sinasabing mahal par se ang Dominion (in fact, ok lang ako sa price) but if compared sa ibang games, you can find games where you pay the same price but get alot more components.  Pangit lang yata ang illustration ko (note to self: stop writing reviews at ungodly hours while waiting for your baby's feeding time... hehehe...).

[Titus]

This is an entirely strategic game; there are almost no tactical decisions to be made. Maybe you'll feel that you've seen all the combos after a while, but that's why the game has multiple expansions in the pipeline.

Speaking of RftG, the two are really not comparable. RftG is almost entirely tactical, without much room for long term plans, while Dominion is the opposite. Of course, I have space for both in my collection.

Sorry but I don't agree with this assessment. I think both games have meaningful strategic and tactical decisions.

In Dominion, you follow a general strategy, yes. But you need to adjust to what your opponents' strategies are, plus the card draws, while not as largely variable as in RFTG, can affect what you can and choose to purchase in the current turn. You can plan ahead what to add to your deck but the sequence of purchases and available supply matters.

In RFTG, your card draws largely decide what strategic path is best, but you still do follow a general strategy. It would be disastrous, for example, to change strategies mid-game. It's a game of efficiency (it's a race, after all), where you build and run a VP-generating engine and this takes good planning and execution.

[viscoos]

If you think about it Dominion is also an efficiency game and somewhat of a race also due to the finite number of VPs.

The stadard strategy is to just buy silver and then gold to rack up points.

Even this strategy would have simple tactical nuances as one would decide whether the player would get gold or silver or vps with his given hand.

The 2 games are quite similar.

[ooh_dlee]

This is an entirely strategic game; there are almost no tactical decisions to be made. Maybe you'll feel that you've seen all the combos after a while, but that's why the game has multiple expansions in the pipeline.

Speaking of RftG, the two are really not comparable. RftG is almost entirely tactical, without much room for long term plans, while Dominion is the opposite. Of course, I have space for both in my collection.

Sorry but I don't agree with this assessment. I think both games have meaningful strategic and tactical decisions.

In Dominion, you follow a general strategy, yes. But you need to adjust to what your opponents' strategies are, plus the card draws, while not as largely variable as in RFTG, can affect what you can and choose to purchase in the current turn. You can plan ahead what to add to your deck but the sequence of purchases and available supply matters.

In RFTG, your card draws largely decide what strategic path is best, but you still do follow a general strategy. It would be disastrous, for example, to change strategies mid-game. It's a game of efficiency (it's a race, after all), where you build and run a VP-generating engine and this takes good planning and execution.

Can someone clarify to me the difference between tactics and strategy as used in this thread? From what I know, tactics refers to the strategy revolving around the layout of game pieces on the board. Generally, this would mostly apply to wargames since it is of prime importance that you properly layout your pieces as to maximize defensive strength and offensive options.

Almost all games require strategy except those that are purely based on chance since strategy refers to the general concept of long term decision making. As tactics is a sub-branch of strategy, it does not necessarily follow that if a game is strategic, then it is tactical. But the opposite applies --> if a game is tactical, then it is strategic.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

See wikipedia definition below:

The terms tactic and strategy are often confused: tactics are the actual means used to gain an objective, while strategy is the overall campaign plan, which may involve complex operational patterns, activity, and decision-making that lead to tactical execution.

Using this definition, it seems that dominion is BOTH strategic and tactical. As an example - your strategy may be gaining gold early, while your tactic could be either one of the three: 1) dumping all your VP cards, 2) buying Action cards that add money or 3) buying treasure cards directly.

But there are also other definitions of tactics and strategy.

[Gaebril]

I'm not really interested in dissecting definitions, so let me just say that I meant that Dominion is entirely about long-term decision making, while RftG is mostly about short-term decision making.

In Dominion, decision making is long term. Before I even draw my first hand, I can already have a plan of what cards I want to put into my deck. Now, it's true that what my opponent buys can change what I'm going to buy, but even this kind of reaction can be planned out on the first turn.

This is not really something that I can do in RftG. Can I decide right at the start, "this game I'd like to play Blue production worlds for a victory point rush, with just one early green for trading"? Well, in general you could prefer a certain long-term plan, but I find that it's better to go ahead and play cards that don't exactly fit that plan, rather than sit back and search for the cards you like best.

To wit: In Dominion your strategy determines what cards you draw; in RftG the cards you draw determine your strategy.

[Mark Humphries]

These words are used in many ways.

A strategy is an overall plan for achieving a high level objective, a tactic is a detailed means of achieving an immediate objective. Operations are somewhere in the middle. (Note that a military definition of strategy such as the above, is much vaguer than the game theory definition we we're discussing previously).

The words are also used to denote scale. When someone refers to a wargame itself as a strategic game or a tactical game they're usually referring to the scale of the action being depicted. For example, a World War II game at company-level or below would probably be considered a tactical level game, an army-scale game on the whole European Theater of Operations would be considered a strategic level game.

No matter what the scale of the game, you as the player will have a strategy for winning the game, and you will use various tactics to enact it.

One can also say that a move (or play, or action) is a tactical move or a strategic move, in an attempt to express how localized its consequences on the overall game are perceived to be, i.e. its strategic scope.

[Mark Humphries]

Gaebril, so what you're saying is that Dominion gives you more control.

[Titus]

To wit: In Dominion your strategy determines what cards you draw; in RftG the cards you draw determine your strategy.

This I agree with (and therefore disagree with viscoos that the two games are 'quite similar.').

My main disagreement with your initial post was with your black and white generalization of the two games (e.g., "This is an entirely strategic game; there are almost no tactical decisions to be made"). I believe the strategic and tactical decision making are significant in both games; only the ratio is different.

Gaebril, so what you're saying is that Dominion gives you more control.

I guess this is why I played RFTG four times and then sold it and Dominion is on my wishlist.

[ooh_dlee]

These words are used in many ways.

A strategy is an overall plan for achieving a high level objective, a tactic is a detailed means of achieving an immediate objective. Operations are somewhere in the middle. (Note that a military definition of strategy such as the above, is much vaguer than the game theory definition we we're discussing previously).

The words are also used to denote scale. When someone refers to a wargame itself as a strategic game or a tactical game they're usually referring to the scale of the action being depicted. For example, a World War II game at company-level or below would probably be considered a tactical level game, an army-scale game on the whole European Theater of Operations would be considered a strategic level game.

No matter what the scale of the game, you as the player will have a strategy for winning the game, and you will use various tactics to enact it.

One can also say that a move (or play, or action) is a tactical move or a strategic move, in an attempt to express how localized its consequences on the overall game are perceived to be, i.e. its strategic scope.

Thank you for the clarification Mark. I hope you don't mind if I use this definition in a future thread referencing buzz words in gaming. I believe it would help lessen confusion if we have common definitions laid out.

[Gerald]

These words are used in many ways.

A strategy is an overall plan for achieving a high level objective, a tactic is a detailed means of achieving an immediate objective. Operations are somewhere in the middle. (Note that a military definition of strategy such as the above, is much vaguer than the game theory definition we we're discussing previously).

The words are also used to denote scale. When someone refers to a wargame itself as a strategic game or a tactical game they're usually referring to the scale of the action being depicted. For example, a World War II game at company-level or below would probably be considered a tactical level game, an army-scale game on the whole European Theater of Operations would be considered a strategic level game.

No matter what the scale of the game, you as the player will have a strategy for winning the game, and you will use various tactics to enact it.

One can also say that a move (or play, or action) is a tactical move or a strategic move, in an attempt to express how localized its consequences on the overall game are perceived to be, i.e. its strategic scope.

Wow, I think that has to be the most concise and clear way I've ever heard anyone put it.  Thank you Mark. 

[Marqz]

Interesting... Let me add the following regarding strategy and tactics... (I was actually wondering about this quite some time ago.)

Strategy is "a careful plan or method especially for achieving an end."  Tactics is "the skill of using available means to reach an end."  These definitions were taken from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Home & Office Edition (the book).

Based on the above, it would seem that strategy relates more on the outlined route or path to take, while tactics relates more on how it is done.  (Well... at least, that's my assessment.)

In terms of military... According to the same Merriam-Webster Dictionary, strategy is "the science and art of military command aimed at meeting the enemy under conditions advantageous to one's own force."  And tactics is "the science of maneuvering forces in combat."

Based on the above, it would seem that strategy is related to the situation and tactics is related to the actions done in such a situation.  Thus, a strategist would layout the setting and a tactician would carry out actions within the given setting.  (My assessment...)

Another note is that tactic (without an "s") is "a planned action for accomplishing an end," as defined by the same Merriam-Webster Dictionary.  (Curiously, it didn't mention a plural form for that.)  It's quite different from tactics (with an "s").  The word "tactical" is formed using the word tactics (with an "s"), not tactic (without an "s").

So... with regards to Dominion, I suppose that strategy, in this case, is what cards you want to include in your deck and when to get them.  Tactics, in this case, is how to get those cards in your hand (and deck) and when to play them.  Deciding which card to buy now on one's current turn is a tactic.

Does this make sense?

[Marqz]

It was interesting to know that Dominion is a Mensa select winner... (maybe because of its simplicity).  Curiously, I was also surprised to know that one other game I know made it to that list of Mensa select game winners.  Nothing rugged about that.

[ooh_dlee]

Interesting... Let me add the following regarding strategy and tactics... (I was actually wondering about this quite some time ago.)

Strategy is "a careful plan or method especially for achieving an end."  Tactics is "the skill of using available means to reach an end."  These definitions were taken from The Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Home & Office Edition (the book).

Based on the above, it would seem that strategy relates more on the outlined route or path to take, while tactics relates more on how it is done.  (Well... at least, that's my assessment.)

In terms of military... According to the same Merriam-Webster Dictionary, strategy is "the science and art of military command aimed at meeting the enemy under conditions advantageous to one's own force."  And tactics is "the science of maneuvering forces in combat."

Based on the above, it would seem that strategy is related to the situation and tactics is related to the actions done in such a situation.  Thus, a strategist would layout the setting and a tactician would carry out actions within the given setting.  (My assessment...)

Another note is that tactic (without an "s") is "a planned action for accomplishing an end," as defined by the same Merriam-Webster Dictionary.  (Curiously, it didn't mention a plural form for that.)  It's quite different from tactics (with an "s").  The word "tactical" is formed using the word tactics (with an "s"), not tactic (without an "s").

So... with regards to Dominion, I suppose that strategy, in this case, is what cards you want to include in your deck and when to get them.  Tactics, in this case, is how to get those cards in your hand (and deck) and when to play them.  Deciding which card to buy now on one's current turn is a tactic.

Does this make sense?

Thank you for the added input. I didn't know that tactic and tactics are two different terms altogether. However, I am now confused about the correct usage of the two.

Fortunately, we rarely if ever need to actually differentiate strategy, tactics and tactic as most games require a single player to do them all. This contrasts with let's say a military organization where different people are in charge of different things and a clear-cut definition will really be necessary to avoid confusion. It does help though for discussion sake - to pinpoint where a player's skill and preference tends to gravitate towards. A strategic player tends to be more concerned with the macro level, while a tactical player tends to be more adaptive to the current situation.