An Occasional (as opposed to a Periodical) font of infalliable wisdom concerning, well, mostly boardgames, books, and life as a navel-gazing pseudointellecutal thirty-year-old hip-deep in grad school.

Monday, January 31, 2005

ON THE NIGHTSTAND

I've mostly been reading antebellum history books, but not exclusively.

Today, my nose has mostly been in books about games. I was inspired a while back by one of Mikko's posts, and went to the AK Peters website to check out their books on board games. They had two extremely interesting-looking ones, so I ordered them through the Store (where I get a discount!), and have been reading them whenever work was slow (and I wasn't looking for info about WWI aces).

The first, the one that started this quest, is Connection Games, by Cameron Browne, longtime game player and occasional designer of a few games himself.

There's very little math in the book; what little there is can be understood with the aid of the appendices in the back. This book is really an attempt to describe and categorize all the various games that involve connections in one form or another. The book is in three parts.

The first part, "Defining Connection," discusses what we even mean by a "connection game." What brings games like Go, Hex, Twixt, and TransAmerica together into one book? This section also is the most math-y, with some light discussion of the topology of game boards (what would it be like to play Hex on a Klein bottle?) and games as graphs. No heavy lifting. Finally there's a discussion of the kinds of moves and strategies that often come into play in connection games--building forks (situations where your pieces can't be split) and blockades (building perpendicular to your "natural" direction in order to maximize the forks you can make), for example. This part serves mostly to ensure that everyone's using the same terminology for the rest of the book.

Part II is the meat of the book, as it gives reasonably lengthy discussions of virtually every game with connection elements anyone can think of. It divides this huge game kingdom into four phyla, as it were. "Pure Connection Games," like Hex, have "both strictly connective play and strictly connective goals." "Connective Goal" games differ by generally by having pieces move around, rather than being placed into a static connective system. "Connective Play" games put pieces into connected networks, but your goal is something other than purely connecting one side to another. Ta Yü is an example--how you connect your sides is what's important, rather than merely doing so. "Connection Related" games are a murky lot indeed, and connection between pieces is important but not all-consuming like Hex--Go is an example.

Personally, I find some of the taxonomy obscure, and I'm not sure if I could give the details that ensure a difference between "Connective Goal" and "Connective Play" games 100% of the time. What I love, though, is looking at all the scabrillion games that have connection and path-making elements. That, and it's cool to see a book by an academic publisher discussing Ta Yü, TransAmerica, Blokus, Dos Rios, and a bunch of other "Euro" games.

Part III is an odd grab-bag. It starts off with a discussion of how one goes about designing a connection game--with some examples of "failed" connection games. There's also a chapter on the cognitive aspects of playing connection games, and then an appendix that contains some more mathy material.

It's a fascinating book. I'd have liked a little more math, and I'm not entirely sold on the taxonomy system, but it provides a ton of interesting reading for boardgamers, and lots of food for thought.

The other book I got was Luck, Logic & White Lies, a very different book, but also excellent.

To cut to the chase for those interested in combinatorial game theory: This book made thermographs make sense. I did not think it was possible, but here it is.

This book serves as an introduction to the mathematics of games. It seeks to show to the reader how it is that games have their power--how they manipulate chance, hidden information, and combinatorics (or, more often, a combination of the three) to create uncertainty and tension in play. It devotes a long section to each of these three sources of uncertainty.

This is kind of an obscure reference, but the book reminds me of "Master Go in Ten Days," the grandiosely-titled Go book that starts with the basic rules of the game and ends with some really pretty advanced concepts. This book is the same way with game math. In the first chapter, we are informed that there is a 1/2 chance of rolling an even number on a fair six-sided die. Three hundred pages later, we're doing combinatorial thermographs.

I'm a fairly mathy person. My parents, an engineer and a mathematician/computer scientist, could not have raised me to be otherwise, even though I'm becoming an historian anyway. As long as it's not a differential equation, I can handle pretty much all the math I ever happen to get myself in front of--some number theory here, graphs and topology there; I get by. I love the mathematics of games, naturally enough, as the intersection of two lifelong interests.

I've been trying to get all the books on combinatorial games that I can. I've long wanted something that could be an introduction to the subject--giving me some of the bacground I've missed--as well as being an accessible reference and something I can use to explain the subject to someone else. I really need to give this book some closer scrutiny, but I think this could be That Book. As I said, it assumes very little in its readership other than basic mathematical ability; it brings one along. It also does a good job of citing more specialist literature and giving one pointers about how to apply its concepts to all the games one plays. I'd have been curious to see him approach Settlers of Catan or some "modern classic."

These are both very, very interesting books. Luck, Logic is far more mathy than Connection Games, but I think both books have a lot to offer gamers of all stripes.

GO ME!

Ahh, contests: I love them so. Especially when they're about something I know about, like WWI aces, and have prizes I can use, like spare Wings of War cards. And today, lo and behold, there came the Wings of War WWI Aces Trivia Contest. I came second. I was hung up for a long time looking for the guy who had his name painted on his top wing. I felt like I knew he was German, but couldn't get Ernst Udet out of my head--which was wrong, since he had his girlfriend's name on his wing, not his own. (Yes, I'm a dork.) I still might not have gotten it done in 55 minutes, considering I was already slacking off work too much just to get it done in three hours.

But those cards--at least some of them--are mine. I'll take second place...

(In other "go me!" news, the State Treasurer just sent me a big check. It's weird. They sent me a letter, telling me to fill out a special form and I'd get money. I filled out the form...and I got money. It's a good system. I highly recommend asking your own state treasurer if they have similar forms.)

Thursday, January 27, 2005

ON THE TABLE

It was cheap. The art looked cool. Kind of an interesting gimmick.

That's all I had to go on a while back when I bought a Diceland: Space set at a local store. There was a sale on. I had gone some time without buying anything from Cheapass--a fine example of how hard it is to make a game with both a funny theme and good gameplay--but I caved this time.

The basic idea: You and the other guy have a bunch of octahedra, each of which represents a spaceship. Each one's worth a certain number of points; you build fleets and have a go-at. Each side of the "die" represents the ship at a particular level of fuctionality. On your turn, you can either toss a die onto the table from your off-table reserves, or activate a die already on the table. When you activate a ship, you either move it, fire it, or do some special effect the ship may have.

Here's the weird thing. When you get hit, you move your ship die down a notch. But your ship can also degrade by moving--since you move by pushing down on the appropriate corner, thus exposing a new side. (You can also "fix" your ship by moving.) You can also fix/harm your ship by having it be struck (and moved) appropriately by a ship being tossed into play.

It's reasonably entertaining. There's some thought involved, and it's certainly an original concept. The problem is that the theme interacts with the mechanics so poorly that it's hard to take your eyes off how preposterous it all sounds. "I need to fix my ship, so I'm going to ram another of my ships into it." "I can't move that direction, or else my weapons will change." What?

It's an odd sign that essentially the same game is also used for OGRE combat and old fashioned character vs character combat. This is an interesting set of mechanics desperately in search of a theme that works with it, and I can't imagine what it would be. I can think of nothing that could be modelled by this game...

A lot of people like the game. I can see why: This game has some very clever mechanics, and rarely does a game have this much thought combined with dexterity and luck. It's a frothy mix, but I don't think it's good enough as an abstract, and the themes don't work so well.

Wednesday, January 26, 2005

ATTENTION ALL STATESIDE PUZZLE ADDICTS

Anyone out there looking for some jewels? I'm fascinated. I wonder if we have a copy of this thing in the Store...

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

COOL NEW BLOG

Via Mikko's blog, I just discovered The Tao of Gaming, Brian Bankler's blog. (Oo! Alliteration!) It has geeky game-theory payoff tables for LotR: The Confrontation, which earns high marks. I need to crack the spines on my various game theory/combinatorial games books again...

Monday, January 24, 2005

A FEW QUICK GAME NOTES

First, there are some playtest photos for Clash for a Continent, an upcoming game from Worthington, an up-and-comer in the Block Wargames sub-niche. It looks quite nice. Battle Cry really kicked something off a few years ago, with a great many games (not just Memoir '44) coming in its wake that are similar in tone. This is good for me, since I love games like this, that are so customizable. Short rules, quick playing, and more than a dash of the historical subject...good times.

I've just about made sense out of the Friedrich rules. They could have stood a re-edit or two; information's all over the place. It looks promising, but I'm not sure about how well it evokes the history...I'll have to set this one up soon.

This isn't a game, but I just have to pass along The Tartan Finder. Everything has a tartan. I think the ugliest I've found so far is Amnesty International's.

One of the better Geeklist ideas I've come across in a while: The first game you bought with your own money. The first game I bought was, of course, a wargame (and was my entry on the list); my first euro? This beauty, about eight years ago or so. I'm pretty sure I've gotten rid of it in the interim. I wish I could go back to that point in time--when I stood in front of the "Euro" shelves in the old Dragon's Lair (back when it was in the little house north of the University), and remember what my thought processes were. I clearly knew nothing whatsoever about what made a game good or bad. I had played...Settlers, I'm sure, and maybe one or two others. There was no 'Geek, no Spielfrieks, no nothing. Just me and pure instinct. And that instinct told me to buy Konzern.

It wasn't a terrible game, by any means, but it wasn't great, either. It was beyond drab--a two-color box, and highly utilitarian components inside. It involved loads of dierolling, but there was some thought involved. By no means the worst game I've ever played. (I wish I'd kept it, just so I could have a tangible link to that point in time.)

My sense is that whatever it was that drove my hand towards that little black box on the shelf is, in some unknown interesting way, the same and different as whatever drives me to buy what it is I buy now, when I have a more sophisticated taste in eurogames. Theme surely had something to do with it--and it does sound like an interesting idea. It probably had excellent Box Rattle--lots of little wooden bits. Nowadays, I probably wouldn't pick this game off a shelf. Fanfor's kind of a weird company, putting out a lot of games I could do without. I'd read the 'Geek, and learn that it's a boring physical specimen with some mediocre mechanics. I can read the rules online. Basically, it's hard to imagine a shelf full of games I don't own where this would be the most enticing product.

But when you don't know anything, some strange things can happen.

Sunday, January 23, 2005

YAHOO!

In what should garner its creators gaming immortality, a complete revision of the Europa Universalis rules have come out. It was produced after the house rules and clarifications used by a Madrid EU club got too unwieldy, apparently, and they decided to just make a do-over of the whole thing. This is, of course, most welcome as the original rules are among the most confusing, disorganized, and ill-translated rules ever. I haven't pored over the entire file yet, of course, but so far they're much better; not a single "homogeneous rubric" in sight.

Friday, January 21, 2005

ONE, PLEASE

Real content in a bit. In the meantime: this.

Monday, January 17, 2005

ANOTHER WEBSITE OF NOTE

I don't think I've been this dedicated about anything. This gentleman takes a digital picture of himself every morning at 9:09 AM. Every. Single. Day. If there was ever a "reason," never mind a "good reason," for doing this, I'm sure it's been forgotten in the mists of time. I find this site extremely fascinating, and I'm not at all sure why. (And there's a board game in at least one shot.) He's been at it for over two years (although some of the early pictures have been lost, it seems).

This sounds like the premise of some weird movie. If it were, you know that one day he'd catch, far in the background, some heinous crime being committed, and for the next two reels he'd be in a delicate cat-and-mouse game between himself and a gang of Parisian Yakuza, desperate to get their hands on his CompactFlash card. Can he get the camera to the authorities in time? In the Hollywood version, it ends with him taking a picture of himself, at 9:09, dealing the decisive kick-to-the-throat of the bad guy who was hiding in the bushes during the previous scene. If it were an independent film, it'd mostly be conversation, the main character and a shadowy, sinewy woman talking in a coffeeshop, dancing around the Big Issues, something like:

"Tell me."
"Mm?"
"Why do you..."
"Why do I what?"
"You know..."
"No. What?"
"Take...Take all those pictures."
"What? It's just one a day."
"But always at the same time."
He sips coffee, looks outside, turns back. He looks down at the placemat, stirs his coffee absently, and looks back up into her eyes.
"It's somethin' to do, y'know?"

And so on for another ten minutes.

M. Night Shyamalan could probably do something with this. In every picture, looking over his shoulder, is a shadowy image of a young girl dressed in 19th century clothes. He doesn't remember seeing her in the rooms, nor does anyone else...and if he takes a picture at, say, noon, she doesn't appear. Just at 9:09. No matter which time zone he's in. Anyway, he spends 89 minutes worrying and worrying about it, until--in the very last minute--he discovers his (#$*@* kid futzing with his pictures in Photoshop.

Really, there's no end to the possibilities here.

NEW BLOG

Actually, by this point it's "newish;" I've just been remiss in not mentioning it earlier. Garry Lloyd's Spiel: Boardgames in the UK is a fine source of game reviews, news, and session reports. He's also kind enough to link to me, which has been the source of several hits the past week or two (thanks!).

Garry has mentioned several games that I particularly noted. Struggle of Empires is more mouth-watering every time I read another session report; Fairy Tale sounds intriguing, but maybe not exactly my thing...it's very "busy." Knights, Michael Schacht's Yahtzee variant (as I like to think of it), gives me hives, personally, but came out somewhat better in Garry's estimation.

More excellent reading to come, I'm sure.

Friday, January 14, 2005

THIS WEEK IN GAMING

It's been a slow week for gaming. The big new item is Friedrich, which looks fascinating, although some bits of the rules leave me puzzled. More on that later. I'm intrigued by the growing trend of "Euro" games to tackle historical themes a little more seriously than they have in the past; they make an interesting counterpart to wargames with simpler, more self-consciously clever mechanics. (Friedrich was, also, my 900th owned item logged on BGG.)

The most recent issue of Against the Odds also came in, and includes an interesting-looking game on urban combat in Grozny, and an article on how leadership is portrayed in several grand-strategic Civil War games that deserves far closer scrutiny than I can give it at the moment.

Mostly I've been reading stuff about the American Revolution--I'm slowly working my way towards 1877--and Hellboy. I have yet to discern a relationship. That, and just recovering from Work. It's now the Busy Time, with students coming back, and putting in overtime in retail isn't that fun. There isn't an adrenaline rush, like when you're working on a big project on deadline, and you can't get lost in the moment like when you're trying to solve a knotty problem. I've had jobs where I worked thirty-six hours at a stretch several times that were less of a pain in the butt than this. Anyway, most of my evenings have been spent doing as little as possible...such as idly surfing the web...

I need to comment on this at some point, too, as Mr. Pulsipher's article has become a lightning-rod (six months after it was originally written!). Mikko has an interesting post on the topic, for example. I'm 27 and have several herniating games in the collection; I'll play the board game of Europa Universalis, but the computer game is entirely opaque to me. It's wierd. I think, partly, I like knowing how a game operates, and computer games hide the mechanics behind the curtain too much for my tastes. In a board game, I can see all the gears turning and see (if I look closely enough) how every decision and event works its way through the system. In a computer game, you do something...and then later something else happens. If I can manage to suspend my disbelief--and let go of the "this is a game, a system" idea--I can enjoy myself, like with the Myst games. Most of them, though...not so interested.

I'll have further comments later. I find Pulsipher's article to be interesting, and one that's made me think, but I got four paragraphs into something longer just now and I deleted them since they were obviously wandering off into infinity. (When I invoked Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem I knew I had to stop.) I'll have to get something honed a little more, first. Suffice it to say for the moment that I found the article partly right, partly wrong, and partly condescending.

BEFORE WE JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS...

Just how do we not know that this isn't the quickest route between Haugesund and Trondheim? Maybe there's a major road construction tie-up. Or an especially large parade. Or some kind of troll, which are supposedly thick in those parts, if I recall correctly from my folklore class.

(MRATLU, the 3,582,139th blog to link to those driving directions.)

Thursday, January 13, 2005

FORGOT...

So who, exactly, was William John Cavendish-Bentinck-Scott, the Fifth Duke of Portland?

From my results page:

Sometime Marquis of Tichfield, Earl of Portland, Viscount Woodstock, Baron of Cirencester, co-heir to the Barony of Ogle and renowned as the finest judge of horseflesh in England, you took the tradition of aristocratic eccentricity to unprecedented heights. Having inherited the stately home of Welbeck Abbey, you proceeded to construct miles of underground tunnels and a ballroom, in pink, beneath it. The ballroom was complete except for one small detail. It had no floor. Despite this vast home, you lived exclusively in a suite of five rooms, each one also pink.

Having been turned down by your opera singer objet d'amour, Adelaide Kemble, in your youth, you suffered a broken heart and never married. This did not stop you from caring deeply about the wellbeing of your servants. Occasionally you would even help them muck out the stables. However, you did not neglect discipline, forcing disobedient underlings to skate themselves to exhaustion on your subterranean skating rink. Servants were given strict instructions regarding conduct: if they met you in a corridor, they were to ignore your existence while you froze to the spot until they were out of sight; and a chicken was to be kept roasting at all times in case you felt like sneaking into the kitchen for a snack.

You became ever more eccentric with age. You built another tunnel, this time to the railway station, through which you would ride your carriage. When you reached the station your carriage, with you inside, would be hoisted up onto the train in its entirety.

Upon your death, your multitude of titles passed to your cousin, who was obliged to delve into your curious domain to find your body once the servants had reported your absence. Entering your private rooms, he found that, aside from a commode in the centre of your bedroom, the only objects in the whole suite were hundreds of hatboxes, each containing a single brown wig.

Sounds like a fun guy!

IT'S A MEME!

I try to keep the postings of "What _____ are you?" quizzes to a minimum, as they're an overdone trope of blogging internet-wide. Unless it's a really cool quiz, such as "Which Historical Lunatic are You?" Especially since I'd never heard of who I am, as it were, and I learned a thing or two:

I'm William John Cavendish-Bentinck-Scott, the Fifth Duke of Portland!
Which Historical Lunatic Are You?
From the fecund loins of Rum and Monkey.

(Found via Ghost of a Flea, one of my favorite sites for Odd Links and archaeology news.)

QUICK NOTE

As someone who has his hair cut once a fiscal quarter, whether I need it or not, I find this most upsetting. "Every fifteen days"? This time he's gone too far.

Monday, January 10, 2005

BOOKS BOOKS BOOKS

Nothing like coming home to a box full of books from Powells. All kinds of neat stuff: A book on the history of the Whig Party, a book on the crises from 1848-1861, a neat-sounding book on how information was disseminated in early America, and a book on Calhoun, Clay, and Webster. And a comic book. No prizes for guessing which one I've read first.

I've been on a mild discovering-comics kick lately. I'm a bit behind the times, though; the comic I've just discovered is Hellboy. I like Hellboy, at least what I've read, it's just that the stories are a little...short. I despise huge story arcs, for the most part, but these often just leave you hungry, espescially because for their oh-so-brief length they're so good--action, gothic touches, humor. Are there longer-format storylines? A whole issue? Four issues? I don't need a mythos; I just want a longer fight with the dragon. Or two dragons. Or a dragon and a werewolf.

Anyway, the book I got from Powells isn't Hellboy, but a book called Mister O. It's originally French, but since there's no language, it doesn't really matter. The title character is a stick figure--an "O," naturally, with the rudiments of a face and appendages--who is trying, time after time, to cross a chasm. He has a lot of trouble, from the most unlikely sources.

Mister O has been described as "Oulipo in comic-book form." Devotees of Douglas Hofstadter might remember Oulipo. It is/was a loose confederation of (mostly) French writers from the seventies or so--Georges Perec (A Void, a novel written without the letter e) and Raymond Queneau (Exercises in Style, the same story told a zillion different ways) are the most famous members. Oulipo writing is characterized by its constraints. Perec, in A Void, decided to not use any E's, for example, and then tries to write as good a novel as he can under that constraint (and he does a good job, too).

I'm not sure I'd call Mister O true Oulipo, but I can see the resemblance. Each page has sixty (!) panels, each the same size, and there's a minimum of drawing in each one; usually just a very few lines. The look is very spare and stylized. Each page has Mister O confronting his problem, devising a clever (or not) way to get across, and then we see his comeuppance, leaving him at the bottom of the chasm (unseen, except for "thud lines" coming from the bottom of the panel). You can get the basic idea from Amazon's excerpts.

It's like a demented "Groundhog Day," where Mister O gets reincarnated page after page, to try again and again to get across the gap. I suppose I could reach for some sort of meaning to it all--Sisyphus leaps to mind--but that seems terribly unnecessary. It's pure, unadulterated slapstick. I mean: If, in a book, a character propels himself via farting, it's not a high-concept text. You won't see that in any critical guide, but it's true.

It's excellent stuff; it's probably going to be one of the more original things you'll have read in a while, so I recommend checking it out.

The American history books, though, will take me a little longer to comment on...

Sunday, January 09, 2005

MUSIC DISCOVERY

A great CD I just discovered--All Wood and Stones, by John Batdorf and James Lee Stanley. It's classic Rolling Stones tunes, performed--marvelously--by two acoustic virtuosos (and relevant backup). It's really great stuff, with wonderful harmonies being what strikes me most. They obviously love the songs, and the rearrangements bring out some great details. I'll have to save my pennies for the CD...

I discovered this from the best radio music show in St. Louis, The Acoustic Edge. It is several thousand times better than its website. It's tremendous radio; just about the only thing on that I schedule around so I can listen to it.

FUN BASEBALL TIME-WASTER

I've been having fun with Baseball Reference's collegiate pages, which gives all the universities which have produced major league ballplayers. There are a lot of colleges out there. What I've been wondering is: Which of the umpteen schools that produced but one player produced the best one? Mark Redman, for example, is the only MLB product of that well-known institution of higher learning, The Master's College. Rusty Greer was a University of Montevallo Mustang. Dan Pasqua went to William Paterson. Not exactly names to conjure with, no, but they had respectable careers. Most of these guys were lucky to get a cup of coffee--like Jeff Shaver, SUNY Fredonia's claim to Major League fame, with one inning pitched in 1988.

Thus far the best I've been able to come up with is Wade Miller, the sole big-leaguer to come out of the fabled Alvernia College baseball system. Nobody from their 2004 squad is jumping out at me as a possible successor, either. That may be a factor of their environment, though--look at that opponents' ERA!

I love college baseball. With lots of scoring and regular field-position players with .815 fielding percentages, the games are just a hoot. You see something new every day. I remember a couple of years ago, in the Big 12 tournament, Baylor self-destructing against Texas--blowing a seven-run lead or something like that on virtually all unearned runs--capped off by throwing an intentional-walk pitchout right over the plate for a wild pitch. Then UT blew that lead with some improbable play. It's craziness from top to bottom--but not the same kind of insanity that you sometimes find at the high-school level. Brr. I don't know how many times games in our tiny league had batters reaching on dropped third strikes, but it was an awful lot. Big-League baseball has evolved to the point where everyone on the field basically knows what they're doing almost all the time, which is hard to appreciate unless you see a fair bit of lower-level baseball--where, even after years of play, the folks on the field are still learning on the job. Baseball's hard.

It goes without saying, of course, that I could no more make Alvernia's team than become an astronaut. Another joy of watching almost any level of organized ball is watching people better than you do something you wish you could do...

Wednesday, January 05, 2005

HUMPDAY UPDATE

Greetings, everyone, and many thanks to those of you who offered their congrats upon my new-minted grad student status. Among other things, this means that I finally get to free up some of my Austin friends's closet space, as my games come out of storage. I expect to be down sometime in late July/early August.

Does Springfield, MO, have a good game store? Signs Point to Yes.

Moving all my junk should be fun...lots of shelves to build...but that's all for Alfred-in-July to worry about.

It's the beginning of Busy Time at the Store, so posting may be on the lightish side. A few notes, though.

First, remember--God, it seems like months ago--when I posted that I was taking entries for the last and second-to-last "Rare Entries" games on the 'Geek? I finally got around to tabulating the results. I have no idea how this happened. Well, not quite. I know that, right at the time, some Real Life intervened, and then came a long string of I'll Get To That Later statements. No good reason, in other words. I'm one of those people who has to do things immediately, or they seem to never get done. Anyway, I have to double-check the winners' entries, and then I'll post them.

Also: Tolien fans of a scientific bent, do yourselves a favor and check out this article on Astronomy and Middle Earth. It never ceases to amaze me how well-thought-out Middle Earth is, and what a rich mine it has been for study. I should re-read LOTR at some point.

Has anyone out there played this old SPI/Ares game, Citadel of Blood? It looks interesting, and it's one of the very few games I don't have by the designer (who is one of my favorites), Eric Lee Smith. Looks like it could use a graphics update, though.

If I have to read one more wargame rulebook that uses the phrase "The map is divided into six-sided hexagons" or somesuch, I'm going to scream. Of course, wargame rules tend to have been proofread by the Department of Redundancy Department fairly often.

Another bonus to Springfield living: minor-league baseball! It's AA-level, too, which is good--that seems to be the level with the highest concentration of good talent. Mmm...cheap ballgames...I never took advantage of watching the Express when I was in Austin; this stadium's just a few blocks from campus, so it should be much easier. The SMSU team's pretty good, too; lots of baseball opportunities without spending a fortune.

Good times ahead, methinks. Will return later with something either book- or game-related.

Monday, January 03, 2005

GO ME

Good to find this early in the morning:

Congratulations! You were admitted on 01/03/2005, and your admission letter was mailed within the following two business days. Please review your letter for details on your admission or visit "Information for Admitted Students" for additional information on the next steps you should take. We look forward to having you as a student at SMSU!

Been waiting to read something like that for a lo-o-ong time. (It's three hours closer to Austin, too, shortening the drive from "ridiculously" to merely "very" long.)

Sunday, January 02, 2005

QUICK FOOTBALL NOTE

Go Vince Young! Woo!

That is all.

Saturday, January 01, 2005

LOOKING BACKWARDS AND FORWARDS

Sure. I'm not immune to the End-Of-Year meme.

As always, the past year has been a good one for gaming, and books. Good stuff came out, I got in some high-quality gaming time (especially during my Austin trip), and read some interesting things. The readership of the blog ballooned, too. Most of my "new games" aren't from 2004, but I'll always associate them with the past year.

Gamewise, my most pleasant surprises were St. Petersburg and Einfach Genial. I could play those again and again. I'm eagerly looking forward to March, when Fantasy Flight claims it'll have the English version of EG ready.

Stephenson's Rocket was also good. I like Reiner Knizia's meatier games (does he have a meteor game out?) more than his light ones; there's just so much more going on in them. It helps that I spanked my opponents something fierce in Rocket, though. This is being re-released, too, as some sort of early-US-railways game. "DeWitt Clinton" just doesn't sound right for a game name, though.

No real disappointments, except for the relentlessly boring Medieval, the latest attempt by Richard Berg, noted wargame designer, to design a "Euro" game. None of them have worked yet. Luckily, he's still putting out wargames--and I like the looks of Devil's Horsemen, which covers the major battles of the Mongols. I'm looking to set up Liegniz soon...

Book-wise, I'll remember 2004 for being the year the definitive Peanuts collection started coming out from Fantagraphics. Built to last and extensively indexed, these are pure heroin for the Peanuts junkie. It's also a year where I started discovering some older books--like the Cornish Trilogy, a fascinating look at academic life and cultural history. And, of course, a stack of baseball books.

2005, book-wise, will probably see me mostly getting back up to speed on US history from the first colonies to the Spanish-American War. I knew it all once, and I still have the outlines in place--I just need to get the details and connections back in place. Right now, I'm reading A Leap in the Dark on the history of the idea of union in the American Colonies; it's good, but I think it overweighs the purely economic concerns as opposed to "soft factors" like ideology. More on that later, perhaps.

With any luck, Manifest Destiny will be released from GMT soon, to tie all this together.