Agricola- Board Game

This game has been on my Most Wanted List for quite a while. I finally just picked it up last weekend, and I have to say that it is truly a fantastic game.

In Agricola (Latin for "farmer"), you're a farmer in a wooden shack with your spouse and little else. On a turn, you get to take only two actions, one for you and one for the spouse, from all the possibilities you'll find on a farm: collecting clay, wood or stone; building fences; and so on. You might think about having kids in order to get more work accomplished, but first you need to expand your house. And what are you going to feed all the little rugrats?

Agricola is a turn-based game. There are 14 game turns plus 6 harvest phases (after turn 4, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 14). Each player starts with two playing tokens (farmer and wife) and thus can take two actions per turn. There are multiple options, and while the game progresses, you'll have more and more: first thing in a turn, a new action card is flipped over.

Problem: Each action can be taken just once per turn, so it's important to do some things with high preference. Each player also starts with a hand of 7 Occupation cards (of more than 160 total) and 7 Minor Improvement cards (of more than 140 total) that he may use during the game if they fit in his/her strategy. This amounts to countless strategies, some depending on your card hand. Sometimes it's a good choice to stay on course, sometimes you better react on what your opponents do.

Basically, Agricola is a resource management strategy game. At the end of the last turn you tally up your victory points. Victory point can be obtained via Major Improvements, Minor Improvements, Occupations, resources, type of home you have constructed, and a few others.

The game rewards a diverse play style, and it punishes you for focusing on any one or two resources. You are never beat out of the game, and thus keeps everyone playing through until the final harvest. On our first play through it took about three hours with three people, but I'd say about 45 minutes per player would be more accurate play time once everyone is familiar with the game.

Here is a decent, although shoddy video quality, overview of the game:
Part 1
Part 2

The game retails at $70.00, but if you dig you should be able to find it for under $50.00 before shipping. I am grossly impatient and feed off of instant gratification, so, naturally, I purchased at my newly discovered local ma and pa shop for full retail.

I would consider this a "must play" game for any board game player.

I've only played this game once, but was very impressed with it. I would echo you "must play" rating for this game.

It also plays great for 2.

Crouton wrote:

It also plays great for 2.

In the Family Style, or is the balance not thrown off too much playing with the full deck?

As rabbit likes to say, this is the best game about abject mediocrity ever made. It's not really my cup of tea, as it's got a bit too much fiddly stuff going on and I don't really like the stressful aspect of feeding your family Gazebo mentioned (if we're talking farming games, I'm much more a Bohnanza girl myself). But all the other board game geeks I know love it.

Agricola is good although I'm not nearly as smitten by it as others.

elewis17 wrote:

The game rewards a diverse play style, and it punishes you for focusing on any one or two resources. You are never beat out of the game, and thus keeps everyone playing through until the final harvest. On our first play through it took about three hours with three people, but I'd say about 45 minutes per player would be more accurate play time once everyone is familiar with the game.

It's funny because you have a very different perspective on the game mechanics than I do I wouldn't say the game rewards diverse play, it requires it. Unless you have cards that help, anything you don't do in the game will lose you points. You must do a little bit of everything to have a shot at winning. There's nothing specifically wrong with that but I find it isn't quite as rewarding as pursuing more specific long-term strategies in other games.

It's also very stressful but not the "fun" kind of stress that other games induce. Early on you have to feed your family members after every three rounds, but halfway through it switches to every two rounds. If you haven't managed to figure out some sort of sustainable food production method by that point you are in trouble. Also, new family members let you do more actions. If you fall behind in actions you'll quickly fall behind in the game, especially if you are still struggling with food production.

I also disagree that you are never out of the game. In the games I've played I have usually been able to tell if I even have a shot at winning by halfway through. With five players the game takes a long time (45/player is a pretty good estimate) and the latter part of the game can be very painful if you are just slogging through actions trying to scrape out points but knowing you aren't even close to being in the running for first. Not that winning is everything, mind you; I play games to have fun. Getting in a position where you are barely staying afloat isn't fun for me, though.

I'm also torn on the occupation and improvement cards. I love the variety and replay value they add to the game. I dislike the amount of time they add to the front end of the game; you have to look through all your cards and try to figure out some base strategy. Second, sometimes you just get better card combos than others. More often than not the player I've seen win is the one with the best card combos out there. If you get a bunch that work well it can be devastating. Granted you still need to have the foresight to figure out how all the cards work together and execute properly. That certainly takes skill, but in a group of equal players I think the cards will often decide the winner.

Agricola isn't a bad game by any means, I just don't think it is all that its hyped up to be. The game continuously beats you down and punishes you pretty severely for sub-optimal play; I've never found it particularly "fun". It kind of reminds me of Notre Dame in that regard, which is another game with a mechanism (rats) that constantly beats you into submission and ultimately I found to not be all that entertaining. I also didn't care much for Le Havre which is by the same designer as Agricola (Uwe Rosenberg) so it could be I just don't care for his games.

Lots of people love the 'Gric, though, including most of my gaming group. I'm certainly the minority but thought I'd be the dissenting voice here For more interesting worker placement games I much prefer Caylus, Pillars of the Earth and Age of Empires III.

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

Agricola is good although I'm not nearly as smitten by it as others. It's funny this thread popped up as I just recently blogged about the game.

I apologize for being slightly off topic, but your site (dreadedgazebo.com) is being blocked at my work for:

Access Denied (content_filter_denied)

Your request was denied because of its content categorization: "Sex;Adult Material"

Any idea why? Usually it's a word in the title (for instance, my friend's site is the Mile High Bug Club, and Mile High is blocked).

Sorry for the slight diversion.

Hah, I have no idea why. I pulled the link off anyway, decided I didn't need to link to my blog entry It's hosted by Blogger so maybe that is blocked? Or maybe my blog is just that sexy?

Dreaded Gazebo wrote:

Hah, I have no idea why. I pulled the link off anyway, decided I didn't need to link to my blog entry It's hosted by Blogger so maybe that is blocked?

No, blogger's okay. Who knows, maybe Gazebo is really sexual somewhere in the world.

Gazebo- I see what you are saying. It seems like you'd prefer more flexibility in the game. I think I would too, but for my board game crew it is a perfect fit. It is a resource management "Lite" in a sense. The game is quite complex, but also quite linear at the same time. I do not think that the game is luck of the draw shrouded by 3 hours of peg placing though. There is an element of luck, and there is an element of skill.

elewis17 wrote:

Gazebo- I see what you are saying. It seems like you'd prefer more flexibility in the game. I think I would too, but for my board game crew it is a perfect fit. It is a resource management "Lite" in a sense. The game is quite complex, but also quite linear at the same time. I do not think that the game is luck of the draw shrouded by 3 hours of peg placing though. There is an element of luck, and there is an element of skill.

I agree, there is most certainly skill involved. In a game where every single action counts, though, having better cards than your opponent is a clear advantage.

Even though the cards do lead to some imbalance, I do appreciate the massive variety. Every time you play you have a different hand of cards that is going to change how you approach the game. That's very cool. If you enjoy the game then there's a ton of replay value in that box. I also need to try playing with fewer than five players sometime. I think it might be more fun as it'll play faster and it will be easier to see what others players are doing. With five it's just way too much to keep track of so it's hard to see what other players are attempting to do.

elewis17 wrote:
Crouton wrote:

It also plays great for 2.

In the Family Style, or is the balance not thrown off too much playing with the full deck?

There are some cards that become more or less powerful with fewer players. The stone/clay/wood road improvements, for instance, become better bets since the chance of only one person having and building a superceding card is small in a two player game.

As a new board gamer, I've look at this game a couple of times with some interest but I was always intimated by it's complexity. I have friends who won't have the patience for that so I've always look at some other games. Is it pretty hard to teach other players who don't play complex board games? Also I heard its very long, I like the short 1 or less games. How long does it usually play?

I've shied away from Agricola largely because of my and my group's tastes. While I (my group) can really appreciate the intricate substructure of a certain game type, the actual play often leaves us cold.

Case in point: Caylus. Really well done game; but as many like to point out in the euro-genre: it's math with graphics. Learning the substructure, maximizing play through careful analysis, and so on can be fun, but when that's the whole sum of the game, it's less interesting, less compelling and thus much less likely to hit the table (for us.)

My group much prefers to have some of that complexity, but with a thicker, more cogent sense of theme.

As an avowed Board Game Geek, I am a little ashamed I haven't looked into this one, but I just get the vibe that it's the newer Caylus. Is that true? Should I go pour through the reviews and material on BGG? Have I miscast this game?

Crockpot wrote:

Also I heard its very long, I like the short 1 or less games. How long does it usually play?

About 45 mins per player (2 players = 90 min, 3 players = 135 mins, etc)

Also, refer yourself to my sig, you filthy skimmer

THe game is BRUTAL 2 player.

Crockpot wrote:

As an avowed Board Game Geek, I am a little ashamed I haven't looked into this one, but I just get the vibe that it's the newer Caylus. Is that true? Should I go pour through the reviews and material on BGG? Have I miscast this game?

I'd actually say Le Havre (by the same designer as Agricola) is more like the newer Caylus. Agricola really doesn't have a lot in common with Caylus other than they both use worker placement as the core mechanic.

Personally I think Caylus is the better game of the two. It might be more dry thematically but I find the decisions more interesting and it has some fun player interaction with bribing the provost. Agricola's primary interaction is just using actions, preventing someone else from using it. Yeah, the more advanced decks add more interaction but I think they also add more overhead as well. Other guys in my group much prefer Agricola over Caylus so it's just a matter of preference.

I think what makes Agricola work for more people is the theme. The overall concepts in the game do work pretty well within the farming concept. Also, the more colorful graphics and slightly easier to grasp concepts make 'gric the more appealing game. The animeeple pre-order offer drew a lot of attention, too.

I'd read through some BGG reviews (once BGG is back up... they are switching ISPs right now and are down for a couple of days) and see what you think. Ultimately it sounds like it'd be best if you could try before you buy.

On a side rant, I hate it when people post session reports like, "Agricola with my 6 year old" on BGG. I'm sorry, but nothing you did resembled "playing" Agricola with a 6 year old... not gonna happen. Just because it has a farming theme, colorful graphics and maybe animal-shaped wooden pieces does not make it a kid's game

Looks Like a nice game . I checked how much it costs in Israel - 420 NIS (110~$ ) . I only found it in one of the three stores I know about. I also found out one of the store is renting out games at 10nis per week ( 2.6$~) with a minimum of two weeks and a maximum of 6. Seems like a good deal if I want to try out all kinds of games and I can rent games during the holidays when I have enough people to play with .

Crockpot wrote:

As a new board gamer, I've look at this game a couple of times with some interest but I was always intimated by it's complexity. I have friends who won't have the patience for that so I've always look at some other games. Is it pretty hard to teach other players who don't play complex board games? Also I heard its very long, I like the short 1 or less games. How long does it usually play?

I'm quite new to board games as well. Agricola, so far, has been the most complex game we have played together. As a whole the game is a lot to chew on, but each individual aspect of the game is quite basic. I suppose this may be true of anything, but hopefully you can see my point. The game was a smash hit with my casual friends. I'd love to play something deeper and more complicated, but I have to let the crew make baby steps into the more complex game genre.

elewis17 wrote:
Crockpot wrote:

As a new board gamer, I've look at this game a couple of times with some interest but I was always intimated by it's complexity. I have friends who won't have the patience for that so I've always look at some other games. Is it pretty hard to teach other players who don't play complex board games? Also I heard its very long, I like the short 1 or less games. How long does it usually play?

I'm quite new to board games as well. Agricola, so far, has been the most complex game we have played together. As a whole the game is a lot to chew on, but each individual aspect of the game is quite basic. I suppose this may be true of anything, but hopefully you can see my point. The game was a smash hit with my casual friends. I'd love to play something deeper and more complicated, but I have to let the crew make baby steps into the more complex game genre.

That's an apt summation of the complexity of the game. I taught my 14 year old nephew Agricola last weekend, and he completely got it. I should mention, though, that he is precocious, and perhaps more importantly, patient. Teaching the game takes 30-40 minutes before you even start playing. This will be a barrier to some who don't want to invest the time, but it is just that: an investment. And this one has an excellent track record of paying off.

I've been playing board games with my friends for awhile now and Agricola has been our favorite for several months now. You really can't stress the re-playability of this game. You get 7 Occupations and 7 minor improvements at the start of the game. These each have a "basic," "intermediate," and "Advanced" deck. You can use only a specific deck or mix and match at will. There are a very large number of these cards, I'm a little afraid of ball-parking inaccurately but I'd guess almost 300 total. (Someone else can jump in if that's way off) We have played dozens of games with just the basic and intermediate decks and I still haven't seen all of those cards. We actually just pulled out the "advanced" deck on the last play through.

As far as play time goes 45 minutes a player sounds pretty accurate to me. The complexity is super intimidating at first. I had already played Settlers: Cities and Knights and Puerto Rico, and a couple other boardgames as well, and when my friend started pulling out three different colors of cubes and 5 different little wooden discs and an assortment of cardboard... yeah... So far I've only introduced it to 3 board game newbies. Two liked it, one didn't, but for the possible unfair starting positions, not complexity.

As far as the "feed your family" stress goes, it's not for some people, but I find it a nice change of pace from other games. It seems like in most games you are all struggling to increase your power and domination over a country, or a trading market, or whatever. If you are doing badly that just means you aren't growing very fast. I think that the ebb and flow of good times and bad times can be a little refreshing. Reminds me of that one Diablo-esque spaceship game made by the European developers whose name escapes me. You were constantly getting better equipment, so you were advancing, but it was also always constantly degrading. It felt like you were spending all your effort keeping it in space. Reminded me of Firefly.

As far as the cards go, very few of them are completely useless. There have been a couple times where after the game people have handed me their "useless" hand and asked me what I would have done with it, usually I have answers for them. If your cards aren't very useful it's not a total loss, you can use the turns where other players are playing occupations and improvements to get an early start elsewhere.

All that aside though, some cards are unequivocally better than others, experience and creative wrangling aside. Something my group started doing recently is a "draft" with the cards. You look at your 7 cards, pick one, pass the other six on. Look at your neighbors 6 cards, pick one, pass 5 on, etc. This has the advantage of pretty much eliminating any starting imbalances, and also lets you tailor your cards for the strategy that you are most comfortable with. The most common thing I hear when saying things like "I would have played this and this, which would have made it easier to play this card a few turns later for that bonus." Is "Oh, I didn't think of that, I usually don't like doing that stuff until later in the game." The down side can be significant, it usually adds 30 minutes of pregame as everyone looks through the cards trying to decide what to take. However we have enjoyed doing this very much, it has led to closer and higher scoring games.

In every game of Agricola we feel like there was so much more to accomplish in the turn after the last one. I think the message of the game is that you can't have everything. You can only grab a bit of it, so you have to plan carefully as to what you actually need, and then do the best with it.

Yonder- Not to split hairs or anything, but there are 360 cards in the deck
I like your idea of the card draft. I think that would help out a ton. Has anyone ever introduced an element of trading resources similar to Catan, but obviously no port trades just player to player?

Yonder wrote:

All that aside though, some cards are unequivocally better than others, experience and creative wrangling aside. Something my group started doing recently is a "draft" with the cards. You look at your 7 cards, pick one, pass the other six on. Look at your neighbors 6 cards, pick one, pass 5 on, etc. This has the advantage of pretty much eliminating any starting imbalances, and also lets you tailor your cards for the strategy that you are most comfortable with.

I think a draft system would fix some of my complaints with the luck of the draw but as you said it'll tack on a lot of time up front. The game is already pushing too long for the amount of fun you have, at least with five. It'd probably work out well with fewer people, though.

Yonder wrote:

In every game of Agricola we feel like there was so much more to accomplish in the turn after the last one. I think the message of the game is that you can't have everything. You can only grab a bit of it, so you have to plan carefully as to what you actually need, and then do the best with it.

That is sort of the key aspect to many board games. You want to feel like you don't have quite enough time to do everything you need to. That's what keeps you coming back for more.

Another card distribution system that works well is the deal n, keep 7. We've done this with dealing 10 cards (each of occupations and improvements) and keeping 7 of each. In practice, I've never seen anyone get all 7 occupations or improvements down, although I've heard it can happen. So even with a hand of 7, you're effectively only using a subset anyway. The real benefit of more choice is the increased chance of either getting cards that (1) support the strategy you prefer or (2) are synergistic in combination. For instance, I played a game recently in which I had two occupations that combined well. The first gave me three free fences whenever I build any, and the second gave me a free stable whenever I built fences. This made the fence building action more profitable for me.