Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'Agricola'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • Playdek
    • News and Announcements
    • Member Introductions
  • Game Discussion
    • Fort Sumter: The Secession Crisis
    • Ascension: Chronicle of the Godslayer
    • Twilight Struggle
    • Agricola
    • Lords of Waterdeep
    • Summoner Wars
    • Fluxx
  • Miscellaneous
    • General Discussion

Blogs

  • AnotherChaos' Blog

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


AIM


MSN


Website URL


ICQ


Yahoo


Skype


Location


Interests

Found 7 results

  1. iceman

    Remodeling Card

    I have enjoyed playing Agricola on my iPad for many hours and have bought all of the extra decks for sale. Last night, I tried to use the Remodeling card for the first time and I could not "remove a stable" so that I could change it into an extra wooden room. I had the 1 wood and 1 reed needed to play the Remodeling card and it was highlighted so that I could "use" it but when it said to "remove a stable" all I could do was put a finger on the stable and it wouldn't do anything. I tried dragging it off the board but that did not work. I probably was doing something wrong but I am not sure what to try next. Can someone tell me how to "remove the stable" in that scenario so that I could replace it with the extra wooden room? Thank you!
  2. This isn't something I've been able to test, but I just wanted to see if it's on your radar. If someone plays the Baking Field, which mandates that grain from it be baked during the harvest, how does it handle the scenario in which a baking improvement has been removed? For instance, the Madonna Statue improvement can remove other improvements. Use Case: Player builds a Fireplace. Player builds a Baking Field. Player plants grain on the Baking Field. Player builds a Madonna Statue, removing the Fireplace and some other improvement, but keeping the Baking Field. Harvest time comes. Grain comes from field, but player has no apparatus for baking bread. What would the rules be in this case? Convert the grain into one food? Does the app properly handle it, or does it lock up?
  3. Last night, I was playing Agricola offline against an AI opponent. I built the Seasonal Plants improvement. I had two fields in my farmyard. On turn 14, I did a Sow action, placing a vegetable on one field and a grain on the other. After confirming that I was planting these fields, I was given a screen with a little "+1" token in the bottom right. My understanding is that this was the interface for the Seasonal Plants, and that it would let me choose which field to plan to. However, as I dragged the +1 token, neither of my fields lit up. I was unable to attach the +1 to either the grain or vegetable field.
  4. In 4-5 player games in which the Corn Profiteer is in play, there's a special phase that comes up to allow opponents to offer to purchase a Grain from the Profiteer's player for 2 food. However, during this special phase*, if you have less than 2 food in your inventory, the game's interface won't allow you to make the offer. This is an incorrect implementation, as normal play would allow a player to cook an animal or vegetable in order to pay the 2 food. Because of this, the occupation is considerably more powerful than normal during a harvest phase. We need to be able to conditionally make new food dependent only if the offer is accepted. Let's say Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Diane are playing. Charlie uses the Corn Profiteer, and Alice and Bob each offer to buy the grain from Charlie. Neither Alice nor Bob has any food tokens, but they each have other resources that they can convert to food. Alice will cook a vegetable, and Bob will cook a pig with his fireplace. Charlie accepts Bob's offer. Bob cooks the pig, gains 2 food tokens, then gives them to Charlie. Alice's vegetable is left alone. I can imagine that this creates a really awful use case. I'd suggest that, instead of checking purely for food in stock, check what resources the player can make into food using improvements (or the 1:1 conversion for grain/veggies); this would probably be a similar search algorithm to what the AI uses. Offers: If a player has 2+ food in stock, allow them to offer or decline as normal. If a player can make the 2 food, but doesn't have it in stock, let them still make the offer. You may want to make a warning pop up in this case. If a player can't make the 2 food, just automatically decline for them. When the Profiteer's player selects an offer: For players with food in stock, just automatically handle the trade. For players that don't have it in stock, but can make the food, control passes to the offering player. Allow them to cook like normal. They must make 2+ food before they can confirm their move. I believe this covers all the bases. Alternatives: Remove the card. Make a digital-only rules text change to this card, so that it's clearer how this implementation works, then enable cooking during the offer screen. New card text: "You can convert 1 grain to 3 food at any time. Any other player can prevent this by buying the grain from you for 2 food tokens. If more than one player wants to buy, you choose one of them. Players that want to buy the grain must have at least 2 food tokens available. All cooking or converting must be done prior to making the offer." *I'm not sure if this special phase defect occurs during normal turns, but the no-cooking issue is definitely a problem during the Harvest phase, especially if I've already fed my family and bred my animals.
  5. Is there any way to make the online multiplayer implementation of this game use the AI for players who have forfeited due to time? To my knowledge, just playing nothing, which is what a forfeited opponent will do after dropping, isn't a legal move. It kinda screws up the balance of the game. Someone who's in the right place at the right time when someone drops can take advantage of a board that provides either too many resources or too many other options. My specs would be this: If you're the only Human player left when all others have forfeited, you still win automatically. If you forfeit (voluntarily or by time), your rank score will still reflect having lost to the remaining human players. If you forfeit, an AI takes over your game. I'm thinking the "amateur" AI would be sufficient, though that could even be randomly picked. Humans that lose to an AI receive no change to their rank score (for that player). Humans that win to an AI still receive rank score based on the original human player's rank (like it is today). In a game that ends with multiple humans and AI players, at the end, the highest Human score will still get a "win" in their win/loss record, regardless of other changes. Basically, I don't want the introduction of AI opponents in online multiplayer to screw up rankings and statistics, but it would be nice to have valid moves being played on the forfeited player's behalf. A two-player game on a 5-player board introduces some real problems.
  6. My wife recently encountered what I believe may be a defect with the Feeding Pellets implementation in Agricola for iOS. During the harvest after round 9 in a four-player game, she started out with 1 Sheep. She had pasture-space to hold more (at least 3 I believe). She also had plenty of food to feed her family that turn already in stock. First in the field phase, she received a vegetable. During the feeding phase, she used Feeding Pellets to swap one vegetable for one more sheep. She saw that she had two sheep in the pasture and confirmed. Immediately after that, she was back to only 1 sheep, though the vegetable was still gone. She was expecting to have 2 sheep become 3 sheep during the breeding phase, but the sheep she'd traded for via Feeding Pellets had disappeared. I can provide screennames of all the players in this game, if you have someone that wants to check the game log in the database to confirm, though I imagine it'd be best if I emailed or PM'd the correct admin directly. If it matters: 1) She's using an iPhone 5S with the latest OS updates. 2) She got the vegetable from a field she planted with Hobby Farmer.
  7. In Multiplayer iOS Agricola, it's hard to find the happy medium between playing all the time and playing asynchronously over a long period. One of the most aggravating things I've found over the past few days is that I keep having to eat the hours when I'm asleep. Maybe I just go to bed before other people, but I feel like I'm being set up to forfeit. In one game, I started with 24 hours, and because I ended up being the first to sleep for two nights in a row, I'm down to 4. My opponents have 18 and 9. Hypothetically, one opponent could just wait until the middle of the night, do their turn, then pass play to me for the rest of the night. And ouila, I've automatically lost without any opportunity to make a change. My suggestion: Let us designate a period (either 6 or possibly 8 hours) each day that would be personal "free" hours. During a person's "free" hours, the chess clock doesn't run down for them. This would be an individual setting that would be locked-in per game (so that you couldn't change it mid-game). That way, it won't feel so risky just to go to sleep. Accordingly, the actual "chess" clock time could be reduced to something like a 16-hour game. And no, setting the game timer to 7 days or more does /not/ already solve this issue. If I'm consistently the first one to sleep, then I'm still consistently the one taking the hit on the timer when bedtime rolls around.
×