Talk:Puerto Rico (board game)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Puerto Rico Portal Puerto Rico (board game) is part of WikiProject Puerto Rico, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the people, history, language, and culture of Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help with the tasks listed below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Please do not substitute this template.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Puerto Rico To-do: edit Article requests: Art of Puerto Rico, Lourdes Chacón, Laws of Puerto Rico, Central Fajardo, El Verde more Cleanup: Mona, Puerto Rico, Vieques, Puerto Rico, Ponce Massacre, Morovis, Puerto Rico, Bayamón, Puerto Rico, Caguas, Puerto Rico Verify: Dominican illegal immigration to Puerto Rico, Biographic articles tagged with {{sources}} see List of Puerto Ricans. Puerto Rican Spanish Wikify: Expand: Public welfare in Puerto Rico, Culture of Puerto Rico, Demographics of Puerto Rico, Geology of Puerto Rico, Government of Puerto Rico, Education in Puerto Rico, Communications in Puerto Rico, Public housing in Puerto Rico, University of Puerto Rico more Merge: Category Sorting: Images needed:

Puerto Rico (game)
First draft notes

Information Requests

• German language publisher
• Awards details
• More rules - don't break copyright...

Wooster 16:19 26 May 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Publishers 2 Edited 3 Great Article! 4 Article increasingly in the style of Stuart Dagger 5 Roles important 6 Strategy section notes 7 Reorganising, adding. 8 Controversy 9 Two Player Rules? 10 Similar Games 11 Merger proposal

[edit] Publishers

If this game is like others, there is usually one publisher that does the European market, another for the American Market, another for Japan, etc. This one just deals with the German and English publishers. I'm suggesting that Alea is taking care of all of Europe, where Rio Grande is the U.S. publisher. But I have no certain information about this. Would someone with more information check in to this? Val42 04:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rio Grande publish the English language version, as sold in for example the UK and Ireland, as well as the US. I believe in effect they're essentially a "republisher", and Alea do all the manufacturing, so it wouldn't surprise me if my copy has crossed the Atlantic twice. (The "US" box and rules are A4 in size, for example, and the components are identical, apart from the language text.) Alai 05:07, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edited

I made a bunch of changes:

• Infobox - the game is definitely not a trading game. also, the length was too high. I've definitely played quick games (over the board) in 45 minutes or so, and the minimum was set to 90! Board game geek lists the game as 90 minutes, and I think you'd really need a slow, inexperienced, five player game to get 2.5 hours.
• Rules - I tried to rewrite the rules to give a good broad view of the game without regurgitating specifics. If anyone wants to improve on this, please do.
• Strategy - I thought the strategy section was written too much like a strategy guide. I tried to give a broad overview of the strategies involved. I don't think an in depth guide, with things like which buildings to build is appropriate for wikipedia.
• Merged Awards and Rankings into one list.

Rdore 22:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Great Article!

Just want to say that you people did a great job with this article. It's concise and informative at the same time; I can't believe how well the strategy section is worded -- it must have been a huge challenge to break such a complicated game down to its essences as you've done here. I love this.

[edit] Article increasingly in the style of Stuart Dagger

I'm not sure we need quite so much on the "howto" aspect. Anyone else have any feelings either way on this? BTW, they're "colonists" in the English language edition, and "workers" in the German, not "slaves". Only, source needed on some of the strategic assertions, such as a R-P-S/cyclic dominance claim. Alai 08:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Calling them "slaves" is ridiculous. The rules and anyone talking about the game will refer to them as colonists. No one calls them "slaves" except when they are trying to cause trouble. Also, the roles section seems too much like a regurgitation of the rules. Some description of the roles might be appropriate, but listing out all the bonuses and the trading house rates is definitely unnecessary. I will definitely go through this article within the next few days and clean some things up if no one else has done so beforehand. Rdore 16:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually I jokingly call them "kolonegers" (I'll leave the translation from Dutch as an exercise to the reader), because they do look brown. But that's meant as a joke. Wouter Lievens 16:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roles important

While calling the colonists or workers "slaves" is perhaps not an offical term (but the general term used by the PR gaming community regardless), I think this is a minor point, and one which I have no problem giving up.

However, I believe accurately describing the roles are important to the description of Puerto Rico. The game is dependent on them, and knowing how the work, and they are themselves one of the most facinating portions of the game. It would be like describing chess without the pieces or poker without the hands. To give an accurate impression of Puerto Rico, the roles must be discussed.

Fair enough. The roles are an important aspect of the game. I edited it down some, though. I think there's a difference between explaining how the roles are important to that game, and listing the exact details and bonuses and such. Rdore 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strategy section notes

This is a good entry so far, but I have a couple of comments.

• First regarding this sentence: It is almost always better to focus on earning money early on and to switch focus later to earning points. I suppose that is the way some people play, but having played PR quite a lot the last couple of years I don't think that is accurate at all. Certainly not to the point of saying that it is "almost always better."
• It might be worth noting that players keep their accumulated victory points hidden from other players, so that at any point you only have a general notion of how well each player is doing rather than knowing a specific score or ranking during the game.
• One of the things I often tell people as we are teaching them how to play is that as the game develops, it will become clear that some players have an interest in prolonging the game, while others will want to end it quickly (this is hinted at already).

--JoelCFC25 14:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In competitive games with experienced players (at least say 50 games played), if you don't pay very close attention to making a lot of money early in the game, you will lose. A player who gets some useful 3 cost buildings out early has a huge advantage - they can make money and points a lot faster. That said, if you want to tone down, the wording go ahread. Your other suggestions sound 100% on the mark to me. Go ahead, be bold. Rdore 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the world of high-stakes, competition-level Puerto Rico so I will defer to you there. We just play for fun and thus far my experience hadn't squared with that statement. But I have no doubt that strategies and techniques will continue to evolve among my group of friends that play, so there is every possibility that the statement is correct. You sound like you have played much more than me, hehe. JoelCFC25 16:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I'd call it competition-level, and it certainly isn't high-stakes, but I used to play a fair bit on brettspielwelt - probably a couple hundred games total. This pales in comparison to some of the hardcore players on there though - last time I checked there were over 40 players who had accumulated over a thousand games! Even at 20 minutes a game for a fast 2 player, that's a lot of time. Anyway, continue to enjoy the game and welcome to wikipedia. Rdore 16:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I have played in excess of a thousand games, and while the 'early money' strategy can win, my best ever wins (with scores of >90 points, including one of 102) have always been with the multiple corn shipping (plus wharf once I can afford it) chrisboote (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganising, adding.

I have perhaps been over-bold in my edits.

It seemed pretty clear that roles belonged with gameplay, if not included in that section. The internal "roles" link became unnecessary.

Misunderstanding of the rules are very common, a frequent topic on BGG, so I felt a comment on this was useful to the reader.

Not obvious from the edit log is that I reordered the roles into "production order": you settle a plantation, build the processing plant, populate those so they'll be operational, craft to produce, then trade or ship the goods. The lack of such an overview is a major omission in the rules, so in addition to giving the reader a better overview of the game, it may make up for that omission.

I added a tactical play paragraph in the strategy section. One of PR's remarkable features is the balance between tactical and strategic play. Perhaps more should be added on this unusual feature of PR.

[I recently edited Characteristics in German-Style Board Games. Yeah, I probably should create an account. :) ]

[edit] Controversy

If there are no objections, I would like to completely remove the Controversy section. This section seems to reflect an opinion or interpretation which is not widely held. Also, the heading itself is misleading since "controversy" implies that there has been some form of public outrage or criticism in print or broadcast. If anyone can cite any such references, then we should clean up the Controversy section and list references. --DoGooderJohnnyD 18:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I simply can't believe someone even took the time to write this; I've read hundreds of articles on the web about Puerto Rico, and have yet to see any mention of this so-called "controversy". I think it's entirely the fantasies of the original author, and it makes me sad we've decended to such a low level thanks to "Political Correctness". 12.103.251.203 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Player Rules?

Where can we find the two-player rules? A link would be nice. Wiploc 04:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Try here for the official version. There are many other two-player varients on www.boardgamegeek.com Bluap 05:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar Games

I frankly don't think much of this section (the rest of the article is outstanding, as has been mentioned earlier). I haven't played San Juan, but I've heard it is in fact very similar to Puerto Rico (hell, my understanding is that it was designed to be). Caylus does have a few similar elements, since placing workers can be seen as very similar to choosing roles, but I'm not at all convinced that it's more similar to Puerto Rico than a lot of other Eurogames. Finally, I think including Settlers there is a huge stretch, as it has almost nothing in common with Puerto Rico (except acting, in my experience, as something of a "gateway game"). The identified similarities (resource collection, construction, and victory points) appear in so many games as to make the alleged similarity meaningless. My personal preference would be to delete the "Similar Games" section all together. Thoughts?Sarcasticidealist 23:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends on who the reader is. For the average "board games = monopoly" person, Settlers is similar as another eurogame. But within the genre, no, Settlers is not that similar. Caylus I think has a similar depth and complexity, but it's definately debatable as to whether it should be here. The card game definately belongs. Pimlottc 03:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm really wondering is what the point of the section is in the first place. We don't close politicians' pages with a "Politicians with similar political philosophies" sections, we don't close vegetables' pages with "foods of similar nutritional value", so why have something just as arbitrary and (presumably) no more useful here? San Juan's worthy of mention in the main article by virtue of being a derivative game, but I don't really see the use of this section.Sarcasticidealist 15:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Having heard no defense for keeping the section, I've deleted it. San Juan is mentioned elsewhere in the article, as it should be, and the only other game included in "similar games" at the time of deletion was Caylus, so it was pretty sparse (to say nothing of unencyclopaedic) anyway. Sarcasticidealist 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

I strongly oppose this proposal. Puerto Rico and San Juan are two completely different games that happen to be thematically linked, like Monopoly and Free Parking, or Settlers of Catan and Starfarers of Catan (and twenty or so other variants), or Carcassonne and Carcassonne: Hunters and Gatherers (and a half dozen other variants). This is, in my view, analogous to merging Cheers and Frasier. I would like to remove the proposal; what are people's arguments against doing so? Sarcasticidealist 04:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it wouldn't really be a merger, since San Juan is a stub I would just add it here on its own section, on another note San Juan is based on Puerto Rico so it would make sense to merge both and produce a potential GAC. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any reason that each couldn't be brought to GA status on its own, bearing in mind that GA status doesn't require great length (requiring only a complete treatment of the subject in question). This article's got a ways to go before it gets there, but I don't think it's at all out of the question that it could reach it some day. And if Puerto Rico can, I see no reason that San Juan wouldn't be able to.

I guess I'd really like to hear your rationale as to why either game could not, on its own, reach GA status. Sarcasticidealist 04:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's pretty silly. They are completely separate games. It isn't even like one is an expansion for the other. Rdore 04:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Puerto Rico might have a chance to get to GA if references and material is found, however I don't think San Juan has that potential, other than the game's rules and content there doesn't seem to be more material, no competitive tournaments not even any variations or extentions to it, regardless of that feel free to remove the tag if you want I doubt there will be time left for merging since I'm stuck with two GACs and two FACs. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)