LogFAQs > #933636208

55. Agricola (2007)

Category: Player vs Player
Genres: Worker placement, tableau-building, tile-laying
Rules complexity (0 to 7): 6
Game length: 90-150 minutes
Experience: 6-8 games over 6-8 sessions with 2-5 players (including online/app), 2015-2019
Previous ranks: 38/100 (2016), 37/80 (2018)

Summary - Each player runs their own farm, a 3x4 grid, and feeds a growing family of workers. Over fourteen rounds, players collect resources, gain special abilities (from cards dealt at the beginning of their game), grow crops, raise animals, upgrade the house's size and material, grow their family, and most importantly, make sure not to let their families starve. At the end of the game, you get points for basically everything above, with a twist that ignoring any given category nets negative points.

Experience - Agricola was one of my worst first-experiences ever. It was my first worker placement game. Without an actual proper meal myself, my stomach was experiencing some pains as people I kinda knew were crowded around the table - five in all - taking agonizingly long on their turns and alwyas doing something called baking bread. I was unable to get wood (needed to do basically anything), never first player, stuck with the fewest workers, and perpetually taking the sad "here's a few food items" option to stay afloat. The game lasted three and a half hours, and I trudged away with a sad defeat, no positive interactions, and (hey) at least I maxed out my house and humans.

And yet... unlike many longer strategy games I played back then, I returned to Agricola later (and never with five again). At different meetups, with at least some sense of round progression, I still was mostly bad and made for plenty of last place finishes. But the games moved faster, and I felt at least more empowered, being able to view the game as a decision space instead of a directive of "fuck you, you must do this." While I never played with that original group again, I did play once on IOS with friends casually and even once online with a friend (getting my ass kicked badly). In 2019, a friend brought it to a meetup, and I won my first ever game. It took some luck, but also obviously experience helped.

In short, and I suspect this is the case for many complex games with broad and deep decision spaces, experience matters. Not just for winning, though - also for enjoyment. And that's one of the tough things to grapple with ranking Agricola.

Design - One of the first words that comes to mind when I think of Agricola: punishing. Unlike so many other eurogames, Agricola defaults you at -14 points. It's very unafraid of negative points, and it shrinks your possibilities of expansion with a brutal subsistence farming message: you have to do everything. You need fences, stables, fields, corn, vegetables, and uneaten animals of every type. The game is relatively long in playtime, but not that long in actions. The scoring rubric essentially demands that everyone play the same game, which makes the worker placement cruel and brutal.

And many of these point-scoring mechanisms rely heavily on past actions, forcing you to go in some order. You realistically need fences before getting sheep; a home increase to grow your family; a plowed field and an acquired vegetable before you can grow them, which is its own action... and of course, you need to make sure to feed your family repeatedly throughout the game, so make sure not to eat all your vegetables/grain/sheep before the game ends. Your plans can be easily disrupted by other players (unintentionally) due to the worker placement blocking, but long-term planning is obviously needed. It's fiddly as hell; aside from replenishing all the resources, different action spaces are unlocked each round, and you basically need to internalize what you're "saving up for" before they're unveiled.

With the dizzying array of available action spots, almost none of which is useless - over twenty by the time the game ends - Agricola can be overwhelming if you don't have the right plans. (And remember, plans are necessary due to how each desirable outcome requires predecessor materials.) What's most important in actually succeeding at Agricola is developing an engine, for resources and/or food, and preferably both. That of course is where the cards (which are even more brutal to newcomers) come in: you're dealt fourteen cards at the beginning of the game, each of which grants a special power, generally increasing your incentive to take certain actions.

Every player should be trying to play one or two of their best powers early, which will drastically ease the pain of the game later and can define a strategy. Even in the first sad game I played, I was able to grasp for points late because of the occupation card which let me have cheaper upgrades to my house. Hello stone house. There is of course also the oven which is available to all players, which can ease the pain of feeding your family by allowing you to cook your grains or animals.

Why does it feel worth it? Why did I grow to like Agricola? Was it just Stockholm Syndrome and the feeling of "finally, I can win at this game, fuck you"? I don't think that's all. Part of what makes Agricola's punishing nature feel so bad is that it looks harmless and really enjoyable. Despite how the scoring goes, you'll always have your own farm at the end of the day. And it'll always be a little different. Did you get a fenced stable this time? How did you arrange your fences? Why do you have so many fields? Nice animals! Later editions of the game introduced animeeples and clearer wooden resources, further improving the game's visual appeal.

The game is also wonderfully thematic. Yeah, it's a mess and it's painful. But all of the ingredients make sense... it's subsistence farming. Even worker placement, which is often a fairly abstract mechanism, makes sense in most cases: only one person can use the plow per day, or harvest wood from the forest, or whatever. (Feel free to insert joke about only one hospital bed now.)

Uwe Rosenberg is one of the most respected game designers on the planet. While many people will have different favorite Uwes, Agricola is generally considered to be his masterpiece.

Future - Given that I've now got the experience, you'd think Agricola is likely to rise with future plays. The question now is how likely it'll be to hit the table, with no more copies in my regular game group and me being likely the most experienced at it now. Trying to bring others up to speed... rough thought.
---

yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they i

<cite>SeabassDebeste posted [p:933636208] in another ye... [t:78284791]...</cite> <quote>55. Agricola (2007) Category: Player vs Player Genres: Worker placement, tableau-building, tile-laying Rules complexity (0 to 7): 6 Game length: 90-150 minutes Experience: 6-8 games over 6-8 sessions with 2-5 players (including online/app), 2015-2019 Previous ranks: 38/100 (2016), 37/80 (2018) Summary - Each player runs their own farm, a 3x4 grid, and feeds a growing family of workers. Over fourteen rounds, players collect resources, gain special abilities (from cards dealt at the beginning of their game), grow crops, raise animals, upgrade the house's size and material, grow their family, and most importantly, make sure not to let their families starve. At the end of the game, you get points for basically everything above, with a twist that ignoring any given category nets negative points. Experience - Agricola was one of my worst first-experiences ever. It was my first worker placement game. Without an actual proper meal myself, my stomach was experiencing some pains as people I kinda knew were crowded around the table - five in all - taking agonizingly long on their turns and alwyas doing something called baking bread. I was unable to get wood (needed to do basically anything), never first player, stuck with the fewest workers, and perpetually taking the sad "here's a few food items" option to stay afloat. The game lasted three and a half hours, and I trudged away with a sad defeat, no positive interactions, and (hey) at least I maxed out my house and humans. And yet... unlike many longer strategy games I played back then, I returned to Agricola later (and never with five again). At different meetups, with at least some sense of round progression, I still was mostly bad and made for plenty of last place finishes. But the games moved faster, and I felt at least more empowered, being able to view the game as a decision space instead of a directive of "fuck you, you must do this." While I never played with that original group again, I did play once on IOS with friends casually and even once online with a friend (getting my ass kicked badly). In 2019, a friend brought it to a meetup, and I won my first ever game. It took some luck, but also obviously experience helped. In short, and I suspect this is the case for many complex games with broad and deep decision spaces, experience matters. Not just for winning, though - also for enjoyment. And that's one of the tough things to grapple with ranking Agricola. Design - One of the first words that comes to mind when I think of Agricola: punishing. Unlike so many other eurogames, Agricola defaults you at -14 points. It's very unafraid of negative points, and it shrinks your possibilities of expansion with a brutal subsistence farming message: you have to do everything. You need fences, stables, fields, corn, vegetables, and uneaten animals of every type. The game is relatively long in playtime, but not that long in actions. The scoring rubric essentially demands that everyone play the same game, which makes the worker placement cruel and brutal. And many of these point-scoring mechanisms rely heavily on past actions, forcing you to go in some order. You realistically need fences before getting sheep; a home increase to grow your family; a plowed field and an acquired vegetable before you can grow them, which is its own action... and of course, you need to make sure to feed your family repeatedly throughout the game, so make sure not to eat all your vegetables/grain/sheep before the game ends. Your plans can be easily disrupted by other players (unintentionally) due to the worker placement blocking, but long-term planning is obviously needed. It's fiddly as hell; aside from replenishing all the resources, different action spaces are unlocked each round, and you basically need to internalize what you're "saving up for" before they're unveiled. With the dizzying array of available action spots, almost none of which is useless - over twenty by the time the game ends - Agricola can be overwhelming if you don't have the right plans. (And remember, plans are necessary due to how each desirable outcome requires predecessor materials.) What's most important in actually succeeding at Agricola is developing an engine, for resources and/or food, and preferably both. That of course is where the cards (which are even more brutal to newcomers) come in: you're dealt fourteen cards at the beginning of the game, each of which grants a special power, generally increasing your incentive to take certain actions. Every player should be trying to play one or two of their best powers early, which will drastically ease the pain of the game later and can define a strategy. Even in the first sad game I played, I was able to grasp for points late because of the occupation card which let me have cheaper upgrades to my house. Hello stone house. There is of course also the oven which is available to all players, which can ease the pain of feeding your family by allowing you to cook your grains or animals. Why does it feel worth it? Why did I grow to like Agricola? Was it just Stockholm Syndrome and the feeling of "finally, I can win at this game, fuck you"? I don't think that's all. Part of what makes Agricola's punishing nature feel so bad is that it looks harmless and really enjoyable. Despite how the scoring goes, you'll always have your own farm at the end of the day. And it'll always be a little different. Did you get a fenced stable this time? How did you arrange your fences? Why do you have so many fields? Nice animals! Later editions of the game introduced animeeples and clearer wooden resources, further improving the game's visual appeal. The game is also wonderfully thematic. Yeah, it's a mess and it's painful. But all of the ingredients make sense... it's subsistence farming. Even worker placement, which is often a fairly abstract mechanism, makes sense in most cases: only one person can use the plow per day, or harvest wood from the forest, or whatever. (Feel free to insert joke about only one hospital bed now.) Uwe Rosenberg is one of the most respected game designers on the planet. While many people will have different favorite Uwes, Agricola is generally considered to be his masterpiece. Future - Given that I've now got the experience, you'd think Agricola is likely to rise with future plays. The question now is how likely it'll be to hit the table, with no more copies in my regular game group and me being likely the most experienced at it now. Trying to bring others up to speed... rough thought. --- yet all sailors of all sorts are more or less capricious and unreliable - they live in the varying outer weather, and they i</quote>

... Copied to Clipboard!