Some recent Insider content: my post-deadline column on the teams that did nothing this week, plus breakdowns of the Ian Kennedy trade, the Bud Norris trade, and the Jake Peavy trade. Also, my Klawchat transcript from earlier today. And finally, this week’s Behind the Dish podcast features former big leaguer Gabe Kapler, who talked to me about using advanced statistics in player development and about why I’m wrong to dislike the Notorious B.I.G.
—
I picked up the iPad app version of Hacienda last summer, played it once or twice, then never went back to it after a handful of other titles hit the market and I got caught up doing … well, not doing what I was supposed to do, which was at least play the game enough to write a review of it. I just returned to it this week and it’s better than I remembered, a simple tile-placement game reminiscent of Through the Desert with different scoring mechanics and a tile-placement scheme that makes it easier to block opponents.
In Hacienda, two to five players players compete to rack up points through placement on a board filled with hexes that represent different terrains. Players may purchase cards that allow them to place land tiles or animal tokens, or purchase haciendas or lakes that allow them to accumulate more points. The majority of the board’s hexes contain pampas (open fields), but there are only a handful of pampas cards, so nearly all player tiles will go on the strips of non-pampas tiles around the board. (The app comes with a basic board and a more difficult “challenge” map.)
Placing at least three land tiles together forms a chain that earns the player two points per tile in the chain; placing a hacienda on the chain adds another point per tile. Animal chains, called “herds,” aren’t worth points on their own, but add points and money when they connect to the various market tiles on the board: 1 point for the first market a player reaches, 2 for the second, 3 for the third, and so on, plus $1 for each animal tile in the herd and another $1 for each land tile in the land chain adjacent to the herd. A player also earns a point for each of his tiles adjacent to any water hole on the board, whether he placed it or another player did. Finally, a player may purchase and place a harvest token to earn $3 per land tile in that chain, although in practice the AI players rarely use this and I haven’t at all. Each turn comprises three moves, which can include purchasing a card, placing a tile or token, or buying and placing a building or lake.
The game contains two phases, but the scoring contains a hitch – the score at the end of phase one is doubled and added to the score from phase two to give the final totals. The first phase ends when the supply of animal cards is exhausted; it’s reshuffled for the second phase, while the supply of land tile cards doesn’t appear to be exhaustible. (I may have that bit wrong.) That means an early deficit can be hard to overcome, even with near-perfect play in phase two, especially if you are split by your opponents or are running short of cash. It also puts huge importance on early moves and at least a little bit of strategy, because you have to think about what the board might look like several turns down the road and try to minimize the chances of your opponents screwing you over.
And screwing your opponents over is quite possible in Hacienda. The hard AI players will block you, although sometimes they’ll do so in slightly odd ways. Because the best way to rack up points is to create a long, contiguous chain of land tiles, placing a single tile directly in your opponent’s path forces him to either leave the trail of non-pampas hexes or to pick up a few pampas cards so he can go around you. In the first phase of the game, it may be easier to just pick up and start a new chain elsewhere on the board, but in the second phase, you’re probably stuck with what you’ve got, which means that long-range planning is complicated by the possibility that your opponents will sabotage you.
The main drawback of Hacienda is that the scoring is not entirely obvious from looking at the board because of all of the multipliers that apply to various types of chains. The interactive component is a plus, but the inclusion of money adds a layer of complexity that doesn’t significantly improve the game; Through the Desert covers similar ground (pun intended) more elegantly.
The implementation here boasts outstanding graphics and quick AI players, although the lack of online multiplayer is a major drawback. The app also doesn’t allow for a random start player, which seems like an essential element for solo or pass-and-play games. Finally, tile/token placement isn’t that precise, although the developers say they improved that in the most recent update. The tutorial was clear and concise, and it’s easy to see what other players have done when it’s your turn.
I’d still recommend Through the Desert first if you like the sound of hex-based tile-placement games; in that game, you’re also trying to create long chains and connect them to specific landmarks on the board, but that’s just about it, with blocking opponents the only wrinkle in a game that stands out for its simplicity. Hacienda makes the core mechanic 50% more complicated but the resulting game is maybe 5% more interesting.
Hi Keith,
I just read your chat and noted that you started reading “The Brothers Karazamov”. I have been reading (and re-reading) it for the past 3 months. I would love an in-depth review when you are done.
The only opinion I will give is that I purchased my copy for $12.99 and come to the realization that this is the greatest bargain I have (and will) ever find on this turn around the marble.
It isn’t easy, and sometimes isn’t fun, but there are pieces of our collective jigsaw puzzles that are found in the pages.
This might sound like I’m the greatest Dostoevsky fan in Canada, or I’m a literary snob, but I am not. I don’t plan on reading another Dostoevsky novel for atleast another 10 years and my last favorite book was some P.J. O’Rourke jest.
I appreciate the work that you do and as a baseball fan, feel proud that there is someone who out there who…is you.
Keep on keeping on,
Hey Keith, you’re still right man, the Notorious B.I.G. still was/is the most overrated rapper of all time (although Lil’ Wayne has given him a run for his money). I’m not saying he was a bad rapper or anything, but to put him up as the greatest or even one of the greatest rappers of all time is a joke as huge as calling Miguel Cabrera the greatest hitter since Ted Williams.
Keith,
I read your MLB chat on espn.com, and I couldn’t find a link to send you an email there. So, forgive me for posting here in what will be a non sequitur for this blog post.
First, here is the context for my comment below. You were asked, “What is your opinion on the foie gras ban?” (It is unclear if the question was asking about the proposed ban in Israel that was in the news in July, or the actual ban in California. My response below assumes the discussion was about California since you refer to “our government.”)
You responded in the chat, “Pointless feel-good policymaking. You want to improve animal welfare? Eliminate factory farming of chickens. No more debeaking. No keeping them in such cramped quarters that they have to be force-fed antibiotics to survive. Saving a few geese or ducks while ignoring the plight of millions of chickens or cows – because the latter industries donate more to politicians’ campaigns – only underscores how worthless our government is when it gets involved in regulating our food supply.”
Your comment about the foie gras ban in the chat struck me as unlike you. First, if the ban serves a useful purpose by preventing animal cruelty in one area, then it is worthwhile regardless of whether additional steps have been taken to prevent animal cruelty in other areas. It is not pointless to address part of the problem. Second, California, which implemented a foie gras ban, HAS taken steps to address cruelty to factory-farmed chickens. California law requires egg-laying hens to be given cages large enough to stand up and spread their wings. It might seem a small measure, but it is significant enough that factory-farming interests are trying to get the U.S. Congress to intercede to keep the measure from being fully implemented in California. Third, California also enacted a ban on the importation and/or sale of shark fins in an attempt to protect sharks, which are brutally harvested for their fins. (The fins are cut off and the sharks are thrown back into the sea to drown.) The same California lawmakers who enacted the foie gras ban are doing what they can to prevent animal cruelty where they can. It would be great if they could eliminate it everywhere, but please don’t fault them for doing what they can. Every bit counts. It’s hardly pointless.
Regards,
Brian F.
@Brian: It’s pointless because foie gras production is not cruel. This is nothing more than window-dressing for idiot politicians pandering to animal-rights “activists” who don’t even understand what they’re fighting against.
To wit: Anthony Bourdain, on foie gras.
Keith,
OT, but where in AZ did you live? We’re contemplating moving and I am growing weary of the north east’s weather, in spite of what it offers on other fronts. I know you loved where you were so I thought I’d pick your brain.
Thanks.
Keith,
I watched the Bourdain clip, and it gibes completely with my understanding of how forced feeding works. (I will give Bourdain and the duck farmers credit for calling it “forced feeding” and not coming up with a euphemism like, say, “enhanced feeding techniques.”) But we apparently have different ideas of cruelty. For me, it’s not as simple as explaining that the anatomy of waterfowl is different than that of mammals and, thus, the birds are not in physical discomfort. Even assuming arguendo that forced feeding does not cause the birds any physical discomfort, don’t you think it would be a terrifying experience if someone pulled your head back, forced your mouth open and shoved a large tube down your throat (especially if you had no ability to understand why this was being done)? You really don’t see that as cruel? You’re entitled to come to that conclusion, but it doesn’t reflect well on you when you assume that anyone who comes down on the other side from you on this inherently subjective question must be ill-informed or disingenuous. Along the same lines, it undermines Bourdain’s argument when he claims that the “vegan activists” supposedly behind the ban brand foie-gras producers as “evil,” but then turns around and labels those who advocate for the ban as “twisted.” Shouldn’t the argument stand on its merits without resorting to cheap insults?
I suspect that if you showed the Bourdain clip to a representative sample of Americans– as biased and one-sided in favor of foie-gras production as the clip is– a majority of people would conclude that the practice is cruel. I can’t convince you otherwise, but you should be fairer to those who come down on the other side of you on the issue instead of caricaturing them as well as the elected officials who enacted the ban. Do you even allow for the possibility that the “activists” and the politicians might genuinely believe that they’re addressing a real problem here?
Brian