Rahdo Previews►►► Ada's Dream
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Ada's Dream Crowdfunding Page: www.kickstarte...
Help Rahdo Run: / rahdo ❤️ Code of conduct: conduct.rahdo.com 🙂 And now...
A video outlining gameplay for the boardgame Ada's Dream.
For more game info, boardgamegeek....
Part I: Gameplay Runthrough
• Rahdo Previews►►► Ada'...
Part II: Final Thoughts
• Ada's Dream | Rahdo's ...
The fancy nature of the artwork reminds me of Roccoco. Though more Victorian than French looking. Know not to turn away a game based on the cover. Mac Gerdts Hamburgum case in point.
Yes, yes, yes!! Theme, colors, building an actual calculating machine, cute cogs and punch cards plus solo mode!!!! Just subscribed to the KS page :D Ada Lovelace getting her dues! Thanks, Rahdo! Always love your presentation and explanations.
The game seems great. Programming your points is just wildly brilliant. However, I am fearful that you have too much money in this game and not enough ways to spend it?
if you grab high value dice and want to play a partner card at the same time, it's going cost a fair bit! also, traveling can be pretty expensive. and paying to get into the more expensive meeting rooms ain't cheap either :)
Augustus De Morgan en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Morgan%27s_laws
Looks over-mechanicized, tbh. - like two to three average-sized Feld games jammed together. I worry that it comes at the cost of elegance.
it's not an elegant game. it's a big crunchy beast with a LOT of moving parts that require a lot of mental energy to master, very much like a mindclash game :)
Now I'm torn: my love for maths/computer science vrs my antipathy for most competitive games. Thanks Rahdo.
From watching this gameplay i assume this game will be a complete AP hell with all those intertwined decisions you have to think about before you make your move. But still looks like a great thinky game.
it does help a lot to be constrained by the cards you've got in hand. you do want to take advantage of getting to play them while drafting, and that drives a lot of the decision making.
but yeah, it's still a lot! :)
Mistake: When You take an advanced action from Ada's Study, it can't be the same action as the one you initially chose, so you wouldn't have been able to take two cards in one turn.
yup, i caught that a bit later in the video :)
Ada's brilliant, she basically invented the computer (not quite) a century before electricity was harnessed. That doesn't seem like it should be possible.
The Analytical Engine was built in 1991, and it worked perfectly. Too late for her to see it though.
45:05 But - didn’t you say earlier that you could pick from the circle before that one, by spending coal? Maybe it is time for Jen to spend some coal to do that now!
might have been wise :)
At 23:55, Rahdo gives an example of scoring with the multiplier gear, but what he said doesn't apparently match the rules of the game. In the KS campaign video at 0:32, it shows that 3+5*4 equals 32, not 27 as standard BIDMAS arithmetic rules would give. This was verified in a comment by Caezar and Kuly.
if that will be the final rules let me say it's pretty stupid in a game about the builder of the first computer to override the rules of math!
I've tried to see in the rulebook where it says you do the math from left to right or top to bottom, ignoring the multiply math rules, but I didn't find it... do you know where it is in the rules? Thanks
@@PauloRenato23 Sorry, I do not. (And I doubt it's there if YOU didn't find it.)
All I know is what I wrote above. The campaign video shows it that way, so someone pointed out in the KS comments that that is incorrect. But the official Caezar and Kuly account responded that it was intentional, as it is supposed to be a "program" that runs sequentially.
I can only guess (and hope!) that they will make it very clear in the rulebook.
That doesn’t make sense to begin with - because, based on your example:
3+5*4 would be evaluated algebraically based on the PEMDAS rules, as:
3+(5*4)
=3+20
=23
And the other way would be:
(3+5)*4
=8*4
=32
So it would be 23; not 27 based on PEMDAS; and yes, 32 the other way.
@@JJ_TheGreat I was a math major in Uni, so I've always been challenged by simple arithmetic. 😁 (Truthfully, I have no idea how I got 27.) Point is still valid, though. Rahdo's example of scoring isn't the way the designers intended, unless they change their minds.