A Set of Brass

(Nope, no election thoughts to share here today. Those thoughts are still coalescing. Instead, I'm sharing something I'd already written before Election Day.)

 

A while back, I wrote about Brass: Birmingham, a board game esteemed by gamers that, as I learned from replies to my post, is also highly-regarded in my online friend circle. That game is a successor to the earlier Brass: Lancashire, a game I resolved to also try out after enjoying Birmingham.

I heard from Birmingham fans when I made the original post. I said in that post that I would be trying Lancashire. So I feel obligated to write something now about Lancashire. But the truth is, I'm challenged to figure out what to say.

The two games are quite similar -- perhaps as much as 90% of the rules are identical. Lancashire still has the turn order mechanism that was great about Birmingham: spend the most money in one round, and you will go last in the next; spend the least and you'll get to act first next round. It also has the fantastic system of spending resources your opponents create, which emphasizes the need to take advantage of sudden opportunities when they appear.

There are differences between the games, but I feel like they're too subtle for someone like me -- new to both games -- to truly appreciate. The game boards that you play on show different networks of cities, and I'm certain that the way different connections relate to each other has a strategic impact. One resource of Birmingham (beer) is here replaced with a slightly different token flipping system (ports). But the tweaks didn't strike me as being better or worse than the sequel game (that I'd played first).

Lancashire did feel a bit more approachable to me -- easier to learn. I'm fairly sure that's not actually the case, rather that a transfer of learning from the other, largely similar game made it easier to find footing in this one. But then again, the personal board that each player has in Lancashire has fewer tokens on it than the Birmingham board, so it must be easier to wrap your head around. Right?

The board gaming community at large has decided that Birmingham, the sequel, is the (slightly) superior game. I've seen several enthusiasts suggest that Lancashire, the original, is the game that enables players to get up in each other's faces more. I can only say, I enjoyed both very much, and would happily play either again. I'd happily play them until I was able to develop a sense of which I thought was better -- though I wouldn't put both in my own personal collection.

At this less experienced moment? I'd give Lancashire the same mark I game Birmingham, a B+, with the feeling that repeat plays would improve that grade.