CO2has been a rare game for me in that my esteem for the game has risen each time I have played it. This is because the game creates a fascinating system of buttons and levers you can use to bend your opponent to your will. There is almost a psychological beauty to this game, as it becomes important to understand your opponent’s motives behind their play, as well as understanding how you react to their play. Like life, CO2rewards those who are cunning enough to get the largest slice of any given pie.
Be warned, however, that this type of depth comes at a price: and that price is commitment to the systems. The tactics and strategies for good play are not apparent at first blush. Understanding where the pressure points in the game system are easy. The difficult thing to master is how to use these pressure points effectively when coupled with erratic decision-making by your opponent. Ideally, you should have multiple plays with the same opponents, or there is a high likelihood that the game will fall flat. I have played lots of CO2 as a two player game against a single opponent and have found a fascinating, semi-opaque vehicle for player manipulation. This is not an optimization multi-player solitaire Euro. It is a hot glorious gladiatorial mess, and that is why I love it.
The economy of CO2 is a unique cyclical beast which serves to ensure tension in the gaming system even before players start to get in each other’s way. There are three distinct currencies in the game (cash, carbon emission permits (CEPs), and resource cubes). Often, you must spend one to get another which in practice means you will have to decide how best to balance your long-term plans within your short-term currency constraints. The CEPs themselves are also part of a nifty dynamic market which is subject to the whims of the players. Supply and demand sets the market value for CEPs, and like most everything in this system, can be manipulated to bring pressure onto other players or flush you with resources at the right time (and if you are a great player, you can do both simultaneously!).
The semi-cooperative nature of the game also helps create a unique two-player experience that is more akin to gaming with a larger group. Some of my favorite games rely on shared incentives and temporary alliances. My problem is that I rarely have the three or more seasoned players that are required for these types of systems to work as intended. CO2 can create comparable dynamics in a 2 player game because of the specter of shared loss. 237
In essence, the game itself acts as a third player that sometimes forces the players to collude against it. Others find this type of game distasteful because it doesn’t foster all-out competition whereas I find that the ticking-time bomb of the pollution track results in some sticky decision making. Who will shoulder the burden to continue the game? What should be my position-proportional payment to continue the game? Additionally, shared losses become shared experiences that form the cornerstone of what I consider quality gaming. They serve as launching points for post-game discussion, and provide the single point of narrative depth in an otherwise abstract experience.
What sets CO2 ahead of other games is the level of interactivity inherent in the system. I have just discussed the brinksmanship of the shared loss mechanic, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. The system exacerbates interaction through a gradual process of development. Completing a single power plant on your own will require no less than three turns. At any point, your opponent may swoop in and assume ownership of the project, but there is a cost for doing so. This sets up a rarity in gaming: take-that type play, when both perpetrator and victim can make strategic gains.
Additionally, a constrained board helps to ensure player-to-player interaction after the earliest development phases. The proposal spots provide choke points in the game to extort your opponent into proposing projects elsewhere. Controlling a high cash payout space will help exclude competition from cash-poor players. Sitting on a particular space may be a wise move if you think it will dis-incent other players from developing that continent. Should they pay to move you off the space and give you a short term boost for their long term plans? Controlling certain spaces beings to feel like a game of chicken and can allow players in weaker positions to retain area control. It can also sound their death knell if it ties up limited resources for too long. Finding the right balance is more about accurately reading your opponent than maximizing benefits from zero-sum decisions.
CO2, despite my praises, is not without its flaws. Although the shared loss can create a narrative element CO2 lacks any real narrative arc. There is also no link between the theme and the mechanics. This creates a level of abstraction that can make the rules a little more difficult to internalize. You would be hard pressed to pronounce a game of CO2 as a thematic experience. 237