.jpg)
I enjoy writing and wish had more time for it. However, business calls and January was another stonking month for Boardgameguru. I thought the 20% Vat rate and the lack of stellar games would cause a slowdown in sales but no sign yet.
So onto games. My New Year (gaming) resolution was to rebalance my game playing towards the old and great away from the new and good. And despite only de-cellophaning three games it was a great month of gaming. Classics and older games played included Agricola, El Grande , Ra, Stone Ages (Lots) and Tribune. What i have enjoyed about playing older games is the perspective it gives you on newer releases; i think a mono diet of the latest releases can weaken the critical faculties if I am just thrill seeking from new games. A classic is acts as a reminder of what good games are meant to be.
Of the three games I opened this month 'Last Call : the bartender game' was the least enjoyable. It's nicely produced (cute booze bottles), however the game requires a little too much brain engagement for the time it's going to be played which is after a few drinks.
After listening to so many contributors to The Dice Tower put 'Defenders of the Realm' as their number one game of 2010 I thought I ought to give it an outing. I had been put off by reports of 1970's artwork and its similarity to Pandemic, then by the outrageous price of the expansion. 1970's artwork i can live with but not Pandemic. Despite 20+plays of the the co-op game i can say i am not a fan. It lacks theme (blue diseases are just not very scary), it feels more like a puzzle than a game and the specalists tend to push players into one role. I admire the game a lot - the mechanisms are innovative and clever its just one i will avoid (unsuccessfuly) if i can. Now 'Defenders of the Realm' shares the card driven 'crank up the badness' mechanism of Pandemic, it also borrows a bit from the 'creeping closer' mechanism from 'Castle Panic' - it is a whole lot more fun to play though. What makes it so is the theme and the pacing, you get a bit longer in DOTR to set your self up with cards and quests. Another difference is the characters - they are less specialised but have more interesting powers than in pandemic. The last and for me best change is that you dont spend any time trading cards - they are used to get you into the action of fighting the bosses.
'Olympus' might just be the slow burning star of Essen 2010. This is one vicious worker placement game, and thats what sets it apart from so many tech tree games of recent times. You really have to watch who is the bully in the group, turn order and actions remaining otherwise you will get clobbered. In this it reminds me a little of Through the Ages as you have to balance wanting to improve your Polis and your need to avoid having all your resources stolen by the table macho man. I fear that a lot of gamers will be put off after a first game because they will play it like the resource n' ramp up game it looks like and then see all there hard earned what and fish cross the table. However, a military strategy is not the only viable one (our Military player game last). Whay i like so much about this game is the tension between the need to produce resources and turn them into Vicory points and the need to avoid being screwed. It won't be for everybody but I am a fan.
More Essen games played
'London' was my most aniticpated Essen game. I like Martin's designs, i'm a Londoner - what could go wrong? The interaction, or lack of it, is I think the biggest problem with the game. The other mechanics are clever and interesting enough to make it worth playing however in both of my games there was little scope for negative drafting as players are focused on their own cities. In both of my games i went brown for money, then bought boroughs then went for a clean up. Both times i was paying for cards with some great brown cards, which were sitting waiting for me on the next round. Maybe with expereince players won't aloow one player to dominate one colour; however i am not sure how they could stop without clogging their hand up with cards that don't fit their strategy. Both games were also three player affairs and i wonder if it would shine as a two player where you can interact more through the drafting. Regardless of my views its been a phenomenal seller; from my limited viewpoint the biggest selling Wallace release for years.
I had read about the obsucre 2004 hit Tahuantinsuyu but not played it. Were 'Inca Empire' not a reprint (all be it with a couple of small changes and swish Zman makeover) i think this might be one of the hit's of the show. The network and building part of the game are straightforward, but the aim of feeding of other players networks makes for the most enjoyable gameplay. The aim is be as parastical as possible, while minimising the efforts of the other players to do the same to you. The other delicious part of the game is the sun cards which benefit you and another or harm your opponents.
'Habemus Pape' from DDD Verlag is a departure in that it is not designed by the Kuhn brothers. The standard of the game is just as high as previous releases ('Uruk' and 'Wiege der Renaissance') from this publisher. Over about 20 auction rounds players are trying to have the most influence over the election of the Pope. It's simple to play with subltly different routes to victory and has always produced a close finish
I had read about the obsucre 2004 hit Tahuantinsuyu but not played it. Were 'Inca Empire' not a reprint (all be it with a couple of small changes and swish Zman makeover) i think this might be one of the hit's of the show. The network and building part of the game are straightforward, but the aim of feeding of other players networks makes for the most enjoyable gameplay. The aim is be as parastical as possible, while minimising the efforts of the other players to do the same to you. The other delicious part of the game is the sun cards which benefit you and another or harm your opponents.
'Habemus Pape' from DDD Verlag is a departure in that it is not designed by the Kuhn brothers. The standard of the game is just as high as previous releases ('Uruk' and 'Wiege der Renaissance') from this publisher. Over about 20 auction rounds players are trying to have the most influence over the election of the Pope. It's simple to play with subltly different routes to victory and has always produced a close finish
Essen - serial,rather than parallel
Last year I did the Essen releases in parallel - lots of game played once, and then the self same games played again. This year i have been getting to know the games one by one in some depth: -Partly because the pressure of work means i have not had neither the time or mental capacity to absorb new rules, and partly because i have enjoyed some games so much I have played them multiple times.
It's a bit early to pass judgement on the 2010 crop however i am going to stick my neck out and say. like 2009, its an 'average to good' year; with no 'bolt from the sky' new game.
The closest to a great game so far is Mac Gerdt's Navegador. It’s his fifth Rondel game and his best. I am have played it six times and no two games have followed the same course, mainly because the game provides a framework for the player's to engage with each and not with the game system. It’s a joy to be playing a game that demands you sepnd as much time looking at your opponents boards as much as your own and having to plan and adjust depending on the players to your left and right. The maimn cause of this is the market mechanism - which is one of the best i have seen on a boardgame because it lets you transact on both 'sides' of a commodity.
The complete opposite of a game that engages you with your fellow players is 20th Century. For long periods of the game players are self absorbed in their tableau micro managing the best placement of tiles. For me it's a complete turn off and a bore. Moreover it has a UK RRP of £50 which is extortionate for what you get in the box.
'Troyes', from new publisher Pearl Games, has a very interesting game driver in the use of dice. The mechanic is engaging and really requires players to use a different sort of thought process to progress. However, you are progressing along the well worn path of fighting off bad events, building a cathedral and secret bonus cards. Like 'Egizia' and 'Vasco Da Gama' from 2009 the mechanics make the game, and whilst that might make it a good game (one i have played five times so far) i wonder about its longevity.
'Grand Cru' is from new designer Ulrich Bluhm, is a fairly brutal economic game with a weakish wine theme; 'Age of Syrah' as one of my game partners quipped comparing it to Wallace's train game. The comparison is apt and i wonder if it's unforgiving nature has caused mixed reviews? The game is a procession of small, incremental actions that if got wrong caan cost you the game. There’s no catch up mechanism and if you make the (most common )mistake of incorrectly valuing a succession of tiles you are out before you started. I have played it three times, keep thinking about the game and want to play it more often.
When i get time i will post my thoughts on 'Incan Empire', 'Habemus Pape' and 'London'
It's a bit early to pass judgement on the 2010 crop however i am going to stick my neck out and say. like 2009, its an 'average to good' year; with no 'bolt from the sky' new game.
The closest to a great game so far is Mac Gerdt's Navegador. It’s his fifth Rondel game and his best. I am have played it six times and no two games have followed the same course, mainly because the game provides a framework for the player's to engage with each and not with the game system. It’s a joy to be playing a game that demands you sepnd as much time looking at your opponents boards as much as your own and having to plan and adjust depending on the players to your left and right. The maimn cause of this is the market mechanism - which is one of the best i have seen on a boardgame because it lets you transact on both 'sides' of a commodity.
The complete opposite of a game that engages you with your fellow players is 20th Century. For long periods of the game players are self absorbed in their tableau micro managing the best placement of tiles. For me it's a complete turn off and a bore. Moreover it has a UK RRP of £50 which is extortionate for what you get in the box.
'Troyes', from new publisher Pearl Games, has a very interesting game driver in the use of dice. The mechanic is engaging and really requires players to use a different sort of thought process to progress. However, you are progressing along the well worn path of fighting off bad events, building a cathedral and secret bonus cards. Like 'Egizia' and 'Vasco Da Gama' from 2009 the mechanics make the game, and whilst that might make it a good game (one i have played five times so far) i wonder about its longevity.
'Grand Cru' is from new designer Ulrich Bluhm, is a fairly brutal economic game with a weakish wine theme; 'Age of Syrah' as one of my game partners quipped comparing it to Wallace's train game. The comparison is apt and i wonder if it's unforgiving nature has caused mixed reviews? The game is a procession of small, incremental actions that if got wrong caan cost you the game. There’s no catch up mechanism and if you make the (most common )mistake of incorrectly valuing a succession of tiles you are out before you started. I have played it three times, keep thinking about the game and want to play it more often.
When i get time i will post my thoughts on 'Incan Empire', 'Habemus Pape' and 'London'
Era of Inventions - a review by Neil Walters
This is one of about a dozen games I had earmarked on my shortlist of highly probables before I went to Essen. I had already read the rules online so I had a good idea of how it played, and a game about the development and production of inventions at the turn of the 20th century was thematically appealing and unusual as well. I’ve now played this game three times, a 4 player and a 5 player twice. All have been different and although there is nothing significantly new in the game play, there is a subtle re-mixing of the usual ingredients that gives the game a different feel that I like. The box advertises a playing time of 90 minutes and for once such a claim is pretty much spot on.
Era of Inventions is a game for between 3 to 5 players that uses that quite recent favourite and well trusted euro mechanic of “action selection” (“worker placement” if you prefer). Describing how the game works is simply done. You place two action tokens (three in a 3 player game) one at a time in an empty slot in one of the six action areas on the board. Each action area has two slots available, so twelve slots all told. You then carry out those actions one at a time in any order. Both activities are carried out in strict player order. In addition, players also start the game with between one and five extra action tokens again depending upon the number of players. One of these can be used at any time and in any area after a regular action. Apart from the odd bit of end of turn tidying up and preparations for the following round that’s all there is to it. In a sentence, stick your tokens down and do the actions. Which is actually quite a pleasant change.
The simplicity of the mechanics leaves you free to concentrate on the interesting bits such as deciding what your best selections will be bearing in mind what other players are doing, your position within the turn order and how best to manage your scarce resources. Turn order is important as first player rotates clockwise after each round. This means that the first player in turn one will be the last player is turn two, so there is definitely an element of forward planning required here, as actions that you would ideally like to take next turn will not necessarily be available. For me this adds to the challenge.
The idea of the game is to turn your scarce resources into a combination of factories (to produce different resources), designing new inventions (for mainly VPs or possibly cash) and producing the aforesaid new inventions (for VPs or cash). It is not sufficient to concentrate just on one of these activities alone, but equally spreading your actions too thinly across all three activities will likely dilute your overall potential. There is a finite number of regular actions in the game so you need to make them count.
Two of the action areas relate to factories, one to buy factories and the other that allows you to produce with all the factories you currently own. Two more areas specifically relate to the inventions. The first is the design area where you make your claim for one of nine different inventions ranging from a typewriter up to an aeroplane; the latter takes more resources to develop but earns far more prestige (VPs) as you might expect. Players can also develop a secondary (upgrade) of the same invention for VPs and possibly cash later on if it is produced. An alternative action in this same area is to buy patents for instant and possible end of game VPs and also gives some protection if you opponents produce fakes of your own inventions. Each invention is represented by three cards (two real and one fake) and once developed these will be shuffled together into the mix of existing invention cards for inclusion in the next round. This is where the second invention area comes in. Seven invention cards are laid out in the ‘produce inventions’ area at the start of a round which are available for production by any player. A nice feature here is that you will earn extra VPs if another player produces one of your inventions. However one of the things that you cannot guarantee is that your own inventions will turn up. This random element might bother some, but is not an issue for me.
As to the final two action areas, one lets you buy groups of resources for cash while the other is an exchange mechanism for trading up your cash and/or resources in exchange for other resources, cash, VPs and even additional extra action tokens. As an alternative to exchanging, you could just acquire a ‘development cog’ (required for developing inventions) instead.
Along with many other games, this is an exercise in efficiency and timing, and a very good one at that. I have seen a game won with loads of factories, and in contrast another where the winner has not bought or produced any factories at all. But for some reason Era of Inventions has sadly been lost in the plethora of new Essen releases. Some criticism has been levelled centred on games that people have played just the once with 5 players, and mainly around the assertion (misplaced I think) that players sitting in 4th and 5th position at the start of the game are at an acute disadvantage. While I don’t agree this is necessarily the case (two of my games have in fact been won by the player in 4th start position), I do think it is unfortunate that new designer Anthony Daamen advertised the game for five players. Had he stuck to a 3 to 4 player format and posted a health warning if you wanted try it out with five (much as Uwe Rosenberg did with Le Havre) then I feel Eof I would be getting a more positive press.
It is fair to say though that the five player version is a lot more challenging to play and less forgiving on mistakes. Here you have 20 regular actions total plus just the one extra action token, whereas in a four player you have 16 regular actions and five extra actions. Without knowing the reason why there should be such a disparity, it is clear that the four player version allows far more flexibility not only from the increased number of extra actions available but also because there is less congestion for available action slots. In three player with its whopping 27 regular actions and three extra actions, I suspect that the game is likely to be even more forgiving to play. I’m now really keen to try the game with this number.
A final word on the artwork and components. The graphics are a touch on the wrong side of arty for my tastes. The action slots blend in with the artwork on the board and could have been a little more conspicuous. For clarity, some of the colour combinations on the wooden bits could have been better (the white and natural colour resource cubes for example), but you get used to it after a couple of games.
These minor reservations don’t detract and ultimately the game’s the thing. As a Winsome season ticket holder for many years, you’ll know what I mean. Hopefully the above will give you a good idea of whether the game is for you. I’ve really enjoyed my games so far and I’m looking forward to playing again soon.
Paul's note : Era of Inventions was published in a limited edition English run of 500 copies that sold out at Essen 2010. I am selling the German version, will provide English rules adn as the game is language independent thats all you need to get playing
Era of Inventions is a game for between 3 to 5 players that uses that quite recent favourite and well trusted euro mechanic of “action selection” (“worker placement” if you prefer). Describing how the game works is simply done. You place two action tokens (three in a 3 player game) one at a time in an empty slot in one of the six action areas on the board. Each action area has two slots available, so twelve slots all told. You then carry out those actions one at a time in any order. Both activities are carried out in strict player order. In addition, players also start the game with between one and five extra action tokens again depending upon the number of players. One of these can be used at any time and in any area after a regular action. Apart from the odd bit of end of turn tidying up and preparations for the following round that’s all there is to it. In a sentence, stick your tokens down and do the actions. Which is actually quite a pleasant change.
The simplicity of the mechanics leaves you free to concentrate on the interesting bits such as deciding what your best selections will be bearing in mind what other players are doing, your position within the turn order and how best to manage your scarce resources. Turn order is important as first player rotates clockwise after each round. This means that the first player in turn one will be the last player is turn two, so there is definitely an element of forward planning required here, as actions that you would ideally like to take next turn will not necessarily be available. For me this adds to the challenge.
The idea of the game is to turn your scarce resources into a combination of factories (to produce different resources), designing new inventions (for mainly VPs or possibly cash) and producing the aforesaid new inventions (for VPs or cash). It is not sufficient to concentrate just on one of these activities alone, but equally spreading your actions too thinly across all three activities will likely dilute your overall potential. There is a finite number of regular actions in the game so you need to make them count.
Two of the action areas relate to factories, one to buy factories and the other that allows you to produce with all the factories you currently own. Two more areas specifically relate to the inventions. The first is the design area where you make your claim for one of nine different inventions ranging from a typewriter up to an aeroplane; the latter takes more resources to develop but earns far more prestige (VPs) as you might expect. Players can also develop a secondary (upgrade) of the same invention for VPs and possibly cash later on if it is produced. An alternative action in this same area is to buy patents for instant and possible end of game VPs and also gives some protection if you opponents produce fakes of your own inventions. Each invention is represented by three cards (two real and one fake) and once developed these will be shuffled together into the mix of existing invention cards for inclusion in the next round. This is where the second invention area comes in. Seven invention cards are laid out in the ‘produce inventions’ area at the start of a round which are available for production by any player. A nice feature here is that you will earn extra VPs if another player produces one of your inventions. However one of the things that you cannot guarantee is that your own inventions will turn up. This random element might bother some, but is not an issue for me.
As to the final two action areas, one lets you buy groups of resources for cash while the other is an exchange mechanism for trading up your cash and/or resources in exchange for other resources, cash, VPs and even additional extra action tokens. As an alternative to exchanging, you could just acquire a ‘development cog’ (required for developing inventions) instead.
Along with many other games, this is an exercise in efficiency and timing, and a very good one at that. I have seen a game won with loads of factories, and in contrast another where the winner has not bought or produced any factories at all. But for some reason Era of Inventions has sadly been lost in the plethora of new Essen releases. Some criticism has been levelled centred on games that people have played just the once with 5 players, and mainly around the assertion (misplaced I think) that players sitting in 4th and 5th position at the start of the game are at an acute disadvantage. While I don’t agree this is necessarily the case (two of my games have in fact been won by the player in 4th start position), I do think it is unfortunate that new designer Anthony Daamen advertised the game for five players. Had he stuck to a 3 to 4 player format and posted a health warning if you wanted try it out with five (much as Uwe Rosenberg did with Le Havre) then I feel Eof I would be getting a more positive press.
It is fair to say though that the five player version is a lot more challenging to play and less forgiving on mistakes. Here you have 20 regular actions total plus just the one extra action token, whereas in a four player you have 16 regular actions and five extra actions. Without knowing the reason why there should be such a disparity, it is clear that the four player version allows far more flexibility not only from the increased number of extra actions available but also because there is less congestion for available action slots. In three player with its whopping 27 regular actions and three extra actions, I suspect that the game is likely to be even more forgiving to play. I’m now really keen to try the game with this number.
A final word on the artwork and components. The graphics are a touch on the wrong side of arty for my tastes. The action slots blend in with the artwork on the board and could have been a little more conspicuous. For clarity, some of the colour combinations on the wooden bits could have been better (the white and natural colour resource cubes for example), but you get used to it after a couple of games.
These minor reservations don’t detract and ultimately the game’s the thing. As a Winsome season ticket holder for many years, you’ll know what I mean. Hopefully the above will give you a good idea of whether the game is for you. I’ve really enjoyed my games so far and I’m looking forward to playing again soon.
Paul's note : Era of Inventions was published in a limited edition English run of 500 copies that sold out at Essen 2010. I am selling the German version, will provide English rules adn as the game is language independent thats all you need to get playing
Railroad Barons - a review by Nigel Buckle
Usually I don’t bother to go into details of game mechanics in a review, but the rulebook for this game is so awful [Paul's note: there is a new set of rules available for download http://lookout-games.de/wp-content/uploads/RB_rules_new.zip] I think it is worth doing so in this case, just so the readers know which rules I was using to play the game that led to this review! I’ll give my thoughts first and then an overview of the rules after for those who are interested.
This is advertised as an 18xx game for 2 people playable in 45 minutes – and it comes in a small box. You get a deck of cards, some wood markers a stock price track and some nice paper money (although I’m sure many 18xx fans would substitute this for poker chips).
The rulebook that comes with the game assumes you know 18xx games, if you don’t it will be rather incomprehensible, and even if you do it will depend on which 18xx games you’ve played. It certainly took me a little while to figure out how to play. There is a revised rulebook on Lookout’s website – but even that is missing a rather crucial rule (you can pay for a railroad company from your own cash if your holding company has insufficient funds, but this is optional – a rather different case to most 18xx games).
I seriously doubt the 45 minute play time – unless both are a seasoned 18xx players and able to calculate income (you’ll have to make calculations such as 23 x 7 and so on) or have a spreadsheet or calculator to hand. Both games I’ve played have taken over 90 minutes.
If you are a fan of 18xx games and want the ‘experience’ of such a game for 2 players in a relatively (in terms of 18xx) short time this game is definitely worth a look – but it does depend what aspects of 18xx you like. If it is the laying of track and building up of routes then this game is not for you – there is no board play at all. Similarly if you like the stock manipulations you’ll likely to find the rather static stock market a bit lacking. What aspect of 18xx is covered then if it’s neither the stock market nor the track building! Well it’s the feel of investing in companies and making decisions about what trains (railways in this version) to buy, when to payout, when to take in and which shares to invest in.
There is an initial auction of investors (the replacement for private companies) – there are 5 but only 4 will feature in the game. Each has a cash value and a special power, because the game is only 2 players rather than an auction one player selects which investor (and in the advanced game the value) and the other player either takes the card for the special power OR the cash value, with the first player getting the other.
The train limit and company operations have been cleverly abstracted with a set of network tokens – you can permanently use one per operating round as a $10 boost to revenue (a bit like a station marker) or you use them to indicate how many railway companies you can purchase this round, or how many railway companies you can own at the end of the round. This is very slick – and different companies have a different number of tokens. It gives you some difficult choices, do you increase revenue at the expense of flexibility over manipulating trains (if you own two holding companies you can switch railways like you can switch trains in other 18xx games).
At the start of each stock round (you have a stock round then 2 operating rounds) to top railway company is removed from the game, so even if the players are not forcing a ‘train rush’ (railway rush in this case) the game will. Start of the game the railway companies are level ‘2’ and generate $50, once these first 4 have been purchased (or removed) then the ‘flip’ railways are available, these are level ‘2’ on one side and level ‘3’ the other, you decide which you want (the level ‘3’ costs more, and is not as good as a full level ‘3’). Once they are all purchased (or removed) then you have level 3, then flip 3/4. Once the first 4 (either flipped to its 4 side or a full level 4) is purchased or removed all the level 2 railways are obsolete and removed. Next are 4/5 flip, then 5, then 6 (which remove the level 3’s), then 8’s (which remove the level 4s). The 8’s are also flip cards – either a $800 railway wit $300 income or a $400 railway with $100 income.
Rather than the typical 20% director share and 8 10% shares, this game each holding company has a 40% director share, a 30%, 20% and 10% share - which makes for some interesting purchase decisions as you have a limit of 9 certificates so really want the higher % shares.
Overall, for a low component, low cost, very portable card game this is a surprisingly good take on the 18xx experience. I was pleasantly surprised – and keen to try it again, initially I thought the limited number of companies and simple stock market would lead to a very shallow game with little re-playability; but my first two games were very different, and we were using the ‘first game’ suggestion of fixed value for the investors. One component lacking is a priority marker, even though the rules refer to it (as does an investor card), we just used a pawn from my spares box.
I just wish the system was extended to support more players, as it is an interesting economic game. I recommend it for fans of games that need thinking and calculation, but be prepared to work through the rules several times before trying to play your first game!
Overview of the rules:
Setup – sort the railroads alphabetically. Each player gets $200. Auction 4 of the investors, the remaining one is returned to the box and both players get its printed value.
Game Play – Stock Round, followed by 2 Operating Rounds, until a Holding Company reaches $350 value, at which point the game ends at the end of that Operating round. Player with the most cash (in hand and share value) wins.
Stock Round – Remove a railway company (not the first round), then starting with the holder of the priority each player may first sell any number of shares they like (if the director sells the price drops 1 box, can’t sell if 50% of shares of that company are in the bank). Then may buy a share (but not in holding companies they’ve sold this round). First share bought must be the 40% director share. The company floats (so operates) when 50% is purchased. Certificate limit is 9.
Operating Round – Companies operate in a fixed order. First place tokens – 1 (maximum) can be converted to a network token, rest are either on a + space or a v space. Then calculate revenue = value of railways + any investor held + network tokens, revenue is either taken in (company receives all of it) or paid out to share holders. If paid out stock price increases one box. Then railways can be purchased and/or investors taken (one per + token), then railway limit is checked, company can hold one railway per v token (excess removed from the game).
This is advertised as an 18xx game for 2 people playable in 45 minutes – and it comes in a small box. You get a deck of cards, some wood markers a stock price track and some nice paper money (although I’m sure many 18xx fans would substitute this for poker chips).
The rulebook that comes with the game assumes you know 18xx games, if you don’t it will be rather incomprehensible, and even if you do it will depend on which 18xx games you’ve played. It certainly took me a little while to figure out how to play. There is a revised rulebook on Lookout’s website – but even that is missing a rather crucial rule (you can pay for a railroad company from your own cash if your holding company has insufficient funds, but this is optional – a rather different case to most 18xx games).
I seriously doubt the 45 minute play time – unless both are a seasoned 18xx players and able to calculate income (you’ll have to make calculations such as 23 x 7 and so on) or have a spreadsheet or calculator to hand. Both games I’ve played have taken over 90 minutes.
If you are a fan of 18xx games and want the ‘experience’ of such a game for 2 players in a relatively (in terms of 18xx) short time this game is definitely worth a look – but it does depend what aspects of 18xx you like. If it is the laying of track and building up of routes then this game is not for you – there is no board play at all. Similarly if you like the stock manipulations you’ll likely to find the rather static stock market a bit lacking. What aspect of 18xx is covered then if it’s neither the stock market nor the track building! Well it’s the feel of investing in companies and making decisions about what trains (railways in this version) to buy, when to payout, when to take in and which shares to invest in.
There is an initial auction of investors (the replacement for private companies) – there are 5 but only 4 will feature in the game. Each has a cash value and a special power, because the game is only 2 players rather than an auction one player selects which investor (and in the advanced game the value) and the other player either takes the card for the special power OR the cash value, with the first player getting the other.
The train limit and company operations have been cleverly abstracted with a set of network tokens – you can permanently use one per operating round as a $10 boost to revenue (a bit like a station marker) or you use them to indicate how many railway companies you can purchase this round, or how many railway companies you can own at the end of the round. This is very slick – and different companies have a different number of tokens. It gives you some difficult choices, do you increase revenue at the expense of flexibility over manipulating trains (if you own two holding companies you can switch railways like you can switch trains in other 18xx games).
At the start of each stock round (you have a stock round then 2 operating rounds) to top railway company is removed from the game, so even if the players are not forcing a ‘train rush’ (railway rush in this case) the game will. Start of the game the railway companies are level ‘2’ and generate $50, once these first 4 have been purchased (or removed) then the ‘flip’ railways are available, these are level ‘2’ on one side and level ‘3’ the other, you decide which you want (the level ‘3’ costs more, and is not as good as a full level ‘3’). Once they are all purchased (or removed) then you have level 3, then flip 3/4. Once the first 4 (either flipped to its 4 side or a full level 4) is purchased or removed all the level 2 railways are obsolete and removed. Next are 4/5 flip, then 5, then 6 (which remove the level 3’s), then 8’s (which remove the level 4s). The 8’s are also flip cards – either a $800 railway wit $300 income or a $400 railway with $100 income.
Rather than the typical 20% director share and 8 10% shares, this game each holding company has a 40% director share, a 30%, 20% and 10% share - which makes for some interesting purchase decisions as you have a limit of 9 certificates so really want the higher % shares.
Overall, for a low component, low cost, very portable card game this is a surprisingly good take on the 18xx experience. I was pleasantly surprised – and keen to try it again, initially I thought the limited number of companies and simple stock market would lead to a very shallow game with little re-playability; but my first two games were very different, and we were using the ‘first game’ suggestion of fixed value for the investors. One component lacking is a priority marker, even though the rules refer to it (as does an investor card), we just used a pawn from my spares box.
I just wish the system was extended to support more players, as it is an interesting economic game. I recommend it for fans of games that need thinking and calculation, but be prepared to work through the rules several times before trying to play your first game!
Overview of the rules:
Setup – sort the railroads alphabetically. Each player gets $200. Auction 4 of the investors, the remaining one is returned to the box and both players get its printed value.
Game Play – Stock Round, followed by 2 Operating Rounds, until a Holding Company reaches $350 value, at which point the game ends at the end of that Operating round. Player with the most cash (in hand and share value) wins.
Stock Round – Remove a railway company (not the first round), then starting with the holder of the priority each player may first sell any number of shares they like (if the director sells the price drops 1 box, can’t sell if 50% of shares of that company are in the bank). Then may buy a share (but not in holding companies they’ve sold this round). First share bought must be the 40% director share. The company floats (so operates) when 50% is purchased. Certificate limit is 9.
Operating Round – Companies operate in a fixed order. First place tokens – 1 (maximum) can be converted to a network token, rest are either on a + space or a v space. Then calculate revenue = value of railways + any investor held + network tokens, revenue is either taken in (company receives all of it) or paid out to share holders. If paid out stock price increases one box. Then railways can be purchased and/or investors taken (one per + token), then railway limit is checked, company can hold one railway per v token (excess removed from the game).
Navegador - a review by Neil Walters
As a fan of the rondel mechanic, there was little chance that I was not going to like this game. The only question for me then was, what does Navegedor add to the series, particularly compared to Hamburgum to which it more closely resembles in play, to make it worthwhile buying or indeed playing. Without knowing the precise answer why, I do feel this is a better game than its predecessor. The only thing that I can possibly pin it down on is that Hamburgum seems a tad too scripted in what actions you need to take to do well. From plays so far this certainly hasn’t been the case with Navegador. What I am absolutely certain about however is that I’ve already played Navegador twice as much as ever I did Hamburgum in the four weeks since its Essen release, so that must say something I suppose.
Many of you reading this will know the rondel series well, but for the uninitiated it is a very clever but simple device for controlling all the player’s actions. It consists of a circle drawn on the game board divided into eight segments. With the exception of one particular segment, the Market action, which occurs twice, each of the other six are completely different. In your turn you advance your marker up to three segments (you can move further but it’s prohibitively expensive to do) and complete the action on the segment you finally decide to land on. There is no blocking so you have the freedom to plan your future moves as you wish. It also has the advantage that you can see what your fellow players are up to as well. Tension comes with those actions where there is an incentive to get to a particular segment first, as some actions have a limited number of resources or benefit to pick up, or the resources become increasingly more expensive as cheaper ones have already been taken. In my view it is one of the most innovative mechanics to have come out in the last ten years. It’s clean, simple and totally transparent with the added attraction of very little down time in play. Even in five player games it’s your turn again before you know it.
But it’s not good enough having a great mechanic if the rest of the game doesn’t cut the mustard. No fears here either. Set in the 15th century, you are a Portuguese explorer building a colonial empire. You can explore the seas and oceans going east, found colonies, sell sugar, gold and spices for profits to invest in ever more ships to continue your quest eastwards. Or not. You could also be that “stay nearer to home type” of explorer. After all sailing long distances is time consuming and expensive. So why not hang back a little and snaffle up a few colonies that the others have left behind, and perhaps build lots of factories to process the goods for lots of cash instead. Both alternatives might work and can work. I’ve seen both happen successfully. Along the way you can also build churches to recruit workers, shipyards to build your ships and also obtain privileges for instant cash and future victory point potential. It is a game of maximising the efficiency of your actions both in your selection on the rondel but also the volume of benefits you can manage to reap in a single turn. It is also a game where you have to keep a close eye on what the other players are doing, as the market for selling and processing goods is dynamic. Prices could easily have dropped by the time your turn comes round again. You need to be particularly aware of what your right hand neighbour is selling, and be prepared to adopt a flexible strategy. All this adds up to just my type of game.
On the components front, the wooden and cardboard playing pieces are what you would expect of a modern euro game. The artwork on the board is the very best combination of great to look at and total clarity. To be honest, I’m really struggling to come up with any negatives to say about Navegador. There may be some, but if so they’re not immediately apparent to me. Navegador is not totally original of course, but my feeling is that there is a natural progression in the rondel series and on this evidence the games keep improving as they go along. If you liked Hamburgum, you will certainly enjoy Navegador. If you haven’t tried any of the rondel series before, then I think you should consider treating yourself to this one.
As a footnote, I also need to play Hamburgum again as well just to check it out and remind myself what it does different, perhaps with the new Antwerp expansion that apparently includes some new rules. If I do, I’ll let you know.
Guru note : I am in total agreement with Neil. Navegador is my most played Essen game, every game has evolved differemtly, all have come in at about 90 minutes. The best Mac Gerdts design so far.
Many of you reading this will know the rondel series well, but for the uninitiated it is a very clever but simple device for controlling all the player’s actions. It consists of a circle drawn on the game board divided into eight segments. With the exception of one particular segment, the Market action, which occurs twice, each of the other six are completely different. In your turn you advance your marker up to three segments (you can move further but it’s prohibitively expensive to do) and complete the action on the segment you finally decide to land on. There is no blocking so you have the freedom to plan your future moves as you wish. It also has the advantage that you can see what your fellow players are up to as well. Tension comes with those actions where there is an incentive to get to a particular segment first, as some actions have a limited number of resources or benefit to pick up, or the resources become increasingly more expensive as cheaper ones have already been taken. In my view it is one of the most innovative mechanics to have come out in the last ten years. It’s clean, simple and totally transparent with the added attraction of very little down time in play. Even in five player games it’s your turn again before you know it.
But it’s not good enough having a great mechanic if the rest of the game doesn’t cut the mustard. No fears here either. Set in the 15th century, you are a Portuguese explorer building a colonial empire. You can explore the seas and oceans going east, found colonies, sell sugar, gold and spices for profits to invest in ever more ships to continue your quest eastwards. Or not. You could also be that “stay nearer to home type” of explorer. After all sailing long distances is time consuming and expensive. So why not hang back a little and snaffle up a few colonies that the others have left behind, and perhaps build lots of factories to process the goods for lots of cash instead. Both alternatives might work and can work. I’ve seen both happen successfully. Along the way you can also build churches to recruit workers, shipyards to build your ships and also obtain privileges for instant cash and future victory point potential. It is a game of maximising the efficiency of your actions both in your selection on the rondel but also the volume of benefits you can manage to reap in a single turn. It is also a game where you have to keep a close eye on what the other players are doing, as the market for selling and processing goods is dynamic. Prices could easily have dropped by the time your turn comes round again. You need to be particularly aware of what your right hand neighbour is selling, and be prepared to adopt a flexible strategy. All this adds up to just my type of game.
On the components front, the wooden and cardboard playing pieces are what you would expect of a modern euro game. The artwork on the board is the very best combination of great to look at and total clarity. To be honest, I’m really struggling to come up with any negatives to say about Navegador. There may be some, but if so they’re not immediately apparent to me. Navegador is not totally original of course, but my feeling is that there is a natural progression in the rondel series and on this evidence the games keep improving as they go along. If you liked Hamburgum, you will certainly enjoy Navegador. If you haven’t tried any of the rondel series before, then I think you should consider treating yourself to this one.
As a footnote, I also need to play Hamburgum again as well just to check it out and remind myself what it does different, perhaps with the new Antwerp expansion that apparently includes some new rules. If I do, I’ll let you know.
Guru note : I am in total agreement with Neil. Navegador is my most played Essen game, every game has evolved differemtly, all have come in at about 90 minutes. The best Mac Gerdts design so far.
Civilization the board game
Thoughts, feelings and first impressions after three plays
I had a very long break from boardgaming, not long after Francis Tresham’s masterpiece Civilisation was released, throughout my twenty year long board gaming hiatus Sid Meier’s Pc series was my game of choice, and when I got back into board gaming iIfelt at home because so many of the choices, attempts at efficiency and conflicting prirorites i had enjoyed in the PC game were present in modern board games – and even better you got to play with real human beings. For me a board game of Civilisation is the perfect subject matter, marrying my love of this hobby with nostalgia for night long sessions in front of the PC racing to build my space ship before the Greeks.
Components
You have watched Drakkenstrike's video so you have a good idea of what to expect in the box. There’s lot of it, its nicely produced and when you get it on the table the overall effect if spectacular. The tiles create a varied landscape filled with cities, buildings, scouts and army figures. Each player needs a fair amount of space for their Civilisation card, pyramid, tokens and army unit cards.
Rule book
Its 32 pages long, its one of the best from Fantasy Flight that I have read and after your first game you won’t have to refer to it more than once or twice. The player aids that come with the game have a useful summary of actions and unit costs; I would like to have seen a player booklet with the techs, wonders and buildings described because until you know the game you are going to spend a lot of time leaning over the board looking at the options. I have printed out Kopernicus’s summary and I’d recommend doing the same, there’s a lot of information to take in and having a print out is much easier than constantly having to squint at the cards or put your arm pit in your neighbours face stretching across the table.
The game
The mechanics and actions are straightforward, however when you sit down to play the game you might now how to do it but you don’t know what to do with it. I was immediately struck by the similarity but difference with the computer game experience. You are in a very familiar world but whereas I might restart my sandbox Civilisation game on the PC on a whim, here you can’t – there’s almost instant pressure to get things right and your very visible opponents sitting a few feet away are plotting your downfall.
Each player chooses one of six civilisations to play, grabs there starting tile and slots on to the world of tiles. The Civilisations have different benefits and starting technologies, in the games i have played the winners have played to the strength of their civilisation, for example the Germans start with an extra two armies and gain a unit card whenever they unlock a tech that gives them a military upgrade - this points them towards a military victory, the Romans move up the culture track when they build a wonder or found a city so a cultural victory beckons. However, it’s not that straightforward, advancing towards all of the victory conditions provides its own benefit and putting all of your ‘meepeggs’ in one basket can backfire, i think it’s worth while keeping your options open until the finish line is in sight. A tech victory is within sight of all the players, and you are not going to progress quickly without adding to your pyramid so it’s one that you always have to keep moving towards. In my three games victory has come by Tech, Culture and Military – no one has got close to a coin victory and i suspect it’s the hardest to pull off.
I won;t going into detail about the game mechanics, suffice to say you build cities, trade with other players (this bit has been fun as players swap resources or agree who will be the beneficiary of a tech effect that helps two players), build stuff or collect stuff with your cities, move and fight, then research one tech. Repeat.
What’s obvious and what’s not
In my first game (and I have seen the same in people I have taught the game to) there seems to be some obvious things you need to do – like the computer game. The first thing is to get some buildings in the 8 square outskirts for your city to boost trade, hammers or culture. It also seems quite important to get technologies out as quickly as you can and to get the second city founded asap. Following these ambitions is not going to hurt you, however it’s not a disaster if someone has got a jump on trade production or hammers because there are two very powerful investments you can make for the future which are not obvious. The first is moving up the culture track, the first time i saw this very long long ladder to victory I wrote it off as too difficult to achieve and the action of devoting your city to the arts as time wasted that could be better spent on improving my industrial machine. I was wrong! Every step on the culture track rewards you with either a culture card or a great person. Both are powerful – and the further you get up the culture track the more powerful the cards become – they give you resources (more on these later), they allow you to swap techs, the can kill off opponents units, impoverish their lands. Moreover they are kept hidden so they have the advantage of surprise. ‘Great Persons’ work like buildings, there are six types and they really give a boost to the city they are placed in. The second thing you can do at the beginning is explore the map and take down the huts. The huts have a random resource which you claim when you move into a hut space and these resources can influence which techs you are going to want to research.
The three options you may take with your city is to build (a unit, a wonder or a building), ‘devote to the arts’ which collects culture tokens or collect a resource from within the city boundaries. In my first game I focused on buildings, however using one city as a feeder by collecting resources from its boundary or scouts you have sent out can feed other Cities Wonder building or culture leaps. Having a city surrounded by buildings helps with trade and hammers, but the resource effects on the tech cards can be a subtler and more efficient way of achieving the same end
What’s not obvious is the tech tree, there a mind boggling 36 to choose from, and most have multiple effects; either unlocking the advance that allows you to buy specific buildings or instantly upgrading them, unlocking new government forms, upgrading your army units, increasing your culture hand size, allowing you to spend a resource or multiple resources to some effect – some technologies do multiples of the above. You also have to plan in advance what techs you want to use, because the tech victory requires you to reach the fifth level of the pyramid your selections become more crucial the further you go up – choosing five out level one techs is not too difficult but you only really have three choices at level three and they must all count. I find myself constantly referring to what techs I have and the tech chart to plan it out as efficiently as possible, you don’t want too many duplicates so researching at techs that incrementally upgrade your units from 1 to 2 to 3 can be wasteful (unless of course there is another effect that you need). In all the games I have played I have missed a few opportunities at some point because by the time you are at level three you might have 6 or 7 resource fired options available to you.
The Czech elephant in the room
Should I face execution on the morrow my last request will be for a Steak and the gaoler to sit down for a game of ‘Through the Ages’. It’s my favourite game, my only 10. Civilization is the officially licensed game of the computer series, Through the Ages is its unlicensed heart and soul in board game form. They are very different games, with a different approach to creating the Civilisation experience; Fantasy Flight’s franchise game feels more like the recreation it is, ‘Through the Ages’ a re-imagining. Combat in Through the Ages is a brutal, Zero sum, affair, it can wipe you out of the game and sometimes it is difficult to spot it coming or prepare for it whereas in Civilisation you see it marching across the board towards you, you can delay it, you can build up, hell you might even get lucky with the card draw. What both games share is a tempo increase towards the end, in ‘Through the Ages’ you are seeding the deck with end game bonuses in Civilization the options explode as more techs layer on to your pyramid and you start to accelerate towards one of the victory conditions. The biggest difference between the two is the need to live within your means, in ‘Though the Ages’ there’s lots of it in Civilisation there’s none. Where TTA is closer to the Pc game in that you have to keep your population happy, fed and plan production so you don’t go corrupt – all when known to the PC devotee. In Civilisation these are taken out of the game, but it’s no bad thing as you have so much else to deal with and my thematic rationalisation is that all I do is set with the constraints of living of a balanced society. There are some small constraints in that if i can only build one starred building (Temple, Barracks, Market) in each city and the level two technology ‘Democracy’ prohibits me from attacking other cities (if only in real life....). In summary ‘Through the Ages’ feels like a Euro, Civilisation is a step closer to the dark side.
Flaws and the lack of them
I have not found any to be honest. It is, in part, a multiplayer wargame, so there is always the problem A bashes B then C bashes A and D has a right good laugh about it. There’s a steep to vertical strategy learning curve – for a four hour game this might be too much for the ‘play it twice’ and move on brigade, the flip of that is that after 3 plays and 12 hours I feel like I am scratching the surface and I want to dig deep into what this game has to offer. Another thing I have noticed slowing up play is the amount of counting trade symbols and hammers players have to do. You should be able to remember it from turn to turn but with so much else going on every turn is Groundhog Day. These are not really flaws, more reasons some people might want to steer clear of the game. I have not found the combat part of the game that exciting (apart from the end game capital city bash) , though it’s easy to grasp and does not take very long. I think given the game takes a long time to play its as good a system as could be fitted into a reasonable game length.
Conclusion
Fantasy Flight makes great games, but i don’t play them very often. I recognise that they are imaginative, often innovative and well produced. My problem is the subject matter – i am really not interested in the fortunes of the inhabitants of Terrinoth or the Warhammer universe, and though, for example, ‘Chaos in the Old World’is a stand out game I battle with indifference towards the’ Nurgle’ and friends. But I do care about the Egyptians, Romans and the rest, and the endless bits and pieces that accompany a big FF game make sense to me in Civilisation. I think Euro gamers whose gaming imagination is engaged by the historical and the real will enjoy civilisation – and if they have avoided FF games to date are in for epic treat. And the rest of the world you know already you are going to love this game
I had a very long break from boardgaming, not long after Francis Tresham’s masterpiece Civilisation was released, throughout my twenty year long board gaming hiatus Sid Meier’s Pc series was my game of choice, and when I got back into board gaming iIfelt at home because so many of the choices, attempts at efficiency and conflicting prirorites i had enjoyed in the PC game were present in modern board games – and even better you got to play with real human beings. For me a board game of Civilisation is the perfect subject matter, marrying my love of this hobby with nostalgia for night long sessions in front of the PC racing to build my space ship before the Greeks.
Components
You have watched Drakkenstrike's video so you have a good idea of what to expect in the box. There’s lot of it, its nicely produced and when you get it on the table the overall effect if spectacular. The tiles create a varied landscape filled with cities, buildings, scouts and army figures. Each player needs a fair amount of space for their Civilisation card, pyramid, tokens and army unit cards.
Rule book
Its 32 pages long, its one of the best from Fantasy Flight that I have read and after your first game you won’t have to refer to it more than once or twice. The player aids that come with the game have a useful summary of actions and unit costs; I would like to have seen a player booklet with the techs, wonders and buildings described because until you know the game you are going to spend a lot of time leaning over the board looking at the options. I have printed out Kopernicus’s summary and I’d recommend doing the same, there’s a lot of information to take in and having a print out is much easier than constantly having to squint at the cards or put your arm pit in your neighbours face stretching across the table.
The game
The mechanics and actions are straightforward, however when you sit down to play the game you might now how to do it but you don’t know what to do with it. I was immediately struck by the similarity but difference with the computer game experience. You are in a very familiar world but whereas I might restart my sandbox Civilisation game on the PC on a whim, here you can’t – there’s almost instant pressure to get things right and your very visible opponents sitting a few feet away are plotting your downfall.
Each player chooses one of six civilisations to play, grabs there starting tile and slots on to the world of tiles. The Civilisations have different benefits and starting technologies, in the games i have played the winners have played to the strength of their civilisation, for example the Germans start with an extra two armies and gain a unit card whenever they unlock a tech that gives them a military upgrade - this points them towards a military victory, the Romans move up the culture track when they build a wonder or found a city so a cultural victory beckons. However, it’s not that straightforward, advancing towards all of the victory conditions provides its own benefit and putting all of your ‘meepeggs’ in one basket can backfire, i think it’s worth while keeping your options open until the finish line is in sight. A tech victory is within sight of all the players, and you are not going to progress quickly without adding to your pyramid so it’s one that you always have to keep moving towards. In my three games victory has come by Tech, Culture and Military – no one has got close to a coin victory and i suspect it’s the hardest to pull off.
I won;t going into detail about the game mechanics, suffice to say you build cities, trade with other players (this bit has been fun as players swap resources or agree who will be the beneficiary of a tech effect that helps two players), build stuff or collect stuff with your cities, move and fight, then research one tech. Repeat.
What’s obvious and what’s not
In my first game (and I have seen the same in people I have taught the game to) there seems to be some obvious things you need to do – like the computer game. The first thing is to get some buildings in the 8 square outskirts for your city to boost trade, hammers or culture. It also seems quite important to get technologies out as quickly as you can and to get the second city founded asap. Following these ambitions is not going to hurt you, however it’s not a disaster if someone has got a jump on trade production or hammers because there are two very powerful investments you can make for the future which are not obvious. The first is moving up the culture track, the first time i saw this very long long ladder to victory I wrote it off as too difficult to achieve and the action of devoting your city to the arts as time wasted that could be better spent on improving my industrial machine. I was wrong! Every step on the culture track rewards you with either a culture card or a great person. Both are powerful – and the further you get up the culture track the more powerful the cards become – they give you resources (more on these later), they allow you to swap techs, the can kill off opponents units, impoverish their lands. Moreover they are kept hidden so they have the advantage of surprise. ‘Great Persons’ work like buildings, there are six types and they really give a boost to the city they are placed in. The second thing you can do at the beginning is explore the map and take down the huts. The huts have a random resource which you claim when you move into a hut space and these resources can influence which techs you are going to want to research.
The three options you may take with your city is to build (a unit, a wonder or a building), ‘devote to the arts’ which collects culture tokens or collect a resource from within the city boundaries. In my first game I focused on buildings, however using one city as a feeder by collecting resources from its boundary or scouts you have sent out can feed other Cities Wonder building or culture leaps. Having a city surrounded by buildings helps with trade and hammers, but the resource effects on the tech cards can be a subtler and more efficient way of achieving the same end
What’s not obvious is the tech tree, there a mind boggling 36 to choose from, and most have multiple effects; either unlocking the advance that allows you to buy specific buildings or instantly upgrading them, unlocking new government forms, upgrading your army units, increasing your culture hand size, allowing you to spend a resource or multiple resources to some effect – some technologies do multiples of the above. You also have to plan in advance what techs you want to use, because the tech victory requires you to reach the fifth level of the pyramid your selections become more crucial the further you go up – choosing five out level one techs is not too difficult but you only really have three choices at level three and they must all count. I find myself constantly referring to what techs I have and the tech chart to plan it out as efficiently as possible, you don’t want too many duplicates so researching at techs that incrementally upgrade your units from 1 to 2 to 3 can be wasteful (unless of course there is another effect that you need). In all the games I have played I have missed a few opportunities at some point because by the time you are at level three you might have 6 or 7 resource fired options available to you.
The Czech elephant in the room
Should I face execution on the morrow my last request will be for a Steak and the gaoler to sit down for a game of ‘Through the Ages’. It’s my favourite game, my only 10. Civilization is the officially licensed game of the computer series, Through the Ages is its unlicensed heart and soul in board game form. They are very different games, with a different approach to creating the Civilisation experience; Fantasy Flight’s franchise game feels more like the recreation it is, ‘Through the Ages’ a re-imagining. Combat in Through the Ages is a brutal, Zero sum, affair, it can wipe you out of the game and sometimes it is difficult to spot it coming or prepare for it whereas in Civilisation you see it marching across the board towards you, you can delay it, you can build up, hell you might even get lucky with the card draw. What both games share is a tempo increase towards the end, in ‘Through the Ages’ you are seeding the deck with end game bonuses in Civilization the options explode as more techs layer on to your pyramid and you start to accelerate towards one of the victory conditions. The biggest difference between the two is the need to live within your means, in ‘Though the Ages’ there’s lots of it in Civilisation there’s none. Where TTA is closer to the Pc game in that you have to keep your population happy, fed and plan production so you don’t go corrupt – all when known to the PC devotee. In Civilisation these are taken out of the game, but it’s no bad thing as you have so much else to deal with and my thematic rationalisation is that all I do is set with the constraints of living of a balanced society. There are some small constraints in that if i can only build one starred building (Temple, Barracks, Market) in each city and the level two technology ‘Democracy’ prohibits me from attacking other cities (if only in real life....). In summary ‘Through the Ages’ feels like a Euro, Civilisation is a step closer to the dark side.
Flaws and the lack of them
I have not found any to be honest. It is, in part, a multiplayer wargame, so there is always the problem A bashes B then C bashes A and D has a right good laugh about it. There’s a steep to vertical strategy learning curve – for a four hour game this might be too much for the ‘play it twice’ and move on brigade, the flip of that is that after 3 plays and 12 hours I feel like I am scratching the surface and I want to dig deep into what this game has to offer. Another thing I have noticed slowing up play is the amount of counting trade symbols and hammers players have to do. You should be able to remember it from turn to turn but with so much else going on every turn is Groundhog Day. These are not really flaws, more reasons some people might want to steer clear of the game. I have not found the combat part of the game that exciting (apart from the end game capital city bash) , though it’s easy to grasp and does not take very long. I think given the game takes a long time to play its as good a system as could be fitted into a reasonable game length.
Conclusion
Fantasy Flight makes great games, but i don’t play them very often. I recognise that they are imaginative, often innovative and well produced. My problem is the subject matter – i am really not interested in the fortunes of the inhabitants of Terrinoth or the Warhammer universe, and though, for example, ‘Chaos in the Old World’is a stand out game I battle with indifference towards the’ Nurgle’ and friends. But I do care about the Egyptians, Romans and the rest, and the endless bits and pieces that accompany a big FF game make sense to me in Civilisation. I think Euro gamers whose gaming imagination is engaged by the historical and the real will enjoy civilisation – and if they have avoided FF games to date are in for epic treat. And the rest of the world you know already you are going to love this game
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
