Post by Gilvan Blight on Mar 20, 2006 8:51:19 GMT -5
Quickly: a really good game, but to me it didn't live up to the hype.
Summary: The game is set in the cradle of civilization, the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Players each take the roll of an anchient dynasty trying to make it's mark on the region. Fundamentally a tile laying game, players play tiles from a hand of 6 (drawn from a nice cloth bad), play leaders or play devistation cards. You get two options each turn (so play 1 leader, 1 tile, 2 tiles, etc). There are 4 types of tiles each of a different colour representing a different facet of civilization (ex Blue for Farms, Black for settlements). Points are scored when you play a tile in an area that has a leader of the same colour. Thus if you play a Blue Farm tile in an area that has a Farmer (blue leader) the player controlling the Farmer gets 1 blue point. Tiles can be played anywhere on the board, and leaders are only restricted to being placed next to temples (red tiles). This means no area of the board is set for any one player. Leaders will be moving about the board constantly. Each set of tiles with a leader is termed a kingdom. In these kingdoms conflics can break out. There are two type. Internal conflics, were you end up with Two Leaders of the same colour in an area (one player plays a leader in a kingdom that contains another players leader of the same colour), and External Conflic where two kindgoms are joined by the placement of a tile. Each type of conflict has its own resolution system that usually means a lost leader and tiles for the looser and victory points for the winner. It sounds much more confusing then it is one you have played. Victory is determined by the best of the worst method. You take your worst aspect of civilization (colour) and compair it to the other players worst. The person with the best worst (or highest number of points in their lowest aspect) wins. This adds the real strategy to the game as you must balance 4 separate victory point totals. There are also rules for building monuments which give victory points every turn for appropriately coloured leaders in the same kindgom.
The Good: it's a heck of a lot easier to undertand then explain. The gameplay is actually very ellagent and quick one you learn the basics. There is some random elements with the tile draws but the gameplay felt definately strategic. I don't find anyone 'screwed by the tiles' it just meant you had to change your play styple. Having to watch 4 victory point totals was a rather great concept and played very well. You would be doing awesome at something and just keep building on it only to notice you have let one colour (or aspect) slip, you would then need to try to reinforce that weak colour. The design and look of the game are great. Everything fit together, the cards are well printed, the tiles are nice, the artwork good, the 'castles' for hiding your tiles were even rather nice. The rules were clear with plenty of examples (which were needed for the conflic rules). Having the vitory points hidden so you never knew where everyone was at added a ton of paranoia and uncertanty to the game. There was one game where I was trying to prolong the game since I was certain that everyone must have more then I had green, and it ended up I should have ended the game about 10 turns previously.
The Bad: The conflic rules are just hard to explain and confusign until you have done it a few times. I can't even explain why since now having done it about 6 times I have no problem doing it but I still can't explain it very well. Actualy the entire gameplay is hard to explain... it's definately a you will learn as you play. This generally means for the first session you probably want to devote two games. One to learn it, and then another to actually play. This wasn't a short game... generally not a bad thing, but as usuall for these games, don't belive the 1 hour playtime as listed on the box. The random factor can be a minor letdown at times, as you can get 'a bad hand' though the option to discard and redraw does exist. Being as high ranked I was expecting less randomness.
The Ugly: Taking some of the tiles off their sheets when I first opened the game a couple ripped. Seems the die just didn't cut well enough. This was disapointing but as the tiles are drawn from a bag it didn't ruin anything. Competition in this can get ugly. This some people will love, some will hate. Sure you could all just work on your own corner of the board, but it's likely at some point you will be moving your leaders into 'enemy' territory to steal some space, or monument access from another player. Even more likely, is near the end of the game, you will be forced into external conflic as the board fills and there is no where to expand.
Overall: I really enjoyed this, one of the great Euro Games, but it just didn't live up to the hype. This game sat in that #1 spot for so long that I had extremely high expectations. It's still a great game, but I think Peurto Rico is better (for one there is no random factor in Peurto Rico). This one is very hard to learn and explain until you dig in and play, and then it makes total sense. There is a lot of strategy and the victory system (best of the worst) makes for a ton of paranoia and uncertainty. The conflic system, though confusing at first is rather elegant. I suggest you try this one out, and probably even pick it up, but make sure you own Peurto Rico first, then if you need something else to play, pick this up (or RA, that's a great one too).
Summary: The game is set in the cradle of civilization, the area between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Players each take the roll of an anchient dynasty trying to make it's mark on the region. Fundamentally a tile laying game, players play tiles from a hand of 6 (drawn from a nice cloth bad), play leaders or play devistation cards. You get two options each turn (so play 1 leader, 1 tile, 2 tiles, etc). There are 4 types of tiles each of a different colour representing a different facet of civilization (ex Blue for Farms, Black for settlements). Points are scored when you play a tile in an area that has a leader of the same colour. Thus if you play a Blue Farm tile in an area that has a Farmer (blue leader) the player controlling the Farmer gets 1 blue point. Tiles can be played anywhere on the board, and leaders are only restricted to being placed next to temples (red tiles). This means no area of the board is set for any one player. Leaders will be moving about the board constantly. Each set of tiles with a leader is termed a kingdom. In these kingdoms conflics can break out. There are two type. Internal conflics, were you end up with Two Leaders of the same colour in an area (one player plays a leader in a kingdom that contains another players leader of the same colour), and External Conflic where two kindgoms are joined by the placement of a tile. Each type of conflict has its own resolution system that usually means a lost leader and tiles for the looser and victory points for the winner. It sounds much more confusing then it is one you have played. Victory is determined by the best of the worst method. You take your worst aspect of civilization (colour) and compair it to the other players worst. The person with the best worst (or highest number of points in their lowest aspect) wins. This adds the real strategy to the game as you must balance 4 separate victory point totals. There are also rules for building monuments which give victory points every turn for appropriately coloured leaders in the same kindgom.
The Good: it's a heck of a lot easier to undertand then explain. The gameplay is actually very ellagent and quick one you learn the basics. There is some random elements with the tile draws but the gameplay felt definately strategic. I don't find anyone 'screwed by the tiles' it just meant you had to change your play styple. Having to watch 4 victory point totals was a rather great concept and played very well. You would be doing awesome at something and just keep building on it only to notice you have let one colour (or aspect) slip, you would then need to try to reinforce that weak colour. The design and look of the game are great. Everything fit together, the cards are well printed, the tiles are nice, the artwork good, the 'castles' for hiding your tiles were even rather nice. The rules were clear with plenty of examples (which were needed for the conflic rules). Having the vitory points hidden so you never knew where everyone was at added a ton of paranoia and uncertanty to the game. There was one game where I was trying to prolong the game since I was certain that everyone must have more then I had green, and it ended up I should have ended the game about 10 turns previously.
The Bad: The conflic rules are just hard to explain and confusign until you have done it a few times. I can't even explain why since now having done it about 6 times I have no problem doing it but I still can't explain it very well. Actualy the entire gameplay is hard to explain... it's definately a you will learn as you play. This generally means for the first session you probably want to devote two games. One to learn it, and then another to actually play. This wasn't a short game... generally not a bad thing, but as usuall for these games, don't belive the 1 hour playtime as listed on the box. The random factor can be a minor letdown at times, as you can get 'a bad hand' though the option to discard and redraw does exist. Being as high ranked I was expecting less randomness.
The Ugly: Taking some of the tiles off their sheets when I first opened the game a couple ripped. Seems the die just didn't cut well enough. This was disapointing but as the tiles are drawn from a bag it didn't ruin anything. Competition in this can get ugly. This some people will love, some will hate. Sure you could all just work on your own corner of the board, but it's likely at some point you will be moving your leaders into 'enemy' territory to steal some space, or monument access from another player. Even more likely, is near the end of the game, you will be forced into external conflic as the board fills and there is no where to expand.
Overall: I really enjoyed this, one of the great Euro Games, but it just didn't live up to the hype. This game sat in that #1 spot for so long that I had extremely high expectations. It's still a great game, but I think Peurto Rico is better (for one there is no random factor in Peurto Rico). This one is very hard to learn and explain until you dig in and play, and then it makes total sense. There is a lot of strategy and the victory system (best of the worst) makes for a ton of paranoia and uncertainty. The conflic system, though confusing at first is rather elegant. I suggest you try this one out, and probably even pick it up, but make sure you own Peurto Rico first, then if you need something else to play, pick this up (or RA, that's a great one too).