Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

RE: Session Report - May 17 - Antike Redux

Expand Messages
  • Richard Pardoe
    In my last session report, I had concluded: ***** The only downside was that all this took 3.5 hours to accomplish, which in my opinion is way to long for this
    Message 1 of 4 , May 23, 2006
      In my last session report, I had concluded:

      *****
      The only downside was that all this took 3.5 hours to accomplish, which in
      my opinion is way to long for this sort of game. The first (civilization,
      multi-path) part of the game is interested and plays relatively quickly. If
      the endgame could resolve itself with the same speed, I would enjoy this
      game more. Comments at BoardGameGeek also seem to echo this dichotomy of
      gamestyles. I do not know if this situation resolves itself with more
      experience with the game system or if it is inherent to the game system as a
      result of the limited types of VPs available. Could it be solved by playing
      to 1 VP less? I wonder.
      *****

      After I had posted the session report to the Geek, I received some comments
      from the game's designer Mac Gerdts. We did have a bit of back and forth,
      so I wanted to share the highlights of that conversation with you.

      It started w/ Mac commenting that the game usually plays in 2 hours or less
      (which is my expectation for the game also.) The driver for this speed is
      roads/navigation which allows nations to maneuver over large distances. Mac
      then pointed out an example file "Conquering Tyros"
      (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=16012) which shows how a
      heavily defended temple can be sacked.

      To be fair, we had applied these moves in our game also, but reading the
      example, I did notice that we did have one rule in error - the conquering
      forces need not arrived from one province. They can be gathered from
      neighbouring provinces. The file shows a series of moves - initial moves to
      clear a path for the subseqent conquering forces followed by the conquest of
      Tyros.

      We had assumed/played that a conquering force (conquest maneuver) must all
      move from a single province. In other words, if a city/temple defends with
      5 points (temple + democracy), one needs to move in 5 legions/galleys from a
      single province to conquer.

      In the example, Tyros is conquered by moving in 2 legions from Gordon, 1
      legion from Attalia, and 2 galleys from Knosos. In other words, the
      conquering force is gathered in Tyros before the conquest. (Sam, you had
      this one correct during play, sorry I lead the group astray by my faulty
      interpretation of the rules.) Mac did indicate that they would revise the
      wording in the rule book to clarify this point especially as Rio Grande is
      about to publish the game for its next printing.

      But the example shows Tyros being conquered by the Greeks who leave their
      territories pretty empty, but have no temple they might have wished to
      defend. To this point Mac reminded me that one never loses VP's and that
      the endgame often is a race towards the final VP (usually by destroying
      temples). As long as you give up your temples to players who won't win by
      sacking your temple (ie give up the last VP to the winner) - it is probably
      worth it to go after other temples to catch the leader. (This is a bit like
      the temple sack swap Will and I did to each gain 1 VP). The game is a race
      to a VP target not to holding on to territories to the bitter end.

      While these thoughts might not change anyone's opinion of the game, they
      have encouraged me to think a bit differently should I play Antike again. I
      do appreciate that the designer did read our session report and took the
      time to respond. I hope these thoughts might be helpful to others who may
      find themselves playing Antike again in the future.

      - Rich
    • Sam A.
      - Well, I m glad that particular rule is cleared up - the misinterpretation almost kept me from finishing the game that round :) Yet, the funny thing is that I
      Message 2 of 4 , May 23, 2006
        -
         
        Well, I'm glad that particular rule is cleared up - the misinterpretation almost kept me from finishing the game that round :)
         
        Yet, the funny thing is that I think I like that rule in its misinterpreted form better!  It may add a little more time to the game, but makes it more strategical and adds to the logistics and pre-planning.
         
        On another note, I was going to buy the current version, but now that you mentioned Rio Grande will be printing a new version, perhaps I should wait.
         
        -Sam


        Richard Pardoe <RPardoe@...> wrote:
        In my last session report, I had concluded:

        *****
        The only downside was that all this took 3.5 hours to accomplish, which in
        my opinion is way to long for this sort of game.  The first (civilization,
        multi-path) part of the game is interested and plays relatively quickly.  If
        the endgame could resolve itself with the same speed, I would enjoy this
        game more.  Comments at BoardGameGeek also seem to echo this dichotomy of
        gamestyles.  I do not know if this situation resolves itself with more
        experience with the game system or if it is inherent to the game system as a
        result of the limited types of VPs available.  Could it be solved by playing
        to 1 VP less?  I wonder.
        *****

        After I had posted the session report to the Geek, I received some comments
        from the game's designer Mac Gerdts.  We did have a bit of back and forth,
        so I wanted to share the highlights of that conversation with you.

        It started w/ Mac commenting that the game usually plays in 2 hours or less
        (which is my expectation for the game also.)  The driver for this speed is
        roads/navigation which allows nations to maneuver over large distances.  Mac
        then pointed out an example file "Conquering Tyros"
        (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=16012) which shows how a
        heavily defended temple can be sacked.

        To be fair, we had applied these moves in our game also, but reading the
        example, I did notice that we did have one rule in error - the conquering
        forces need not arrived from one province.  They can be gathered from
        neighbouring provinces.  The file shows a series of moves - initial moves to
        clear a path for the subseqent conquering forces followed by the conquest of
        Tyros.

        We had assumed/played that a conquering force (conquest maneuver) must all
        move from a single province.  In other words, if a city/temple defends with
        5 points (temple + democracy), one needs to move in 5 legions/galleys from a
        single province to conquer.

        In the example, Tyros is conquered by moving in 2 legions from Gordon, 1
        legion from Attalia, and 2 galleys from Knosos.  In other words, the
        conquering force is gathered in Tyros before the conquest.  (Sam, you had
        this one correct during play, sorry I lead the group astray by my faulty
        interpretation of the rules.)  Mac did indicate that they would revise the
        wording in the rule book to clarify this point especially as Rio Grande is
        about to publish the game for its next printing.

        But the example shows Tyros being conquered by the Greeks who leave their
        territories pretty empty, but have no temple they might have wished to
        defend.  To this point Mac reminded me that one never loses VP's and that
        the endgame often is a race towards the final VP (usually by destroying
        temples).  As long as you give up your temples to players who won't win by
        sacking your temple (ie give up the last VP to the winner) - it is probably
        worth it to go after other temples to catch the leader.  (This is a bit like
        the temple sack swap Will and I did to each gain 1 VP).  The game is a race
        to a VP target not to holding on to territories to the bitter end.

        While these thoughts might not change anyone's opinion of the game, they
        have encouraged me to think a bit differently should I play Antike again.  I
        do appreciate that the designer did read our session report and took the
        time to respond.  I hope these thoughts might be helpful to others who may
        find themselves playing Antike again in the future.

        - Rich





        Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.

      • Richard Pardoe
        ... mentioned Rio Grande will be printing a new version, perhaps I should wait. Mac did provide more details on the RGG version: Eggertspiele is thinking of
        Message 3 of 4 , May 23, 2006
          Sam wrote:
          On another note, I was going to buy the current version, but now that you mentioned Rio Grande will be printing a new version, perhaps I should wait.
           
          Mac did provide more details on the RGG version:
          Eggertspiele is thinking of adding some more tactical hints in the rulebook of the new Rio Grande edition to avoid this "problem". Additionally, the new edition will come with new wooden bits, especially designed for Antike.
          Don't know the relative price point - but revised rules and custom bits might be something to wait for.  (The "problem" mentioned above is not our issue, but rather the perception that folks need to be defensive when a rapid strike force can work quite well to take out a temple by attriting the guarding legions/galleys.)
           
          - Rich 
        • David Wilson
          ... But there is something to be said for defending your territory, when city ownership can directly impact your income. Granted, if there s no temple, you
          Message 4 of 4 , May 23, 2006

            On May 23, 2006, at 10:53 PM, Richard Pardoe wrote:


             (The "problem" mentioned above is not our issue, but rather the perception that folks need to be defensive when a rapid strike force can work quite well to take out a temple by attriting the guarding legions/galleys.)

            But there is something to be said for defending your territory, when city ownership can directly impact your income.  Granted, if there's no temple, you only lose 1, not 3, but if enough cities are taken from you, it can be a serious setback.

            Dave

          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.