Leonardo da Vinci has proven to be a slight enigma to my wife and I. Interestingly, there recently was a review posted for this game that was criticized for passing judgment after only one play. The BGG-ers commenting pressed the author for claiming to have an understanding of a relatively involved game after a single play. I must say, I agree with the critics of the review. I myself will usually post a review after 2 or 3 plays, confident that I have grasped what’s needed to be understood in order to say something meaningful and useful. Even a game a like Goa has received this treatment from me. Surely I continue to learn about these games, but the foundational ideas that went into the review remain constant over time. I’ve played da Vinci five times and dare a review after fiddling with the game and tinkering with it’s workings to get it to play the way my wife and I want it to play and believe it ought. At the center of our experience with this game is a need for it to be engaging and dynamic for two players while trying to extend the intriguing flow and rhythm the game offers to gamers willing to embrace a slightly unorthodox experience. My review will focus on our experience with the rules and mechanics mentioned therein rather than to regurgitate what can easily be found already on BGG.


(VERY) QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE GAME
Leonardo da Vinci is a resource management game insofar as it is the players’ aim to earn the most amount of florins by game’s end by being the first (or only) inventor to complete one of a number of requested invention. The game is scheduled for 9 rounds with each being divided into 4 parts (loosely described): declaration of beginning an invention, deploying workers and the master to areas in order to procure resources, council favors, more workers, lab capacity. Third, players work in the lab (count their manpower in work weeks), last, they announce if any inventions have been completed. If two players complete an invention at the same time, there is a bid to see who gets to make a primary claim on that invention. The last two rounds of the game are pure research round so be sure to have resources and to have timed completion of other inventions in order to make those rounds count. That’s the game in a nutshell.


OUR FIRST COUPLE OF PLAYS
Our first 2 plays of Leonardo relied upon the recommended beginners set up which is a bit odd. The two players receive differing amounts of florins and resources and different capacity labs. It’s apparent that this is done to balance the play since player order really can matter very much in this game – getting to two areas second can put out of 4 florins quickly. Additionally, the game setup has the invention deck randomized in a constricted manner: you separate out different levels of inventions, shuffle the mini-decks, and then stack them on top of each other. This is meant to provide some semblance of increasing challenge and expertise in managing the game’s mechanics. Here are some thoughts we had after our first sessions.

1. With the 2-player rules calling for only three inventions up at a time, we found ourselves constantly building the same inventions. We understood that part of the game is to simulate the urgency of inventing something before someone else, but this simply was not fun. Every round ended in a bid and the bidding mechanism is no fun for two players. Additionally, we often bid the same amount. In brief, it was frustrating.
2. However, we were able to see that game had a lot to offer. But there were some other things that we felt got in the way of us diving into what we took to be the design team’s intent – to challenge players to independently assess what they could accomplish in given time periods to maximize earning. So, the next issue we had with the game was the fact every game began with the same three inventions with the same inventions popping up at similar intervals. In a similar critique I leveled at Pillars of the Earth, there’s little fun for us in knowing what’s likely to come each and every time you play the thing. Seeing the first three inventions there made us feel as if there were other things we wanted to possibly build next time out – we wanted to feel more inventor like. On a related note, we weren’t seeing many inventions since we rarely made it to past the halfway mark of the deck. That meant that entire strategies to accomplish certain goals were passing us by. This speaks to another issue we had…
3. …nine rounds seemed little enough to enjoy the game. We never really felt that we got into it; that the game seemed to be ending just when you were warming up to the mechanics.


…BUT WE KNEW A GREAT GAME WAS CONTAINED WITHIN
So here’s what we did – we proceeded to tinker with the thing to make it more to our liking. I had remembered reading that many people felt the expert setup was really superior and more appropriate. In the expert setup, both players begin with identical initial resources, but can independently choose a favor for themselves in beginning the game, with choices including an extra worker, more florins, some material and other options. This immediately struck us as intuitively appealing – this option allowed players to go into the game with a style of play and an individualized approach. Moreover, it seemed to add variety as, given how tightly the game plays already, each variation on starting favors would significantly impact your opening strategy: would you try and hit the ball out of the park with a significant invention if you chose to upgrade a lab or add a second lower capacity lab. Such a move would allow you to begin something good on the larger lower capacity lab while fighting for the favor to increase the capacity of the other lab and subsequently get mechanical men. By the time that was done, you’d likely have completed something. However, your opponent might have gotten the production jump on you if they chose materials as their favor. On the flip side, they’d have to leave a lab fallow at some point in order to upgrade it, so things can even out. Needless to say, we though it’d be fun to choose 2 favors (though we have since scaled it back to the recommended 1 favor to tighten things up a bit).

The result: we felt this worked out much better but we still felt disconnected from the game. The frustration of constantly building something at the same time was persistent and drained the fun. The solution: first, we continued to divide the cards as recommended but we ignored choosing the same three inventions to begin with. Others may not agree with this move as the designers seemed to want to pace the game very particularly, but I guess I’m saying that we disagreed with the designer’s choices in doing so. Second, we opted to work with four available inventions rather than three. The impact on the gameplay has been significant. We still sometimes build the same invention, but we feel much more connected to the game as we are able to focus on competing only on the board for position but without the necessary feel of racing to do the same thing. In other words, we compete on the board but in pursuing different strategies. Now, there’s something to be acknowledged in terms of how this impacts player interaction: if you know that it’s less likely that your opponent is going after the same invention as you, you lose incentive to try and undermine their moves. Moreover, doing might come at great cost to you as might have no need for rope, let’s say, while your opponent obviously does. I think this aspect of the game is purely subjective and will appeal to different players in different ways. Our variant is definitely more of 2-player solitaire.

Last, we tried playing the game with 11 rounds rather than nine. This move has been less successful and we will go back to playing with 9, and here’s why. With more and different inventions available early on in addition to choosing a favor of your choice, you can hit the ground running and don’t feel as if you’ve been cheated out of enjoying the finer aspects of the game. Another reason is that, if you get good at being efficient, you will build many inventions and the challenge of accumulating bonus points by building different kinds of inventions becomes null since you will both likely build 5 or 6 different inventions. When playing 11 rounds, the tension of gaining this achievement is mostly nullified.


CONCLUSION
After tinkering with the game, we are ready to endorse this game for any number of players, including a pair. To be honest, this game is not initially successful for a pair but our tinkering has allowed the game to make its ingenuity manifest to us. Now, working in the lab is the rewarding experience we both knew it could be.

-c-