VS.





Note: I wrote a version of this review on my blog some time ago but thought it would be good to post a version of it here on BGG.

Overview
I'm writing this review of "Colosseum" as a comparison between it and "The Princes of Florence" (hereafter abbreviated "Princes") primarily because the game play in Colosseum almost demands the comparison. Specifically, I find in comparing the two games, that "Princes" is a hands down winner on pretty much every level with the exception of intrinsic excitement in the theme and attractivness of the artwork (and even then I have some issues with how Colosseum is laid out). Because of the similarities that will be discussed, it comes as no surprise that the games share co-designer credits (Kramer). Perhaps the easiest way to summarize the comparison between these two games is to say that Colosseum is like "Princes" but "with baggage". So, let's look at why this is.

Similar Mechanics
Both games last for a set number of rounds (Colosseum: 5, "Princes": 7)

Both games have competitive auctioning as well as possibilities for purchasing items from a limited market.

Both games have a number of point scoring goals you work towards that are each unique in the things required to score the maximum points possible (Colosseum has attractions/programs - each requiring a unique tile set of different performers to achieve maximum points while "Princes" has Works with a unique requirement set for landscapes, buildings, and freedoms) - this is the strongest similarity between the two games.

You can play an attraction in Colosseum or a work in "Princes" without having all of the required items but you score less points for either.

If you have the best attraction in Colosseum or the best work in "Princes" in a round, you get three points for it (in Colosseum, those points count towards latter attractions and represent a recurring form of point scoring. With "Princes", the three points are added immediately and are not recurring.)

You may acquire items that can, for one time only, increase the total value of your attraction or your work (for Colosseum it's Medals while, for Princes, it's Bonus Cards).

The Luck Factor
This is where the games are mostly different. With Colosseum, there is the "Emperor" as well as various "Senators" who may or may not attend your attractions depending on luck manifested through rolling dice. Also, with Colosseum, there is luck involved in what tile sets come out for auctioning. With "Princes", the luck in the game is in the drawing of cards but that luck is mitigated by drawing 5 cards at a time and then picking the one out that you want.

The Auctioning System
The auctioning system is more complicated and less satisfying in Colosseum than it is in "Princes" for several reasons. First, you are not bidding on a single item or tile. Instead, you are bidding on sets of tiles (three tiles per set). At first, this might seem like an improvement over "Princes" (much like how the tension in the game "RA" comes from having to decide how worth it it is to you to bid on something with a mixed set of variables). However, the fact that tiles can replenish after a bid is taken makes the auctioning less interesting and more random. Further, the tiles only replenish and other players cannot bid again after they have won a bid until the initial bidding player finally takes a bid. Thus, the auctioning can continue in Colosseum such that a person could win two or more auctions in a given round.

The auctioning system in "Princes" is less complicated and more tense because people are fighting over more similar things and, once they have won a bid, they are out of the bidding. This means that the decision to raise a bid and potentially take it carries a lot more weight in "Princes". Also, in Colosseum, it's too easy (even with 5 players) for everyone to be going after different things (which dramatically reduces the tension).

Attractions vs. Works
With Colosseum, you can only play one attraction per turn. You may, however, play that same attraction over and over again over several turns if you choose to - which lessens the tension of playing it. With Princes, you can play up to two works in a given turn. However, once you've played your work, you can't play it again unless someone happens to recruit it from you and you then recruit it back. Thus, you have to decide if you want to play your work early and take less points for it or play it later and get more points for it - a decision with decidely more tension involved than what Colosseum offers.

Player Interactivity
The one main criticism of "Princes" is that the player interactivity is low. Colosseum does have more player interactivity. You can make trades and exchanges with other players involving tiles and money. There is also some indirect interactivity in that how the players move the senators and the emperor on their turn can impact the other players' abilities to score more points on their respective turns. However, in my opinion, the movement of the senators is not that interesting of a decision making process.

The main source of interaction in Princes is the auction and the limited market (not having enough of everything for every player to acquire one). So, what other players do on their turns with respect to purchasing items in "Princes" is more interesting than what other players are doing on their turns in Colosseum. Because everyone's tiles are out in the open in Colosseum, you can reasonably deduce what attractions they are most likely gunning for. With "Princes", by having less factors at play with respect to scoring points for your works compared to the many factors at play in scoring points with attractions, there is actually more intrigue because you honestly can't always figure out exactly what the other players will be buying next. There are simply more possibilities that might be reasonable for them as the smaller number of factors at play have a wider range of possible solutions. Also, in "Princes", the works that other players have in their hands are secret and each player's money supply can be kept secret - both of which are aspects that add more intrigue to the game when compared to the open resources of Colosseum.

Components
Ok, the artwork on Colosseum is typical Days of Wonder: very colorful and attractive. However, the functionality could have been slightly improved. The auctioning mechanism of how turn order flows and who can bid and who can't is quite clunky in my opinion. Some additional components could have easily helped make this mechanic a lot smoother by helping the players to keep track of things. Also, there are various tiles that award bonuses if you have the most of them but not all of the tiles are eligible for this bonus. Just like how RA incorporates the use of a symbol to remind the players of which tiles stay and which tiles are discarded at the end of a round, it's my position that Days of Wonder could have included symbols on the tiles to indicate which ones are eligible for a majority bonus and which ones aren't. This small addition won't make much of a difference to experienced players but it would help out a lot in trying to teach new people how to play the game.

Conclusion
The bottom line here is that, in my opinion, if you are looking for the kinds of decisions and intrigue offered by Colosseum, then "The Princes of Florence" offers many of the same kinds of decisions but does so to a greater, more fulfilling degree and in a more streamlined, less complicated fashion. Colosseum has more pieces involved in it's structure, but "The Princes of Florence" has stronger depth. Perhaps the easiest way to say it is that, sometimes in life, "less is more".