|
|
William Shields
Australia
Perth
WA
|
I had the chance to play this on the weekend and had an open mind about it not having read or heard anything about it (other than the components not being up to par). ComponentsThe board is little more than a sheet of cardbord that you'd expect a breakfast cereal box to be made out of. The hex tiles are much like those in any 18xx games (although those have a better finish) and the ocean shits really would've been better off being hexes as well (that you could leave on the board). The standard practice of putting ocean hits in the blue squares (which themselves are blue) isn't very clear. The unit chits are pretty standard. Bizarrely, the cards are actually really good quality. RulesSpecial mention has to be made of the rules because they are up there with such confusing paramours as Byzantium, Phoenicia or Reef Encounter. The potential for mistakes is enormous. Perhaps wargamers out there will be more used to this standard but, from a Euro gamers perspective, they are woefully inadequate as well as tedious. Better and more examples are needed. Along with Phoenicia, this is a candidate for having a sufficient fan write a completely new version. The mechanics for moving units, attacking things and setting up transport chains is non-obvious at best. We made one ruling regarding Turning Inward that the rules didn't cover (but perhaps has been covered here). You put your explorer in the Lost box to get the extra build point. What if the explorer is already there? We decided you could only put it there if it wasn't there already. This could be an inaccurate interpretation but seemed reasonable. GameplayThe first thing that struck me is why Tonga and that other nation start right next to each other. I thought that has the potential for a build-up of forced to both o their detriments and this is exactly what happened. The exploration system is OK apart from the randomness of it (more on this below). Conquering provinces is expensive. Near Tonga is an independent island with 4 local defenders. Realistically to cater for the dice you need a 50% advantage or better, which means 3 war canoes and 3 warriors. That's 15 build points. For 15 BPs you can buy 5 lots of colonists and transport canoes. Combat is incredibly random. It made me appreciate the deterministic and simple systems that dominate in the Euro world, notably in Imperial and Antike. There is enormous potential to get lucky or get completely ripped off. As it turned out Tonga was attacked on the last turn and was defending with 5 war canoes and 8? war bands plus 2 local warriors and still lost due to a string of 4s and 5s. 10-15 years ago I wouldn't be surprised at those mechanics. Now they're simply not good enough. ThemeEnough has been said by others regarding what this game is about. I found the theme OK. If you want a game with great theme try Reef Encounter. RandomnessRandom ocean chits, random cards, random island tiles and random dice rolls. There is a lot of randomness in this game. For example I drew 3 uninhabitable atolls near me. Someone else drew Hawaii right next to their starting island. The problem with too much randomness is that strategy and tactics go out the window. You become passengers on the chaos train. For some I guess that's OK. However it leaves me wondering: what's the point? I like a game where I can develop a strategy and I see clear consequences to my action, a game where I know at the end that I played well or badly and won or lost because of it. If you're looking for that kind of game, this isn't it. StrategyHope you don't get attacked, explore and settle, draw a card every turn (because you're limited to one and you'll soon regret it if you don't) and hope you get enough VPs to win. Oh and don't be Tonga or the one that starts next to Tonga. Seriously. ConclusionSome people like this sort of game. By that I mean there is a category of games out there that i like to call "turn over a card and see what happens" games. Shadows Over Camelot, Betrayal at House on the Hill and Arkham Horror spring to mind. Whereas those are typical Euro games in that they're relatively easy to learn, relatively simple, have good quality components and tend to be visually and thematically appealing, this game--for me--fails all of those tests. The game says it should take 10-15 minutes to learn and 90 minutes to play. We played a 4 player game and took 3 hours all up (including rules explanation, which seemed to take half an hour or more). During that time we were referring to the rulebook almost constantly. I have to say that this is one of the worst games I've played in a long time. Score: 3/10
|
Wulf Corbett
Scotland
Shotts
Lanarkshire
|
You know, I don't believe I own a single one of the games on your ownership list. Which might go some way to explaining why I disagree with virtually every word you've written...
|
Chris Geggus
United Kingdom
Brentwood,
Essex
|
Strangely enough, I do have a number of your (William's) games and my first impressions of Conquest are very much in line with yours. I don't think I'll be playing it very soon either. Guess that's what makes us Geeks so different.
Last edited on 2008-02-10 18:11:18 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
|
Gary Libby
United States
Middletown
Rhode Island
|
hagin wrote: Theme
Enough has been said by others regarding what this game is about. I found the theme OK. If you want a game with great theme try Reef Encounter. Sorry, as with a large proportion of Euros out there, Reef Encounter just has another heavily pasted on theme. There are pretty much any number themes you could substitute and it work fine. Hell, I think "Zombie Encounter" might be a better fit! When I play a game for theme I want to feel at least somewhat immersed into it. I never feel anything close to that with Reef Encounter. I am not knocking the game itself, as I actually like to play it now and again. I just feel that it is incorrect to steer people to Reef Encounter for it's theme. Gary
|
Thomas Heaney
United States
Quincy
California
|
hagin wrote: We made one ruling regarding Turning Inward that the rules didn't cover (but perhaps has been covered here). You put your explorer in the Lost box to get the extra build point. What if the explorer is already there? We decided you could only put it there if it wasn't there already. This could be an inaccurate interpretation but seemed reasonable.
I thought that the rules are pretty clear on this. If you start the Exploration phase with your Explorer in the Lost Box, "then remove it from the Box and place it in front of you. That's it for the Step." You can only use Turning Inward if your Explorer if he's already in front of you. Have your Explorer in front of you? Options: 1) Explore 2) Turn inward. Explorer Lost? Take him -- "That's it."
|
Blair
Australia
Canberra
Australian Capital Territory
|
Mate, watch out for those ocean shits on your gameboard 
|
Was George Orwell an optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
|
crazyyog wrote:
Sorry, as with a large proportion of Euros out there, Reef Encounter just has another heavily pasted on theme. There are pretty much any number themes you could substitute and it work fine. Hell, I think "Zombie Encounter" might be a better fit! When I play a game for theme I want to feel at least somewhat immersed into it. I never feel anything close to that with Reef Encounter.
I agree completely. I believe I read that the theme served as inspiration for the design of Reef Encounter, but the game that resulted is an interesting abstract. Conquest of Paradise, on the other hand, is (for me) very evocative, and captures its theme beautifully.
|
Dan Poole
United States
Goldsboro
North Carolina
|
I also think Conquest captures the theme nicely as well. I have absolutely no problem with the game itself. Its just the game (for me personally) is simply not very fun.
|
Michael Sosa
United States
Cutler Bay
Florida
|
hagin wrote:
Randomness
Random ocean chits, random cards, random island tiles and random dice rolls. There is a lot of randomness in this game. For example I drew 3 uninhabitable atolls near me. Someone else drew Hawaii right next to their starting island.
The problem with too much randomness is that strategy and tactics go out the window. You become passengers on the chaos train. For some I guess that's OK. However it leaves me wondering: what's the point? I like a game where I can develop a strategy and I see clear consequences to my action, a game where I know at the end that I played well or badly and won or lost because of it. If you're looking for that kind of game, this isn't it.
A lot of randomness can create a consistent average result! Yes the combat system is simple but if you bring sufficient odds to the battle (ie, build war galleys and war bands and attack weakly held islands) you should win those battles most of the time. In my first game I drew two nice island groups next to my main island, which I quickly colonized and began military adventures, but I still managed to lose to other players who received weaker islands but were peaceful expansionists. Why? I failed to bring sufficient odds to the battles to increase the probabilities of victory. I'm not sure whether Conquest is a good game or a great game, but to say that tactics or strategy go out the window is silly. Perhaps the game has a bit too much luck for some, but how else do you simulate the random discovery of islands by the Polynesians? The random cards are not so random since we all know what is in the deck. So your strategy must adapt to the changing situation among a limited range of parameters.
|
ocean
United States
fayetteville
Arkansas
|
as for the components:
it looks and feels just like any other gmt game ive ever seen.
as for the game:
its fun, and random and easy to learn, easy to play, short play time, ect. ect. ect.
its a cool diversion from the normal gmt fare.
but thats just meh.
|
Robert Shifflett
United States
Virginia
|
"The first thing that struck me is why Tonga and that other nation [Samoa]start right next to each other."
Cause they ARE next to each other. Duh!
"I thought that has the potential for a build-up of forced to both o their detriments and this is exactly what happened."
Gosh, y'all really stepped right into that one. How else did you try to loose the game? Seems easy nuf to avoid this.
"The exploration system is OK apart from the randomness of it"
If there wern't randomness, it wouldn't be exploring now, would it?
"So your strategy must adapt to the changing situation..."
Seems right obvious to me. Suppose some folks just don't get it. Maybe hagin is mad cause his side of Australia didn't get on the map.
|
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
|
Firstly as previously state this games has much, much, much more theme than virtually any game in your collection. Samoa and Tonga start next to each other, for example, because in real life they are next to each other. Multiplayer conflict games, which I consider this game a part of are obviously not your cup of tea, you give wallenstein a 3 as well, which is fine, but these games are in a somewhat similar vein of game. Most multiplayer conflict games generally take experienced players to make work. The rules I personally found excellent, clear and easy to follow and learn the game from. It takes me about 20 minutes to explain the game and I have tought it to about 8 people so far. A game takes us between 90 minutes and 2 hours. As we get more experienced I expect this to come down. I do agree that the combat resolution isn't my favourite, but I don't know what you are ued to. I like CRTs and generally dislike bucket of dice, but I don't really find this particular system to any of the block games, other than perhaps a lack of modifiers. Quote: Some people like this sort of game. By that I mean there is a category of games out there that i like to call "turn over a card and see what happens" games. Shadows Over Camelot, Betrayal at House on the Hill and Arkham Horror spring to mind. Whereas those are typical Euro games in that they're relatively easy to learn, relatively simple, have good quality components and tend to be visually and thematically appealing, this game--for me--fails all of those tests. Relatively simple, check, easy to learn, check, good component quality, ok I might be pushing it here as wargamer it is fine for me, visually appealing, milage may vary, theme, double check. Seems to meet your criteria pretty well to me. This game is not at all similar to SoC, BaH or Arkham Horror. All those games are co operative or semi operative. They are also produced by larger publishers. Have I mentioned the game play is not similar at all. CoP is a multiplayer conflict/civ game. It could possibly be a Waro, so to me at least it is in the same genre as Shogun, Struggle of Empires, Civilization, etc... As to whether I like it more than these, I'm not sure yet, but saying it like any of the games you have mentioned is misinforming people about the nature of the game. Overall I probably am not it's biggest fan, but I think there is a game here and while it is not everyone's cup of tea it is not horrible. "the horror, the horror..." indeed, perhaps you should find out what this line is referencing about the nature of man, perfection and morality. Anyway I can see for some reason your review has pissed me off a bit, sorry if I come accross a bit harsh, it is just I think that while CoP is obviously not for everyone, it is a good game for the right group. Looking at the games you like it comes as absolutely no surprise that your not a big fan of it. Good luck finding more games you like  (suggestion, look for more abstacts like the gipf series and Go).
|
|
|
My feelings for the game are similar. Too much depends on the luck of the draw during the first two turns. Drawing into a solid, three slot islands is huge. This I could live with if the game offered even somewhat equal opportunities in either concentrating on exploring/ settling or warfare. If you draw nice islands you don't need to go to war, if you don't, you can't compete in arms race with four build points against eight if the other player is putting any effort on defence. The regenerating local warriors really shift the balance. For two build points you can build a warrior group or a village that provides a free warrior for defence for every attack, not to mention a build point for the subsequent turns.
I haven't given up on the game, though. I believe with some tweaks and house rules it can become an intense race to see who first expands their peoples borders either by settling or going to war. Dropping the VP goal may play a big part here.
|
Michael Debije
Netherlands
Eindhoven
The Netherlands
|
Its really amazing sometimes: you'd think we were playing completely different games. To me the rules were an absolute breeze (but so were the rules for Byzantium and Reef Encounter- haven't checked out Phonecia); short, clear, easy to teach. Woefully inadequate? Pretty strong words for a game as easy as this. Tedious? What, like 8 pages? I really liked the components, although some of the colors a bit challenging. Our games run 60-75 minutes. Exploration random? What do you expect? Damn those islands for not being where they were expected. Just how fun would the game be if you knew beforehand where all the islands were located? This has been handled in Age of Exploration (among others) and can work, but the 'unknown' aspect of this game is appropriate. Deterministic warfare? I guess the US/Iraq war is not run by Euro standards... life is like that. I won as Tonga.
Sounds to me you need to change your play style, or, indeed, better stick to the game types that you know and understand...
|
William Shields
Australia
Perth
WA
|
ibn_ul_khattab wrote: Samoa and Tonga start next to each other, for example, because in real life they are next to each other. So? Artistic license is taken with historical fact all the time in games. Why? Because it creates a better game. Two of the players (in a 4 player game) start in adjacent hexes. I don't care that that's historically accurate. I care that they are at a major disadvantage (relative to the other two) because of it. Quote: Multiplayer conflict games, which I consider this game a part of are obviously not your cup of tea, you give wallenstein a 3 as well, which is fine, but these games are in a somewhat similar vein of game. Most multiplayer conflict games generally take experienced players to make work. I've played probably 1000 games of Titan FWIW. As for Wallenstein, it too is an awful game. I think people get carried away with the fruity mechanics (namely the cube tower) and lose sight of the fact that it's hugely random and it rewards inaction. Actually it's probably more accurate to say that some players will try and expand. Others will sit tight. Of the players who try and expand, some will get lucky and win (but luck is all there is to it). Others will get unlucky and lose. Those sitting tight will come in the middle (possibly even second). Quote: I do agree that the combat resolution isn't my favourite, but I don't know what you are ued to. Well let's take Titan as an example, it being a multiplayer conflict game that I've played extensively. In Titan terms, a CoP battle is essentially the result of one dice roll (sort of). In Titan, creatures roll anywhere from 3 to 18 dice (possibly more for sufficiently strong Titans) which reduces a lot of the randomness. It's still possible to get ripped off in Titan but skill beats luck nearly all the time. Quote: CoP is a multiplayer conflict/civ game. It could possibly be a Waro, so to me at least it is in the same genre as Shogun, Struggle of Empires, Civilization, etc... As to whether I like it more than these, I'm not sure yet, but saying it like any of the games you have mentioned is misinforming people about the nature of the game. In my opinion, it's an accurate comparison. On the subject of Civ however, it's a vastly better game than this. This isn't really a Civ game. It's a build units and settle (if you're lucky) or conquer (if you're not). Quote: Anyway I can see for some reason your review has pissed me off a bit, sorry if I come accross a bit harsh, Actually you're about the most rational of the naysayers (compare that to "I don't know of any game you own so I dismiss your opinion as garbage"). This all leads me to think that maybe I should be in the business of designing wargames if the bar is set that low. Lots of randomness + historical accuracy = good wargame ?
|
Colin Hunter
New Zealand
Auckland
|
hagin wrote: ibn_ul_khattab wrote: Samoa and Tonga start next to each other, for example, because in real life they are next to each other. So? Artistic license is taken with historical fact all the time in games. Why? Because it creates a better game. Two of the players (in a 4 player game) start in adjacent hexes. I don't care that that's historically accurate. I care that they are at a major disadvantage (relative to the other two) because of it. Wrong misplacing tonga or samoa would have been deeply offensive to the people of those nations, firstly. Secondly I'm not convinced the balance is as much of an issue as you state. Yes I would rather not be tonga an samoa, but in a multiplayer game you could well argue that it is the respobility of other players to compensate for this. Thirdly this isn't an abstract game, it is produced by GMT, a wargame company. I just think your answer was simplistic. I may well be that these starts are too unbalanced, but lots of things could make up for this. It is not necessary to simply change the start. Personally I think the fact samoa and tonga are next to eachother makes the game very interesting. I would bid VP for starting position, as this is the easiest way to balance starting positions. Infact I'll probably do it in my next game. Quote: Quote: Multiplayer conflict games, which I consider this game a part of are obviously not your cup of tea, you give wallenstein a 3 as well, which is fine, but these games are in a somewhat similar vein of game. Most multiplayer conflict games generally take experienced players to make work. I've played probably 1000 games of Titan FWIW. Good to hear, I'm surprised by your dislike of the combat system then, but hell I'm not a big fan either (give me crt any day). Quote:
As for Wallenstein, it too is an awful game. I think people get carried away with the fruity mechanics (namely the cube tower) and lose sight of the fact that it's hugely random and it rewards inaction. Actually it's probably more accurate to say that some players will try and expand. Others will sit tight. Of the players who try and expand, some will get lucky and win (but luck is all there is to it). Others will get unlucky and lose. Those sitting tight will come in the middle (possibly even second).
Again while I'm not a big fan of the system for Wallenstein I suspect this is a gross simplification of what actually happens in the game. Quote: Quote: I do agree that the combat resolution isn't my favourite, but I don't know what you are ued to. Well let's take Titan as an example, it being a multiplayer conflict game that I've played extensively. In Titan terms, a CoP battle is essentially the result of one dice roll (sort of). In Titan, creatures roll anywhere from 3 to 18 dice (possibly more for sufficiently strong Titans) which reduces a lot of the randomness. It's still possible to get ripped off in Titan but skill beats luck nearly all the time. In my opinion, it's an accurate comparison. On the subject of Civ however, it's a vastly better game than this. This isn't really a Civ game. It's a build units and settle (if you're lucky) or conquer (if you're not). Quote: again over simplification, you can build tech (arts and culture cards) and explore. Sounds a lot like civ at its base. Regardless of the quality. What mechanic does it share with Shaddows over camelot? very little, they are completely different games. CoP may be a poor game, but I don't agree with much of your reasoning. Quote: This all leads me to think that maybe I should be in the business of designing wargames if the bar is set that low.
Lots of randomness + historical accuracy = good wargame ?
Yeah why don't play some first and say that dude (ok maybe you do I don't know) Anyway I don't think anyone is suggesting CoP is a great wargame, in fact the jury is still out for me. I'll play it a dozen times and then tell you. Most multiplayer conflict games take a lot of experience to get the subtlety if it is there. Remember randomness is about the decisiveness of luck not the existance of it. Lots of games with low occurance of luck are often decided by it and vice versa. The existance of a game with a high occurance of luck does not mean that luck is ultimately decisive. If you want to be a wargame designer you need to create tension over it's game length in my mind this is what makes games like Paths of Glory great. Whether CoP has this is still hard for me to tell. I'll let you know when I have made up my mind. If wargames are easy and you feel you make a good one please do, the more good wargames the better.
Last edited on 2008-02-11 16:27:57 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
|
Kevin McPartland
United States
Jessup
Maryland
|
Thank you for taking the time to review the game, William! It would have been nice if you had played the game more than once before posting a review, but that is your preogative. Let me address a few items. Quote: Turning Inward that the rules didn't cover... As mentioned by Thomas, it is rather well covered by the rules. A careful following of the Turn Order will make this game mechanic clear. Quote: Rules... this is a candidate for having a sufficient fan write a completely new version. Please do! Different people read rules in different ways, and it would be terrific to see how you would write the rules to make them clear for you. As it was, the developers, playtesters and proofreaders all contributed in trying to make a set of rules that was the most clear for the most people. And stuff was still missed. But as you can read in several of the comments above, most think the process was a success. Quote: Tonga and that other nation start right next to each other... I don't care that that's historically accurate. I do. Very much so. This game is an historic simulation game, and distorting the geography or the history for a contrived sense of balance would never be appropriate. Quote: ...they are at a major disadvantage (relative to the other two) because of it. This is pretty ironic; there was an earlier review where the person (no, I don't have time to look it up; someone else can if you please) claimed that the OTHER two islands have a major disadvantage because they both start with one less Village box than Samoa and Tonga, and the latter's advantage is leverage so that they always win the game. So, if two bad reviews hate the play balance- and come to opposite conclusions  then I suppose the balance is just about right.  Quote: Oh and don't be Tonga or the one that starts next to Tonga. That's why these two starting positions win ties in determining the Turn Order. This is an admittedly small advantage that takes some sophistication to use to your advantage. Takes more than one game play to perfect it. Quote: There is a lot of randomness in this game. True. That is because there is a lot of randomness in life, and this game simulates a significant episode in the life of mankind. As others have said, it wouldn't be Exploring without randomness! And Battles require a certain level of randomness- it has always been a component of wargames. In another thread, Mikko described a series of Battles that had less than a 2% chance of ending up the way they did! But these things happen. The key to winning the game is making the most out of the hand that you are delt. Quote: ...house rules... Dropping the VP goal may play a big part here. This would not be a house rule, it is right there in the Advanced Rules. Some groups prefer the shorter game with less conflict that a lower VP goal provides. Quote: Lots of randomness + historical accuracy = good wargame ? I'd say that a better formula would be fun game play + historical accuracy = good wargame. The randomness comes automatically with the historic accuracy. Kevin
|
Ron K
United States
Marcellus
New York
|
This is a light wargame that won't appeal to someone who prefers Euros. However, someone who has played Euros and is interested in something closer to a wargame should check this out as that is more the niche that CoP fills.
|
|
|
RaDiKal wrote: This is a light wargame that won't appeal to someone who prefers Euros. However, someone who has played Euros and is interested in something closer to a wargame should check this out as that is more the niche that CoP fills. I promised myself that I would retire myself from this discussion, but I just don't seem to know when to quit. Let me try and summarize once again what I'm aiming at. Conquest of Paradise is not a wargame, not even a light one. You have just three types of different military units. All units have the same power and chance of success. There are no wargame elements such as terrain, morale, leaders and attrition at play here. To call CoP a wargame is to call Imperial a wargame, just not true. Conquest of Paradise is not a Civilization type of game. In CoP You have only one building option to choose from. You have no different paths in developing technology, culture or religion, just villages. Puerto Rico is more of a civilization game than CoP. Neither of these facts bothers me. It's the fact that these two paths, warfare and peaceful empire building, are not in balance. The game supports peaceful empire building more, and that's where the luck in exploring makes the difference. KMcPartland wrote: Quote: ...house rules... Dropping the VP goal may play a big part here. This would not be a house rule, it is right there in the Advanced Rules. Some groups prefer the shorter game with less conflict that a lower VP goal provides. That's how you quote someone out of context! Had you read the whole chapter you might have understood that dropping the VP limit is just one of the actions in making the game better, better at least for me. Or it might be my poor English, in which case I apologise. Actually with dropping the VP limit I plan to try giving more aggressive player a chance. Note that this is just one of the tweaks, alone it would not work. Another goal for it is to end the game sooner if the war chief players exhaust themselves. If their conquest fails on all fronts there's no need to keep playing when there's clearly no chance of catching up. Going to war in CoP can be compared to making a semi-forced all-in bet in Hold'em when you’re short stacked. You didn't find enough islands to settle so you have to try and steal others. If it works good for you, if not then you’re busted. There's a little chance in recovering. This needs to be changed so that war can be valid strategy, not just last resort or a way to squeeze the last two victory points.
|
Ron K
United States
Marcellus
New York
|
Mikko, I agree to disagree.
|
|
|
i make it short:
I like Reef Encounter. I like Conquest of Paradise. DIFFERENT games. DIFFERENT themes. And we are all DIFFERENT gamers. So, what?
If I like to play a "horror" game I take a game with a horror-theme...
About the rules "turning inside" > follow the steps of one gameround.
|
J Mathews
United States
Mayfield Heights
Ohio
|
RaDiKal wrote: This is a light wargame that won't appeal to someone who prefers Euros. However, someone who has played Euros and is interested in something closer to a wargame should check this out as that is more the niche that CoP fills. This is an interesting observation, mainly because I describe it completely opposite to what you say. I feel that this is a Euro-style game that happens to have more theme and more possibility for direct conflict than your typical Euro and happens to be made by a wargame company. I actually have had more local Euro-gamers enjoy this than wargamers. To this end, I had many conversations with Kevin before this was published (I was a proofreader and had a demo copy about a year and a half ago to take it to some Western US cons) about making this look more like a Euro as far as components go. Aside from the increase in cost, he is very insistant on this looking and being marketed as a wargame. That's his choice and I think that the final product turned out well for what the stated purposes were. mikko_r wrote: Actually with dropping the VP limit I plan to try giving more aggressive player a chance. Note that this is just one of the tweaks, alone it would not work. Another goal for it is to end the game sooner if the war chief players exhaust themselves. If their conquest fails on all fronts there's no need to keep playing when there's clearly no chance of catching up. I actually was responsible for getting the VPs increased as an official rule. We found the opposite thing that you are trying to fix- low VPs created runaway winners and a higher VP limit allows slow starters to catch up and allowed war-based strategies time to succeed. It is rare to be able to develop significant war parties in the first 5-6 turns. Our games were ending before those players that really wanted to fight could get going. The thing that you need to understand about war in this game is that it is not a game where a war strategy can work well from the start. It makes more sense to build a navy and strike in a series of caluculated point grabs. If the war chief players are actually exhausting themselves, they are not looking at war in a productive way and aren't weighing the costs vs the benefits in a way that will allow them to win. Of course YMMV. Quote: Going to war in CoP can be compared to making a semi-forced all-in bet in Hold'em when you’re short stacked. You didn't find enough islands to settle so you have to try and steal others. If it works good for you, if not then you’re busted. There's a little chance in recovering. This needs to be changed so that war can be valid strategy, not just last resort or a way to squeeze the last two victory points. First of all, you don't need an army to stel the islands that others are finding- you need foresight. If you aren't finding things early, it makes sense to try and explore stuff that has already been found and get a colony over there quickly. At the beginning, if someone is finding islands quickly, they don't have the resources to colonize them all. You can usually steal something with no military. Again, the reason that I think that the military path is not balanced is because at its heart, this is an economic civilization/exploration game, not a wargame. The two paths aren't supposed to be equal and to fight against that will involve losing a lot more games than you would otherwise. Military doesn't really come into its own in this game until mid-late game. And even then, you aren't going to win this game through military. This game is won through your efficiency in capitalizing on your resources. Military is there to allow you to force others to be inefficient and to allow you the opportunity to catch up if you are behind. Conquering the Pacific is not a real option and if you are trying that, you are playing inefficiently and deserve to lose. That doesn't mean that this game isn't better when the military is active, which it is. It just means that you should be careful when attacking and understand that the nature of the battle means that, regardless of the outcome, more than likely the losing player will have a chance next turn, or this turn, to attack back. Units don't die (unless you eat them or roll poorly) and so the battles end up being very fluid and not very final. But this is a design choice and if you are looking for a 4X game where the "Exterminate" is a big deal, this is not that game.
|
Kevin McPartland
United States
Jessup
Maryland
|
Thanks for your comments, Jon; as usual, they are very useful and insightful. And thank you again for your help in the development and promotion of the game. You are one of the many volunteer enthusiasts that keep this hobby going! Quote: ...he is very insistant on this looking and being marketed as a wargame. I would very much agree with this statement if you replaced "wargame" with "simulation game". It is not your typical euro, but it's not a wargame either. It is, however, very much a simulation game, even though nearly all other simulation games happen to be wargames. Also, I've got a sense of loyalty to GMT, for taking the chance and publishing this game. They had conditions on the level of investment (and therefore risk) that they were willing to make, and I respect that. Of course I would have liked some wood bits, but they weren't an option. Quote: I actually was responsible for getting the VPs increased as an official rule. True! We were getting other data leading towards the same conclusion, but Jon was the main instigator of that change. Quote: You can usually steal something with no military. It takes some experience with the game to figure this one out, and successfully pull it off. Folks who write a quick review after only one play of the game haven't figured it out yet. Quote: ...this is an economic civilization/exploration game, not a wargame. And it was always intended to be so. In real life, warfare is expensive and full of risk- I think the game simulates this rather well. Of course, in today's world warfare is far more deadly than the battles simulated in the game. Kevin
|
Stephen Brewbacker
United States
Long Island
New York
|
Hagan – loved your review. “You become passengers on the chaos train.” That’s rich. You get a thumbs up just for that line. I too had a chance to play this on the weekend (Feb 23rd) and had an open mind about it not having read or heard anything about it – nothing – not even the components. I agreed with most everything you observed, but came to a very different final conclusion. Components – Kah-rappy. Agreed. Rules – We managed to butcher many of them – and were constantly referring back to the book. Gameplay – I played Raiatea. My explorations yielded miserly results. I cursed my bad fortune and was envious of me Easterly neighbor who discovered a bunch of fat juicy islands in his back yard. I longed to be up north where I could forego exploration and simply build an army and smash the local warrior bands. I was only involved in three battles – all towards the very end of the game – and I lost all three by narrow margins. Theme – It’s OK. Randomness – The randomness was maddening for me. Or was it just my streak of bad luck? There is no way I could have that much go wrong if I played this game again. Strategy – Oh, if I could only play this game again, now that I get it. I forgot all about the cards in the beginning. I played with all of my chits face up and never threw any rumors into the mix. I left myself open to attack. Now I see the strategy and tactics that are possible with hidden chits (all hidden except for my massive transport canoe chain). Conclusion – We played a four player game that took all of 3 hours. I finished dead last and it was ugly. I felt that once I fell behind it was impossible to catch up. I finished the game thoroughly frustrated. Post script - After re-reading the rules, and reading some of the threads here on the geek – I see things completely differently now. In hind sight, I would have done things much differently. Once understood, the rules are fairly intuitive. I find that combat resolution by dice roll is far from ‘random’ – but rather follows the laws of probability – but one must allow for anomolies. And the randomness of the exploration is entirely appropriate. I thrive on randomness – it requires superior strategy and tactics to overcome. I can’t wait to play this game again. I have to say this is one of the most intriguing games I’ve played in a long time. Score: 8/10 I wrote-up up a session reportover on the LIBO blog (my group's blog): http://www.libogroup.com/blog.htm
|
Darren M
New Zealand
Nelson
|
I haven't played this game but am interested in it and I have to commend making a review on what the perceived bad points of the game are. Life is not all fluffy bunnies and cotton candy and we need negative viewpoints as much as positive to get an unbiased and balanced view of what's available on the market. Thumbs up  to the OP for his review and also to those who made valid counterpoints in subsequent responses. You all make BGG a more informative and useful place to participate in.
|
|
|
|
Posted Sun Feb 10, 2008 10:24 pm
