Yesterday I read a Geek List that pointed out that there is no review for Machiavelli – I took that as a challenge.


I have played Machiavelli several times – both face-to-face and by mail. My initial reaction to the game was that it was a Diplomacy clone. That opinion was based on ignorance – to think that Machiavelli is simply ‘Diplomacy in Italy’ is to do Machiavelli a grave injustice.

The Components
Originally published by Battleline, Machiavelli was reprinted in two different editions by Avalon Hill. I have owned all three versions.
Battleline – the counters were in strong primary and secondary colours and were double thickness (as was the habit of Battleline). The map was on cardboard and had the home territories colour-coded to facilitate the set-up of counters.




Avalon Hill 1st Edition – used the same box design as Battleline. The map was mounted and rather than having entire provinces colour-coded, only the edges of the provinces were of the colour matching the initial owner. The counters were the same colours as previously but only half the thickness (normal Avalon Hill thickness).


Avalon Hill 2nd Edition – game moved to a book-case box. The counters went to tertiary colours – much softer than the original counters (on the eyes - not to the touch) . The map became a work of art with many shades of blue representing the sea and the land areas replaced with shades of gold and brown. There is a soft colour shading at the edge of provinces to show initial ownership. It is so subtle as to be virtually a waste of effort – but the map does look really attractive.



The Rules
The game has several scenarios – one of the scenarios is for 8 players and the other three scenarios are for 6 players. There are suggestions for variations on the number of players so the game can be played by fewer than 6.

The game has Basic Rules which are virtually the same as the rules of Diplomacy.

The Advanced Rules, however, give Machiavelli a totally new dimension and allows for many more options regarding both strategy and tactics.
Finances – money is gained by controlling territory. Forces are built using this money and you may build one elite unit. You can lend or give money to other players.
Expenditure - money can be spent on Famine Relief (optional rules), Rebellions, Assassination Attempts (if successful the victim’s forces do nothing for a turn), Bribing Enemy Forces to disband or even change sides.

Playing The Game
You should really play with the Advanced and Optional Rules. They add no real complexity to the game but add massive variety and opportunities. I played one game where I was able to take out my neighbour on the very first turn of the game. I hate to say it but I lied to him. I let him think I was his ally and I borrowed money from him. I used this money to disband two of his armies and to gain control of a third. On the first move I marched into his two provinces where his armies had been disbanded and used the third army to take control of his third and last city. He was out. I now cringe at the thought of it and ask myself how could I ever have acted in such a way to a person who trusted me. Needless to say I didn’t have to repay the money I had borrowed.

Is It Really Different To Diplomacy
If you only use the Basic Rules the answer is "NO", it really is 'Diplomacy in Italy'.

If you use the Advanced and Optional rules it is quite different because the military aspects of the game become much more open, much more variable and have an element of randomness. Combat in Diplomacy is not random - two units will always beat one unit and three units will never beat another three units. This all changes in Machiavelli. Due to random factors such as plague and rebellion armies may die and provinces may stop producing income. Due to Assassination armies you expect to move may do nothing. Due to the Bribery of armies some of your units may disappear or even turn against you. Due to Elite units having the strength of two ordinary units a single army can now defeat another single army.

It is all due to money and how you use it. A worthwhile strategy is to play a low-key, save your money and when you have enough in reserve become very aggressive. The is a much stronger feel of randomness in Machiavelli - Diplomacy has a much stronger element of certainly when it comes down to military affairs.

Honesty in ‘Diplomacy-type’ games
When I first started playing this sort of game I was under the misapprehension that lying was a mandatory part of the game. I used to feel sick in the stomach because I was lying to people. It made me feel really uncomfortable, even though it was only a game. I was quite happy to shoot and assassinate people – but lying was a different thing altogether. Happily I have found that you don’t HAVE TO lie at all. You can adopt the policy that you think long and hard about your agreements and you word them in such a way that you can honour them and win. I will now frequently put a time limit or a condition that the agreement is in effect until certain things happen or even simply have a clause that two turns notice will be given between cancelling an agreement and then attacking the former ally. I find this works for me and actually makes it easier for other people to deal with you.

An Amazing Tournament
One of my most amazing gaming experiences was a Machiavelli tournament for teams of 3 players. In each team one person was the Ruler, another was the Marshall and the third was the Diplomat.
The rules were as follows: Rulers could only talk to their personal Marshall and Diplomat. Diplomats were allowed 10 minutes in the diplomacy area to talk to other Diplomats. Each Marshall was allowed to choose to talk to another Marshall for 5 minutes (this meant that if each Marshall chose a different person that would get to talk to two others for 5 minutes each – if by some chance two Marshals chose each other they would get 10 minutes).
The Ruler would instruct the Diplomat regarding what he wanted said and who he wanted it said to. He would also instruct the Marshall, in general terms, who were friends and who were enemies.
The Diplomat would talk with other Diplomats and report back to the Ruler (I was the Diplomat – goodness knows why).
The Marshall would make all military decisions.
As it turned out, we did very poorly for the first 6 turns. After that we stopped talking to the other Diplomats and let our armies do our talking for us and our situation improved. Clearly the Marshall was better at his job than the Diplomat.

"Dead Men Tell No Tales!"