geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
12
9 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron050708
mbmbmbmbmb
Kingsburg » Forums » Reviews
A Brief Look at Kingsburg
The Golden Age of Dice Games continues with this new entry from Italy. And a very nice one it is, with gorgeous components and some clever mechanics. I’ve played it about five times now, with 3-5 players, and have enjoyed it every time.

The way in which you use the dice to select characters is appealing in its simplicity, but it’s implemented well enough (with the +2 chips and some building powers) and with enough variety in the abilities that you consistently have pleasant decisions on how to split your dice. I also think the designers did a good job with the different strategies inherent in the buildings. Requiring that the buildings in a row be constructed in order is a key rule and gives you enough varied strategies to try out to keep the game fresh. In fact, in my second game, I decided to go for a strategy based on the bottom row of buildings, with the plan being to build the last two buildings (which can generate VPs each season) as quickly as possible. (I've since found out that this is called the "Embassy Rush" strategy.) While this didn’t work out quite as easily as I’d hoped, I was basically able to implement this and managed a close victory. As one who usually favors tactical games, I found this quite satisfying.

With any dice game, there’s always a concern of what role luck plays and that goes doubly for this one, since there’s a planning and strategic element to the play. Obviously, there’s some luck involved; a player rolling a high number (the right high number) at a key moment can change the course of a close game. But the principal concern—-that success is more about rolling well than choosing well--is thankfully unfounded. I’ve found that when I roll low, I can often get just about as much accomplished as my opponents do by splitting the dice up and going for the low numbered characters. It’s by no means a guarantee and you need to take both the needs and the individual die faces of your opponents into account, but I’m able to pull this off more often than not. This is a sign of a good design. Of course, consistently rolling poorly will probably doom you (since there are some items that are only available with average to good rolls), but unless you walk around with your own personal dark cloud, you should find the luck of the seasonal dice rolls to be at an acceptable level. There’s also plenty of catch-up mechanisms worked into the design, so even a temporary string of bad luck shouldn’t be a killer. I was also concerned about the die roll used to resolve the battle each year. In theory, this could determine the game, since a player who consistently gambles with his army strength will benefit from good rolls and be crushed by bad ones. However, in practice, this doesn’t appear to be a major problem at all. There’s enough reason to win battles that ignoring your military doesn’t seem like a particularly viable strategy. And with a reasonable portion of the enemy cards, the losing effects aren’t that severe. I’m not saying that one or two of the battle die rolls couldn’t be very important in a game, but they don’t seem to dominate things nearly as much as I feared, so it winds up adding a little spice to the game without bothering us luck-averse types too much.

My only complaint with Kingsburg is that our games have gone on a little longer than I’d like. Because of the mechanics, there’s little downtime, but I’d be happier with the listed duration of 90 minutes than the slightly longer than two hour games I’ve played. I was hoping it would play more quickly with three than with five, but even with that number, it seemed to last just a bit too long (maybe because the decisions are a little more interesting with a crowded board, I’m willing to deal with a longer game with more players). Perhaps with more experience, we can shorten this up, but it takes a bit of time to decide how to split your dice and react to your opponents’ choices, so I’m not sure this will happen. Not a big deal, but enough to maybe keep this from my personal top 10 from last year’s strong list of designs. Still, overall I think this is a very appealing entry from new designers Andrea Chiarvesio and Luca Iennaco and I hope we’ll be seeing more from both of them in the future. I'm also very interested to see what they do with the expansion that they're working on.
Stephen Glenn
United States
Virginia Beach
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron04
mbmbmbmbmb
Larry Levy wrote:
The Golden Age of Dice Games continues with this new entry from Italy. And a very nice one it is, with gorgeous components and some clever mechanics. I’ve played it about five times now, with 3-5 players, and have enjoyed it every time.


I've played this three times now and enjoyed it as well. I promised myself I'd limit myself to 10 new game purchases this year -- Kingsburg threatens to be one of them. The fact that my son loves the game (and is quite good at it) makes it pretty much a done deal.

Larry Levy wrote:
(I've since found out that this is called the "Embassy Rush" strategy.) While this didn’t work out quite as easily as I’d hoped, I was basically able to implement this and managed a close victory.


I've seen the Embassy Rush strategy work twice in the three games I've played, but never by a huge margin.

Larry Levy wrote:
I’ve found that when I roll low, I can often get just about as much accomplished as my opponents do by splitting the dice up and going for the low numbered characters.


Precisely! I love this aspect of the game. In my game yesterday I rolled 1-1-2 (blucch!) and got two advisors. Granted, they weren't great, but I was pleased at being able to bend the ears of two advisors with such a poor roll.

And I ended up winning -- by a point (Embassy Rush Rules!)

Larry Levy wrote:
I'm also very interested to see what they do with the expansion that they're working on.


Yup. The expansion is a must-own for me. Does that mean it has to count as one of my ten???
Jim Marshall
United Kingdom
York
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron07
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice review. I've only played it once and broadly share your plusses and your minuses (it's perhaps a little too long, and I was the only newbie at the table).

I really have no issue with dice as long as they're something you can assess and work with, as they are here. With something like Monopoly or Talisman, your turn is pretty much dictated by what you roll. With a good dice game such as Kingsburg, it's about assessing your options and making the best use of them - you have choices.

At the broadest level, I see no difference between the dice roll here and a card or tile draw. Indeed, I'd argue that there's less luck here than in a tile draw game. Taking the esteemed Tigris and Euphrates as a point of comparison, with Kingsburg you can see what everyone's options are once the dice are cast (so there's no hidden knowledge based on the luck of the draw), while with T&S you just don't know what tiles your opponents have drawn.

Indeed, if you feel uncomfortable with the luck of the dice in Kingsburg, you can buy buildings that mitigate against it. All part of the decision-making process!
Last edited on 2008-07-06 17:27:42 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Stven Carlberg
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
I pretty much agree with your comments here, Larry, except that I think our games *are* running a little shorter than yours now that we've got the hang of the decisions about what to do with the dice rolls. Or I suppose it's possible they just seem shorter than two hours because I'm enjoying the game. Next time I'll try to time it and see. I've actually played the game 10 times, so I do have a little more experience with it than you.

Let's see, what else was I going to say? Oh yeah. The end-of-the-year roll of the die for the make-or-break attack of the outlanders really *is* the controlling piece of luck in the game if it bites you on the very last turn, when the penalty for losing is direst. Very few players can afford to lose their best building and still have enough points left to win -- I've seen that happen only once. I feel like I'm forced to make sure I've got enough defense points to be prepared for the last attack no matter what the roll of the die. If I can't manage to do that, then I know I'm leaving myself a 1 in 6 (or worse) chance of losing the game. What makes it interesting is that there are going to be games where I *have* to leave myself with that chance of losing everything on the last roll of the die if I want to have the VP to have *any* chance of winning. Yes, it *can* all come down to one roll of the die -- but not unless there's been a mighty lot of fancy footwork up to that point.

I'm okay with that!

The other point of disagreement is that I'm *sorry* to hear there are plans for an "expansion" of this game. It's big enough already. Giving people who like the game a reason not to want to play it in its present form is bound to cause distress.

Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron050708
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm usually not a fan of expansions either, Stven, but in this case, I think the game will benefit from it. Even one more row of buildings would expand the range of strategies considerably and add to the game's replayability. Of course, this assumes that any new buildings are as well balanced as the ones in the current game and that there aren't too many new features added. Let's just say I'm more interested in Kingburg's expansion than I am in many others.
Zach Howell
United States
Denver
Colorado
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron05070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for another review, I love reading the Kingsburg articles.

I have about 10 "real" games under my belt and probably 20-25 java games against AI behind me.

I find I share most of your thoughts, I really like that most of the time rolling low isn't a killer. One of the real games I played, I rolled a 1,1,2 twice, that isn't so much fun without a market and really hurt my position in that game as it forced me into a situation in which I couldn't build and thus fell behind for the King's Reward for the following 3 rounds.

My only uncertainty with the game and I know it balanced around it, is the inability to get stone with a single dice period outside of the Alchemist or Market. The more I play the more I run into that, I'm left wondering if I think it is a good thing to force people out of the first row or a bad thing as it makes stone nearly impossible for low rolls.

I really like Kingsburg and I really like the both the designers post here and are awesome with clarifications and supporting house rules and the like.
Luca Iennaco
Italy
Torino
flag msg tools
Avatar
0405060708
mbmb
Larry Levy wrote:
The Golden Age of Dice Games continues with this new entry from Italy. [...]

Thanks for the kind review, Larry.
And thanks to the other posters agreeing with it, too! :D

Larry Levy wrote:
My only complaint with Kingsburg is that our games have gone on a little longer than I’d like.

I see.
I'll try to "defend" us by saying that any game has a lenght that is at least as much due to the group of people playing it than it is dependent by the structure of the game itself.
I hope a few more plays will speed up your games a bit (at least as much as you'd like).

ssmooth wrote:
The other point of disagreement is that I'm *sorry* to hear there are plans for an "expansion" of this game. It's big enough already. Giving people who like the game a reason not to want to play it in its present form is bound to cause distress.

We try to offer options (the expansion, as you may know, is composed by five "modules", so it's more like five small independent expansions): you may play vanilla Kingsburg or you may add one (or up to all five!) modules to it. How is having options bad?

If you prefer vanilla, go for it: no one is going to blame you.
If you think the problem could be that while you prefer vanilla and your mates (for example) expanded... well, I suppose you could alternate one play of each type. And who knows, you may discover that one of the modules is something you like to add, after all!
They are quite different, hoping that everyone can get "his favourite flavour" of Kingsburg thanks to the expansion.

In any case, as I said, if you like the basic game but aren't interested in the expansion, I still feel satisfied (and wish you well :) ).

Larry Levy wrote:
Of course, this assumes that any new buildings are as well balanced as the ones in the current game

We tried to put the same care in the modules as we did with the original game (even if during these months both Andrea and I have been "trumped by real life" at times). It's still "our baby", after all. ;)

Larry Levy wrote:
and that there aren't too many new features added.

I'll stress one last (for today :p ) time that the five modules can be impemented independently. So you may start with one, then add another, then one more,... or you may alternate between them.
Each of them is "small", dare I say, so you won't feel overwhelmed by new stuff. The idea is to give people more things to explore, but keeping the "old familiar structure". I'll wait until you'll have tried it to read if we've been successful or not.

Have fun! :meeple:
Huzonfirst
United States
Manassas
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
patron050708
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks, Luca. We're all anxious to see what you and Andrea have come up with.
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0809
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice concise review Larry, and I agree with your generally favorable verdict. For a game totally dependent on die rolling, I don't find this implementation anywhere near as problematic as, say, Settlers of Catan where poor die rolling early will effectively kill you regardless of what you do later. As well, there are various elements of mitigation to help those so affected which takes much of the sting out of a poor run of dice.

Of course, in what is basically a dice game, it is better to roll well (high in this case) than poorly but the mitigation and relatively quick pace of this game makes it all quite acceptable as an enjoyable "beer and pretzels" game.
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.