geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
13
7 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Kenneth Bailey
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Mare Nostrum » Forums » Reviews
The Quest for Civ Lite
This game was recommended as a version of Civ Lite, while certainly fits the bill, I think it misses on one aspect...the epicness. You have the feel of building a civilization especially as you get the hero and wonder cards but it doesn't have the epicness that building a civillizaiton should have.

Anyways, the game is pretty simple. You are representing one of the major powers of the Ancient Age - Rome, Carthage, Egypt, Babylon or Greece. Rome has an advantage in that it can build legions cheaply. Carthage has the advantage of getting bonuses to its legions. Greece can build ships cheaply and have an advantage on the seas. Babylon can annex a territory for free. Egypt can turn a resource card into any other resource card.

The turns have three actions - gather and trade resources, build and military stuff.

First you gather your resources based on your caravans, markets, cities and temples. Caravans let you get resources that they are place on. Markets double resources in that territory. Cities allow you to gather taxes, temples double that in that territory. For trading, there is a market director (he's the person with the most caravans and markets). He states a number of cards to be traded and then everyone puts that number face down in front of them. The cards are flipped and the marketing director picks a card. That person then gets to pick another card and so on. You can only trade twice in a row with a person. The object is to either get sets of resources or groups of taxes.

After trading, there is building. The commerce director determines the order. To build you need a certain number of resources to build stuff. You can also build wonders or heroes if you have enough resources. There is a limited number of things that you can build. You must use all your resources or you discard them (except for two taxes).

The last phase is the military. You can go to war. This isn't too bad as long as you don't go after the capital province because you can't actually take that over. Also, I'm not sure if we misunderstood the rules, but it sounds like if you have an army occupying an entity but don't actually control the territory, both players get resources for that territory.

The winner is the first player that gets 4 wonders or heros (or combination?) or builds the Pyramids. This is probably my biggest complaint about the game. It seems that just as everything is rolling, someone is about to win and there's no much you can do about it.

There is enough here to call it Civ Lite but it doesn't have that epic feel to it. The Wonders are nice but there's not enough variation to give different feelings to the civilizations. Some of the civilizations seem unbalancing, but not overly so. While this game can be played with 3 players, it seems that there is the problem of two players going to war and the third ends up winning.

Josh Street
United States
Mount Pleasant
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd highly recommend the expansion. It fixes the balance issue completely (IMO and those of many on the geek) and the special units add a bit more variety to the nations.

I agree with your point on the epicness of the game, but every time I look to fix it, I end up making the game too long to be Civ Lite - all in all, this is currently one of my favorites.
Jim Patterson
United States
Iowa City
Iowa
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
My copy of base+expansion is sitting in an unopened TH box that came today, so I can hardly weigh in on balance. I'd say it's expecting a lot to have Civ Lite be also epic. There's some correlation between length and epicness.
Sam Daf


msg tools
mbmb
mikoyan wrote:
Also, I'm not sure if we misunderstood the rules, but it sounds like if you have an army occupying an entity but don't actually control the territory, both players get resources for that territory.


If I recall correctly (rules not with me at the moment), nobody gets the resources in this situation... at least I'm definitely sure that the occupying army DEFINITELY DOESN't cause they don't have a resource marker of their own in that territory... (unless they decided to "sack" the place and replace the marker to their own colour on the next turn)


Edit: comments incorrect... corrected in post below

Quote:
The winner is the first player that gets 4 wonders or heros (or combination?) or builds the Pyramids. This is probably my biggest complaint about the game. It seems that just as everything is rolling, someone is about to win and there's no much you can do about it.


Yes, I agree with you here... that's why we now play it by increasing the resource requirements to build the pyramid to 13 from 12 resources (one doesn't have to expand too far to obtain just 12 different resources... this forces everyone to expand a little further beyond their national borders to gain that elusive 13th resource. It also forces Egypt to become a little more confrontational since they will need to occupy more territories to gain that extra 13th card...as they can simply convert tax to reources as you correctly stated above)

Edit: sorry, may be referring to the expansion set which has a 13th resource..

If we want to keep the game going a little further still, we increase the total wonders/heroes by ONE more too, to 5...

Quote:
There is enough here to call it Civ Lite but it doesn't have that epic feel to it. The Wonders are nice but there's not enough variation to give different feelings to the civilizations. Some of the civilizations seem unbalancing, but not overly so. While this game can be played with 3 players, it seems that there is the problem of two players going to war and the third ends up winning.


With 2 players, the best way is to play with a smaller map region and the 2 nations being adjacent, not the whole board..

3 players, has the problem you mentioned, and this too can be resolved by shrinking the map borders a little too. But really the game really shines with 4+ players.

As for the 'epicness', and 'lack of variations' and 'unbalanceness'... I couldn't agree more with Josh, to say that one should play with the expansion. These days when we play we only play with the expansions... Greece still has it a little tough, but it's a good challenge... maybe make the more experienced player play Greece.

In both the base and expansion game though, if the Commerce Leader isn't aggressive with the trading session, it becomes very easy for Egypt to run away with the game. I can assure you that that is not a fault/unbalanceness with the game, but rather something that the group should/needs to learn from and play differently next time, if this happens in your game sessions.

Otherwise, quite a nice review :)
Last edited on 2008-07-18 00:40:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Kenneth Bailey
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
If you look at the little reference cards, the getting of resources is as follows:
IF the territory is controlled, that person gets a resource.
If there is an army on the caravan, that person gets a resource. IN order to get the double resources form a market, the army has to be occupying as well.

Looking at the card:
There are still owners from other players in the province: REvenue goes to the real owner of the province. No building in this province.

And for occupation: The invader gains resources and taxes from buildings occupied by legions. (1 per legion present). REvenue is shared. No building allowed.

WE interpreted this to mean that both people get stuff.

And looking at the rules:
For each city or caravan in a province under a player's influence, or occupied by a player's legion, the director of commerce gives that player their income.

Taking this with the reference card, we interpreted that to mean that both players get the resources which makes taking over a capital a pretty crappy proposition. It also forces you to sack instead of occupy if you are trying to prevent a win.
Sam Daf


msg tools
mbmb
Sorry Keneth, I really stuffed up :blush: (what happens when you respond without resorting to the rules to make sure on things)

Here goes:

Essentially whoever controls the city or caravan in a territory, is the one who gains that income/resource respectively (controlling the temple gains +1 tax income, and controlling the market gains +1 resource).

The only time both territory OWNER and OCCUPIER can gain resources is if there are are 2 caravans and each player controls one of them (thereby receiving the corresponding resource covered by that caravan)

In the case of the OCCUPIER, he needs a Legion on that city/caravan. (the OWNER simply needs to "have influence" over that building ie to own a non-enemy occupied city/caravan... after all it's his). A city/caravan occupied by an enemy Legion is no longer considered "under the influence of the owner", and hence the owner doesn't gain anything from that building.

Note when there are multiple armies in a territory, territory is considered "At War" and only the OWNER of that territory gains that income/resource... (cause they still control the caravan/city)

Hope this makes sense now ;)
Last edited on 2008-07-18 00:54:30 CST (Total Number of Edits: 4)
Kenneth Bailey
United States
Ypsilanti
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
sdafilli wrote:
Sorry Keneth, I really stuffed up :blush: (what happens when you respond without resorting to the rules to make sure on things)

Here goes:

Essentially whoever controls the city or caravan in a territory, is the one who gains that income/resource respectively (controlling the temple gains +1 tax income, and controlling the market gains +1 resource).

The only time both territory OWNER and OCCUPIER can gain resources is if there are are 2 caravans and each player controls one of them (thereby receiving the corresponding resource covered by that caravan)

In the case of the OCCUPIER, he needs a Legion on that city/caravan. (the OWNER simply needs to "have influence" over that building ie to own a non-enemy occupied city/caravan... after all it's his). A city/caravan occupied by an enemy Legion is no longer considered "under the influence of the owner", and hence the owner doesn't gain anything from that building.

Note when there are multiple armies in a territory, territory is considered "At War" and only the OWNER of that territory gains that income/resource... (cause they still control the caravan/city)

Hope this makes sense now ;)

That is what I thought and the way I originally interpreted the rules because our way didn't make sense.

"here's your stuff even thought these big nasty guys with spears and stuff are sitting here"
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.