My experience has been that Antike is equally appreciated by both genders, for what it's worth. It helps that Antike is awesome.
I wouldn't recommend it to fans of Risk, though; if approached primarily as a game of combat, Antike bogs down. The brilliance of the game is that you need to employ balanced strategies.

I agree completely. I have also played with my two teen-aged sons, (13 and 15) and they like this game alot.

I found two problems with Antike which in combination killed it:

1) It is relatively easy to determine the first dozen or so optimal moves for each player. At tht point further planning becomes a little shakier as it depends on negotiated states.

2) With good players the end-game frequently becomes a grinding detente as it is clear what each player has to do in turn to ensure that no other player cannot win on that turn.

1) Half-dozen or so, sure (given a stipulated first turn). After that, in my experience, there is considerable latitude based on personal preference and long-term strategy.

2) Good players sack temples early, thus avoiding the end-game detente.

1) As Mark says, the length of the "opening" (to use a chess word) is only about 5-6 moves, which is around as much as it takes to obtain the benefits of any particular opening strategy (be it a technology, cities, a fast temple, an army...). I believe that if you consider your first 12 moves to be scripted, you may not be playing Antike to the full extent of its strategic potential. I say this with over 30+ games under my belt.

2). Even more, good players are precisely the ones best at hiding their needs and keeping many options open by the end game. If it is clear that you can only win if you sack a temple, you've not played your best. When players are truly good (which takes a lot of repeated plays) the endgame is no longer a stall for "who gets that temple", instead it gets full of surprises, because people instead of hurrying for navigation and king cards are now seemingly to turtling down a bit to keep a low profile and spike 3 cards at once near the end. Sacking early as Mark says is the best way to keep your options open near the end. If you have only one way to victory, they'll block you, but if you have alternatives, they can't cut you from all.

The later in turn order the harder precise calculation becomes. However I've found it entirely calculable until the third technology is bought.



I haven't found that changes anything. It simply changes the balance of VP-types when the detente hits.

The later in turn order the harder precise calculation becomes. However I've found it entirely calculable until the third technology is bought.



I haven't found that changes anything. It simply changes the balance of VP-types when the detente hits.

Antike is an open perfect and certain information game. There is no hiding if the players inspect carefully enough and here they most definitely do inspect carefully enough. On every turn every player should know all the potentials and incentives of all players.



While I don't disagree with the point of early temples I do disagree with surprises. The only times I've been surprised in Antike has been by bad/poor play choices by other players. Again, it is an open information game. Everything is available to inspection and prediction. It is always clear what 3 card potential each players have and exactly what is necessary for them to be able to accomplish that or what is needed to prevent that opportunity. And yes, with sufficient shared prediction and negotiated collusion among the players you really can block all possible avenues for a protracted period.

Effectively Antike is a giant game of multi-player Nim and this becomes increasingly apparent as the end-game approaches. Nim games are solvable and modulo small multi-player effects so is Antike.

Just because a game is an open information game, doesn't mean that "On every turn every player should know all the potentials and incentives of all players". I definitely wouldn't say that about chess (and I played chess competitively when I was young). I'd be hard pushed to find an international grand master of chess who's never been surprised in the "perfect open information" that is chess.

All that a zero-sum, perfect information, partisan, deterministic strategy game like Go or chess or Antike need to overcome the "every player should know all the potential o other players" is complexity, and that complexity isn't compelx rules (go check Go) but what strategy swings those rules allow.

I agree that there are last turns in Antike that seem like chess puzzles: "red wins in 3". However, There is enough complexity in Antike that even after you know everyone's gonna maneouver, most times you can't just guess who is going to win, until said turn is executed. ¿Will I be able cruise deep inside there and still have enough troops to sack that temple?" It depends on a lot of things and there are more than 2 players. Many times, the complexity of battles in those "solvable" last turns makes the outcome uncertain until said turn is performed. (I've been gladly surprised that I had exactly the sufficient number of troops and fleets required to perform a feat, but I could not have possibly predicted/calculated how many would I've needed back when I armed)

What you say could definitely happen tho, if the group allows players to "inspect carefully enough" as they please without any kind of time constraint. Certainly there is a reason why Go and Chess tournaments are timekept. Perhaps it hasn't happened to us because we do use a time constraint (1 minute sand timer por each turn), but with 5 players, and a reasonable time constraint, you can't fit everybody's "potential and incentives" in your head. It is true that when played very competitively this game becomes more like chess/go, and requires this kind of measures (sand timer) and starts to feel more like an endurance competition of who fuses their brain last, as happened to Kasparov against deep blue.

I too have felt moments of grief thinking "they have no chance, I'm gonna win in 3 by doing this and that", but I don't blame it on the game, I believe it is due to my friends not being as good as I am at it (since it's my copy I play more, and I tend to win more than half the plays). With much expertise advantage, victories can become hollow, but I know that if I was given a chance to play an Antike duel against a clone of myself or some sort of pro, I'd definitely take it.

However, that's a matter for the pros, and shouldn't detract from the fact that this game is a great gateway game for those new to the euro genre, and will remain good for them for long enough. Solvability-wise, Antike is more like Go than Nim

I respectfully disagree. Have you tried playing with the half map variant described here?
The Definitive Two Player Antike Variant: Using Half the Map
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/352200
See also the file download here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo/36332

There are five different scenarios possible, and there's general agreement that it's far superior to the rules for two players that come with the game.



In fact, with this variant Antike might even be better as a two-player game than with any other number of players, because it eliminates the diplomacy and bad board position that some people dislike about the game: it's just two players head to head, and diplomacy and board position doesn't really come into it.

I tried it only once. and I believe I like the game more with 3 to 5. However, that's not the reason of my advise to newcomers, who don't have a game group and often have a stringent criteria of "very 2P friendly game" (I've seen many of them in the forums asking for such advise).

Remember this is a review explicitly for newcomers to the hobby, people who won't have a "mentor" by their side when they play the first time, who don't have a "gaming group" yet and thus their first play with friends might be an "only one chance" affair. If the 2 player game requires research in BGG to find the one variant that goes better than the official rules from the game, I think it is best to warn the newcomer about it. "Not well suited" doesn't mean it can't be fun with 2, it's just a fair warning to newcomers.

Chess' decision tree is quite bushy. Antike's isn't.



Look-ahead in Antike just isn't that hard. The patterns aren't that complex -- especially with several players around the table all cooperating and advising to ensure that no gaps are left.



That is not my experience.

I believe that. However, I'm pretty sure your experience is not the norm when it comes to most games, especially when it comes to the ability visualize decision trees in perfect information games. Based on almost every post of yours that I've read, and I have no reason to doubt you, your ability see multiple moves ahead in games is well beyond the average person's, and even the average BGG member's.

Very nice review & discussion - thank you.
I just bought this game & am trying to decipher it.
I could not find anywhere to play online (and have no chance of getting up to 5 players ftf around here)....IS there a place?

Because of this review, I bought the game.
OK, it has one side of the board in German and half the cards are also in German......but: how on earth do you start ?
How many coins are handed out to the two players (each representing two nations) and how much does each player have to pay the intial cities stated on the cards ? Does the first player choose one of his two nations and on his second turn choose the next one (eg: Greece and Germany). If so, are the counters of the players placed on those cities ?
I was terribly disappointed not to have that lovely Manual descibing the historical facts etc and the board being split into two languages aswell as half the cards being in German. What on earth were they thinking of !
The game sounds great (for me) and the price (£40) is more or less acceptable if only the game had proper translation and added English manual. I feel disconcerted and let down.
Please someone, get me started so as I can at least get on with the rules that follow the mambo-jambo of a beginning !

You can find the english rules here on BGG, at this address:

http://files.boardgamegeek.com/file/download/1l0byyfuu3/Anti...

It sounds like you got some sort of odd hybrid version. Not quite sure what to make of it....

Ooooops, Jeff, the Link has expired !

Try this:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/19753

Since you mention a price in sterling pounds, I assume you live in Europe and got your hands on the german version. It is unfortunate that you got a manual in german, because it won't go as smooth as it should. Nevertheless, if you print the english rules from here, you should be up and sailing in no time:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/19753

The map has two sides, one for the mediterranean and one for the middle east. In my copy (US printed) the middle-east side is printed in german. It's not a problem once you know the game, but because of the names printed in the rondel it is best to play your first few games on the mediterranean (english text) side.

My friends don't speak english (I live in Colombia, South America) so I know getting a game in a foreign language (in your case, german) can be a hassle, but trust me, it's not hard to work through the rules and after you do you'll know it was worth it.