Game: Condottiere

Thread: Re: Three Men in Italy

Trelane — 2008-09-02T23:40:56+00:00

We play the 3 player also and it is a close contest!

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Condottiere

Trelane — 2008-09-02T23:38:11+00:00

I have played the 3 player original version with some friends and it was easy to teach, to play and was good enough to hold the interest of only a marginal wargamer. The update looks good and I would like to have a copy sometime in the future. The art on the old version was commented on by a friend as a game with "Tarot Cards". So the new issue improves on the art and would eliminate such talk.

Thread: Re: Girls Crush the Guys: Attack of the Condottierettes...

sightreader — 2008-08-14T19:19:10+00:00

rplea wrote:
*raises hand*
You'd fit right in.

Thread: Re: Girls Crush the Guys: Attack of the Condottierettes...

rplea — 2008-08-14T18:23:33+00:00

we got spanked because we didn't give them the credit they deserved.

*raises hand*

Thread: Girls Crush the Guys: Attack of the Condottierettes...

sightreader — 2008-08-13T23:12:05+00:00

With the success of our game parties, I decided to try something more adventurous and hold a party at Red Robin.
]]>
We were already pretty goofy after a few games of Quo Vadis?, so by the time we started Condottiere our humor had become hopelessly raunchy. Condottiere is not hard to teach at all, even to non-gamers (at least with the help of some BGG playing aids). However, things had gotten so silly that we simply raised our hands in guilt whenever thoughts strayed into the gutter:

"OK, so this little rod is The Pope and the other is The Condottiere, see? Just hold them at an angle, they almost looks like... well... uhhh..." (several hands go up)

"But wait... shouldn't the Black One be bigger?" (EVERY hand goes up)

]]>
It only took a few sample rounds and play began in earnest. The girls were playing tough and aggressive. In the second round, one of them noted the game seems to be about timing. I asked what she meant by that, and she said that it's all a matter of knowing when to start saving for the next round. Now I knew that my misfortunes were not just bad luck...

]]>
Fortunately, one of the girls had to leave early, which saved us because she had carved out a lot of territory in the North. Me and the other guy, however, were still stuck with single territories while everyone else had three.

]]>
I was only familiar with the older version of Condottiere, and so I found that the Bishop is a much needed addition to the game that prevents the feared 10-Army cards from running away with battles. Fear of Bishops had everyone trying to sneak in armies just a point smaller than the biggest one, making all denominations very valuable. My tricks and traps had people giving me the "Evil Eye" a lot.

]]>
However, it was a hopeless cause: we would never be able to get linked territories nor get five. It would have helped to play with the rules that allow you to fight again for territories already won, but in retrospect, we guys lost because we spent too many cards trying to prevent others from winning. We didn't trust girls to stop whoever the leader was, and so we tried to do it all ourselves. With each round, their winnings grew until we were but irrelevant annoyances.

]]>
OK, OK, I'll come out and just admit it... we got spanked because we didn't give them the credit they deserved.

Image

sightreader — 2008-08-11T07:10:39+00:00

The Evil Eye: Condottiere at a Red Robin

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Condottiere

koiyu — 2008-08-09T10:58:30+00:00

ALGO wrote:
"Two-player game literally sucks."

Whoever this quote is from, I do not think that word means what you think it means!

Heh - one of my pet hates, misuse of the word literally.

Great job summarising, Ender!

A

Point taken

But it was posted early in the morning! At work! So the keyboard wasn't mine! It's not my fault! Maybe it's conspiracy! Computers submitting faulty words to embarrass workers who contribute to bgg while on coffee break! They must know it's addictive!

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Condottiere

ALGO — 2008-08-08T14:16:42+00:00

"Two-player game literally sucks."

Whoever this quote is from, I do not think that word means what you think it means!

Heh - one of my pet hates, misuse of the word literally.

Great job summarising, Ender!

A

Thread: Re: What you need to know and what people think about Condottiere

Palladin — 2008-08-08T03:47:44+00:00

I've found the 2-player game to be quite enjoyable. The key is modifying the rules so that the hands are refreshed when either player has 2 or fewer cards, and not requiring the opposing player to flush his or her hand down to two cards before the next deal. In other words the player who has more than two cards in his or her hand when a new deal is triggered, may chose to keep all, none or any number in between.

The two player game can also be made more interesting by modifying the definition of "adjacent territories" to require that they all share a common border, i.e. "clustered", as opposed to being a string of territories. This makes the victory condition a little more difficult to achieve and is perhaps more in keping with the theme of the game.

Thread: What you need to know and what people think about Condottiere

EndersGame — 2008-08-07T21:38:08+00:00

I've skimmed through the reviews and scoured the personal comments, and carefully organized some key quotations to bring you the important things you need to know and what other people think about Condottiere. Perhaps you could call this a kind of "consensus of opinion" - biased of course, because I'm the one who gets to pick the quotes to include. Nevertheless, here you have it, an at-a-glance overview of some of the majority opinions that you need to know about this game.

1. It has a lot of game in a small and easy to learn package.
"Little gem, high potential, easy yet deep."
"Simply a very portable and deep game that scratches a whole lot of itches"
"It's highly portable in its box, and makes for a nice time filler. It's a little easier to get people to play than some of the other games, and it seems easier for many to grasp at its concepts."
"Condottiere takes a simple concept, with easy to use cards, and allows play of them in clever, interesting ways. There is a luck factor, and a bad hand can only be played so many ways; but the game is quick enough to be enjoyable. An enjoyable, light card game - Condottiere is one that will appeal to gamers, especially when in a group of five or six."
"Simple rules, only a few types of cards to understand, but they work together in interesting ways."
"Lots of game packed into a filler time length, and great components to boot."
"One of my favorites due to the ease of teaching and quick game play; lots of bluffing and diplomacy with a nice strategic element thrown in with the mapboard."
"This is SUCH a great game! The rules so simple but the card play and strategy is amazing. It has real aspect of poker combined with a geography element that poker and other card games lack."
"The game has simple rules, great opportunities for communicating/bluffing with your plays, and (for a cardgame) a lot of strategic thinking."
"Elegant area control hand management card game. Although this is in fact a card game disguised as a boardgame, the beautiful board still does add something to the game."

2. It's best with four or five players, okay with three players, and is far from ideal with two or six players.
"Two-player game literally sucks. The whole idea of passing gets kinda lost because, when passing, the other player plays rest of his cards. And because he runs out of cards, new cards are dealt. Passing just gives the other player the opportunity to load the table full of his cards."
"In my experience, the game plays best with 4, and 2 and 6 should be avoided since it's either too slow, or too simple."
"I think the fun level of the game differs greatly depending on how many people are playing. I would give it a rating of 2 when playing with two players. I give it about a 5 with three players. It gets a solid 9 with four or five players and drops slightly to 7 with six players (starts to get long). "
"This game is pretty wretched with 2 players. "
"Condottiere is a decent game with three or four players, especially as it finishes in about half an hour. However, with five or six the game seems to work especially well, as cards such as winter and spring have greater and far-reaching effects. "
"Don't play the game with six players. The game is best with only four or five!"
"While presenting itself as a game for 2 to 6 players, I find that two player games are essentially boring. Because the possibility of forcing a second battle in a round by passing is essentially removed in a two player game (the other player plays out his mercenary cards if you pass) the game devolves into a luck fest quickly. Conversely, a six player game moves too slowly and because you can exhaust your cards in an early battle, players can often find themselves doing something that is not typical of Euro design: watching other people play a game you aren’t playing in. But for three to five players? Condottiere is a great little game that suddenly has taken on elements of bluffing, strategy, psychology at the table and fairly deep strategy in terms of overall position and tactical play."
"This game is about perfect for 4 or 5 players. But with just 3 it doesn't work at all."
"I find that it is best with 4 to 6 players, 3 is ok and with 2 you loose the inter-player bickering and deal making that I find most enjoyable. "
"It's best with 4+ players."
"Not very good (virtually unplayable without some house rules) with two players, but an excellent outwit and outbluff your opponent game with 3 or more."

3. The game has randomness, but it is mitigated by good hand management and the quick play time.
"The randomness is the game’s main downside. All card games suffer from this problem to one extent or another, but Condottiere is quite prone to dealing out useless and godly hands. Fortunately, each game goes on for multiple hands and usually two or three rounds of cards, so the luck often balances out."
"I also don't believe it to have a high luck factor. Rather than compare it to war, I would compare it to poker. You don't always get dealt high cards, but knowing when to bid and how much makes all the difference in the world. "
"I like that it's possible to win even when you have a bad hand of cards. (But of course some hands just can't be saved.)"
"In the interests of play balance, we instituted the following house rule: players only get 1 extra card (not 2) for each territory they control. Otherwise, players who take territories in the first round have a far too overwhelming of an advantage. "

4. The bottom line: what you need to know.
Especially for four or five players, this is a quick little card game that offers a lot of replayability and strategy in a small package.

Image

jsper — 2008-07-28T01:15:06+00:00

Promotional in spanish

Thread: Re: A little game of War

buffalospynovel — 2008-06-26T14:22:34+00:00

WhiteKong wrote:
I think the fun level of the game differs greatly depending on how many people are playing. I would give it a rating of 2 when playing with two players. I give it about a 5 with three players. It gets a solid 9 with four or five players and drops slightly to 7 with six players (starts to get long).

Yes, completely agree. This game is pretty wretched in 2. Overall though, it's an above average game, in my opinion a bit better than the reviewer has stated.

Thread: Re: A little game of War

WhiteKong — 2008-06-26T14:13:20+00:00

I totally disagree with the comparison to War. This is an auction game, but instead of risking your money, you are playing with your soldiers lives. The ability to retreat soldiers (take cards that have been bid back into your hand) adds an excessive amount of tension.

I also don't believe it to have a high luck factor. Rather than compare it to war, I would compare it to poker. You don't always get dealt high cards, but knowing when to bid and how much makes all the difference in the world. You left off an important rule in your explanation, and that is that the cards you are dealt is all you get until all but one player is out of cards. Many times I have seen the player with the low cards pit the players with the better cards against each other on the first territory while sitting out of the battle himself. After they have knocked each other around, the guy with the low cards swoops in to take territories with his full compliment of cards.

This game has been a gigantic hit with my group. My dad and his friends are all in their 60s and are all old wargamers. They love this game, and I have trouble getting it off the table when we bring it out. My eurogaming buddies have really taken to this one as well. Wargamers see it as a war game, and eurogamers see it as an auction game. This is one of the few that can really bridge the gap between those groups.

That said, I think the fun level of the game differs greatly depending on how many people are playing. I would give it a rating of 2 when playing with two players. I give it about a 5 with three players. It gets a solid 9 with four or five players and drops slightly to 7 with six players (starts to get long).

It's even more fun in experienced groups. I find that the rookie groups I've played with rarely wheel and deal with one another. The ones that have played it numerous times start into alliances almost right away. Making and breaking these pacts becomes a meta-game that really adds to the fun.

My only problem with this game is that it's possible that there will be a player eliminated before the last hand is dealt. That player may have no chance of winning due to the victory requirements and the set up of the board. Since it's the last hand, they don't have long to wait (5 minutes?) but you do need to be aware that this player can help play kingmaker unless you make a house rule that forbids it. Player elimination doesn't always happen. I have been in a five player game where any one of the five players could win based on the outcome of the last two territories.

Thread: A little game of War

GreyLord — 2008-06-26T08:15:15+00:00

This is a review of Condottiere

It's summary is as follows

Materials = 6

Rules Presentation = 6

Gameplay = 8

Personal Tilt = 6

Replayability = 8

Useability = 7

Final Score = 6.8

I got this game as I was looking for portable games that I could take around to friends houses, travel, to work for play over lunch, and other areas where portability is a great asset. I had been printing out free Wargames, as they were cheap and easy to carry around in a plastic baggie, but they failed to scratch the itch some had of a Eurogame. In addition, some of those were quite hard to play over a lunch hour, or at the beginning of a game night when waiting for others to arrive due to their length.

So that's how I ended up picking up this little gem of a game. Overall, it's basically a glorified and modified version of the traditional card game played with Poker Cards...War. I'll probably refer to War occasionally in this review, so I apologize before hand to those who are unfamiliar with that game.

Materials - This game cost me 19.99 USD. That's more than a pack of cards. Of course, this is a board game, and comes with more than a pack of cards. It has a mounted board, six sets of colored wooden playing blocks, a black pawn, a white pawn AND a set of cards. The wooden pieces are durable, the board is mounted and trifolded, and the cards have a nice feel, a nice coat, and are on the higher end of card quality. Nevertheless, if this was offered last year during FFG's sale for 5 USD, this would be more than worth the value. It's till a worthwhile investment, and a decent boardgame. It costs half to a third of other board games. The materials are nicely integrated into the game itself. It's not excellent, but it's definately not bad either.

It rates a 6.

Rules Presentation - The rules are straightforward and simple to read. There are special rules and cards in the game that may make you reread certain portions of the rules during the first (or even second) game, but after that you should have the rules down. There's nothing really exceptional that I can note about the rules, but they are very readable and score on the high end of average.

It scores a 6.

Gameplay - As stated before, this game is a glorified and modified version of the game of War. However, in this game you are playing for territory instead of cards. For each round of card playing you win, you gain a territory, with the objective to have 3 (or 4 in a 2-3 player game) connecting territories or 5 (or 6 in a 2-3 player game) territories total.

You win a round in a similar way as you would with War, in that the high card wins. However, there are some big differences. First each player plays a card on the table one at a time as play goes round. They can place other cards on the table as well, one at a time in order, and each card's total is played. In otherwords, the total of the cards determines who wins, not just one card or the top card. The player who wins gets' to determine where to put a black pawn. This black pawn is placed in a territory, which is the next area to be fought over with another round of card playing. (this control of the black pawn can have an exception if one plays one of the special cards called a courtier which gives that player the control of the black pawn instead of whoever won the last hand). Who ever wins each hand also wins the territory.

Play goes around during each round until players run out of cards, stop laying cards down, or a surrender card is played (another special card which ends a round immediately, high score wins).

A number of special cards make play a little bit more interesting, such as a Scarecrow card which allows players to take back cards they've already played on the table, a courtier card that gives a player control over where to next play the black pawn as opposed to the winner of the round, and other types of cards with special abilities. One of these in particular is called the Bishop, which allows one to control the white pawn.

The White pawn can be placed on a territory one time if someone wins it with bishop cards. This territory can not be fought over. We found that this doesn't affect us early in the game, but late in the game control over this peice can be vital if the board is hotly contested. In fact, the placement of this peice has determined the winner occasionally.

Near the end of the game, we've found that like many other area control games, is just as much about preventing someone from winning as winning yourself. It isn't unusual for everyone to gang up and spend all their resources just to stop one other player from winning. These mobile and easily made and broken alliances can really make the end game interesting.

The game IS highly random. For the fun of it, I played a game solo, to see how it would flow. I dealt out cards, and played cards from the top of the other hands, making an exception for scarecrows (which I played as a standing card that drew back the highest played cards from that hand at the end of the round), and found that winning is more of a challenge then one would think.

At the same time, a game between highly motivated and thinking human opponents is far more fun and unique, the alliances and table talk increasing how good the game works and flows.

It's the game of war, and though more complex, still ultimately simple, however it flows well and works well.

It scores an 8.

Personal Tilt - I'm glad I got this game. It's highly portable in it's box, and makes for a nice time filler. It's a little easier to get people to play than some of the other games, and it seems easier for many to grasp at it's concepts. I can't say it's my favorite game, or high on my list of games. It's an okay game, and I'd play it (in fact I play it as perhaps one the most played game I have to tell the truth, at least right now), but it's not what I'd call on my list of awesome games. It's an okay game, and probably ranks high on the scale of average games.

It scores a 6.

Replayability - This game is highly replayable. Since hands will vary every turn, and hence strategies must be flexible, every game can be slightly different. On the otherhand, after a while it starts to get boring and though different every game seems to be almost the same. Give it a rest, and then it can be fun again for an hour or so. We have been playing it more than just about every other game recently, however, except for San Juan, so that also indicates that it has a high replayability aspect. I say in short spurts, it's a great game for that.

It scores an 8.

Useability - This game has a good useability. It's a great filler for a short game night, a pre-game night, or for travel. I have an exceptional daughter (or so I like to think, could be just that Dad syndrome as well) who catches onto games rather quickly. Me and my wife were playing, but this game doesn't play that well with two players (and it can be played somewhat solo even as I remarked I tried above), so I introduced my daughter to it and taught her the rules. She was decent at it, even managed to win a game. On the otherhand, she told me that she was bored of the game and would rather play candyland (I on the otherhand would much rather play Condottiere). It's more of a limited game with less than 3 players. It's doable, but not what I would call really worth it.

I find it works best with more players such as 4 or greater, preferably 5 or 6. This gives the game it's best intensity and best competition in gameplay. It still ranks high on useability scoring above average.

It scores a 7.

Overall this is a good game for the investment. You get durable pieces and compact size which makes it perfect for travel, for work, or other areas. It also makes a great filler for a game night. It's a good game that scores a little above average.

Its final score is a 6.8

Good game, that we have been playing quite a bit of recently in between heftier and weightier games. I'd say it's very worthwhile for the traveller, for someone on a budget, or someone who likes portable games which they can take to friends game nights, or other locations.

(Edit: For reference, link to explanation of my game ratings http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2426690#2426690 )

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

-xXx- — 2008-06-25T13:07:17+00:00

signjc wrote:
sevorges wrote:
From a "travel" perspective i can't see how Condotierre is at question. It has one of the best designed packaging I know and really isn't that big.

By ultraportable, I mean I just stick the cards in my jacket pocket and go to the pub or wherever to play.

You can't do this with the Eurogames version, and even the small box version doesn't fit in my pocket. I'll admit that the small box is well designed packaging - but hey it's still too much sometimes.

A game in the pocket is worth two in the box?

Jeez, is it so hard to carry a small box?? Just put it in a small bag or a purse.

You need a sheet to write the victory points, that also takes up space. With a map, you can immediately draw a mental image of who's winning or losing. With your calculations, you can't.

You still need a table to place the cards so removing the map doesn't make the game more compact.

Image

olavf — 2008-06-20T14:10:03+00:00

German Cover

Thread: Re: Spring with drums....

Malacandra — 2008-06-18T03:29:43+00:00

The rules agree.

If a Spring card is in play during the battle’s resolution,
a player with a Drummer card in his battle
line should double the printed strength of his
Mercenaries before adding the additional 3 strength
granted by the Spring card.

Thread: Re: Spring with drums....

zuviel — 2008-06-18T00:23:57+00:00

BEDMAS

You do multiplication before addition, so #1 is correct.

Thread: Spring with drums....

oozai — 2008-06-18T00:12:08+00:00

Hello..I have a question about calculating of mercenaries in Spring..

If there's a Spring card in play at the and of the battle,and I have Drums in my army what's the right way to calculate the strongest mercenary in my army?
For example:I have drums,spring is on,and I have a str-4 in my army.Also strongest mercenary point is 4...What is the best way of calculation?

1)(4x2)+3=11
2)(4+3)x2=14

Anyone have any guess?

Thanks...

Thread: Re: Condottiere Rules clarification: bishop & winter

maxvader — 2008-06-16T13:56:40+00:00

Thank you for the reply, I've found out that my questions have been all already asked long time ago, sorry for not looking before posting
For the bishop, with our rules he gets the power of a nuke (or something similar), from now on we'll play with the right rules and maybe in the future I'll post a comparison betweent the 2 different rules!
Ma

Thread: Re: Condottiere Rules clarification: bishop & winter

franchi — 2008-06-16T13:45:58+00:00

1) The Bishop "kills" the highest mercenary. No effect on red cards.

2) Yes, you can put it anywhere, even "nowhere" (out of the board) or leave it where it was.

3) Even in winter, the Bishop kills the highest mercenary card. They all have a temporary value of 1, but their intrinsic value is the one written on the card. Your "variant" would make the Bishop extremely powerful in winter, we would be talking of a very different game.

Miguel

Thread: Condottiere Rules clarification: bishop & winter

maxvader — 2008-06-16T13:30:20+00:00

Hello guys, I have 2 questions for you, sincewe are stuck at our table with 2 different iterpretations of some cards and we can't find a way out.
First, can the Bishop kill the Heroine or the courtesan? It's stated that they are not to be considered Mercenaries but at the same time it's even stated that they are immune to a list of cards (winter, spring, scarecrow, tamburine) that doesn't contain the Bishop!
Second, can the Pope token be placed on the same region on wich it was when you played the Bishop card? (it was on venice, I play the Bishop and leave the token in venice?).
Third, for some time we played (due to misinterpretation of the rules) the winter like it reduced the value of all mercenaries to "1", wich caused the effect of a subsequent play of the bishop to kill every non-red card in play. In the rules is stated that instead the winter reduces the value of the mercenaries to "1" only after the battle is over, what do you think about? I guess that our interpretation made the game more challenging, do you think so??
Thanks!

Thread: Re: Quality of Card query

zuviel — 2008-06-06T02:37:37+00:00

Atomic Wedgie wrote:
I'd like to know if the quality of the cards, ie the card stock is the similar type to the FFG version of Citadels? (since its a FFG game as well...so was just wondering)

It seems high quality to me. The cards also have white borders which helps show wear less than black.

Thread: Re: Quality of Card query

Drew1365 — 2008-06-05T13:08:18+00:00

It has exactly the same high-quality cards as the most recent printing of Citadels (small box). They should stand up to many plays.

Thread: Quality of Card query

Atomic Wedgie — 2008-06-05T13:00:49+00:00

I'd like to know if the quality of the cards, ie the card stock is the similar type to the FFG version of Citadels? (since its a FFG game as well...so was just wondering)

Thread: Three Men in Italy

amberaleman — 2008-05-26T00:00:31+00:00

After Thebes, Bill chose another game he had never played, Condottiere. I’ve played it with 2 (didn’t really work well) and with 4 (really enjoyed it) so I wondered how 3 would work. As it turned out, it was a close, well fought battle for control of Italy.

Both Michael and Bill have played enough games to understand the mechanics of this game with very little time spent. After reviewing all the actions of the special cards Michael began the battle for Siena. A battle won handily by Bill who played out his hand.

Firenze was next. This time Michael matched Bill point for point, mercenary for mercenary. I passed early seeing no hope for me. And Firenze went to Michael.

Parma was chosen as the sight of our next contest and again it turned into a dual between father and son. Bill and Michael waged war while I struggled to use something in my hand to affect either one. My winter was soon eclipsed by Bill’s spring. My bishop did nothing but weaken us all; and they both had men to replace those the bishop recruited. Parma fell to Bill’s purple army.

Michael had control of the Condottiere, though, having the most courtesans in his army and he chose Torino for the next fight. Again I sat on the sidelines as Bill won again, his bishops weakening Michael’s army just enough.

Scared now, that Bill was closing in on the win, Michael promised to help me win if needed, just to stop his Dad. The fight occurred in Napoli and true to his word, Michael used his cards to benefit me enough for me to squeak out a win.

And when I replenished my hand I saw a surrender card. The first I had seen all game! We fought for Roma and when, after the first round I was the strongest, Roma surrendered.

I went after Ancona next and Michael now shifted his alliance. “We have to stop him here. He’s got too many adjacent.”
Heroines, bishops and drummers sprang up and they beat me into submission. Chalk up another win for Bill.

Then Michael went on a winning streak, winning two in quick succession using surrender cards that had suddenly become popular. But the Favour of the Pope spread us all about so it was coming down to whoever could win six provinces.

Winter proved no deterrent to Bill’s mercenaries in Venezia and so a battle in Milano was waged where Michael and I fought to prevent Bill’s win.

I was distracted, as I tend to be sometimes, by the attractive courtesans of my army. Michael, though, thought I was smart enough to counter Bill’s mercenaries so he didn’t use all his strength immediately. Thinking ahead (I thought) I wanted the most Courtesans so I could choose the place of the next battle so I played a nice array of women.

Almost as if he was not adding correctly, Bill paused for a moment and then laughed. Venezia surrendered to his conquering army. And Michael berated me for my lack of focus, good naturedly of course

All three of us enjoyed this game and it’s many and varied choices. One day I really would like to play this with 5 or 6 and see how the dynamics work.

Thread: Re: (3rd edition) 2 player fix?

nocadlee — 2008-05-21T06:50:06+00:00

Sounds good, but how do you end the game?
It looks like to me that 4 neighbouring cities or 5 cities (as in a "normal" 2-player game) stops the game a little bit early.

Image

ackmondual — 2008-05-10T00:28:58+00:00

How our 6p game ended.

Thread: Re: 2 players, 2 sessions

amberaleman — 2008-05-04T13:34:22+00:00

There is interaction in this game, without a doubt. You're playing cards against one another, battling for the strongest army but, and it's a big but, the rules allow you to continue to play your cards after your opponent has passed.

This allows one player to play out his hand while the other may have saved cards for another battle. But (there's that but again) if one player has no cards at the conclusion of the battle, the other player(s) must discard down to two cards before everyone refills their hands.

So in a 2 player game saving cards for the next battle is almost useless.And having just played a 4 player game that is where much of the intrigue comes from. When to play cards, when to pass, how does each of your opponents think.

There are a couple of variants listed on the Geek that might deal with this with a rule tweak but I haven't tried them yet.

This is a good multiplayer game but as a 2 player game, it's not as good as others we tried. My wife and I like Babel as a game with confrontation and interaction.

Hope this helps.

Thread: Re: 2 players, 2 sessions

ryanmaesen — 2008-05-04T08:05:05+00:00

awesome, thanks for reporting on a good 2 player session.

What do you think makes this not a great 2 player game? Is there just not enough action / interaction with your opponent? What do you think? I think this game looks interesting, but I'm worried about all the negative stuff I've heard about the 2 player side of it. I rarely get more than 2 people to play games with me, so would my girlfriend and I have fun playing this together?

Thread: (3rd edition) 2 player fix?

GoogleShoes — 2008-04-23T08:03:37+00:00

Does the variant with no rounds, just battles, an initial hand size of seven and a limited card draw (max. 3) help to sort out the 2 player version of this game? It seems to deal with the complete hand replacement issue, and due to the limited card draw introduces more incentive to try to retain some useful cards rather than just playing everything out. I haven't tried it yet: has anybody else got any feedback?

Thread: Re: What is your house rule for the "Stalemate"?

Palladin — 2008-04-22T22:15:57+00:00

As has been suggested earlier in this thread, one can merely use the 2nd Edition rules which require that when only one player has any cards left, that player must discard their hand and all players start anew with 10 cards plus 2 more for each territory under the player's control. The 3rd Edition modifies the rule by permitting the player who has remaining cards the abilty to retain two of them, hence setting up the stalemate situation as other players may not want to discard all of their cards so as to permit an opponent to retain two. Despite the clamour of people who enjoy the game, there does not seem to be any official ruling from the designer or publishers of the 3rd Edition as to how to get out of the stalemate situation. As indicated the use of 2nd Edition rules* fixes this, but at the cost of the 3rd Edition rule permitting a player to retain two cards. Hence, my 3rd Edition house rule is that when all but one player has two or fewer cards, the player with more than two cards must discard down to two and everyone is dealt a new hand with the +1 bonus for each territory controlled.

*Note that for those players who wish to merely play the 2nd Edition game, those rules and 96 cards used in this version can be found on BGG.

Thread: 2 players, 2 sessions

amberaleman — 2008-04-20T13:40:51+00:00

After reading about this little game and how it can be a good bluffing, risk taking game that can play up to 6 people, I just recently picked it up. I know, too, that many say that it doesn't work as well with 2 as it does with more. But I'm one of those people who can't leave an unplayed game lying around for too long.

This weekend saw a spring storm leave only 2 of us in the house so we tried this out. Not once, but twice.

Arwen caught on to the beauty of this game in a flash using bishops to frustrate my army several times. I, however, made plenty of rookie mistakes. The biggest being using a scarecrow to retrieve a mercenary when I should have left it so I could have drawn a new hand.

Needless to say, she won the first game quickly, taking 4 adjacent territories in 4 quick battles. I put it down as a learning game. Yeah, that's it, it was a learning game.

Luckily, she was nice enough to let her old man have another go. And this time it went a little better. Both of us seemed to use our special cards more effectively.

By actually winning a couple of early battles, I managed to move the Condottiere around the map so she couldn't beat me as quickly.

And what do you know? It was me thwarting her plans this time around,using bishops and surrenders to capture a couple of cheap victories. She fell victim to the same mistake I made in the early game, using a scarecrow when she shouldn't have and I managed to sneak out a win.

So I think I agree that this will be an excellent little game for multiple players. And it can be a fun filler for 2, as well.

Thread: Re: EuroGames version broken for 2 players?

Alandor — 2008-04-12T21:39:56+00:00

I agree. I just played the game for the first time with my wife. I thought the rules must be misprinted because the game seems to have a lot of potential but ends up being a game of pure luck because you can get a new hand after each battle. I suppose I should give the game a try with more players before I judge it too hard.
Needless to say, my wife won the game. And she liked the fact that it focused more on luck than my other games

Thread: Condottiere - 2 [session report]s

ackmondual — 2008-04-12T01:12:48+00:00

First time playing this game

First game was really short since it ended after just one battle for a city was completed. At that time, another person joined us and we stopped waay short and decided switched to another game. There isn’t much to say other than it was a 5p game and it came down to me and another player battling it out for Roma. Didn’t pace myself well as I used up all but one mercenary card to win. Good thing we stopped after that, as 4 miscellaneous cards left (2 scarecrow, 1 drummer, and one surrender) + 1 1-mecenary wouldn’t have done me much good.

.

Second Game
Turn order going clockwise...
red < me
white
yellow
green
purple < 1st player
blue

hilights
-there was several bouts where many Mercenary cards got played, but then the Bishop card made all of that effort a waste

-a pretty sweet battle to watch unfold was one player throwing down smaller valued cards (5 or less), but with a Drummer to match another player’s overall, higher valued cards. Things peaked at 38 to 40, then went back down to 30 vs 32 after each player Scarecrowed a card back, and then the “non-doubler” ended it with a Surrender

^Mantova
A pretty sweet win for me. Not only was it clean and quick, but also cunning, which isn’t usually like me when I’m picking up on games for the first time (Technically second time if you count the incomplete first time as a valid run). I played a 10 Mercenary card. 3 other people played a single card per person of 1, 3, and 6, while the other 2 players passed. On my next turn, ended the round with a Surrender card. Not bad.

-I tried pulling the same stunt again the next battle, except since I was fairly certain they wouldn’t want me to pull that same trick again, I was hedging on that they would block me with high numbers. It worked at first. I played a 10, white didn’t want to take the chance that I had another Surrender so he played a 10. I was going to play a Scarecrow on my next turn, but somewhere in between a Bishop card was played, wasting our 10s. My effort to draw out people’s high cards only worked on one person, but also costed me my 10 Mercenary as well. Oh well.

^Firenze
This province was battled for 3 times. First two times, back to back. All part of yellow’s attempt to get us to dump some of our cards. Overall, it worked out well

-I tried to play the “throw some Mercenary cards, Winter it, then throw a red card for the win” tactic. Furthest I got was 2 Mercenary cards and a Winter until someone played a Surrender card and won it with his high 7 card. That would’ve been aggravating, except I still had my Red card and another Winter card, so I could still pull it off if I wanted to......

^Napoli
I won this one. I still don’t know why I got so far into it. That Napoli was all the way on the southern tip of Italy whereas my other 2 territories were north, but I figured it was a spur of the moment “let’s just have some fun type of situation”. Spent a moderate amount of cards to do it too, down to a single mecernary and a couple of non-Mercenary cards. Was finally able to follow up on my tactic of playing some low black Mercenary cards, a 10 red card, and calling Winter. That cinched me for the province.

-blue was last to move. He could’ve had picked the next battle at Bologna which would’ve given him the win, but he decided to set it at Parma instead to weaken other players’ hand of cards, even though that would allow yellow to get the victory if he won it. Blue passed right away. I followed suit. 2 others tossed in a Mercenary card and joined the rest of us. Suffice to say, it came down the wire between yellow and green. Yellow had to beat green’s final hand of 16. He was able to do just that by throwing down 9 and doubling that with a Drummer.

score
Game took about 1 hour 15 minutes

Refer to this map for which provinces were won…
]]>
I had: Genova, Mantova, and Napoli
White: Spoleto, Urbino, and Ferrara
yellow: Lucca, Parma, and Mantova < winner
green: Torino, Veneza, Ancona
purple: just Sienna
blue: Roma and Firenze

final thoughts
We tend to be a ‘lil more protective about our cards and that mentality, so even the rules allowed discussion and showing of our hands to stop a player from dominating and winning, we never did that.

For a game that's rates "2 out of 7 light bulbs" in difficulty, it wasn't really that hard or long to learn. Playing it well is another thing entirely as that takes some bluffing, card counting, and analysis of the situation. Not a game I'd like to play all the time. All that bluffing and analysis can really make me overthink, but I certainly would be willing to give it a few more go's if the opportunity presents itself.

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

Longshanx — 2008-04-08T11:50:24+00:00

A game in the pocket is worth two in the box

Though Condottiere (3rd ed.) is portable enough even as it is, and I like it as it is, I guess we'll give this variant a try.

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

signjc — 2008-04-04T20:22:07+00:00

sevorges wrote:
From a "travel" perspective i can't see how Condotierre is at question. It has one of the best designed packaging I know and really isn't that big.

By ultraportable, I mean I just stick the cards in my jacket pocket and go to the pub or wherever to play.

You can't do this with the Eurogames version, and even the small box version doesn't fit in my pocket. I'll admit that the small box is well designed packaging - but hey it's still too much sometimes.

A game in the pocket is worth two in the box?

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

sevorges — 2008-04-02T03:48:07+00:00

From a "travel" perspective i can't see how Condotierre is at question. It has one of the best designed packaging I know and really isn't that big.

From a gameplay perspective your variant seems fine. The board does make the game more attractive though, and there is some tactics in the placing of the Condotierre token at the right time.

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

xman@pcisys.net — 2008-04-02T02:53:17+00:00

Interesting idea. When I want a travel version of Condottiere, I usually just bring (and play) Knizia's Ivanhoe. Is boardless Condottiere substantially different?

I like the board, never play with re-capturing cities, and the game is still popular among my gaming buddies...but I would like to try this variant as a change of pace the next time we have 6 players and therefore cannot play Ivanhoe.

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

signjc — 2008-04-01T19:45:09+00:00

I've had the game since the first edition rules and I couldn't get it to the table for a long time. Now, it's getting play again with these streamlined rules.

Why? Because these rules address the two things that stopped it from getting to the table more often:

1. If you play by any edition of the rules which allows you to attack cities captured by your opponents at any time - the game drags out unnecesarily while you spend time fighting over the same city/knocking down the perceived leader. The "advantage" of being a defendant was not enough to deter relentless attacks on your city. In fact, it was never any fun to be in the lead. In my estimation the "fun" of taking an opponent's city <<< "drudgery" trying to defend your city from attack.

2. If you play by any edition of the rules which does not allow you to attack enemy cities - the board adds a minimal amount of interest as sometimes you are forced to join a battle because of the relative positioning. However, game was just as likely to bog down and cause the whole map to fill up resulting in the game dragging on too long.

Everyone I played with really liked the central mechanic. It works just great. But the perceived negatives kept it from hitting the table.

I tinkered with the rules so you can just play a couple rounds and make the game ultraportable and quick. It's now getting played.

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

sdiberar — 2008-04-01T19:12:43+00:00

The board is essential for causing fits in particular opponents of your choice (when you get to place the condottiere figure, of course).

Thread: Re: Ditch the Gameboard

franchi — 2008-04-01T18:52:21+00:00

A matter of taste, I guess, but the board IS the thing that people I have introduced to the game love when they first play. It is a card game but they feel like playing some kind of mini-war-euro game at the same time.

But maybe it is because of the minis I use for my copy:

]]>

Thread: Ditch the Gameboard

signjc — 2008-04-01T18:29:47+00:00

The gameboard always seems to hold this game back. So we tried this variant which worked well:

Travel Condottiere

Set-Up

1. If you are using the FF version remove all Courtesan cards from the deck
2. Shuffle and Deal 10 cards to every player.
3. Randomly determine the starting player.

Game Play

3. The starting player begins the first battle of the game by either passing or by playing a card.
4. Each player in turn must either pass or play a card. The battle continues until all players have passed or someone plays a surrender card.
4a. Bishop card. When played, every other player must discard their highest valued mercenary card that is face up on the table.
5. At the end of the battle score the battle [see Scoring below].
6. The winner of the Battle starts the next battle by either playing a card or passing.
7. The players continue playing battles until only 1 person has cards left in hand. That person may keep 1 card from their hand for Round 2.
8. [Round 2] Shuffle the cards and deal 10 cards to each player PLUS 1 card for each VP they have. Continue to play battles until only 1 player has cards left. That person may keep 1 card from their hand for Round 3.
9 [Round 3] Shuffle the cards and deal each player 5 cards plus 1 card for each VP they have earned.

Scoring

9. Each battle in Rounds 1 and 2 is worth 1 Victory point (VP).
10. Each battle in Round 3 is worth 2 VPs.
10. A player may score an extra VP by winning 2 or more battles in a row in a single round. Each consecutive battle you win after the 1st battle is worth an extra VP.
11. If a battle ends in a tie, each player who tied for the highest total receives 1 victory point. The starting player for the next battle is the person who last won a battle.

Game End

The game ends at the End of Round 3. The person with the most victory points wins. In the event of tie, the person who won the most battles is the winner.

Comments

- With this version you do not have to carry the gameboard and tokens making this a great portable game.
- Because winning consecutive battles is worth extra VP, the player who won a battle does not pass as often to begin the next battle.
- Game seems to play 1/2 to 1 hour with 4 or 5 people.

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

koiyu — 2008-03-26T18:22:36+00:00

I bought Condottiere to my brother as a Christmas gift last year, and based on my few plays, I have to agree with your review. Especially the first sentence sums it up nicely: "Condottiere is simply a very portable and deep game that scratches a whole lot of itches".

But Condottiere has ~~few~~ two cons which, although, can be forgiven due to the game's looks and price tag.

2p (like you said: 3-6 is the optimum)
Sum extract sum sum extract double times zero

Two-player game literally sucks. The whole idea of passing gets kinda lost because, when passing, the other player plays rest of hishers cards. And because heshe runs out of cards, new cards are dealt. Passing just gives the other player the opportunity to load the table full of hisher cards.

Playing winter-card could be in some cases suicidial, but the rules also say that you can discard your hand if you have only special cards left; so in 2p game, passing doesn't give a chance to these kind of tactical manouvers. Of course the opponent could also pass and so decide that the next round will be played with the remaining cards (f.ex. in situations when your front line is way much stronger; or just to crush your dreams of having a new handful of cards) but the situations when both passing would be beneficial to the second passer - contra to load your front line with cards - are rare, at least more rare.

Along with bluffing, mathematics are the key mechanic in this game. I wouldn't mind if it would be a mechanic, but it is the mechanic. After placing your card into your tableau you have to name the total strength of your battle line. But, of course, before that you have to silently calculate others' strength in your mind and what the strength would be after you place your card. Cards themselves are rather easy to remember - at least for me, my brother and for my father - but the scoring takes its time. Calculating before it's your turn usually leads to a situation when someone plays spring or winter or such and then confuses your algebra (at least when it was like 3am on Christmas nigt... ).

A certain scoreboard would help, but what should it look like? Or my brother should at least throw some notes and pens to the oh-so-nice-and-compact box.

And special thanks to anubis9 for pointing out Dynasties, have to check it out.

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

franchi — 2008-03-26T09:15:52+00:00

I'm pretty sure there is already a player aid somewhere here, but really, you won't need it. I introduced 4 people to Condottiere last week and after the first battle everyone knew what the cards did. Some of them are so straightforward you don't need to remember:

Scarecrow
Surrender
Winter
Heroine
Courtesan
Drummer

The only ones you need to explain maybe twice are:

Bishop
Spring

Just 2 cards...

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

petermal — 2008-03-26T06:18:36+00:00

That is a great idea...any takers?

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

Mease19 — 2008-03-26T05:57:24+00:00

I guess I just need a good player aid...

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

petermal — 2008-03-26T04:41:11+00:00

That may be important, but if you have a lot of games, even the easiest may need rule review.

There are only a few different cards and if you forget, one can easily refer to the rules and straighten everything out in a minute or two. In fact there are only 8 special cards.

Bishop
Scarecrow
Surrender
Spring
Winter
Heroine
Courtesan
Drummer

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

Mease19 — 2008-03-25T21:45:16+00:00

While I like your review, I do have one comment. The best quality for a filler, to me, is that you can remember all the rules if you don't play it for a while. From reading the rules (haven't played a game yet) there seemed like a lot of cards with different effects. I may change my mind after I play a game or two, but it seems like it would take a while to explain all the cards.

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

warredtje — 2008-03-25T17:39:37+00:00

I agree completely, little gem, high potential, easy yet deep.

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

nicktaruffi — 2008-03-25T11:38:05+00:00

Nice review, I strongly agree with all the points forementioned!
Best 2008 buy insofar!
New king of "Beer and Pretzel" boardgame, tied with another big hit with my friends, Colossal Arena.
Hey, even girls like this gem too! This is another plus!

PS: one thing I don't agree, I think 6 players is way too much. The sweet number is 4.
5 or 6 players, Citadels all the time!

Thread: Re: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

anubis9 — 2008-03-24T20:29:01+00:00

Excellent review!
I too enjoy this game quite a bit.
I'm a big fan of area control games, and the only other "light" area-control game I've found to be this satisfying is Dynasties, but it is only for 2 players.

I stayed away from this game for awhile, because it sounded to much like Iliad (not a bad game, but I already had it).

I'm glad I finally picked Condottiere up, for all the reasons you so eloquently stated.

I second this as an excellent, strategic "filler."

Thread: Why You Should Include Condottiere in Your Game Collection

petermal — 2008-03-24T18:22:06+00:00

Condottiere is simply a very portable and deep game that scratches a whole lot of itches.

If you like Area Control and/or Light War games, you will enjoy Condottiere. The challenge with these games however is that they often take a few hours (think Shogun, El Grande, Imperial, Struggle of Empires).

I am not going to get into the rules, but rather share why you should include Condottiere in your game collection.

1. Sometimes, you have the itch to play something like the afore mentioned games, but don't have the time. Condottiere scratches that itch.

2. It leaves you wanting to play again. When a game is done, you immediately feel the need to convince the group to play again.

3. It is very competitive/confrontational. I like games where there is direct interaction and confrontation. With Condottiere, this is definitely the case. Players must talk to each other, encourage moves, discuss hands, but most importantly battle. While the card-play for battle is fairly straight forward, the mental game is what makes the card-play-battle mechanic a gem. When you are in a battle, you need to think about whether you will have cards for the next battle, what your current opponent might have left, what they might not have and ultimately make choices on this information.

4. Poker Reference. This game has been compared to poker in some ways. While I love poker, I don't think that it is a fair or altogether accurate comparison. This is important for those of you sitting on the fence, because if you want to play poker, you'd just play poker. Or, if you hate poker, then you are probably purposefully staying away from this game. Whatever your stance is, please know that the only way this game resembles poker is in that there are cards and there is bluffing. One could say that this game is like Risk because there is a map or like El Grande because there are colored cubes.

5. Size. One of the reason's this game appeals to me is it's size. While I love "monster games" with all of the bits and pieces, and the huge board, this game has appeal because so much can fit in that tiny box (about the size of a mac 'n cheese box). There is a board, a bunch of cards, two pawns and enough control markers for 6 players.

6. Price. Related to size, is the price. While FFG lists this game's MSRP as $19.95, I was able to pick it up for less than this at my FLGS. Price is important for those looking to build/round out their game collection.

7. Scalability. It seems that there are not that many games of this size/price/type that are playable for 6 players. While the box says 2-6 players, I would suggest that 3-6 is optimal.

8. Easy to Teach. I have been able to teach this game in about 5 minutes. This is important if it comes up as a "filler" where time is a factor or if you are teaching game newbies who lack attention spans when things get more complex than Scrabble or Connect Four. You may even want to use this as a "gateway" game.

9. Complexity and Satisfaction. Sometimes, "fillers" fail to provide a complex enough gaming experience to satisfy that itch. I believe this is one of Condottiere's strengths. In a short amount of time, 3-6 players can experience a deeply engaging gaming session. When the battles are over and even when the game is over, you will be left second guessing your moves, strategies and wondering what you should have done and what you will do differently next time.

All of these reasons have made Condottiere a prized game in my collection and one that will continue to come out with all types of gamers.

Thread: Re: Spring - Drummer - Bishop question

humeral — 2008-03-21T20:35:42+00:00

-xXx- wrote:
How about a strength 5 mercenary in one camp and a strength 5 mercenary plus spring in another camp. Both are the highest strength mercenaries in ply. If I now play the bishop, is only one card removed or both?
This makes it sound like the Spring card only affects the person who played it, but that isn't the case. As with Winter, a Spring on the table affects everybody.

Image

franchi — 2008-03-01T16:23:52+00:00

Favor of the Pope and Condottiere with Zvezda's English Knights (painted black and dry-brushed silver/gold).

Image

jsper — 2008-02-26T15:50:58+00:00

Rulebook cover in spanish

Image

jsper — 2008-02-10T16:43:26+00:00

Ruleboox cover in english

Image

Firepigeon — 2008-01-27T20:59:05+00:00

Game at Leiria CON 2008 (Portugal)

Image

cdefrisco — 2008-01-26T23:29:24+00:00

The Small Fantasy Flight Board compared to Ticket To Ride, Traders of Genoa, and a standard Poker sized playing card)

Image

franchi — 2007-12-15T17:24:45+00:00

My "Condottiere" and "Favor of the Pope" tokens with pieces from Conquest.