Game: Quo Vadis?

Thread: Re: Laurels with Caesar and deals

clearclaw — 2008-08-25T02:04:08+00:00

MGBM wrote:
Is it possible to make a deal where we give a laurel that is still on the board but we will win it if we move the senator, thus giving the laurel immediately to the player we made the deal?

Of course.

If this is possible, then what about the laurel with Caesar on it? If we make a deal in giving that laurel, does the player that receives it gets the right to move the Caesar token as well, or does the player who moved the senator moves the Caesar token first and then give the laurel after?

This is fine too as it is equivalent to the case of. You vote for me and I'll give you the disc and move Ceasar where-ever you want.

Thread: Laurels with Caesar and deals

MGBM — 2008-08-24T21:54:35+00:00

A question regarding this game.

Is it possible to make a deal where we give a laurel that is still on the board but we will win it if we move the senator, thus giving the laurel immediately to the player we made the deal?

If this is possible, then what about the laurel with Caesar on it? If we make a deal in giving that laurel, does the player that receives it gets the right to move the Caesar token as well, or does the player who moved the senator moves the Caesar token first and then give the laurel after?

Thanks.

Image

sightreader — 2008-08-11T18:29:31+00:00

Senatorial Gridlock at the Red Robin

Thread: Re: First impression

wmshub — 2008-06-12T17:47:43+00:00

I just had my first play the other night (hoping for #2 tonight), and I found it interesting that although this game was 99% negotiation, the way that the committees are connected and work means that there is a fair amount of chesslike looking ahead and planning involved. Ed's example is a good one; clearly, if player #1 can put that together with time before the game ends, they'll get a huge amount of points! But it's not an easy setup to achieve, and if another player spots what is going on they can warn player #2 about it. From there it is logical for player #2 to demand a lot of laurels in exchange for letting player #1 set up this point-making engine! Fitting clever logic and lots of negotiation into a 30 minute game is a pretty impressive achievement.

Thread: Re: Lost piece

wmshub — 2008-06-11T17:19:47+00:00

Sorry for the late reply...but Uberplay didn't print this game (and is out of business anyway).

Go to the publisher, Mayfair or Amigo. They'll probably be able to replace the piece.

Thread: First play with four

wmshub — 2008-06-10T06:23:10+00:00

Tonight my parents (Ann and Bill) were visiting, and they were willing to try a new game, so I brought out Quo Vadis. My wife (Susan) and I had never played, so this was new for us all! I skimmed the rules (I'd read them before), went over them with the other players, and we were off.

Early on Bill and I were negotiating with each other and moved a lot, getting laurels. Ann went via single person committees and Caesar, quickly getting a politician into the senate, but scoring few laurels. I kept on working, not worrying about getting close to the Senate just yet, but trying to make sure I was involved in all deals, as Susan moved up the left side of the board, earning moderate amounts of laurels.

Soon Ann got a second politician into the Senate. I made a deal with Susan, that I'd get her a second politician into the upper left 3p committee (and thus at least one Senator), if she gives me a bunch of laurels. She agreed. At this point I was confident I had the most laurels, it was just a matter of becoming Senator! It became a bit more difficult when Susan got her second senator, leaving only one empty Senate space.

My best shot at getting into the Senate was through the central 5p. I was racing with Bill - we each had two men there, whoever got the third would end the game and shut out the other! We both wanted to get in by the right had side, but Susan got a key senator in a 3p there, meaning she could choose whether B. or I got into the senate. We both offered big deals; Bill offered 13 laurels, but it wasn't his turn! Susan didn't trust him to keep his offer, because it was so huge, so she took my offer of 8(!) laurels instead. I figured that if I gave out the 8, then took the 4 to get into the Senate (there were 4 laurels between the 5p and the Senate), I'd win. Meanwhile, Susan decided that the 8 would give her the winning number of laurels.

My plans were made more difficult when Bill moved Caesar into my path to the Senate, depriving me of the 4 laurels. I tried to make them up by making a deal with Ann (who had been very quiet, in on few deals) to promote her man in return for a few laurels. Ann accepted...then on Susan's turn, used the man that I helped promote, offering to promote Susan into the senate, shutting out both Bill and I! They negotiated, Susan offered 7 laurels, done deal, and I had lost!

Final tally:
Me - 18 laurels, shut out of the senate. Lost.
Bill - 13 laurels, shut out of the senate. Lost.
Susan - 18 laurels.
Ann - 28(!!!) laurels! Winner!

We were all shocked, we had no idea Ann had been collecting so many! She hadn't been active in deals. Yes, she collected a lot in the last deal with Susan to fill the senate, but was doing well even without that.

Overall an interesting game! It didn't last too long, had some nice dealmaking. It didn't blow me away, but I'm looking forward to a second game to get a more solid feel for how much I like it.

Edited to fix typos, clarify text, and insert the real first names.

Thread: Re: Quo Vadis INDEPTH Review

latindog — 2007-12-18T03:48:04+00:00

Thank you very much; I'm glad it was helpful.

Thread: Calling the opposition members lineage into question

citylife — 2007-12-18T02:14:11+00:00

Oh my gosh this is my first ever time in parliament. I am standing/sitting in the back of the hall behind the senior advisor ready to provide advice for the minister if he needs it. We’ve been working on this bill for over two years and this is the time that it is meant to get a reading before the house. I am nervous, tense, wondering how it will go.

Finally, after a few DAYS of waiting round for our bill to actually be debated, the bill s introduced. It is near Christmas, so the opposition members are doing everything they can to stall the bill and the politicians are being idiots. An opposition member stands in regard to clause 53. “Clause 53 has proved particularly difficult for an old lady by the name of Mildred Annabel Patricia Smith”. Mildreds circumstances are difficult, her husband died last year and …….”. Periodically the speaker of the house will lean forward to put an end to this unrelated rant, at which point the member will quickly pull out another clause, repeating long passages of text before returning to poor Mildred etc.

Much of the political process is just rubbish, calling the opposition members lineage into question and generally only good for entertaining clips on the nightly news. But the grease of the political machine is really the wheeling and dealing, and the result is never certain until after the next election. Should we have given in on this for ‘that’. Well it may be ‘that’ which costs us the election. The people will speak eventually, well that’s the theory anyway.

If this is all true then Quo Vadis is not a bad representation of the political system. It is all about wheeling and dealing. Each player has a number of senators each representing one vote that they are trying to get to the top of the ladder. Each player with a vote in the top office is in contention for the win, and then it comes down to points. Points are hidden once earned but for each election a senator wins points towards their tally. In addition your support for an opponent in a vote will earn you a bonus point, so every decision counts.

It is really just a negotiation game, with a little bit of luck (in the form of which elections win which points) added in for flavour. Doing deals is the main mechanic of the game, but there are a range of strategies to employ. Do you spread your senators across the different elections so you have influence and can negotiate a deal, or do you group them so you can force your way through.

I suppose it could have been structured to be a card game and saved on boards and pieces. But although they are simple and unremarkable, the visual aid helps you play the game. The victory markers are especially well depicted and the roman columns which represent the senators are unique to Quo Vadis. The board creates an ambience of the roman political process.

As with any negotiation game, this favours irregular groups rather than regular groups. If the old meta game is in play then t distorts the true nature of the game. Yet this is pure negotiation and you will rise and fall on how strategise and negotiate in the game. As for me, I’m still sitting behind my superior waiting for the bill to go to the vote. The outcome of the vote is already known, yet I expect I will be waiting here, wondering if I’ll ever be needed.

Thread: Re: First review (for the author)

smilingra — 2007-12-13T16:10:40+00:00

Thanks for the encouragement in writing reviews (and the thumbs up)! I've found that I tend to give higher ratings, probably because I'm enthusiastic about playing games. The review does have a "6" kind of flavor to it, although since I like the player interaction and want to play, I give it a 7. I think that in my future reviews, I'll probably have to let people know that, so they have a better determination of how I feel about a given game.

Also, I had no idea about the Caesar tile. Having it not block forward progress really reduces the wronkage factor, although it is an interesting twist.

Thread: Re: First review (for the author)

Twinge — 2007-12-09T06:15:22+00:00

smilingra wrote:
The Caesar token blocks advancement into the next room.

Er - Quite the opposite actually. The Caesar token allows a FREE move into the next room (but you don't collect the laurels for moving there). Could be an interesting variant playing the way you describe though, I suppose.

And Wade - I wouldn't really recommend it myself Didn't go over that well with us. If you do try it, make sure you have 5 - even 4 is probably too little for proper tension (the one time I played was with 4).

Thread: Re: First review (for the author)

denverarch — 2007-12-09T05:15:55+00:00

Sounds more like a 6 or if you were Doug a strong 2.5

Wow Goa and the first review in one weekend, you are being converted at a quick pace young Jason!

Now try and give Starcraft a bad review and you'll be a BGG elder. Oh and don't worry if you've played it or not

Well done. Ive been meaning to try this one at Joe's when I can get there.

Keep'em coming.

Thread: First review (for the author)

smilingra — 2007-12-09T02:21:29+00:00

Quo Vadis? is a negotiating game with some area-control elements where the key is working just well enough with your opponents to gather the most victory points.

Components/Theme: The game is set in Rome, where you are each playing a faction of Roman senators. The Senators are abstract, decent plastic columns. The board is a bit pedestrian, and has circles in each room for places for the senators. The victory point tiles are good quality cardboard circles, with a nice Roman leaf design. In general, it's has decent components - not overly pretty, but not abysmal.

Rules: The rules are pretty simple: on each turn, you can place your senator in one of the opening rooms, you can get promoted to one of the inner rooms, or you can move the Caesar token. To get promoted, you must have the majority of votes in a given room, which, if you don't have enough of your senators in that room, you must ask your opponents for votes. If you get promoted, you take the victory point token, and replace it with one from the supply. The Caesar token blocks advancement into the next room. The game ends when the room at the far side from the opening rooms, which we've called the inner sanctum, fills up. If none of your senators are in the inner sanctum, you score zero points. There are some advanced tokens that I've never played with, in the several times I've played.

Gameplay: The heart of the game is the negotiation between the players, and the garnering of votes. You likely want to give your votes some of the time, as you'll need votes in return. However, you don't want to help everyone out, and especially anyone that has gathered lots of votes. Because most promises don't need to be kept (only ones that occur on your turn, such as which room to move into), there's the possibility of some backstabbing, which adds to the drama. The tension at the end of the game when the inner sanctum is nearly full is quite enjoyable, and what makes the game especially interesting.

Overall Impression: On the plus side, the negotiating and the tension of getting into the inner sanctum make the game fun. On the down side, the game tends to have a pattern where one player typically fails to enter the inner sanctum, although the entertainment from the negotiations allow for decent replayability. I've found that player to usually get quite upset, so certainly the game provides for an explosive charge. You definitely need to play with some gracious losers. I'd also agree with another reviewer that you need at least 4, and preferably all 5 players in order to generate the tension of filling up the inner sanctum.

This game is a good game, and I give it a 7, given that the negotiations are fun and entertaining. The lack of an added dimension or true elegance prevent me from elevating it to a great game.

Thread: Re: Lost piece

Gamegrunt — 2007-12-06T01:58:09+00:00

Try Uberplay...they replaced a defective train piece in my Metro game and did it in a jiffy.

Gg

Thread: Lost piece

Lawrence Hung — 2007-12-05T08:48:38+00:00

If I lost a faction's piece, where can I find the replacement? Thanks.

Thread: Re: Anyone tried this?

Gamegrunt — 2007-11-25T05:10:30+00:00

tiberiusdw wrote:
Whew! You work fast, Michael! I hadn't thought of reducing the number of spaces outside the Sanctum, too. Can't wait to try out your variants. Thumbs up!

Thank you, David!

Yes, nothing's faster than a driven Geek on caffeine obsessed with a vision, having access to a scanner and decent photo editing program, and a willingness to use them.

I played a 3 player with my nine year old twin grandchildren this evening using my 3 player set-up.

]]>

The kids had never played the game before, and I've only played it twice, so take this for what it's worth.

The 3rd player (Lacey) won the game. The two upper right corner committees were never used. I found myself in the unenviable position of being last into the Inner Sanctum without sufficient points to win but I took my place anyways reasoning I would lose in either case.

I hope I can entice them again into a rematch. I removed some of the laurel disks, but I don't think that makes a difference worth addressing. The Caesar token is very powerful and the game plays very quickly.

Gg

Thread: Re: Anyone tried this?

tiberiusdw — 2007-11-23T21:10:40+00:00

Whew! You work fast, Michael! I hadn't thought of reducing the number of spaces outside the Sanctum, too. Can't wait to try out your variants. Thumbs up!

Thread: Re: Anyone tried this?

Gamegrunt — 2007-11-23T20:26:58+00:00

Here's what I came up with that applies the idea of proportion to the board with fewer players than five:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/245101

Gg

Thread: Quo Vadis? - Scaling the board with fewer than five players

Gamegrunt — 2007-11-23T19:50:36+00:00

David Weiss inquired about anyone limiting the number of spaces on the Quo Vadis? board to better accommodate games with fewer players.

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1878981#1878981

I had been giving the matter some thought, so using my math skills I arrived at these conclusions and this is merely a proposal at this time, as I've not been able to play test these variants!

There are 32 spaces available (not including the Inner Sanctum) on a Quo Vadis? board. It is reasonable to want to eliminate some of those spaces for fewer players based on the proportion:

5 / 32 = x / y (where x = number of players and Y = the function of x in the proportion.)

With four players it works out to:

5 / 32 = 4 / 25 (the fraction is rounded down) The four-player board would feature spaces and committees removed from play to look like this:

]]>

Eight spaces and the five committees that contained them are taken out of play, including one of the Inner Sanctum spaces.

With three players it works out to:

5 / 32 = 3 / 19 The three-player board might look like this:

]]>

Thirteen spaces and the seven committees that contained them are removed as well as two Inner Sanctum spaces.

Finally, with two players the proportion would be:

5 / 32 = 2 / 13

It is not desireable to further limit the number of committees available to the two-player game, so the 3 player board is modified by eliminating 6 additional spaces and a 3rd Inner Sanctum space.

]]>

I will keep a copy of the board configurations with my Quo Vadis? game and hopefully opportunities will present themselves to try out these schemes and I hope that others might do the same.

I welcome suggestions as to how playing Quo Vadis? with fewer players can best be accomplished using board alterations as I have shown here and any related rule modifications that might improve game play.

Regards to all,

Gg

Thread: Anyone tried this?

tiberiusdw — 2007-11-23T16:42:44+00:00

Quo Vadis is one of my favorite games, and I know only too well how weakly it plays with less than a full complement of five due to the fact that it's too easy for all players to end up in the Senate...

...which just led me to wonder: what if you just reduced the number of spots in the Senate to equal the number of players?? Or even to one less than the number of players? Might this not add some cutthroat-zest even to the full version?

If someone has tried this out, I'd like to know!

Thread: The Bureaucracy of Rome

Brave Sir Robin — 2007-11-19T08:45:43+00:00

We ran into a question not addressed in the rules: Can you place the Bureaucracy token on top of Caesar? The rules say you can place it on top of any laurel counter on the board. Does it matter if Caesar is in between? We ruled that you could place it anywhere _except_ where Caesar is. Anyone else run into this?

Thread: Re: What to do after Caesar's disfavor?

Brave Sir Robin — 2007-11-19T08:32:22+00:00

We ran into the same problem, and there is nothing explicit in the rules which tells us how to do it. We played the opposite way: your turn was over. The result was that people tended to grab the special tokens early and horde them for the endgame. I think rplea's answer is the one that should be followed. It will increase the amount of 'token turn over.'

There are only two rules which give any insight.
Under "Moving Your Senator", p4,
You cannot move a Senator from one committee area up a path to the next committee area unless:
You have the support of the majority of the committee in the area where the Senator starts; or
The Ceasar Token is on the path your Senator wants to take.

Under "Quo Vadis? Optional Special Counters",
Ceasar's Disfavor ... You may play this counter to subtract one vote supporting a Senator trying to advance our of a committee, regardless of whether or not you have a Senator present in the affected committee.

Since the action of a Senator is actually advancing it, not "trying to advance." Thus, the vote is taken before any game actions take place. So, by this reading it looks like you get to continue your turn. I can't really find any good argument against it: playing the token doesn't cost an action, so the entire process of voting costs no game actions.

We ran into something similar, where you could use Ceasar's Disfavor to prevent a Senator from leaving a one-member committee. The moving Senator would have to play a blocking Ceasar's Favor token to leave that committee.

Image

Majiken — 2007-11-15T14:43:35+00:00

Moments before the red player got wronked. No points for him!

Image

Majiken — 2007-11-15T14:42:35+00:00

Five player game in full swing. This game gets mean fast.

Image

kiko_chirol — 2007-10-17T20:12:32+00:00

point tokens from amigo edition

Image

kiko_chirol — 2007-10-17T20:11:19+00:00

senators from amigo edition

Image

kiko_chirol — 2007-10-17T20:09:24+00:00

components from amigo edition

Image

igniche — 2007-10-11T16:45:35+00:00

The senators - they're almost 2 1/2" (~6cm) tall each!

Image

igniche — 2007-10-11T16:43:46+00:00

The other tokens, including the Caesar Token (purple token with Caesar's profile)

Image

igniche — 2007-10-11T16:42:19+00:00

Laurel tokens

Thread: Re: Deals conditional on viewing point total?

clearclaw — 2007-10-08T01:43:21+00:00

chockle wrote:
The problem with the deal involving verifying someone's lack of laurels is what happens after they examine them and then decide not to do the deal?

Either specify the deal such that it can't be backed out of, or that's a risk of accepting the deal?

Thread: Re: Deals conditional on viewing point total?

chockle — 2007-10-08T01:33:11+00:00

clearclaw wrote:
I play with open VPs as they are perfectly trackable.

Agree, but the rules about Collecting Laurels say:

Place the token face down in front of you.

So, I'd say the spirit of the game is to have that somewhat ambiguous to us folks with short term memory loss.

The problem with the deal involving verifying someone's lack of laurels is what happens after they examine them and then decide not to do the deal?

Thread: Re: Deals conditional on viewing point total?

clearclaw — 2007-10-08T00:04:46+00:00

fastspinecho wrote:
Can you make a deal that is conditional on verifying a player's victory point total?

I see no reason why not. Then again I play with open VPs as they are perfectly trackable.

This would be advantageous if you are trying to identify and block the leader.

If you tracked you'd know who the leader was at all times.

For example, "I will vote for you only if you can prove to me that you currently have less than five points". Or even "My vote will cost you one laurel if you show me you have under five, but two otherwise."

Sure.

Thread: Re: Deals conditional on viewing point total?

chockle — 2007-10-07T19:57:53+00:00

That's a tough one. The rules say...
Players can trade laurels, promises of votes, or promises of moving Caesar...

but say nothing about verifying totals. So, if someone exposes how many laurels they have, there is no guarantee they'll get anything for this.

I suppose you could figure out a way to trade laurels for laurels with an opponent to make sure that all their laurels were accounted for and you'd see how many they have.

Utlimately, if I were playing among my friends, we'd probably say that any deal can be made, so long as it was understood neither player was actually bound to any future consideration. At a con or tournament, I'd stick with the rules and say that only laurels, promises of votes or Caesar moves are allowed to be traded/negotiated.

Thread: Deals conditional on viewing point total?

fastspinecho — 2007-10-07T18:37:22+00:00

Can you make a deal that is conditional on verifying a player's victory point total? This would be advantageous if you are trying to identify and block the leader.

For example, "I will vote for you only if you can prove to me that you currently have less than five points". Or even "My vote will cost you one laurel if you show me you have under five, but two otherwise."

Thread: Re: How does QV play with four?

clearclaw — 2007-10-06T17:50:01+00:00

It plays just fine with 4. There's a little less tension for final seats at the top and voting points become a little more significant, but it still works well enough. I prefer playing with 5 players but will willingly play with 4. I won't play with less than 4.

Thread: Re: How does QV play with four?

mlvanbie — 2007-10-06T09:02:33+00:00

The only bad thing about playing with four players is that sometimes the players form into two two-player coalitions, which ruins the game. That is the fault of suboptimal play on the part of the players, not the game. With five players the last player sometimes feels overly constrained in moves as the board is quite tight.

Thread: How does QV play with four?

Gamegrunt — 2007-10-06T02:15:22+00:00

Many 3-5 player games tend to be best with five players...China is an exception in my collection. I wouldn't think that a three player game of Quo Vadis wouldn't work very well, but does the game play suffer when four play?

Gg

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

clearclaw — 2007-10-04T03:34:55+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
I agree that Quo Vadis is a very good game, one of Knizia's best early designs. It scores not only with the cleverness of its negotiation mechanic, but also with its speed of play.

I also like Quo Vadis, but I've seen 20 minute games of Quo Vadis and I've seen 3 hour games of Quo Vadis. It simply depends on how much the players want to analyse and thence negotiate.

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

Larry Levy — 2007-10-04T03:03:20+00:00

I agree that Quo Vadis is a very good game, one of Knizia's best early designs. It scores not only with the cleverness of its negotiation mechanic, but also with its speed of play. I'm glad it got Tangacized, as it deserves to get more play than it does.

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

zurupeto — 2007-10-04T02:51:25+00:00

dkeisen wrote:
Less so in Puerto Rico.

After reading this, I couldn't help but chuckle to myself. I suppose it's true that you can try to convince the other players to let you win in ANY game, but I was specifically referring to games where the POINT was to talk people into letting you win. Perhaps chess would also be a good example of a game where negotiation isn't altogether desirable.

wmshub wrote:
Scott Nicholson, in his Lifeboats video review, pointed out another way to divide negotiating games: Those where each side has something concrete to offer in the negotiation, and those where you don't.

And I suppose you could also name a category where negotiation is mentioned in the rules but not required for play, such as Twilight Imperium, Condotierre, Dune, etc. All of these games promote negotiation, but all of them can be played entirely without it.

What I mentioned in my original post, which is the point I find most interesting about Quo Vadis?, is the motivation for negotiating as opposed to the currency thereof. Perhaps this would be better described as that which you are hoping to accomplish through negotiating as opposed to what you're using to leverage the negotiation. To a large extent, this is a thematic element of the game, and thus speaks directly to the game's initial appeal.

For example, in Quo Vadis? the object of any negotiation is votes. In Life Boats, it's to not drown. In Traders of Genoa, it's to trade for a better good than the one you're giving away, and for Intrigue, it's for a lucrative position in someone's castle. My point is that the impetus to negotiate is what appeals to players, perhaps more so than the currency of the negotiation (although I would strongly contend that it's the currency that ultimately holds the game together). The need to convince someone to vote for you in Quo Vadis? is incredibly intuitive, and so players will find the game much for accessible than Traders of Genoa, for example, where you are negotiating for goods with highly variable values.

Speaking of currency, however, I would like to make a further point about Quo Vadis? - something that I find works quite well. Whenever you agree to support someone with a vote, you automatically receive a laurel (aka victory point) in addition to whatever else can be negotiated. What this does is promote an atmosphere where players begin negotiations with an incentive to come to an agreement, so the game has a much more cooperative feel than games where players start on equal footing. This goes a long way toward keeping stonewalling/stagnation out of the game.

Though I repeat myself by saying so, Quo Vadis? is quite good.

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

BruceGee — 2007-10-04T02:48:52+00:00

I agree that Quo Vadis is tops in terms of negotiation games. I must add that unlike games like, say Titan the Arena, it only shines with five players. With only four, games I've played have quickly split into two rival alliances racing up opposite sides of the board. With five, alliances fragment and reform as they should.

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

Gola — 2007-10-03T23:52:25+00:00

wmshub wrote:
Scott Nicholson, in his Lifeboats video review, pointed out another way to divide negotiating games: Those where each side has something concrete to offer in the negotiation, and those where you don't.

For example, most trading games are in the former; you negotiate over what each player will provide in the trade.

Lifeboats is the latter; there is nothing tangible that changes hands after a negotiation is complete, after negotiating, everybody votes however they want.

It sounds like Quo Vadis is in the lifeboats camp, but I won't know for sure until I get my copy from Tanga!
It's both. A person can make deals using the laurels (concrete), or a person can make promises for future turns which he or she is not obligated to honor.

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

wmshub — 2007-10-03T23:27:56+00:00

Scott Nicholson, in his Lifeboats video review, pointed out another way to divide negotiating games: Those where each side has something concrete to offer in the negotiation, and those where you don't.

For example, most trading games are in the former; you negotiate over what each player will provide in the trade.

Lifeboats is the latter; there is nothing tangible that changes hands after a negotiation is complete, after negotiating, everybody votes however they want.

It sounds like Quo Vadis is in the lifeboats camp, but I won't know for sure until I get my copy from Tanga!

Thread: Re: All this hullabaloo

dkeisen — 2007-10-03T22:35:39+00:00

I would contend there is a third category of gamers: those that enjoy negotiation in games that have a specific negotiation context but do not want negotiation to be a part of other games. Negotiation is right, proper, and fun in Quo Vadis. Less so in Puerto Rico.

Thread: All this hullabaloo

zurupeto — 2007-10-03T22:24:44+00:00

I see Quo Vadis? is the 4th hottest game today. I suppose this is what we can expect from Tanga going forward.

I felt like posting because I saw that no one has been discussing the game despite the obviously-increased page traffic. I would like to point out that, aside from wanting to use the word "hullabaloo" in a BGG post, Quo Vadis? is well-worth checking out.

In my experience, negotiation, as a core game mechanic, seems to divide gamers into two camps: those who like winning by convincing other players to allow them to, and those who don't. I am firmly a member of the former, but the majority of my gaming accomplices are in the latter. I bring this up as an important caveat to my praise of this game, which is to say that, if you don't like negotiating, this game probably won't do it for you no matter how much @$$ it actually rocks.

I have not spent a lot of time thinking this through, but I will do my best to explain why Quo Vadis? ranks so highly with me. At its core, negotiation requires a motivation to energize the colloquy. Quo Vadis? provides this in a very simple, intuitive, generally-appreciable manner: the need to collect votes.

Because the act of voting is such a universally-understood concept, there is almost no learning curve involved with Quo Vadis?, which means that it's a very accessible game. That, coupled with the fact that it generally takes no longer than 45 minutes to complete, means that there is not a lot of overhead involved in pulling it out. To me, this is evidence that it belongs in just about anyone's game closet (unless you can't stand negotiation games, of course).

I would also like to address the complaints of those who find this game to be "dry". I would say that, 9 times out of 10, this complaint is a result of the starkness of the components. In any negotiation game, the action generally takes place off-board in the audible realm only. The board and pieces, therefore, act as a place to mark the negotiation's results. My point is that people who won't play this because it doesn't have the aesthetic quality of Pillars of the Earth are looking at this game in the wrong light. In other words, whether a negotiation game, by definition, can be considered "dry" or not depends entirely on those playing it.

If you need an impetus to cojole, argue with, cheat, cooperate with or stonewall your friends , Quo Vadis? is an excellent choice.

Thread: Re: Quo Vadis INDEPTH Review

The_Luggage — 2007-07-16T20:32:34+00:00

This is quite possibly the most concisely informative review I've ever read. This game's not for me, but I am so glad that you managed to tell me that in just a few paragraphs. Well done!

Image

sikeospi — 2007-06-06T06:51:14+00:00

Another "Quo Vadis?" photo from Kublacon's 2007 Kniziathon.

Thread: Re: Alliances

Tyndal — 2007-05-29T02:37:38+00:00

I realised I left that detail out, but Team AP both came 1st and 2nd. I think I came in third. One of them could have screwed the other at the end to win, but he didn't because he wanted to keep the good faith for future games. We're a pretty friendly group, and I made this session report mostly in jest. (mostly )

But, yes, if the metagame was discarded, the alliance would probably have broken down very very close to the end. Because they had their side of the board dominated, it was in their best interest to cooperate with each other for most of the game.

Thread: Re: Alliances

latindog — 2007-05-28T14:22:15+00:00

It seems to me that all alliances of this sort must be temporary as only one of those players can win. The one who came in second would probably look more closely at his own advantage in subsequent games.

Thread: Alliances

Tyndal — 2007-05-28T13:30:52+00:00

A while ago, we had a couple of 5 player games of Quo Vadis. the first game was fun, but the second, not so much.

In the second game, two people (let's call them Team AP, because those letters are their first names' first letters... and one of them tends to get AP, too) decided to form an alliance, and that they would vote for each other no matter what. And so, it went, Team AP went soaring up the ranks of the Roman political system on one side of the board, collecting a lot of those valuable laurels that Romans drool over.

They discussed how best to screw the third guy that was on their side of the board over. This left that guy with not much hope of getting many of his senators up.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the board, I was battling it out with another player. I quickly saw the threat Team AP posed and proposed a second alliance - Team AAJ (Again, our first names' letters). Our goal was to destroy Team AP.

We raced to get our senators up the board, in the hope of blocking the member of Team AP that didn't have a senator in the senate yet. But it was too little, too late.

We conceded defeat.

The unconditional alliance totally changed the game. Out went the paranoia and it became to tag team race to the finish. No more diplomacy or attempts to control areas of the board.

I'm considering a variant to try to combat this.
Players may only make a deal with another player twice in a row only if they allow the other players to kick them in the shins with steelcapped boots. Hard.

I'd better find my steelcaps.

Thread: Change of plans

mpetty31 — 2007-01-07T21:26:36+00:00

This turned out to be a great 20 minute game of Quo Vadis. It was me, Kendra, William and Jason.

William and I quickly filled up the 5-space forum. He set off on a race for the top, paying everyone anything just to get in. He handed way too many points to Jason twice. Jason was playing a cocky game offering practically nothing, expecting to do it alone. Soon Kendra, William and I were in the Senate.

At this time I felt Jason had the most points, but he wasn't in the Senate yet. Kendra was probably next, with me then William following in laurels. I made the comment that we don't let Jason in. He simply cleaned up too much with (in my opinion) William's bad deals. Everyone agreed that Jason wasn't getting in with any help from us.

At that point we all raced to fill up the Senate and end things. I didn't think I had a chance at winning though.

I can't remember now if it was William or Kendra who took the fourth spot in the Senate, but when it came to my turn I suddenly realized I had the chance to let Jason into the Senate from one forum on his next turn. By this time he was so desperate to get in that he was willing to pay some of those laurels he had piled in. I opened the discussion that I'd let him move in if he paid me six laurels.

That was quite a bit to pay, but he knew he was in the lead and I had very few tokens in front of me. Kendra and William despised me for even negotiating with this enemey--the one I had suggested we lock out. But at that point we both ignored the others and we realized the choice before each of us was to either lose for sure or risk handing the game to the other player with a last-ditch effort to win.

It turns out he agreed to pay me five laurels. I took it and it ended the game. We were surprised to find that we so perfectly made that final deal that we actually tied with 15 laurels each! Of course, I was in the Senate first, though, so I won.

That was a great session that reminded me of the many closing deals we've made in that game over the years. Sometimes it pays off, sometimes you hand victory to someone else. The tension in those moments is priceless though.

By the way, Kendra and William were not appreciating the game at this point as well as I was. I think this too is an excellent testament to the emotion evoked in this game.

Thread: Re: Session Reports - A double play

wharekumera — 2007-01-05T08:35:40+00:00

I remember who won the first game, I believe it was their only win of the day

I really enjoyed Quo Vadis. I think it is the intrinsic simplicity that appeals to me. Also, negotiation is quickly becoming my preferred mechanic (thanks Bohnanza!).

Thread: Session Reports - A double play

citylife — 2007-01-05T01:14:17+00:00

Game seven and eight of ten today and five players were present. Wharekumara (matt), Zirak (Jason), i'm yet to signup (jacob) and citylife (me), Eisenphex (Frank).

Frank borught this one along and it is a very good game. Alas I was at a slight disadvantage having been on a streak today and so didn't play particularly hard. I enjoyed the game though and we all had fun with it.

I can't remember who won the first game as we learnt the mechanics, but I tried to focus on one side and force myself througha s I imagine many players do. We all acheieved a pillar on top and figured in the end game equation. We had played the basic versiona dn so I thought my two five chips which I had obtained blind would have been enough. Wow, not nearly enough matt came through.

In the second game I spent most of my time focusing on the opposite of play and advanced myself several times. I didn't get a pedastal through to the end primarily because my negotiation was terrible and I couldn't do deals with anyone. I though I had an early alliance with jacob, but on the right where we had an advantage he merely blocked the route and the whole side never opened up. Jacob did get a pedstal through on the left side after some negotiation with matt, but at a high cost, one simialr to what matt had had to pay earlier.

Frank dominated the negotiations and scored many a pretty point with his well mannered style and I had thought him a winner until a nine poitns of chips went Jasons way and tipped the balance. So Zirak scored himself a well earned victory while matt was close going for a repeat and frank diced with the victory. Jacob lanquished near the end as we failed to build on our early dominance of the right side of the board. The open chips also made this route less attractive so there was little luck in it. Still a good win to Jase.

Thread: Political negotiation

johnkerr — 2006-12-26T07:27:43+00:00

People managed to move around at this point, and I ended up in a game of Quo Vadis with Eric, Mark and Kevin. I like the game because, like several of Knizia's games, it seems like the game is distilled down to take advantage of it's main mechanic as simply as possible. In this case, of course, it's negotiation and board manipulation.

Of course, just because I like a game doesn't mean I do well and this is one that I frequently struggle with. In this game I tended to favor taking the single spot rooms for the easy advancement potential. In retrospect, I think that may be a weak strategy, as it takes too many turns without gathering point chits. Even so, I felt like I got off to fairly strong start, with the easy advances of the single rooms and a couple of good deals I had a large presence in a couple a key rooms. I seemed to stall quite a bit after that, as there were several turns in a row where the opening squares were all full and I had to take weaker 'ceaser move' actions, or promote someone I felt was better serving me where he was.

In the end, Eric proved to be the best at working the room and finished well ahead of anyone else. Everyone got someone to the inner-sanctum, so no one was cut off that way, though there were some lop-sided deals to get there. Mark was second and I was third, a good 8 points off the leader. I came away thinking Eric played a good game, but unable to say what exactly he did that worked. Makes me want to fire it up a few more times in the near future.

Thread: Re: Do you make change?

ekted — 2006-12-07T17:23:01+00:00

mlvanbie wrote:
Perhaps you need to play with different people.

Hahah! If this was a joke, it really cracked me up! Did you notice I said I was playing solo?

mlvanbie wrote:
The nice thing about high-value tokens is that they make you look less wealthy at the end of the game.

Thanks for all your comments. I do understand that "laurel management" seems to be part of the design. I will definitely try this game by the normal rules the first time I play for real.

Thread: Re: Do you make change?

mlvanbie — 2006-12-07T09:30:34+00:00

ekted wrote:
I've solo'd this again, and in the first half of the game, there was a need to "make change" with almost every deal. In fact, it's a problem to such a degree that the only way I can see the game even being playable is to allow players to cash in tokens into the face-up 1's pile, leaving the same total # of laurels there, then later in the game when players have enough, dumping 1's back in for larger values.

Perhaps you need to play with different people. You'll be amazed at what people who aren't you will do. Some people will help for almost nothing as long as they are involved in the deal. An I/III split between you and the active player is better than an II/II split between two people who aren't you ... your relative position with the active player is unchanged but you gain over everyone else (particularly the other person who was just cut out of the deal --- a difference of III).

If your first token won, say, is a 4, I can't believe it was the intent that the ONLY thing you can offer is nothing or 4. Saying "I'll give you 1 when I get it" is way too much work to keep track of if it has to happen 10 times.

Each time you make a deal, 1-2 I laurels are added, so change should be reasonable quickly. Normally the bottom layer is fairly full before people start moving up.

You might observe that there is another spot in which your would-be helper needs one vote from either you or a third player to advance, for II+I laurels. Since IV+I+II+I=VIII=IV+IV, the two of you can make an arrangment to split the wealth while cutting out participation from other players. Between turns, the player receiving the I can use it as change in a deal (the IV isn't going anywhere, though...). If you can't offer a deal in one spot, do something else.

If you play with real people and there are problems with the no change rule preventing deals, I suggest that you take bad deals that give you all the small change. It will add up as nobody else will be able to make good deals.

The nice thing about high-value tokens is that they make you look less wealthy at the end of the game.

Thread: Session Report

Shade_Jon — 2006-12-03T22:00:10+00:00

I roped my parents into playing this light little game. Rachel declined, but, Saarya joined in. That made for four players. I was most keen to try this five players, since I think it must be best with five, but four would have to do.

My parents played, but didn't appear to be overly impressed. In part, that was because Saarya took a little too long to think through his moves. Also, it was difficult for my father to grasp the negotiation aspect; rather, he would never give anything unless he got more in return.

Anyone with experience in negotiation games knows that this is not the best strategy. It is worthwhile to negotiate even at a loss, so long as you do so promiscuously. If I give opponent A 2 points in order to receive 1 point, opponent A has no real choice but to agree to this. If I then do the same thing with opponent B and opponent C, all of these deals are irrefusable, but in the end I end up with 3 points to each of their 2. This is pretty straightforward.

The difficult part of these types of negotiation games is the "unenforceable" clause, which says that players can refuse to uphold their end of the deal if the deal involved some future promise. I have no doubt that my parents would consider this to be cheating, even if pointed this out in the rules and explained it beforehand. So there you go.

I won again, and again I won not by a little, but by a lot. That's three for three. I have no doubts that this is because I am regularly allowed overwhelmingly control of one large area of the board.

Thread: Session Report

Shade_Jon — 2006-12-03T21:00:33+00:00

Binyamin 18, David 16, Brendan 12, Zack 10, Jon 0 (15)

I had played this three and four players, and very much wanted to try it with five players.

After two moves, the board seemed to me to be already pretty clogged. I was all set to complain that the game didn't work with five players, since I had to pass two turns doing nothing but moving Caesar. Only when it came around again to my next turn did I notice that I had completely missed one of the available paths on the board, and I hadn't actually been stuck at all.

My misplay set me back. Zack got two senators in before either David or I had gotten any, and he was seated before me, so I ended up being shut out. My overall impression was therefore quite good. A very nice game with five players.

Thread: Re: Do you make change?

dcorban — 2006-12-01T17:53:00+00:00

I recently played this game with 5 players and we never made change. Our deals involved "I will give you this chip" (showing/not showing the chip to the other person was part of the deal), "I will give you the chip I receive", etc. I don't recall anyone asking or needing to make change.

Thread: Re: Do you make change?

ekted — 2006-11-30T19:28:32+00:00

I've solo'd this again, and in the first half of the game, there was a need to "make change" with almost every deal. In fact, it's a problem to such a degree that the only way I can see the game even being playable is to allow players to cash in tokens into the face-up 1's pile, leaving the same total # of laurels there, then later in the game when players have enough, dumping 1's back in for larger values.

If your first token won, say, is a 4, I can't believe it was the intent that the ONLY thing you can offer is nothing or 4. Saying "I'll give you 1 when I get it" is way too much work to keep track of if it has to happen 10 times.