Game: Parthenon: Rise of the Aegean

Thread: Re: Questions of balance decided

Andrew Parks — 2008-10-07T13:00:36+00:00

Thanks for the in-depth session report, Greg! Regarding the luck of the draw with Wonder Plans, there are several interesting variants suggested here on BGG by Richard Dewsberry and Innovan. If you go to the Parthenon Forums and click on Variants, you will see them there. I think this will help mitigate this issue for your group.

Thanks!

Andrew

--------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Questions of balance decided

morningstar — 2008-10-07T07:44:25+00:00

The event for Spring year one was one that forced anyone without ore to discard all their commodities in the Event phase. That gave an early lead to Helen, who was the only one with a starting ore village. She was able to make favorable trades and was the first to get all her villages and the first to get a workshop. Most other players followed close behind, though.

I was lucky to be voted archon for Spring year two. The first event was Hubris, which allowed the archon to choose a player without a shrine to lose all their commodities. This meant at least it wouldn't be me who lost their commodities. I traded my tools to Helen for her spice so I could build a shrine at the end of that season, so for the rest of the year I was safe from that event. Others gradually followed suit with shrines until in Winter year two, everyone had one and no one was hit by the event.

This was the start of good demand for my tools; I was the only one to produce tools. As a balancing mechanism, that meant that unlike everyone else I hadn't received a free Gift of Poseidon at the start of the game. In previous games I have questioned this mechanic, because there is also a player who has unique basic commodities at the beginning of the game (Helen in this case). This player tends to come out a little ahead after year one. But in this game year one went relatively smoothly for everyone, so the balancing mechanism worked out fairly.

The Summer year two event was one which was to have a big effect, though mostly on all players equally. The first Safe Journey card for journeys to foreign lands would be ignored. A few of us scoffed at the risk and went for foreign journeys anyway. We almost made it safely, but a storm blew us off course. We still ended up at foreign lands, but different ones than we were heading for. In ended up alone in Egypt instead of Carthage, and looked at the Harbor Status. It was a blockade, which required a warship to pass. I didn't reveal it. Few were able to make it to Egypt in year two, and those who did didn't have a warship. As a result there wasn't any papyrus in the game, and in fact by the end of the game no one had built an academy. Greece remained in the dark ages.

I lucked out again with my wonder plans. My two wonder plans each just required that I deliver a total of five basic commodities to neighboring lands. I completed construction of one and did full construction of the other in Spring year three for the win. In some previous games I have been able to build all my acropolis buildings first, but got stuck on wonders that were really hard to build, requiring the likes of gold and papyrus. I think this is the biggest luck-dependent part of the game. It's worse than the travelling hazards, which can be mitigated. If you get a difficult and expensive wonder, you're stuck with it.

Thread: Re: 2007 variant for drafting Wonders

Innovan — 2008-08-20T14:08:56+00:00

For the first couple games, our Archon guides beginner players in their Wonder choices to keep the game from getting too unbalanced, often just telling them what they should take and why. "Oh look, there's a Wheat Surplus in Ionia. The Beginner Player should sail to Athens and take the Temple of Demeter Wonder plans this turn."

Beginners have enough trouble figuring out the exchange rates for local and foreign ports, how Trade Surpluses and Shortages effect those, and trying to get their Rare Goods production up. Make the choice for them, or at least strongly suggest.

Otherwise you'll have Analysis Paralysis as the new players stop and read all 36 card faces about the Wonders ...and then spend another 20 minutes deciding which to choose. Move the game along by making the choice for them, and everyone's happier with a faster played game with less unnecessary downtime. :-)

Thread: Re: 2007 variant for drafting Wonders

Deliverator — 2008-08-20T06:20:31+00:00

I'm going to hopefully be playing my first game of Parthenon soon. I like your drafting variant and I think I may use it at some point down the road. To get us started, though, I think I'm going to have players draw two and choose which one to keep. That way players have at least a small amount of choice without getting too overwhelmed.

Thread: Re: 2007 variant for drafting Wonders

Innovan — 2008-08-08T13:23:25+00:00

>Why not let players just pick whatever they want.

We did that initially. That puts beginners at a severe disadvantage because they don't know the game, what's difficult to build, and which powers are useful vs which sound useful but aren't. :-)

What this does is place the easiest to build Wonders first, and the hardest to build Wonders last. in most games, each player will get an early "easy to build" wonder and a later "difficult to build" wonder (with the really, really hard wonders at the end of the draft) In my group's experience the draft mechanism makes the game more friendly to new players by keeping them from making a beginner's mistake early in the game. But yes, at some point in the second year, they will still be able to pick whatever they want of what's left. Particularly with 6 people.

It also purposely makes it harder for the player who gets Great Lighthouse to also get the Temple of Isis, which my group feels is too strong a combo.

Thread: Re: 2007 variant for drafting Wonders

Schroinger — 2008-08-08T11:05:53+00:00

And why not just let the players pick plans without any restriction from the original twelve? The Archon would decide the order in which the players will pick the cards.

Thread: Re: Mercenaries Event question

Asyncritus — 2008-07-23T21:06:16+00:00

Follow-up question:

Is obtaining the Gold for taking armies to Carthage considered trading? We had two situations arise in a game last night that hinged on the answer to this question.

1. A player was building a wonder (I don't recall which one) that required them to give a gold to a foreign land, and then not be able to trade with that land for the remainder of the season. She went there with an army so that she could get the gold, and then give it back to fulfill the construction requirement (and then performed no trading). Was this legal?

2. I took 3 armies to Carthage to obtain 3 gold. Carthage currently had a "Harbor Fees" card. Was I required to pay the harbor fee if the only thing I did was claim the 3 gold from the Mercenaries event?

Thanks!
Tim

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-01T01:20:58+00:00

Papyrus and Gold commodity cards (note artwork detail)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-01T01:20:03+00:00

The three rare commodities produced by the Islands

Image

EndersGame — 2008-05-01T01:19:12+00:00

A well-developed Crete, including a Great Wonder (Palaestra) and Philosophy (Stoicism)

Thread: Re: Messy

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T20:25:48+00:00

The game is far less messy and complicated than it first appears, especially if the cards are setup carefully, and markers are used to indicate structures built rather than separate cards.

For suggestions, see the article and pictures I have posted here:

Organized chaos: setting up a game with 440 cards
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/310245

]]>

I also highly recommend globetrotter's player aids - they are virtually indispensible.

Thread: Organized chaos: setting up a game with 440 cards

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T20:07:45+00:00

More than once it has been suggested that Parthenon is a messy game because it uses no less than 440 cards. In fact, images like these may even have scared you away from trying the game:

]]> . ]]>

Sure, Parthenon has a lot of cards. But setting up and playing the game is really not as complicated or messy as it might first seem, especially if you use a few tricks to simplify the arrangement. Here's how to create order out of the apparent chaos of 440 cards, using an example of a 3-player game.

Step 1: Set up the map.

Put the deck of Hazard cards and the deck of Harbor Status cards on the left of the map, and the Event cards on the right of the map. Note that Harbor Status cards have also been placed on the map in the appropriate places.

]]>

Step 2: Left of map.

On the left hand side of the map, put the following decks: Aegis cards (Army, Warship, Gift of Poseidon) on the top row, and the Philosophy and Great Wonder cards on the bottom row. Great Wonder cards are selected randomly, and players can look through the Philosophy deck to choose a card whenever they have built an Academy.

]]>

Step 3: Right of map.

On the right hand side of the map, put the commodity cards in two rows: the basic commodities in the lower row, and the rare and gold commodities in the top row.

]]>

Step 4: Top of map.

On the top of the map, put the Player 1 Reference Card and Build Deck (used here: Rhodes). Rather than lay out a separate card for each building, it is much easier to use coloured markers on the reference card (pictured here are markers from an old game of Risk).

]]>

Step 5: Bottom of map.

Underneath the map, put the Player 2 & 3 Reference Cards and Build Decks (used here: Chios and Crete). Once again, markers are used on the reference cards rather than laying out all cards separately for every building. Commodity cards earned by players would be held in their hand.

]]>

Step 6: The finished setup.

Add the Archon marker, and you're done! Pictured here is the complete setup for a three player game.

]]>

There, that wasn't too difficult or disorganized now was it? If players keep their commodity cards in hand, and use markers on the Reference Cards to designate the structures that are built, it is easy for everyone to see at a glance how many buildings have been built, and prevents the table from becoming too chaotic.

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T19:02:39+00:00

Setup part 6: Complete arrangement for 3 player game

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T18:52:12+00:00

Setup part 5: Below map - players 2 & 3 (Chios & Crete)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T18:50:58+00:00

Setup part 4: Above map - player 1 (Rhodes)

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T18:36:24+00:00

Setup part 3: Right of Map - upper row: Rare & Gold commodities; lower row: Basic commodities

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T18:35:23+00:00

Setup part 2: Left of Map - upper row: Aegis cards; lower row: Philosophy and Great Wonder cards

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T18:34:04+00:00

Setup part 1: The Map, with Hazard and Harbor Status cards on left, Event cards on right

Image

EndersGame — 2008-04-29T15:12:21+00:00

Rhodes Island Scholar: all the possible buildings on Rhodes

Thread: Re: Archon - what forms of bribery are allowed, and when?

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-29T05:42:53+00:00

Promises of any kind (whether for information or future commodities) can always be made to the Archon, although the game rules do not enforce these promises.

However, you are only allowed to make direct "donations" to (i.e. bribe) the Archon during the Event Phase. Of course, you can also give the Archon free Commodities during the Island Trade Phase, so if the Archon trusts you, you can promise him or her a sweet deal (but the rules do not bind you to such a promise).

On a side note regarding the promise of information, it is up to the local 'house rules' to determine whether or not this information must be communicated publicly (to all players). We have a standing "all table talk is public" rule for all of our games, but different gaming groups may adopt different rules.

Thanks,

Andrew

------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: The origin of Parthenon: the team building game "Greek Islands"

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-29T05:29:21+00:00

Interestingly enough, although some islands fall behind and experience difficulties during the team-building game, our ability to provide direct feedback makes a big difference regarding people's overall reaction to "Greek Islands". By the end of the game, the consultants usually ask for a show of hands regarding overall enjoyment, and overall application to work-related issues. I am always surprised by the strong majority that raise their hands in both instances.

Of equal interest are the number of players that end the game wishing they could play again and adopt a different strategy. We usually respond that they should use a different strategy in their day-to-day business, and you get the feeling that they have really caught on.

I wish sometimes that I could be there when people are doing poorly at Parthenon also. I can't tell you the number of times I've seen people at a convention curse the game after sending fleet after fleet piled to the rafters with commodities, only to watch them sink to the bottom of the sea. It's almost like a gambling addiction: some players just can't send out a fleet with only 3 commodities on board!

But of course, you can't win the game without taking any risks. The key to success in Parthenon is knowing what you can afford to lose. But even when I play, I occasionally curse the fickleness of Poseidon from time to time!

Andrew

Thread: Archon - what forms of bribery are allowed, and when?

EndersGame — 2008-04-28T16:04:32+00:00

I'm looking for some clarification about offering gifts and privileges to the Archon - can this be done at any point of the game, and may anything be offered?

In the rules I could only find the following:
Page 6: "The Archon can even be given "donations" to help sway his decisions."
Page 13, about the Event Phase: "In addition to determining the order that the face up Events' instructions are carried out, the Archon is sometimes required to determine the exact effects of the Event Cards. Players should feel free to negotiate with the Archon during this phase, offering him special gifts or privileges during the remainder of the Season in exchange for deciding in a particular manner. Although the players are not required by the game rules to follow through on these pledges, they should be careful not to taint their reputation among the other players.
"Players are also permitted during the Event Phase to make imediate "donations" in the form of Commodities or Aegis Cards to the Archon to persuade him to a particular course of action. These donations are immediately received by the Archon. Once the Archon receives the donations, however, he is not required by the game rules to follow through with his promises. Of course, he should also be mindful of his own future reputation."
Is bribing the Archon only permitted during the Event Phase? For example, if a player is forced to discard cards during the discard phase, may he instead donate a commodity to the Archon (or even to another player) to "buy" his vote for Archon during the Archon voting phase? And may commodities be donated during the Archon voting phase as bribery for votes? It's not quite clear to me what limitations there are on when donating cards is allowed.

Moreover, are players allowed to donate "information" to the Archon in exchange for privileges? For example, can a player say to the Archon: "I will tell you what the hidden Harbor Status card in Egypt is, if you do not choose me for Hubris".

]]>

Thread: Re: Parthenon suitable as next step after gateway games?

Heliconia — 2008-04-28T14:47:27+00:00

I would agree with you. I think it is a really good game and overlooked by a lot of people. But a major concern with it is the amount of cards that are on the table after an hour with 4 people playing. There are some good pix of games in progress here so that people can see what a mess all the cards can make. So I would say that the fiddliness factor is high. Sure the events etc are random but I don't think there is enough randomness to worry anybody. The theme is good and as you said the trading aspect will appeal to those perhaps stepping up from something like Settlers.

Thread: Re: Parthenon suitable as next step after gateway games?

EndersGame — 2008-04-28T14:16:43+00:00

Having now played Parthenon several times, I think it compares rather favorably with Settlers of Catan - in particular for those who enjoy the trading element. There is perhaps less interaction on the map/board than Settlers, and the rest of the gameplay is quite different (Parthenon is very thematic and has lots of "story"), but there are certainly aspects that are similar. So there's a good chance that this will appeal to those who enjoy the trading elements of Settlers of Catan. In some ways, it scratches a similar kind of "civilization" itch (although there is no warfare). Be warned though that people have a love/hate relationship with this game, mostly depending on how they feel about its random/luck elements. Game time is about 2-3 hours, and complexity is not too much of a step up from Settlers of Catan.

So is Parthenon suitable as a next step after Settlers of Catan? I'd say: absolutely.

Thread: Re: The origin of Parthenon: the team building game "Greek Islands"

EndersGame — 2008-04-28T14:09:19+00:00

Thanks for that Andrew! From the comments I've read on Parthenon, it sure is a game that people either love or hate, as you say. It certainly has the distinction of polarizing people one way or the other in terms of whether they enjoy it or can't stand it! But I don't think this is the game's fault, but is more a matter of taste. To have a more general appeal it would require a watering down of the very elements that its fans really enjoy the most.

I think it depends a lot on what mindset you enter the game with. If you want an all-skill and all-strategy game that's like chess but with theme, then Parthenon is not your game, and you'll be frustrated by the "luck" elements. However, if you go into the game expecting to be hosed at times by bad events and hazards, and knowing that this will happen to everyone, and trying to make the best of reducing and managing the risks, and enjoying the "story" and "theme", then Parthenon acquires a level of fun that you won't find in most euro games. Moreover, I think dealing with some random elements can be somewhat character building - after all, in real life we're also not in complete control of our destiny, and although our own decisions play a role in determining our success, there are also many unexpected events and trials in our life (e.g. accidents, illnesses) that we have to learn to deal with.

Certainly Parthenon is a game with a great deal of "story", as your fleets head to far-away places like Egypt or Carthage, face the risks of Pirates and Storms, and discover shortages and surpluses that can benefit or bite you in different Harbors. Often there's a great deal of tension as Event and Hazard cards are turned over! But on the other hand, I can understand that for those who enjoy euro-games with very little random elements and who don't enjoy this aspect, playing Parthenon might be a painful experience.

I'm curious about what kinds of reactions you get from people to the corporate team-building game? It sounds like a lot of fun! Do you get the same kind of love/hate responses as you do to the board game? Or does the team game have a more universal appeal? The fact that it is designed to be a "once-only-play" event probably helps here. But does the team-building game also inspire very few "neutral" reactions, and generate the same kind of response? It sounds like a great team exercise!

Thread: Re: Tournament Variant

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-27T16:52:01+00:00

The Tournament Variant, while providing a less random game, does detract from Parthenon's replay value. Experienced players of the standard game (i.e. without the Tournament Variant) will often have very different looking Islands at the end of Year One, particularly if they took advantage of Egyptian Shipyards or a key Shortage or Surplus.

However, the Tournament Variant is a good way to play the game in a shorter amount of time without some of the potential inhibitors that occur in the first Year.

Thanks,

Andrew

---------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: The origin of Parthenon: the team building game "Greek Islands"

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-27T16:45:17+00:00

"Greek Islands" is a corporate team-building game which is still in use. In fact, I will be moderating a session for J & J next month.

In the team-building game, each Island is represented by a team of 4-6 players. Individual players on the islands are responsible for their own fleets. So, for example, one player might take a Fleet to Egypt to secure needed commodities, but not realize that her teammate secured those same commodities through a simple visit to neighboring Lemnos. Communication and team planning are therefore two major facets of "Greek Islands" which are not present in Parthenon (since in Parthenon one player makes all of those decisions for him or herself).

The team-building game's Hazards and Events are just as brutal and merciless as Parthenon. The main purpose of this (in both Greek Islands and Parthenon) is to elicit an emotional response and to force a level of player flexibility. For all the love (and hate!) directed at Parthenon, you can be sure that very few of its players sit back and sip tea while coldly calculating their next move. Both Greek Islands and Parthenon are meant to make players sweat, and to provide an experience they will not soon forget.

One of the strongest differences between Greek Islands and Parthenon is that the original team-building game becomes infinitely easier if you play it more than once. It is actually intended to only be played one time, and to force players to adjust their plans according to changing circumstances in their world. When creating Parthenon, we needed to randomize the Events (not only their order, but which ones would appear) to increase its replay value, and we had to create the Archon mechanic to resolve timing issues (as well as provide a catch-up mechanic).

The origin of Parthenon as a team-building game sets it apart from most other games in its genre. For many, this is a negative aspect of the game, and for others, it is positive. One thing's for sure, it is a game that inspires very few "neutral" reactions.

Thanks!

Andrew

------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: Parthenon game for PC

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-27T16:30:00+00:00

Hi, Ender.

I saw an early version of this several months ago, and it looked very cool. I am not sure when it will be released, but I anticipate that it will be quite some time before it sees full release.

Thanks,

Andrew

-------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: Parthenon for Two Players

EndersGame — 2008-04-27T04:11:26+00:00

Session Two: This evening I tried out my revised variant (as suggested at the end of my initial post in this thread), and I'm pleased to report that it resulted in an excellent game! At first both players were frustrated by some unfortunate events and hazards. The first and second years saw some bad events early on in both years that made travelling to foreign lands almost impossible, and at first it looked like neither player had much of a chance to complete all their structures. However, Rhodes was able to pull off a most unlikely win in the last few seasons of the third year with a series of fortuitous events:
- twice trading Tools in Sparta (where the Spartans were willing to pay two rares for each, as a result of the Spartan Defences event) to help get the resources needed for the Treasury, Pottery to protect against the threat of Famine, and earn extra Gold
- twice trading large amounts of Grapes in Athens (where there was a Grape Shortage) for Gold and the final Great Wonder plans
- trading five Timber in Sparta to complete the Odeion of Perikles in the final season.
The last two seasons saw the acquisition of the final Great Wonder plans, and the rapid construction of a Great Harbour, Treasury, Fortress, Alternate Fortress, and the final Great Wonder. Chios was not far behind - and was just one Acropolis structure short. In the end, it was a 16-15 game, after a thrilling final two seasons!

Changes from the first play: The revised rule I suggested at the end of my last post to limit trading with the neutral island is a definite improvement. If both players can trade as many of their monopoly resources as they like for any amount of the resources produced by the neutral island, it makes the Market Place too strong (because it is too easy to get resources not produced by your own island), and it also allows players to get resources that are in shortage in neighbouring lands, and then transport these for high returns. The only change I see necessary at this point is to limit each player to two trades each with the neutral island per turn, in order to prevent players abusing the Market Place or Shortages elsewhere. Perhaps this will need to be reduced to one trade per turn upon further playtesting.

]]>

The current version of the Ender's Game two-player variant:
Preparation: Take the three starting islands (Crete, Chios, and Rhodes), and randomly select one for each player; the third and remaining island becomes the neutral island.
Rule adjustments:
1. players take seasonal turns being Archon
2. at the beginning of the trade phase, players may trade with the neutral third island as follows:
a) both players may make a trade in turns (beginning with the Archon), and are limited to a maximum of two such trades each per season.
b) commodities available for trade are limited to what the neutral island can produce in a single turn (expendable as they are traded, but replenished at the beginning of each season).
c) each player may only trade their basic monopoly commodity with the basic commodities of the neutral island at a rate of 1:1, and trade rare commodities with the rare commodity of the neutral island at a rate of 2:1.

]]>

So how does it work? We found that this variant played well, and the game had a very similar feel to a three player game. The main difference is that there is no real negotiation in connection with the Archon, but this doesn't have a significant effect on game place. Another difference is that less harbour status cards are turned face up, possibly making this part of the game harder. But to counter-balance this, consider the fact that there are good possibilities for trading with the neutral island. Obviously there's not as much trading between players as there would be in a three player game, but trading with both the opponent and the neutral island as suggested above seems to work quite well, and flow and feel of game play is not really affected too negatively. Playing time was a shade over two hours in both games so far.

In short, I think we are close to arriving at a very viable two player variant for Parthenon, which retains most of the feel and gameplay of the original game, without the need for significant rule changes.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant?

EndersGame — 2008-04-27T03:29:50+00:00

For a detailed description of a workable two-player variant, see this thread:

Parthenon for Two Players
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/309370

Thread: Tournament Variant

EndersGame — 2008-04-27T00:41:16+00:00

The rulebook describes the following Tournament Variant:
Players looking for a shorter game should consider the Tournament Variant. This variant allows Parthenon to be played in 60 - 90 minutes with experienced players, and is a perfect game for organized play at conventions and elsewhere. This variant is also helpful for demos used to give new players a quick overview of the game. To play the Tournament Variant, remove the Year 1 Events and begin the game at Year 2. Each Island begins with all 6 of its Villages, 1 Workship, 1 random Great Wonder Plans, and Fleets A and B. The object of the game remains the same.
Perhaps this thread can serve as a place to discuss the Tournament Variant. I've not tried it, and would be interested in hearing from people who have. Aside from the game length, does it change the game much at all? Is it preferable to the full game? Any other thoughts about this variant and how it plays?

Thread: The origin of Parthenon: the team building game "Greek Islands"

EndersGame — 2008-04-27T00:32:48+00:00

The back of the rule book states the following:
Parthenon: Rise of the Aegean is based on Sirius Consulting's teambuilding game, Greek Islands, by Jason O. Hawkins and Andrew Parks.
I'm interested to know more details about the Greek Islands corporate team-building game that was the basis of Parthenon. In a Dice Tower Interview, designer Andrew Parks notes that Parthenon was developed between September 2003 and September 2005, and mentions "the original corporate training game, Greek Islands, which we started working on in June 1999."

Was this some kind of cooperative game? I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering what the original game was like, and how it worked! Perhaps Andrew or Jason might be kind enough to consider satisfying the musings of a curious gamer who is presently enjoying the Parthenon board game! I'd love to know more about its roots, and about Greek Islands!

As an aside, I couldn't find any websites for either "Siren Bridge Publishing" or "Sirius Consulting" - there were only oblique references on other sites.

Thread: Parthenon game for PC

EndersGame — 2008-04-27T00:20:17+00:00

Is any more information available about the forthcoming Parthenon computer game?

There is a website with some sketchy details:
http://parthenongame.com/

Based on the award winning board game by Jason Hawkins and Andrew Parks, in association with Siren Bridge Publishing!
Coming to the Internet in 2008!
For Windows Vista, Windows XP, and Mac OSX
This appears to suggest that it will be a PC game, available for download on the internet (presumably at some cost) - is that assumption correct?

Any word on how it will be similar or different from the board game?

Thread: Re: Parthenon for Two Players

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-26T03:05:00+00:00

Some great ideas here from both Ender and Chris, and it is clear that both of you understand the math behind this game!

My suggestion would be to limit the trading with the Neutral Island to one exchange (or two exchanges at the discretion of the Archon, similar to what Chris suggested). This way, trading with the other player and with the Neighboring and Foreign Lands is still the central focus of the game.

Thanks, and good luck!

Andrew

------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: Parthenon for Two Players

Liumas — 2008-04-25T23:04:20+00:00

Great!

EndersGame wrote:
I do not favour playing with two islands each
Good!

EndersGame wrote:
Suggested rule: The Archon alternates between players from season to season.
No-brainer, yes!

I suppose an alternative might be some sort of very limited or secret auction... Alternating is the way to go.

EndersGame wrote:
Rule Adjustment 2: Trading with a Neutral Island
I assume the goods traded to NPC are put into the bank, and not available for retrading, right?

EndersGame wrote:
by limiting a player to trading its monopoly resource only, it keeps with the theme and prevents this trading from being too powerful - after all, if there was a third player he'd likely be wanting that monopoly resource. Moreover, if there was a third player, trading at 1:1 during the Island Trade phase is quite common.
Yes - but not constant, not every turn, and not at the same highest rate with both other players because NEUTRAL simple wouldn't have enough goods to go around on average (make sense?). Needs to be limited in some way, I think.

Neutral might split the trading somehow between the other players, like a 3rd player would (sort of, and depending on the situation and need). Maybe the Archon gets an advantage, or Neutral has a few tokens (replenished each turn) and can only trade that much, or some such. Find a way to simulate the limited ability to trade of an actual 3rd player and this approach is almost there, possibly then getting tweaked to work well in this 2 player format. Perhaps if you used a limit on the number of trades (as above or some other way) then players need not be limited to trading only monopolies and rares (maybe).

Heck, maybe a simple idea is to require a Player to discard a commodity each time they trade with NEUTRAL, or one commodity for each trade. (I think I'm onto something here, really.)

EndersGame wrote:
Rather than allowing unlimited trades with the neutral island, I'm inclined to limit it to the amount of resources that might island might produce in a turn, shared between both players.
Something like that, but the 1st player will have some advantage.

EndersGame wrote:
The difference is with the third resource produced by the neutral island: for Crete, getting Grapes from Rhodes could be attractive, since they are produced in low volume in Crete; whereas for Chios, getting Olives from Rhodes is not attractive, since they are fairly easily produced in Chios.
I was thinking of that, too. It my be good to figure out which mix of islands is best, if possible. And you're beginning down the slippery slope of redesigning the islands... If using my idea above of costing an extra resource to initiate trading with Neutral (over and above the actual trade) ... this extra commodity can be of an enforced type, different for each player and chosen in a way to add the balance back.

EndersGame wrote:
Revised Rule Adjustment 2: Trading with a Neutral Island
Looks good!

Trading in turn beginning with Archon is great. Consider ... trade is forced to stop when either player stops, or the remaining player gets 1 final trade after one players stops.

EndersGame wrote:
I think this is an improvement on what I first suggested and playtested, because the amount of resources that can be traded is limited to what the neutral island can produce in a single turn
Yes!

EndersGame wrote:
If this is the case, possible restrictions to consider include: limiting trade to only two of the three commodities from the neutral island; or limiting trade to only one or two trades per player per turn; or limiting trade to the turns when a player is Archon.
All reasonable. 1) above should be explored more, maybe.

EndersGame wrote:
- should trading with the neutral island occur before trading with the opponent (as I have suggested), or afterwards?
Before, likely, agreed.

I was going to just say, "Great!", but I hope you enjoy my other brainstormed comments as well.

Thread: Parthenon for Two Players

EndersGame — 2008-04-25T18:34:41+00:00

The idea of a two player variant has been discussed briefly once before, but I want to raise it again, with my suggestion for a workable two player variant. I do not favour playing with two islands each (essentially a four player game) because there is arguably too much for each player to think about and this changes the game too much. It seem to me that with just some small tweaks to the original rules, the game could be made playable for two players (with one island each) without too much difficulty.

To some extent Parthenon is multi-player solitaire. In my view, this is not a weakness, because this has the advantage of resulting in very little down time because most of the actions are simultaneous. This also means it should be quite easily modified for two players. There are two key aspects of interaction, however, namely the Archon and the Island Trading Phase, and these will need rule adjustments to make the game playable for two players.

Earlier this week, I tried a two player game with the following rule adjustments:

Rule Adjustment 1: Archon

Suggested rule: The Archon alternates between players from season to season.

Reason: There is no point in voting with just two players, and this seems a better solution than determining it randomly. The Archon plays a less important role in a two player game, and knowing in advance who will be Archon in the upcoming seasons means that players can take this into consideration when making their decisions.

]]>

Outcome and Analysis: This worked well.

Rule Adjustment 2: Trading with a Neutral Island

Suggested rule: During the Island Trade Phase, players may trade with a third neutral island (= the "bank") as follows:
1 Monopoly Basic --> 1 Neutral Island Basic
2 Rare --> 1 Neutral Island Rare

So for example, in a two player game between Crete and Chios:
a) Crete can trade any amounts of Grain (its monopoly resource) for Timber, Grapes or Olives (Rhodes' resources) at a 1:1 rate, and can trade any two rares to get Tools (Rhodes' rare)
b) Chios can trade any amounts of Wool (its monopoly resource) for Timber, Grapes or Olives (Rhodes' resources) at a 1:1 rate, and can trade any two rares to get Tools (Rhodes' rare).

Reason: These are essentially "Foreign Land" exchange rates, but by limiting a player to trading its monopoly resource only, it keeps with the theme and prevents this trading from being too powerful - after all, if there was a third player he'd likely be wanting that monopoly resource. Moreover, if there was a third player, trading at 1:1 during the Island Trade phase is quite common.

]]>

Outcome and Analysis: This worked reasonably well, although it does need some minor tinkering because it is not totally balanced. In particular, two questions arose for us after the game:

1. Does the amount of trading need to be capped? Limiting a player to trading his monopoly resource works well, but should the amount of trades per turn be limited? Otherwise does this enable a player to have access to all resources (except the monopoly resources of his opponent) almost too easily, and does it discourage travelling to other lands too much? If the amount of trades is completely unlimited, it almost became too easy for players, and made journeying to other lands in order to get basic commodities almost unnecessary - although travelling was still necessary to get gold and items like papyrus, warships, and armies. Rather than allowing unlimited trades with the neutral island, I'm inclined to limit it to the amount of resources that might island might produce in a turn, shared between both players.

2. Is this trading slightly imbalanced, due to the three-way distribution of resources? Note that each island lacks three basic commodities. Consider the distribution of resources produced by the three starting islands:

Crete
3x Grain (monopoly resource)
2x Ore
1x Grape
Rare: Spices

Chios
3x Wool (monopoly resource)
2x Olive
1x Ore
Rare: Pottery

Rhodes
3x Timber (monopoly resource)
2x Grape
1x Olive
Rare: Tools

There is still some unavoidable imbalance, and I can't see a way to completely balance the trading, simply because of the distribution of the resources between Islands:

i. Advantage Crete

In a two player game between Crete and Chios, with the above proposed rule, both players can get two of their needed resources from the neutral island by trading their monopoly resource. So Crete can trade Grain to get two of its needed resources from neutral Rhodes (Timber & Olives), and needs to depend on the other player Chios or travel for the third (Wool), and Chios can trade Wool to get two of its needed resources from neutral Rhodes (Timber & Grape), and needs to depend on the other player Crete or travel for the third (Wheat).

The difference is with the third resource produced by the neutral island: for Crete, getting Grapes from Rhodes could be attractive, since they are produced in low volume in Crete; whereas for Chios, getting Olives from Rhodes is not attractive, since they are fairly easily produced in Chios. To put it differently, the resource Crete produces least of is Grapes, but Crete can easily trade Grain (its monopoly resource) for Grapes at Rhodes. Whereas the resource Chios produces the least of is Ore, which Chios can't get from Rhodes.

Crete seems to have the advantage here, because not only can it easily trade its monopoly resource at Rhodes for Timber and Olives (unproduced on Crete), but also for Grapes (lowest produced on Crete). However Chios can trade its monopoly resource at Rhodes for Timber and Grapes (unproduced on Chios), but it would rather be able to trade for Olives (lowest produced on Chios) rather than Grapes.

ii. Advantage Chios

Crete and Chios might be willing to trade Grain for Wool (their monopoly resources), but Crete's Ore and Chios' Olives (their secondary resource) won't have the same trade value, because while Crete never produces Olives, Chios can produce Ore. So Chios' primary and secondary resources will be of interest to Crete, whereas Crete's primary and tertiary resource will be of interest to Chios. This gives Chios a slight advantage, because it is more likely that it will have Olives for trade than Crete will have Grapes for trade.

]]>

A solution?

In summary, given the distribution of resources, Crete has a slight advantage above Chios when trading with the neutral island, but Chios has a slight advantage above Crete when trading with each other. We need to find a way to get these advantages to balance each other.

Allowing players to trade for all three resources in unlimited amounts on the neutral island seems too strong, slightly imbalanced, and discourages journeying to other lands. Hence I think the rule we played with needs a slight modification as follows:

Revised Rule Adjustment 2: Trading with a Neutral Island

a) During the Production Phase, the neutral island produces resources as if it has all its villages and workshops (e.g. Rhodes: 3x Timber, 2x Grape, 1x Olive, 2x Tools)

b) During the Island Trade Phase, before trading with each other, players first trade with the neutral island. More than one trade with the neutral island is allowed, but players take turns to make one trade at a time, beginning with the Archon.

c) Any rares may be traded, but an Island may only trade its monopoly basic resource for the basic resources produced by the neutral island. The following "Foreign Land" trading rates are used:
1 Monopoly Basic --> 1 Neutral Island Basic
2 Rare --> 1 Neutral Island Rare

d) Resources traded to the neutral island are immediately given to the bank (i.e. they are not available to the other player for trade), and at the end of the Island Trade Phase all untraded resources on the neutral island are also returned to the bank (i.e. no accumulation of resources).

Conclusion

So in short, my suggestion for the two player variant is as follows:
Preparation: Take the three starting islands (Crete, Chios, and Rhodes), and randomly select one for each player; the third and remaining island becomes the neutral island.
Rule adjustments:
1. players take seasonal turns being Archon
2. players may trade with the neutral third island (limited to what the neutral island can produce in a single turn, with both players making a trade in turns beginning with the Archon) at the beginning of the trade phase, trading their basic monopoly commodity with the basic commodities of the neutral island at a rate of 1:1, and trading rare commodities with the rare commodity of the neutral island at a rate of 2:1.

I think this is an improvement on what I first suggested and playtested, because the amount of resources that can be traded is limited to what the neutral island can produce in a single turn, and this is shared between both players. More playtesting will be needed to determine several things:
- is trading with the neutral island still too strong, and are further limitations needed to restrict trading? If this is the case, possible restrictions to consider include: limiting trade to only two of the three commodities from the neutral island; or limiting trade to only one or two trades per player per turn; or limiting trade to the turns when a player is Archon.
- does the suggested ruleset result in more trades with the neutral island rather than with each other? Ideally it would be good to have a ruleset that encourages players to trade amongst each other as much as with the neutral island.
- should trading with the neutral island occur before trading with the opponent (as I have suggested), or afterwards? I'm inclined to think beforehand, because players can use the resources they have traded for in order to trade with each other.

I plan to try this revised ruleset next time I attempt a two player game, but I welcome comments and suggestions. Any thoughts and reactions from Andrew Parks? Or from others?

Thread: Re: Colossus - benefits all players?

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-25T18:18:55+00:00

Yes, the Colossus benefits all players. The decision to invite the emissaries, as well the choice of which Island is invited, are the advantages of the builder of the Colossus. Remember that the builder can secretly prepare for the arrival of the specific emissaries on the previous turn (such as having 2 gold ready to pay for a Papyrus if Egypt is invited, for example).

"One trade" means "one exchange". Therefore, you could pay 1 Gold for a Warship if Carthage were chosen, assuming you had saved 1 Gold from the previous turn.

Thanks!

Andrew

---------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: Does Gold classify as a "Commodity"?

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-25T18:12:47+00:00

Hi, Ender.

Yes, Gold is a Commodity. It is in its own class of Commodities (i.e. Gold Commodities are neither Basic nor Rare Commodities).

The word "Commodity" should have been included on the Gold Card. Sorry for the oversight!

Andrew

---------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: Parthenon Deluxe Edition.

EndersGame — 2008-04-25T16:16:41+00:00

Palpatine wrote:
If there ever is such a deluxe game I'd like to see a couple of changes:
3) I'd like counters to replace the Village, Workshop, etc. cards, to be placed on the island cards.
This also has the advantage of reducing the amount of cards on the table. I use bits from a game of Risk to mark the buildings that each island has built, as pictured here:

]]>

It seems appropriate, seeing that ultimately Parthenon is a game of Risk management!

Thread: Re: 440 cards why?

EndersGame — 2008-04-25T16:14:30+00:00

You can reduce the amount of cards on the table by using bits from a game of Risk to mark the buildings each island has built, as pictured here:

]]>

It seems appropriate, seeing that Parthenon is a game of Risk management!

See also the suggestions (article and pictures) I have posted here:

Organized chaos: setting up a game with 440 cards
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/310245

Thread: Colossus - benefits all players?

EndersGame — 2008-04-25T16:00:31+00:00

A question about the Colossus Great Wonder, which has the following text:
"Each season, at the start of the Island Trade Phase, you may invite emissaries from one Foreign Land of your choice to visit each Island with a Great Harbour; each of these Islands can immediately make one trade as if they were visiting that Land. Ignore the Land's Harbor Status Card."
]]>

Are we understanding this correctly that this seems to benefit all players equally? The only real advantage to the player who builds this wonder seems to be that he gets to decide whether or not emissaries are invited, and from which Foreign Land. But apart from that, any player with a Great Harbour benefits just as much as the player who built the Great Wonder. Most of the other Great Wonders give some reward to the player building them, but in this case it seems to be significantly less so - or are we misunderstanding this card?

Also, what exactly is meant by "one trade"? Does that exclude buying a warship (Carthage) or an army (Italy)? And does it mean just a single transaction? (e.g. you can trade one basic commodity for one basic commodity, but not a second basic commodity for another basic commodity)

Thread: Does Gold classify as a "Commodity"?

EndersGame — 2008-04-25T15:48:19+00:00

Does Gold classify as a "Commodity"? The island reference cards do speak of "Gold Commodities". On the other hand it is striking that Gold is the only resource that does not have the word "Commodity" on the actual card:

]]>

It has been suggested to me by one player that if Gold was a commodity it would have been mentioned on the card, just like with the other resources. This is important because Events like "Drought" only affect "commodities" - if Gold is not a commodity, then it would be unaffected by such events and similar hazards.

Thread: Re: Are Armies, Warships & Aegis cards tradeable ?

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-02T06:35:36+00:00

Yes, you are freely allowed to trade your Aegis Cards (Armies, Warships, and Gifts of Poseidon) for Commodities or other Aegis Cards.

I think the rules mention somewhere that you're allowed to trade both Commodities and Aegis Cards, but that you're not allowed to trade Great Wonder Plans or any other types of cards.

Thanks!

Andrew

------------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: No Geek Badge for Parthenon..?

Andrew Parks — 2008-04-02T06:33:40+00:00

Hi, Capn Hook.

I don't think there is a Geek Badge for Parthenon. If someone can point me in the right direction, I'll see if we're allowed to make one.

Thanks,

Andrew

---------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Are Armies, Warships & Aegis cards tradeable ?

Capn Hook — 2008-04-02T05:07:15+00:00

I don't see anything in the rules to prohibit trading eg an Army back to resources ; or perhaps the owner of a Shrine "selling" aegis cards ; or say, trading an aegis *for* an Army ...but no-one in our group ever has done so. Any ideas?

Thread: No Geek Badge for Parthenon..?

Capn Hook — 2008-04-02T05:01:50+00:00

I can't find a Geek Badge for Parthenon ...am I looking in the wrong place ?

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant?

mgringo — 2008-02-20T06:32:07+00:00

I played this today. It was good fun.

Thread: Re: Wonders payment

Andrew Parks — 2008-02-09T18:58:54+00:00

No problem, Sean. Glad to hear you guys are having fun.

Andrew

Thread: Re: Wonders payment

Heliconia — 2008-02-08T00:24:00+00:00

Thanks Andrew, great game, I really enjoy it.

Thread: Re: Wonders payment

Andrew Parks — 2008-02-07T23:22:12+00:00

Hi, Sean.

You need to actually go to a Neighboring Land and pay the Olives. You can do this either by physically transporting the Olives to a Neighboring Land, or by trading for the Olives while at a Neighboring Land and then immediately giving the Olives back to them.

Thanks!

Andrew

---------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Wonders payment

Heliconia — 2008-02-07T08:44:31+00:00

Hey guys, just a quick question. The temple of Apollo states that during construction I must pay 2 olives during the fleet trade phase to a neighboring island. Does my fleet actually have to go to one of these islands and pay or is it enough to just pay the goods during that phase back to the bank? Thanks

Thread: Session report and a light review

machiavelli — 2007-12-26T18:30:39+00:00

Background
This was my second time playing Parthenon with our weekly game night group. The first time we played I won which generally makes it easier to like a game. I still had some concerns about the limited amount of player interaction.

This session we played starting in the 2nd year, where you have many of the base buildings already built. I didn't like this as much, because I felt a good bit of your tactical options were decreased. My first time I liked year 1 the best last game where some people built base buildings while other people went risky.

The Game
We played a five player game, and the one person with a starting unique resource, Spices, ended up winning. She was a first time player (but a sharp and experienced gamer) and mostly stayed away from risky foreign trading. Everyone wanted spices so they all traded with her. All the foreign ships were hit with many more bad events than previous games, so she got out to a big lead. We tried for the remaining three seasons to play everything possible against her, but she still completed all her buildings.

Conclusion
Overall what I don't like about this game is two issues: the magnitude of randomness, and too much of a solitaire feel.
Randomness - I feel like I should spend my cards every turn because next season's event has a good chance to take away many of those cards in a way you could not have prepared for. With the travel risks of that, I suppose that simulates the dangers of that area but it doesn't make for a fun game. I liked year 1 a lot because I had options outside of trading, but beyond that it went downhill.
Player interaction - Other than trading cards your moves feel VERY divided from the other players. Considering we were all against one player and still couldn't catch up some of the group felt a little frustrated after the game. There was another session report (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/138758) on the runaway leader issue.

I'd play it again, but I'd probably try to propose a different game. Thoughts?

Thread: Re: BLOCKADE AND RAID!

Andrew Parks — 2007-12-09T05:08:43+00:00

Thanks for the cool variant idea, Paul. Maybe the boys and I will give this a whirl the next time we play. My initial reaction is that the blockade might be too powerful. Perhaps it should only block a single fleet from trading?

Thanks again!

Andrew

-----------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: BLOCKADE AND RAID!

brdparker — 2007-12-08T05:28:57+00:00

Nifty idea. I think I'd try it out, if I can get others to play the game... Oft' it's too long for me to get other people to play it unfortunately...

Thread: BLOCKADE AND RAID!

pnorell — 2007-12-08T01:43:29+00:00

I’m not suggesting for one moment that Parthenon needs more ‘business’; players are occupied enough with pursuing their goals in the face of a myriad of tasks and challenges.

This said, for those wanting a little more conflict in the game, I offer the following variant as a ‘work in progress.’
Before the Island Trade Phase, insert a ‘Blockade and Raid’ Phase. A player may choose ONE of the following options:

1. To blockade one other player’s island OR
2. To raid one other player’s island

BLOCKADE
A. At the start of the Island Trade Phase, a player secretly notes the target and the number of warships that will be committed to the blockade (no maximum).
B. All players declare their intentions simultaneously and the Archon decides the order in which the blockades occur. This is another opportunity for the Archon to wield power and receive bribes (sorry, tokens of admiration).
C. Depending on the order in which blockades are conducted, a blockading player pre-empts his chosen target from conducting his own blockade that season, hence the importance of the archon’s decision. The blockading player declares the number of warships on station at which point the target can commit any number of his warships to the island’s defence.
D. If the number of blockading warships is equal to or exceeds that of the defender, the defender may not conduct any trading voyages that season. The blockading warships remain in position and may not be used to escort trading fleets that season.
E. If the number of blockading warships is less than that of the defender, the blockade fails. The blockading warships return home and may not be used to escort trading fleets that season. The defending warships may, however, be committed to escorting trading fleets that season.

RAID
A. To raid another player’s island, a player follows the same procedure as for blockade but may carry one army for every warship present (minimum of one).
B. Raids are determined and resolved in exactly the same way as blockades with the following differences:
C. For a raid to succeed, the blockade must first be successful. If the blockade is unsuccessful, the blockader/raider returns home and may not use those warships or armies for any other purpose that season. (The defender is free to employ his forces to escort trading fleets but may not blockade or raid).
D. If the blockade is successful, the attacker and defender compare the number of armies present.
E. Only if the blockader/raider is superior in armies, the defender must hand over to his opponent either one rare OR two basic commodities.
F. If the blockader/raider’s armies are less than the defender’s, the raid fails. However, the blockade continues as normal.

NOTE - This is only a draft idea; I have not played this variant yet and it may be that it is too drastic or time consuming an option, or upsets the play balance too much. There are doubtless glitches and flaws and I welcome any and all comments to make this a more viable option.

Thread: Re: Messy

pnorell — 2007-12-07T22:39:29+00:00

I had some card stands made (about 35 cm long) which make for an excellent player aid with the cards. I use the card stands for the commodities which are now easier to view and to handle. Less clutter on the table too.

I'm also thinking of getting some miniature merchant ships to replace the card ones.

Thread: Re: Nightmare in the Med?

Siren Bridge — 2007-10-31T16:31:25+00:00

Guys,

Parthenon has teeth, but that is what makes it demanding and fun. One of the last playtests before production we did of the game, I was furious! But I relalized I had been eating Chips and Dip (chatting with old friends) and not calculating the next bad event card looming and preparing for it.

I didn't have a Shrine etc. I had not been ready to trade for the rares as the workshops started producing them. (I noticed it mentioned. Most new players miss the fact that HOW and WHAT your opponnet builds will affect YOUR strategy.)The list went on and then I was angry because I did not play well.

First time players can run into that and never try again. Yet its hard to advocate removing tough events..they make you respect the game.

As mentioned there is no easy strategy that always works. The game changes and you must adapt and comprehend the change. Andy and his amamzing playtest crew developed Parthenon like Samurai swords are made. The steel has been folded many many times and I still discover new combo's I'm very proud of.

I'm very happy that players come back, try again and see what so many people love about Parthenon:ROA.

Jason Hawkins
Co-Designer Parthenon: Rise of the Aegean
Siren Bridge Publishing

Thread: Re: Nightmare in the Med?

Andrew Parks — 2007-10-26T21:50:42+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
Still, I agree with you--them cards is nasty and this is an evil game (evil in a good way, Andrew )

It is an evil game. I'd be the last person to deny that.

Thanks for your comments regarding the rulebook. I'm an avid rulebook reader (and re-reader), so it means a lot to me when someone mentions that they enjoyed the rulebook.

There are no current expansions in the works, although co-designer Jason Hawkins and I have chewed on a few ideas. Not sure if they will undergo development, but we will definitely announce it here first.

Thanks again!

Andrew

-------------------

Andrew Parks
Quixotic Games LLC

Thread: Re: Nightmare in the Med?

dcjackso — 2007-10-25T06:47:06+00:00

Thanks for the kind words, Andrew. I can honestly say that Parthenon is one of my favorite 3P games right now, and I've been actively acquiring "pure" 3P games for at least 2 years now. Your 3P play-testing shows, and you are exactly right about the frenzy of the 6P game. One of the things I really wanted to get across in my review was the solitaire/multiplayer/solitaire/multiplayer aspect of the different phases, which our 3P group *really* likes, and which makes games playable in 2 hours. (Which, after my first and only 6P game, I would have sworn would not be possible.) With 3P, the Year Three phases take a bit longer, as everyone has to some calculations about *exactly* what they will need for their builds. 'Course, it rarely works out anyway, since you often end up losing commodities en route...but my point is that this time spent planning is totally reasonable in a 3P game, but can be a real AP drag with 6P.

Reading through my original review, I should have focused more on the rulebook. It makes what is really a fairly complicated Eurogame ("10 phases? Can't we play something easier?" sigh...) very easy to teach and learn; other rules-writers would do well to use the Parthenon rules (including the examples and illustrations) as a template for their own games.

Ben, I completely agree with your comments, although I will add a few caveats. First, Aegis cards become extremely important in Year 3, as you are going to *have* to take a long, arduous trip at some point. (Papyrus, anyone?). Second, after a a few games, the different powers of the philosophy cards can really change the complexion of a long journey. When combining these two "defense" methods on a journey across the Med. to a location with a face-up Harbor Status card, it's possible to really limit the kinds of damage those dang Hazard/Harbor Status cards throw at you. Or not! I came in a close second in our last 3P game, gambling on a huge consignment (6 cards) to Egypt. I was protected against a couple of disaster effects, and the limitations of the Harbor Status card, but I ended up losing *all* my cargo! Ouch. I think I would have won had the trip come off, but hey, I knew the risks before I set out. And, in that same game, I sailed to Egypt *twice* in Year One and made a killing due to a wool shortage. Hence, with my papyrus I was able to both build an academy not long after that, *and* make a great trade with another player for the basics I needed to get my first workshop built before the other players were even close to getting their rare productions centers up and running. Something like that: the details are already fading. My point is that sometimes it works out, and sometimes it doesn't. (Basically, what you said.). But both our 3P games have involved multiple fleets sailing across the Med. in several turns, so I think there is a tendency for bad/good card draws to even out, as our games have all been hotly contested.

Finally, I think there is a bit more "dynamic headroom" re: risk in Parthenon. (Sorry: I've been teaching students about analog-to-digital conversion for days, causing me to say "dynamic headroom" in every other sentence:zombie--at least for some of the Year Event cards. Not being able to produce, losing a production village, losing all your commodities, etc...and in the Hazard cards, as well (e.g., return home with all goods intact). These things are bad, but not really catastrophic, and typically the damage makes its way around the table fairly regularly, right along with the Archon counter.

Still, I agree with you--them cards is nasty and this is an evil game (evil in a good way, Andrew :arrrh, and one rough trip can spell defeat if it comes at the wrong time for you, and the right time for your opponent(s). It's a luck aspect of the game that fits the theme, I think, which is why (after the first game) the disasters don't bother me as much. Sure, I complain a bit...but before I know it, I'm right back in there, buying an Aegis card and another philosophy, and setting out for Italy for that free gold coin and some killer trades...

Say, Andrew, are there any expansions in the works? Seems like it would be not too hard to add some new cards. (Says the person who wouldn't have to do any of the work.)

Anyhoo, thanks for the replies, guys. I look forward to many more games of Parthenon. I've decided I want to try the 4P version sometime, to see how the fixes for the "system of threes" work out in pratice.

Thread: Re: Nightmare in the Med?

Snooze_uk — 2007-10-24T20:44:56+00:00

dcjackso wrote:
Many people have complained about the harshness of the Hazard cards, as well as the Harbor cards--but typically the conservative journeys to nearby islands are common in year one; eventually players have to start heading for Italy, Carthage, and Egypt. As for the harshness of the cards: well, after playing a few times, you KNOW they are going to be harsh, and you can (sort of) plan accordingly.......

I don't think the problem is with the harshness per se. The problem is the all-or-nothing nature of the cards.

If ALL players play conservatively and mitigate the risk (with the strategies you suggest) then the game plays out REALLY well and competitively, and is great fun.

The problem comes when people take a risk on a long journey in the early turns (which is obviously more likely the more players involved in the game, I think). If one succeeds and the others fail, it creates a BIG gap in the respective positions. The ones whos risks are succesful make big gains and the ones who fail lose far too much.

IMO, there is not enough scale of risk to work with - you only have a few real (risk) options - go local, go far, load ships heavy or light - and the cost of failure is pretty bad in all instances.

It's a great game and I do enjoy it, but if I take the early risk myself and lose, it's a loooong game and if I don't take the risk and come in 2nd or 3rd (behind the succesful gamblers and in front of the losers), then I do feel like my "loss" is largely down to luck.