Game: Silk Road

Thread: Re: Frequently Asked Questions

Liggur — 2008-08-04T17:22:40+00:00

I added some red disks to the game.
Red = 10 silver solved the money problem.

We still ran out of cubes colours on 2 occasions in our recent 6 player game. We also used the "Puerto Rico" goods ruling.

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-24T07:47:08+00:00

Action tile in the city

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-24T07:45:40+00:00

Action tile in the city

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-24T06:11:49+00:00

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-07-24T06:10:29+00:00

Image

barbate — 2008-02-14T10:27:10+00:00

Image

Rokkr — 2007-11-14T14:20:07+00:00

the screen

Thread: Re: Frequently Asked Questions

faidutti — 2007-11-06T11:41:22+00:00

Yes, the money supply is too short. A very good fix is to play one gold = 7 silver and not 5.

Thread: Re: Frequently Asked Questions

jstahl — 2007-11-05T15:50:20+00:00

I played a game with Ted on the weekend.
Money is not a limited supply.
We used the removed action tiles to track money for the last couple of rounds.

Thread: Re: Frequently Asked Questions

draig — 2007-11-05T15:20:31+00:00

I have another question. We played this game for the first time yesterday with 6 players and at various points in the game we ran out of cubes, which we handled as 'tough luck' since we are all used to running out of goods in Puerto Rico.

However towards the end we ran out of money. In most games there is an essentially unlimited supply of money, but then in most games they give you far more than you need. In this game we weren't so sure.

The number of money counters was just as prescribed in the rules as the number of goods cubes. The rules don't say anything about what happens if either runs out and they are both worth the same when it comes to the scoring at the end.

We couldn't see any reason to treat the money differently from the goods so we went with the 'tough luck' approach again. This made for a bit of a weird last round where there was a useless grand vizier and sell tile because there was no more money to get.

Was this the right interpretation?

Thread: The Universal Head SILK ROAD Rules Summary v1 (Sept07).

UniversalHead — 2007-10-25T04:18:44+00:00

As always, for best results print out in colour on double-sided card, laminate and trim! Enjoy!

Other player aids at www.headlesshollow.com/freebies_games.html.

Thread: Re: Rulebook error?

UniversalHead — 2007-09-27T22:55:27+00:00

Ah-hah! Now I feel dumb. Thanks.

Thread: Re: Rulebook error?

tedcheatham — 2007-09-27T13:34:45+00:00

There is not an error in the rulebook. The tile in question is actually one of the pre-printed tiles on the board that the caravan leader is allowed to use. And, you are correct, that particular tile is not in the tile mix but, only found on the board.

I hope you enjoy the game!!

Thread: Rulebook error?

UniversalHead — 2007-09-27T02:21:51+00:00

The rules sheet shows a picture of a purple tile with the description "up to two goods of any kind for the same number of goods of your choice"

... but I can't find this tile ( 2 grey cubes, hand, 2 grey cubes) anywhere in the game, purple or orange. Was this a misprint?

Thread: Re: Insufficient Money in the Game?

Liggur — 2007-09-03T11:15:41+00:00

Psauberer wrote:
SteveK2 wrote:
I haven't actually played the game yet, but as I read the rules the thought struck me that the 5 "turn tokens" seem unnecessary: the rules could have been written to say that players leave the action tile in front of themselves to indicate that they've already acted this turn, so cannot be given the caravan leader pawn.

The 5 spare "turn tokens" could then serve as additional money.

A player could have tokens (barterer, crook) from prior turns in front of them and this could be confusing.

The Crook and Barterer tokens should be kept hidden behind the players screen with the cash and goods, and any action counters taken, would be kept in front of the player screen, visible to all.

Walt Mulder wrote:
Bruno, thanks for the honest reply. I think what I'll do in the future is use the large orange player turn tokens as 10 gold pieces and find something else to use to track who has taken their turn. That should solve the problem.

Also with the Vizier, I'll take your advice and just set a firm rule on how it is handled prior to the start of the game. I'll also track what colors have been used on paper to allow the extra cubes to stay in the game.

We were using the Orange tokens as 5 Gold each

Thread: Re: Not enough coins, a.k.a. Exactly what did I pay for?

Liggur — 2007-09-03T11:10:37+00:00

There are not enough Silver coins for starting a 6 player game, if you use the official setup rules.

However, as 1 Gold = 5 Silver. just give each player 2 gold to start with, that way you have all the silver coins as change, as well as about 8 gold coins remaining.

However I have run out of coins compleatly in a 3 player game (Never play agianst 2 university maths graduates )

So we were using the Orange Turn markers as 1 Orange = 5 Gold.

So in my experiance, the game needs more coins, or a 3rd larger denomination to solve the coin shortage

Thread: When in doubt...

Paul Mackie — 2007-06-28T13:28:45+00:00

A second playing for Pat and Brian for the evening, but they both seemed happy to give it another run.

I might have been given an unexpected advantage at the start: I drew two cubes of the same colour and was able to convert them to four of another colour with my first tile choice. Thereafter I felt that the caravan driver avoided me for much of the game, but the reality was probably that I got my fair share.

The hidden information aspect of this game has significant consequences, and perceptions therefore come into play more than most other games. As a result, Pat may have suffered slightly more than most, as a variation to an old adage came into play: “when in doubt, hit Pat”.
There is an alternative rule published on here the Geek www.boardgamegeek.com%2Fthread%2F150272%5Dby+Marshall+P.%2C+...">url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/150272]by Marshall P., under Greg Schloesser's review[/url for allocation of the caravan master that, superficially at least, seems like it would address the objections to the “emotional” factor associated with the standard mechanism. I think this might be worth a try in the next playing.
8 mins rules; 32 mins game time.
Results: Paul: 42: Brian: 37. Pat: 35. Alex: 29.

(Originally posted in The Mine Shaft Gap.)

Thread: Re: Not enough coins, a.k.a. Exactly what did I pay for?

Psauberer — 2007-04-25T02:52:31+00:00

dcorban wrote:
Zev replied to my email almost instantly (as usual). It appears that I am missing five coins.

I have yet to play the game, so I am not sure how small the money supply really is, but I want to at least be able to start a five-player game with silver coins.

Actually, not being able to start a five-player game could be a blessing.

My 5- and 6-player games of Silk Road were hideous.

When I play with 3 players, I love it.

There is a huge difference in amount of control and meaningful decisions between the 3-player and 5-player game. I haven't yet tried it with 4 players, so don't kow where that falls.

Thread: Re: Not enough coins, a.k.a. Exactly what did I pay for?

dcorban — 2007-04-25T02:27:51+00:00

Zev replied to my email almost instantly (as usual). It appears that I am missing five coins.

I have yet to play the game, so I am not sure how small the money supply really is, but I want to at least be able to start a five-player game with silver coins.

Thread: Re: Not enough coins, a.k.a. Exactly what did I pay for?

beri — 2007-04-25T01:35:49+00:00

Hmm, I like the game, but yeah, the limited money is an obvious oversight.

Thread: Not enough coins, a.k.a. Exactly what did I pay for?

dcorban — 2007-04-24T23:06:09+00:00

I cracked open my new copy of Silk Road and a tumbleweed fell out. There is enough space in this box that you could use it as a fallout shelter. Ok, so I am exaggerating in the second sentence.

Out of all my owned games, here is a list of the ones that cost $30-35:
Antike
Imperial
Caylus
Leonardo Da Vinci
Scepter of Zavandor
Tigris & Euphrates
Silk Road

Which one does not belong? Hint: It ends with a "d". All of the other games have dozens of heavy tiles, cards, and/or wooden bits.

Silk Road beats even Lost Cities' component to price ratio.

Fine, I accept that maybe I am not just paying for the components. I am paying for the time spent in developing the game. Then I read an article which talks about how the game was pretty much given up on for years, then resurrected with the help of a "boardgame personality". While it was a heartfelt tale, and ultimately what led me to purchase the game, it should have made me suspicious.

I wonder where the majority of the cost lies. Maybe the market price of inner-box real estate is high? It sure isn't in the provided coins. I immediately noticed that not only is there not enough coins for six players right from the start of the game but that I was apparently shafted a few coins according to the component list. The box and rulebook state "45 coins". I have 20 gold and 20 silver. This means I don't even have enough silver for a five player game.

Am I the only one missing five coins? I am going to fire off an email to the Z-man himself and find out the scoop.

PS: It is my experience that some people on BGG have a difficult time with humor, so I will clearly state that everything but the final question about coins is supposed to be funny.

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

dcorban — 2007-03-29T14:13:26+00:00

Awesome article. Maybe I am foolish, but reading this article changed the game from a "meh" to a "must buy".

Image

Harlequinlite — 2007-03-11T00:22:14+00:00

It's a long way along the Silk Road

Thread: Re: Using the Theif?

Zman — 2007-02-26T22:07:55+00:00

KSensei wrote:
What is the best way to "randomly steal one goods token from behind their [chosen opponent's] screen?" Should one just reach behind and feel around until he finds one? Or should the person being stolen from put all his goods into the black bag and one be selected out of it? Would that give out too much information though, because the person stealing could feel how many goods the other player has?

Any input as to how others go about this action would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

****I've done the reach behind the screen and the other way was the player held all his goods in his hands and you reached in for one that way.

Zev Shlasinger, President
Z-Man Games, Inc.
www.zmangames.com

Thread: Using the Theif?

KSensei — 2007-02-25T21:57:43+00:00

What is the best way to "randomly steal one goods token from behind their [chosen opponent's] screen?" Should one just reach behind and feel around until he finds one? Or should the person being stolen from put all his goods into the black bag and one be selected out of it? Would that give out too much information though, because the person stealing could feel how many goods the other player has?

Any input as to how others go about this action would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Silk Road - Review

sedjtroll — 2007-02-07T19:27:54+00:00

mdp4828 wrote:
Here’s my suggestion. Play proceeds clockwise from the start player. Players pay 1 gold to the pot when they take an action. Instead of taking an action a player may take the start marker and all the gold in the pot. If any actions remain they are taken in turn order for free. The player with the start marker then starts the next turn by moving the caravan.

Example in a 5 player game (players A thru E). Player A starts, pays a gold and takes an action. Player B pays a gold and takes an action, Player C pays a gold and takes an action. Now, maybe Player D doesn’t like the final action and he’d like to control where the caravan goes so he takes the start marker and 3 gold. Player E takes the final action for free.

Next turn Player D pays a gold and takes an action and so on for Players E, A, and B. When it comes to player C no actions are left so he takes the start marker and 4 gold and moves the caravan. And so on.
That's pretty interesting, my only concern is that at first glance it seems like there might be a lot of times where you sort of luck out with choice... similar to the Railroad Tycoon auction, where you might get a good spot in the turn order just because your right hand neighbor wanted to go first.

On second thought, maybe that's nonsense. I might like to try this variant. I think I had an idea of my own, but I don't recall what it was

- Seth

Thread: Re: Silk Road - Review

sedjtroll — 2007-02-07T19:25:22+00:00

Walt Mulder wrote:
This “choosing the next player” mechanism is highly original, and can help serve as a method to reign in the current leader.

Unless playing with children, newbies, casual gamers, vindictive neighbors, ex-girlfriends, wives on PMS, analysis paralysis types, morons in general, gamers who don't want to offend other gamers by choosing or not choosing them, or a mix of any of the above. I personally found this game mechanism the worst aspect of the game, especially with a full compliment of players. I found it slowed the game down needlessly. I'm sure the intent was well placed but in practice I didn't find it a viable method of reigning in the leader unless you could be sure of always giving it to the player in last place somehow.

I think a simple mechanism of passing the start player to the left and just going clockwise would have been a better choice unless everyone at the table is a savy gamer. Other than that, I also thought it was a very good game with interesting choices.

AMEN

Thread: Re: Silk Road - Review

mdp4828 — 2007-02-07T12:32:16+00:00

I'm in the same boat as you Walt. I thought it was a clever resource management game but that the turn order mechanism was annoying and out of place. There might be a game where this mechanism works but Silk Road ain't it, I think it's too simple and constrained. Simple and constrained isn't a criticism though, I actually that aspect of the game as it makes for a nice tight filler with interesting decisions. It just doesn't match the free-wheeling nature of the turn order mechanism. That mechanism needs a more wide open negotiation game where player standing can be more readily ascertained.

Here’s my suggestion. Play proceeds clockwise from the start player. Players pay 1 gold to the pot when they take an action. Instead of taking an action a player may take the start marker and all the gold in the pot. If any actions remain they are taken in turn order for free. The player with the start marker then starts the next turn by moving the caravan.

Example in a 5 player game (players A thru E). Player A starts, pays a gold and takes an action. Player B pays a gold and takes an action, Player C pays a gold and takes an action. Now, maybe Player D doesn’t like the final action and he’d like to control where the caravan goes so he takes the start marker and 3 gold. Player E takes the final action for free.

Next turn Player D pays a gold and takes an action and so on for Players E, A, and B. When it comes to player C no actions are left so he takes the start marker and 4 gold and moves the caravan. And so on.

Thread: Re: Silk Road - Review

Walt Mulder — 2007-02-07T05:31:17+00:00

This “choosing the next player” mechanism is highly original, and can help serve as a method to reign in the current leader.

Unless playing with children, newbies, casual gamers, vindictive neighbors, ex-girlfriends, wives on PMS, analysis paralysis types, morons in general, gamers who don't want to offend other gamers by choosing or not choosing them, or a mix of any of the above. I personally found this game mechanism the worst aspect of the game, especially with a full compliment of players. I found it slowed the game down needlessly. I'm sure the intent was well placed but in practice I didn't find it a viable method of reigning in the leader unless you could be sure of always giving it to the player in last place somehow.

I think a simple mechanism of passing the start player to the left and just going clockwise would have been a better choice unless everyone at the table is a savy gamer. Other than that, I also thought it was a very good game with interesting choices.

Thread: Silk Road - Review

gschloesser — 2007-02-06T14:25:16+00:00

Designers: Ted Cheatham and Bruno Faidutti
Publisher: Z-Man Games
3 – 5 Players, 1 hour
Review by: Greg J. Schloesser

There have been two games in which I have been somewhat involved from their inception and through their development, culminating in their ultimate publication. One was my good friend Ty Douds’ Victory and Honor, one of the best trick-taking games in existence. The most recent is Silk Road, which began life many years ago as Valencia. Conceived by my good friend Ted Cheatham, Valencia was originally an abstract in search of a theme. When Ted devised the Valencia theme, my wife Gail actually created the artwork for the prototype. Eventually, Ted collaborated with well-known French designer Bruno Faidutti, and the result was Silk Road, which has been published by Z-Man Games.

As the name suggests, Silk Road is set along the historic Silk Road of the Far East. The caravan travels from city-to-city, beginning its journey in Changan and concluding thousands of miles later in Antioch. With each city visited, players will select one of the action tiles, which will enable them to purchase, swap or sell commodities in various combinations. Players best beware, however, as the dastardly thief can foil one’s plans, while the Grand Vizier can grant great wealth to the player with the greatest quantity of the commodity he seeks.

To begin the game, each player receives three randomly-drawn commodities, as well as an initial treasury of ten pieces of silver. Tiles – one less than the number of players – are placed randomly on each of the 18 cities depicted on the board. The start player receives the caravan leader pawn and a number of turn tokens (one less than the number of players). The caravan then sets-off from mysterious China, and players seek wealth and riches.

The first step of a turn is determining the caravan leader, which isn’t necessarily the player holding the leader pawn. Each player can make one monetary offer to purchase the caravan leader token for the turn. The current caravan leader can either accept the highest bid, receiving the money offered and surrendering the leader and turn tokens, or keep the caravan leader token, paying the high bidder an amount equal to his bid.

The caravan leader now moves the caravan token to one of the next cities along the route, as indicated by the arrows depicted on the board. He then chooses and executes one of the action tiles available at that location. In addition, if there is a pre-printed action listed next to the city, he may also execute that action. These cities are particularly valuable, and often result in elevated bids from the players during the first phase.

After making a selection, the caravan leader keeps one of the turn tokens, and passes the remainder to the player of his choice. That player then chooses a tile and executes its action before passing the remaining tokens onto another player of his choice. This continues until no further turn tokens remain. The one player who did not receive an action tile receives the caravan leader token and begins the next turn. This “choosing the next player” mechanism is highly original, and can help serve as a method to reign in the current leader. There is the potential for one player to be constantly targeted, but in practice, wise players will choose to target the perceived leader rather than constantly abuse one player.

The action tiles are the heart of the game. Some will allow a player to trade one type of commodity for others, sometimes on a favorable 1-for-2 basis, while others will allow a player to sell or purchase commodities. When selling, the first good is sold for 4 silver, while each subsequent good is sold for one less. Purchasing works in the opposite direction. A maximum of four goods can be sold or purchased per tile.

There are also a few special tiles, such as the thief, which allows the player to randomly steal a commodity from behind an opponent’s screen. The Grand Vizier allows the player to choose a particular commodity, and each player simultaneously reveals the amount of that commodity that they possess. Silver is awarded to the top two players.

The game continues until the caravan reaches Antioch. Players then receive victory points as follows:

• 5 points per gold coin
• 1 point per silver coin
• 1 point per goods token
• 2 points for the most tokens in EACH commodity. If tied in a particular commodity, no player receives those points.

Resource management is important, particularly in the timing of the conversion of cash into commodities, and back into cash. Cash is needed early in the game for the acquisition of commodities, but in the second-half of the game, but conservation of cash is more important as the game enters the second half. Whenever a player can sell commodities, or trade one for two, it is a wise course of action.

While the decisions to be made along the way are not often taxing or difficult, one does derive the feeling that your actions are responsible for your ultimate fate, and that wise moves at the right time will spell the difference. Some of a player’s plans can be hindered by the passing of the turn order tokens, and a perceived front-runner will likely be passed-by when passing the turn tokens. However, the clever balancing mechanism of crowning this overlooked player the caravan leader on the following turn appears to be ample compensation.

Silk Road is a game of decisions and resource management that is easy to learn and play. The rules fit easily on the front and back of a single page, and the game plays to completion in just over an hour. While the system includes familiar mechanisms such as quick auctions, it also has some clever and fresh innovations. It is a game that can be played and enjoyed by both families and serious gamers, which is a big plus. I’m happy to see this entertaining game finally published.

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

Jonathan Degann — 2007-01-25T08:26:02+00:00

The link that Sue posted was through the "back door" - onto a mirror site which was intended primarily for printing.

I recommend viewing the article through the main blog, where it is fully formatted and contains links to other articles.

http://jbdgames.blogspot.com/2007/01/designers-mind-silk-roa...

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

Andy Parsons — 2007-01-24T21:00:36+00:00

Thanks for posting that link, Sue, the article was a good read.

I've only played Silk Road once, with four players. I found the turn order mechanic quite novel and interesting. There were times in our game when choosing both the direction of the caravan and having first choice of the actions seemed critical to me (and I won, so I must have been right...). Certainly, the options left to the second and even more the third player were usually not as good.

I enjoyed the game enough to play again if someone offers.

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

smithhemb — 2007-01-24T18:22:24+00:00

Interestingly, my sense from the article was that that rule (winner of auction chooses who goes second) is one of elements of the game that seems most crucial to the designers.

Which is precisely why I asked this question -- what people put into something and what others take away can be very different things. I see that with books (and lectures!) all the time.

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

starspangledgirl — 2007-01-24T15:45:02+00:00

I liked Silk Road but also felt it was very high priced. I'm glad I played someone else's copy first.

One thing I really disliked about the game, which should be easy enough to change, is the part where you bid to go first and then you decide who will go next. I didn't ever bid to go first because it didn't seem to be a huge advantage worth the coin. And I almost won the game. Everyone gets a pretty good action on their turn even if it's not their first choice. Also, it wasn't always clear how letting person A go next instead of person B was going to be really advantageous. Unless you have a supermemory and remembered which color cubes everyone was collecting!
So most of the time, we were handing the turn to the next person randomly,or "You gave it me last time, so I owe you one" type of thing.

I would like to play the game again sometime without that rule and see how it's different.

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

skelebone — 2007-01-24T15:12:52+00:00

David-

I'm right there with you on Silk Road. I played it at BGG.con and really enjoyed it, but I could not bring myself to pull the trigger on the price (even at the .con discounted price of $35). I feel the same that the box is over-big for the components and a bit steep at $50 retail. I think the I would feel much better about the game and would recommend it more highly to friends if it was in a mid-box (e.g. Carcassonne or Alhambra sized box) with a lower price point (say $35 retail, $25 online). I do actually own it because my wife got it for me at Xmas (actually bought it at BGG.con and sneaked it out under my nose)

Thread: Re: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

BeyondMonopoly — 2007-01-24T12:14:20+00:00

I enjoy Silk Road, but it has some drawbacks (much larger box than is truly needed, big box price -- medium box gameplay).

The game is quite enjoyable, with a nice balance of decisions between strategic and tactical, some tough auctions, and choices that often leave you trying to decide between helping yourself and screwing others. It all works very well together, and the game is likely among my top 10 games from 2006.

Thread: Really interesting article on game design/collaboration

smithhemb — 2007-01-24T03:55:05+00:00

featuring the Silk Road team (Ted Cheatham/Bruno Faidutti/Zev Shlasinger):
http://jbdgamesprintable.blogspot.com/2007/01/designers-mind...

And now that I've gotten a glimpse into how the designers conceptualize what they've done, I'm really curious about the reactions of those who have played the game. Silk Road seemed to get very little buzz around here, but from the description in this piece it sounded like a game I'd probably enjoy. Is it better in concept than in practice/play?

Thread: Interview with Silk Road designers and publisher

Jonathan Degann — 2007-01-23T19:38:02+00:00

In the current Journal of Boardgame Design, the designers and publisher of Silk Road tell of the long road from original conception to publication.

I personally have always been interested in the story behind a game. What were the themes and mechanisms that first inspired the designer, and how did they evolve? When we look at a final product, how did the people involved decide what to put in and what to leave out?

For Ted Cheatham, this is his first published game. Ted tells a great story that carries us through both the creative decisions and the emotional experiences of shaping a game. Bruno Faidutti, well known as the designer of dozens of games including Citadels, Boomtown (with Bruno Cathala) and Diamant (with Alan Moon), enters the conversation at the same time he enters the story - bringing new life to a design that showed promise. Ever the professional, he describes exactly how he addressed the perceived dryness of the earlier design, introduced new themes, and brought the theme together with new mechanisms. Finally Zev Shlasinger of Z-Man Games tells what struck his interest in the game when it was submitted, and how he tweaked it into its current state.

Join us at
http://jbdgames.blogspot.com/2007/01/designers-mind-silk-roa...

Thread: Re: Silk Road: Session Report

gschloesser — 2006-12-27T19:19:04+00:00

denverarch wrote:
Has your impressions of this game changed? Earlier you were not too impressed with it.

Did I say I wasn't impressed with it? That's not the case. I think it is a fine, light game, with some important decisions to be made along the way. It certainly isn't in the same league as heavier games such as Torres, El Grande or Puerto Rico, but it isn't meant to be.

I think it is a good choice when gaming with friends and family, or when you are in the mood for a lighter game.

Thread: Re: Silk Road: Session Report

denverarch — 2006-12-27T19:11:01+00:00

Has your impressions of this game changed? Earlier you were not too impressed with it.

Thread: Silk Road: Session Report

gschloesser — 2006-12-27T14:07:59+00:00

Another journey down the Silk Road, according to designers Ted Cheatham and Bruno Faidutti. Gail, Rhonda and I were experienced travelers, with Alison B., Lindsay and Benjamin being new to the trek.

I felt I was progressing well, having controlled the caravan leader at important junctures. I also captured two bonuses from the Grand Vizier, and managed to sell goods for handsome profits at several cities. When we revealed our hordes of treasures and gold at the end of the game, however, everyone was shocked at Alison’s bountiful collection.

Finals: Alison 43, Greg 33, Benjamin 30, Rhonda 29, Gail 21, Lindsay 16

Ratings: Alison 7, Greg 6.5, Gail 6, Rhonda 6, Benjamin 6

Image

puppi — 2006-11-28T20:53:52+00:00

Thread: Re: [Review] Silk Road

Sprydle — 2006-11-27T19:04:07+00:00

After a number of games-played, we've found the auction mechanic to be one of the most tense and interesting parts of the game. It requires keeping track of players' money and potential collections, and bidding is used to make a leader "pay" to get the action they want. After the first game, we've never had a 5 bid, with 3 bids being the most common. Additionally the bidding is used to get some cash for something you don't really want anyway, simply because you know the current Caravan leader really needs that next action--it allows you to get an effortless 3 or 4 silver, and at the same time, perhaps hold a leader back a little. A very nice mechanic actually, which gets more interesting with more play.

I'll say also that playing several times in reasonably close time-proximity gets a nice meta-game going--as players begin to second-guess bids and true desires based on past games. This is an interesting mechanic as well that you will miss if you only play infrequently.

Image

swiftcorp — 2006-11-24T23:13:59+00:00

SteveK2 — 2006-10-08T15:06:38+00:00

Ah yes ... I would probably have realised this had I actually played the game.