Game: Byzantium

Thread: Re: Attacking an uncontrolled city?

talrich — 2008-08-22T13:29:23+00:00

Tommie wrote:
Is it possible to attack an uncontrolled city?
Sure. "If a Field Army moves to a city that is not controlled by the same side then it must attack immediately." In this context side has to do with the groups Arab, Byzantine, Bulgar, and Persian, not player. The only impact of player ownership is the prohibition on self-attack. You can't move your Arab army to one of your Byzantine cities.

Tommie wrote:
If its possible, how exactly goes the battle (attacking and defending)?Same process as a controlled city.

1. Resolve battle
1a. opposing field armies (anytime opposing side present) OR
1b. deal with levies (when city owner elects to use)
2. Siege (always)

So first if your Arab army marches into a Byzantine city, any armies there that don't retreat can fight you (regarless of whether they own the town).

Then, if you haven't fought a field army, the owner of the town can use levies for the battle.

Lastly, in all cases, your army must siege.

The only thing skipped on an uncontrolled city is the possibility of fighting levies.

-Greg

Thread: Attacking an uncontrolled city?

Tommie — 2008-08-22T07:31:26+00:00

Is it possible to attack an uncontrolled city? If its possible, how exactly goes the battle (attacking and defending)? Can someone help me with this? Thanks!

Thread: Re: Byzantine Fleet Question

punkzter — 2008-08-17T23:58:02+00:00

Okay, so the answer to this was posted already:

http://boardgamegeek.com/article/748848#748848

If you activate the fleet, you must use both of the effects.

Thread: Re: Defending with the Bulgars

Game Knight — 2008-08-17T21:43:31+00:00

Yes, the number of Bulgar armies defending only has impact on determining the winner and the possible amount of Bulgarian casualties.

Thread: Byzantine Fleet Question

punkzter — 2008-08-17T20:08:10+00:00

If you control the Byzantine Fleet, can you use one of the two potential negative effects? In other words, this action can do two things:
A) it doubles the cost of Arab sea movement
B) you roll dice equal to the cost of that sea movement and eliminate Arab troops

Could you do A and not B or B and not A? Or must you always, if you decide to activate your Byzantine fleet, do both A and B?

Thanks,
Brad

Thread: Defending with the Bulgars

punkzter — 2008-08-17T20:05:56+00:00

I have a question about attacking a city controlled by the Bulgars. When the rules say that the Bulgars must defend with all of their armies, that still means that they only roll a maximum of three dice, correct?

Thread: Bulgars limited to 5 cities?

ekted — 2008-08-12T13:15:11+00:00

Just to be sure I understand this: The Bulgars may only attack Adrianople, Thessalonica, or a city adjacent to a Bulgar-controlled city (by land). This only adds another 3 cities to their range, since they cannot attack across water. Is this right?

Thread: Re: Move Cubes

ekted — 2008-08-12T13:03:57+00:00

lexen wrote:
On the other question:
you retain control with the cube that was there... The new cube is placed on the fortifying special action box so noone else can use this box during the current turn.
The cube that was there goes into the Casualty Pool. The cube you use to pay for the action goes into the Fortification Special Action Box. The fortification token marks the city as yours.

Thread: Re: some silly question

ekted — 2008-08-12T12:50:34+00:00

Frog1 wrote:
You do not have to retreat to the city you moved from.
This directly contradicts the rules:

"If the defender wins, then the attacker must retreat his Field Army to the city he moved from."

Thread: Re: Emperor/Caliph cubes and spaces

Malachi — 2008-08-07T23:27:27+00:00

Huh. That thought never occurred to me. I would assume your cube stays on the board because:
1. It's not mentioned in the rules that you get cubes back at any time except for the end of the turn.
2. There are VP associated with that option selection that probably shouldn't be scored more than once per turn.
3. In terms of the theme, if you kill the emperor's guard, it's going to take some time to train up some new elite forces to take their place.

But I'm just guessing.

Thread: Emperor/Caliph cubes and spaces

ekted — 2008-08-06T23:32:47+00:00

Say I take the Emperor or Caliph action. I place a cube of mine on the space, and place the special cube into one of my elite army boxes. Later on, I lose the army, returning the special cube to the board. Does my cube there stay in place, continuing to block the action for the rest of the turn? Or does it return to my casualty pool, allowing another player to claim the same special action again?

Thread: Re: Bulgars too powerful?

Ossessione — 2008-06-25T13:30:27+00:00

After few plays of Byzantium I like the game a lot and have pondered this Constantinople question quite a bit. Sudden death ending in Byzantium would be more rare if player who uses Bulgars to conquer Constantinople would not get points for it.

I have heard quite a few people say that Bulgars taking Constantinople is not to the advantage of anyone but the player in the lead on the Arab victory point track, but I do not think this is correct. This action is, as Dan Blum put it, to the advantage of the player who would be in the lead if they took Constantinople. In other words when there are no big differences on the Arab victory point track, which has often been the case in my experience, taking Constantinople is everyone’s interest: it scores five victory points if I am not mistaken.

This, however, does not mean the game is broken. It actually makes it quite interesting. Maybe players should stay away from Bulgars when they are tied on the Arab victory point track or choose Bulgars action and do nothing with them. Moving Bulgars closer to Constantinople would only benefit players next in turn.

Nevertheless, if players feel Bulgars are too powerful they could try a house rule and score no points when taking Constantinople with a Bulgars. This, the way I see it, would make the Bulgars action less tempting.

Image

dan4th — 2008-05-17T18:32:24+00:00

Blue red and green players take aggressive positions at the beginning of the game

Image

Aldaron — 2008-05-16T17:35:12+00:00

A game in progress; end of Turn 1

Thread: Re: HELP - English Rules file?

JockiB — 2008-03-03T17:13:54+00:00

The link in the Links section works for me.

Try this direct link: http://vion.free.fr/byzantium_eng.pdf

Thread: HELP - English Rules file?

Rabbits — 2008-03-03T17:09:04+00:00

Hello everyone,

This game sounds intriguing but I'd like to take a look at the rules. Maybe I can prep it for my gaming group if there is a copy in the store. Can anyone help me out and send me a scan of the rules or post one in the file section? The link below didn't work for me.

Thanks,

Rabbits

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T17:16:28+00:00

Blue Pops Into Jerusalem For Spot Of Civil War

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T17:12:20+00:00

The Players Carve Up The Byzantine Empire Amongst Themselves

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T17:07:07+00:00

The Bulgars Sweep Through Greece. Constantinople Is The Next Target

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T17:03:26+00:00

The Bulgars Amass - Invasion Is Inevitable

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T17:01:01+00:00

Byzantium Box Sides

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T16:58:52+00:00

Contributing To The Building Of The Church of the Holy Wisdom of God

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T16:54:00+00:00

The Two Elite Units, Arab & Byzantine (Each Is Worth 2VP As Well As Being Army Units)

Image

gamephotos — 2008-02-02T16:49:14+00:00

Onward To Victory! The Emperor's Personal Guard Rides With Us

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

viktor_haag — 2007-11-26T23:08:50+00:00

Isamoor wrote:

Yea, but then you can just dump all your cubes onto tax if you really want to end it.

Which is exactly what happened in the first turn in our recent two-player game, by my opponent. However, I really don't think he should have done this, as I ended up winning the game through a short Arab victory. I think he was trying to maximize his cash for the second and third turns, but by dumping most of his cubes in tax in the first turn and not exercising either his Byzantine army or claiming cities he (a) didn't get Byzantine VPs or income, and (b) didn't casualty his army enough to avoid the overhead costs which rather crippled his treasury late in the game despite his tax income.

Also, he made the mistake of asserting control over a Byzantine city, at first, in the South and sending his army too far away from Constantinople to prevent me from pummelling it with the Bulgars.

Thread: Re: About Elite force and Civil War

Walt Mulder — 2007-10-07T19:25:05+00:00

Can Elite forces combat alone without the main army ?
Not if you have both main and elite units in your army boxes. You roll up to three dice for main units in your army and one additional die for each elite unit. If all you have left are elite units, then you would only roll one die for each elite unit you have.

After civil War the city doesn't change color or player, And it doesn't change byzantine - to arab or arab -byzantine . it's all right that i have written ?
Correct. The city does not change from Arab to Byzantine in a civil war but it does change player ownership if the attacking player wins. Also, the player's army who attacked gets the victory points if they win.

Thread: About Elite force and Civil War

francesco12345 — 2007-10-07T10:20:46+00:00

Can Elite forces combat alone without the main army ?

After civil War the city doesn't change color or player,
And it doesn't change byzantine - to arab or arab -byzantine .
it's all right that i have written ?

Thanks for your answers

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

Isamoor — 2007-09-26T18:01:54+00:00

Crim wrote:
I have to find the loopholes otherwise Anye would beat me everytime.

In a 2 player game, I think a fix is to only allow passing after one player exhausts their 'free' cubes. Then the other player only gets one turn.

Yea, but then you can just dump all your cubes onto tax if you really want to end it.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

Crim — 2007-09-26T17:40:27+00:00

I have to find the loopholes otherwise Anye would beat me everytime.

In a 2 player game, I think a fix is to only allow passing after one player exhausts their 'free' cubes. Then the other player only gets one turn.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

Isamoor — 2007-09-26T16:58:10+00:00

The best variant I have read is:

In a 2 player game, if one player passes, the other player gets at least 1 more turn, and then continues taking turns until their "cube pool" runs out.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

JockiB — 2007-09-26T16:43:37+00:00

Ok, thanks for the answer. I haven't read the rules in detail yet, so I wasn't sure how the passing actually worked. If it works like you described then I agree it's self correcting in three and four player games.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

dietevil — 2007-09-26T16:37:50+00:00

I think it is self-correcting in 3/4 player game because everyone else would have to pass before the "last round" came into effect.

If there were 3 of us when he did that, the other two would just say, fine, you sit out, we'll play til we're done - and we could rack up points.

The rules say when only one person hasn't passed, that person only gets one action more.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

JockiB — 2007-09-26T16:35:48+00:00

One more thing...has anyone experienced this problem in three or four player games? Or does it appear just in two player games?

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

ekted — 2007-09-26T16:15:11+00:00

I'm really surprised in all this time that there hasn't been some official word, particularly since the box says 2-4.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

JockiB — 2007-09-26T16:11:53+00:00

I'm also interested in solutions to this problem. I've just bought the game, and I'd really like to play it as a two player game as well.

Thread: 2 Player Byzantium - pass problem

dietevil — 2007-09-26T14:57:47+00:00

I was a Warfrog Booth Babe (TM) the year Byzantium was released so I played and taught the game many times over the course of the four days... and then hadn't ever gotten it to the table since. I had very fond memories of my many plays though, and since the game reportedly plays two I was excited to get it to the table last night with my other half.

My memory was fuzzy, so we went through the rules from scratch (Jason had never played anyway) and then we started. As is normal for a new player, Jason wasn't sure quite what to do at the beginning so we read through Martin's strategy tips. We each took control of several Byzantine cities, then tried to attack Persian cities with our Arab field army. He had a bit more luck with that than I did, and most of my clumsy Arabs soon died painful deaths. My Byzantine army though had the opposite problem - their armor was apparently impenetrable because I ended the first round with way too many left alive for my comfort.

At the end of the first round, Jason was ahead by several points on the Arab track and more than several on the Byzantine track. After about two moves in round two, he looked at the board and passed. This left me in a pickle yet again with my still-too-darn-big Byzantine army and no treasury. He noted that he would have no motivation whatsoever not to pass again his first turn on the 3rd round and thus force a quick end to the game. I couldn't do anything but attempt to attack Adrianople with the Bulgars, but they had too much to drink the night before and didn't even score a single hit... thus my hope of taking Constantinople in the one move I would have remaining in round 3 was killed forever (this would have eeked me a win by two points).

I think we spent nearly as much time discussing this mechanical "issue" and how to fix it as we did playing the game. He liked the game, but didn't see how it could really play with 2. He also thought that the whole Constantinople option made it a no-brainer to beef up on Arab VPs the first round and to try to block other players from being able to effectively protect it, even with 3 or 4 players. I was skeptical that this would always be effective, and so I challenged him to try it next time we got it to the table, unfortunately his sons are too young for this one so we'll have to wait til we have some adult takers.

I was disappointed with how this went, not because I got beaten but because he was right in that the mechanics just support taking a lead in the first round and then ending the game early. We discussed possibly not allowing passing in a 2P game until you don't have cubes or money, or going a Caylus like route and making the other player pay extra cubes to play after the other has passed. If anyone has tried any of these I would be interested to hear how it goes, and I would love to hear Martin's thoughts on this as well.

Thread: Great 3-player game

topherr — 2007-09-06T08:59:32+00:00

This was my second game of Byzantium, but my first well over a year. The game plays better - tighter - with 4 players, but was loads of fun for 3.

My strategy was taking lots of free cities with the Byzantines, then ransacking lots of uncontested Persian cities with the Arabs. The other players, Kai and Jose concentrated far more on the special actions, such as taking the chieftain.

My strategy almost worked. There was relatively little combat the first 3 rounds (again, not as tight as a 4-player game), but I had a big fat target on my, uh, turban, starting round 3. As Kai and Jose built up their armies, I simply built up my cities for extra VPs. Each cube just gained me 1 extra VP (if I could hold onto the city). Spending 3 or 5 cubes on defense/armies could probably have won me the game handily.

This was critical blunder #1. I was already in the lead, and just needed to hold on, not build more. I had a lot of cash as a result of having so many cities, but I didn't spend enough on defense. I built 3 or 4 levees for each side. I think if I had instead built up to 7 or even 8, it would have created a big disincentive for the other players to come after me.

Critical blunder #2 - After polishing up on the easy Persian cities my arab army was way out in the boondocks, surrounded by own cities. So I was way out of position to attach much with it. And my byzantine army also went to the far east of the map to conquer one of Kai's 3 cities. One big lesson (and a great part of the game) is that position is critical in Byzantium. Remember, you only have 2 armies.

Critical blunder #3 was not spending my accumulated wealth on the church/mosque. Those give sure victory points that can't be taken away, and because income matters less on turn 3, they are pretty cost-effective.

In the end, Jose went after me hard, and missed, by one die, taking over the city of Kai's I had just taken earlier. Kai then sailed his arab army into Turkey and attacked my 2 cities that I had thought were inaccessible.

Critical blunder #4 was to not claim the Byzantine navy. It only cost one cube, and had I done that, Kai simply wouldn't have had any way to get to my big (level 3) interior city (just next to Byzantium).

In the end Kai was 3 points ahead of me, and I was about 4 or 5 ahead of Jose. Critical blunder #5, of course, was simply playing with Kai, who always seems to win whatever game we play, usually without breaking a metaphorical sweat The great part about playing with Kai is that as smart a tactician as he is, his gleeful enthusiasm for the games always seems far more important to him than whether he wins or loses (of course, it may help that he doesn't lose much...). This is why I always tell him that it's a pleasure to get beat by him.

This night, however, I was unexpectedly able to exact some revenge immediately after by beating him at Notre Dame - even though he was sitting on my right!

I think next time I play Byzantium I'll try to think harder about how to use the special actions like civil wars and the navies. The only ones I really used were building up cities for VPs/cash.

Very fun game. Supremely cool mechanics. Not fiddly at all. And plays quite fast (perhaps even faster than the advertised 120 minutes). Next time I want to try it with 4. And pay more attention to the special actions.

Cheers!

Thread: Re: Playerboards not properly diecut?

talrich — 2007-08-13T02:50:12+00:00

cymric wrote:
I was wondering whether more people have seen this problem, and whether it constitutes sufficient grounds to ask for replacement boards.
I haven't seen the problem, but I've only seen my own board, so that isn't a large sample at all. As far as things being sufficient grounds to ask for replacements, I've found myself asking the same question.

On the one hand, I consider many of these to be premium games for premium prices. On the other hand, fron the picture, it looks like a sharp roller-cutter or razor blade could fix that good as new, but that's just my take. It depends how much the die cut off to much (which you can't fix) versus cutting too little (which you can fix).

-Greg

Thread: Re: More questions

cymric — 2007-08-12T18:15:02+00:00

wargamer66 wrote:
2. Can the Emperor defend Constantinople with the Levy after another player has fought with an army there?
After reading many discussions on the subject, I find myself agreeing with Michael van Biesbrouck's interpretation: no, the Emperor cannot. Levies can only become active when no army has fought over the city; as soon as one army, irrespective of its owner, makes a stand and fights rather than retreating beforehand, then the option of using levies is out. (This also goes for normal cities, so yes, you can be screwed out of using your mighty levy if a puny field army decides to take the heat of defense.)

Thread: Playerboards not properly diecut?

cymric — 2007-08-11T17:45:14+00:00

When opening my copy of Byzantium, I discovered that the player boards had a minor flaw: each of them had a side which wasn't properly diecut. In the image below, you can clearly see what must've happened: along the side, the die consisted of two parts which failed to line up properly.

]]>
I was wondering whether more people have seen this problem, and whether it constitutes sufficient grounds to ask for replacement boards. Probably not, but it is the first time in nearly 4 years of opening game boxes that I see this kind of error. It's more a question of how common it is, really. (I need to contact the supplier anyway as about 15 cubes were missing too ...)

Thread: Re: More questions

xombe — 2007-07-18T13:29:11+00:00

ekted wrote:
xombe wrote:
How does that happen? If the guy in the lead passes, the other player can keep taking actions (and gain more points). He can attack the player's cities, moving troops around, taxing, building the church etc. No?
Once all other players pass, the last player only gets 1 more action.

I recall now. We did use that rule but it was a three or four player game so I barely remembered it since it didn't seem to matter - it was a little of a screw-you if players had lots to do, and a little of a timer to keep the game moving. It didn't seem to hurt much, but I could see in a 2-player this could be a problem if a player treat it as a race for victory points.

Thread: Re: More questions

ekted — 2007-07-17T20:00:44+00:00

You could perhaps use the trick from Caylus for the 2p game:

Once one player has passed, the other player can take as many actions as they like, but must pay an extra coin for each.

Thread: Re: More questions

Jako — 2007-07-17T19:32:50+00:00

I'd wondered about the play 'n' pass strategy myself. Can be a bit of a low way to get ahead.

Thread: Re: More questions

xombe — 2007-07-17T19:27:35+00:00

Thread: Re: More questions

ekted — 2007-07-17T18:30:15+00:00

xombe wrote:
How does that happen? If the guy in the lead passes, the other player can keep taking actions (and gain more points). He can attack the player's cities, moving troops around, taxing, building the church etc. No?
Once all other players pass, the last player only gets 1 more action.

Thread: Re: More questions

xombe — 2007-07-17T17:57:27+00:00

wargamer66 wrote:
...the issue with 2-player Byzantium wherein the leading player simply passes and drives the game to a conclusion?

How does that happen? If the guy in the lead passes, the other player can keep taking actions (and gain more points). He can attack the player's cities, moving troops around, taxing, building the church etc. No?

Thread: Re: Owning a corner

talrich — 2007-02-11T17:18:04+00:00

Innovan wrote:
In boardgames, it's always cheaper to hold onto and defend a corner of the board.

True, but due to water movement and the Bulgars, the Byzantium map doesn't appear to have that many corners.

Innovan wrote:
Hamadan to Trebizand can be largely sewn up by any player just by building up those two cities as far as possible.

The fact that these cities start at a medium size (and shrink when conquered) probably makes an assault on this loop unattractive. This seems like the best fortress on the board to me, but I might worry about two players (one of each faction) getting the same idea and attacking from different ends. You might end up with the Bugs Bunny versus Yosemite Sam problem, where neither will "stop their train".

Innovan wrote:
Likewise Mecca to Tabuk, or with little more risk Mecca to Damascus, can be secured by building up only two cities.

I guess, but the Mecca to Tabuk cities are also safer as they start smaller, are on desert connections (therefore safe from Byzantines), and can only face the 3 civil war options each turn. Then again, you've got to pay a cube for a miniscule city.

Innovan wrote:
Constantinople to Candia would an ideal, easy to defend corner... if it wasn't for the Bulgars.

I would think that the Bulgars (especially showing up at Thessalonica, behind your fortified line) would be enough to call this "not a castle". As Mecca to Tabuk, I don't think someone would want to civil war behind your line, but a Byzantine army could "teleport" behind your lines with the Constantinople movement & Civil War options. Kinda defeats the "anchor both ends" strategy.

Innovan wrote:
The penisula to the east of Constantinople is an interesting option. Claiming Ankara as your first Byzantine city to warp in your army there means your army is 1 space away from defending a nice cluster of cities that few will be willing to contest from you. Here special actions aren't needed; your army itself is enough of a threat.

Can't the same be said of a Byzantine army at Leucosia? The advantage is that Leucosia defends six other cities, rather than five, but some of its cities are closer to the Arab assault. Which is better?

It's an interesting set of observations, but I wonder if Byzantium is more about being a less attractive target than "the other guy."

...but I don't have any games under my belt, so take my suspicions with a pile of salt.

-Greg

Thread: Re: Byzantium - how to become a mercenary

Soledade — 2007-02-09T10:58:09+00:00

Mario, também sou um grande fan de Martin Wallace. Em Byzantium ninguém é líder de uma nação em particular e o mesmo se passa em Liberté em que todos os jogadores podem colocar influência de uma ou de outra facção. É só uma questão de hábito. O conceito, para quem já jogou Liberté é parecido. Não é o mesmo mas é parecido.
Dá uma tentativa mais ao Byzantium, pode ser que gostes.

O Perikles é um óptimo jogo.

Thread: Re: Byzantium - how to become a mercenary

marioaguila — 2007-02-09T03:53:59+00:00

Buena y favorable reseña...tengo Byzantium a la venta, sin haberlo jugado...pero habiendo leído las reglas.
Acabo de comprar y jugar Perikles y me ha gustado mucho.
Del autor tengo y he jugado AOS, SoE y Liberté. Esta falta de identificación con una ciudad-imperio no me atrae mayormente.
Tras esta reseña, más adelante voy a intentar jugar aunque sea una sola vez este Byzantium.

De los anteriormente mencionados, mi Top One es AOS. Liberté estoy que lo vendo...su caos no prendió mucho (incluida la necesidad de en todo momento tener que estar sumando las fichas para saber a quien apoyar).
Tras un primer juego de Perikles, creo que es el que más ha gustado.

Thread: Byzantium - how to become a mercenary

Soledade — 2007-02-08T18:31:33+00:00

Reviewing a game that I’ve only played once?! Could this, whatsoever, be a solid opinion?! Some would think yes, much more would say no. I totally agree. With both.

First thing’s first
A good game always shines at the first glance. If a game doesn’t suit me in my first experience I won’t like it, even if I play it ten or twenty times in the future. I played Byzantium only once, last weekend, and we’ve even played it with some rule mistakes - which is a common thing to happen, since we’re talking about a Martin Wallace’s game – but the game bounds in my head ever since. It’s a rare thematic game, full of different, non obvious choices, with a very, very deep learning curve. And with one single play I can state for this.

The Game
Controlling both Arab and Byzantine armies, make some approaches with Bulgars and even conquering Persian cities it’s what we have to perform in Byzantium.
Each player has a chart with armies and money, belonging to Arabs and Byzantines, separately. Also a pool with cubes that can support both nations. But this review, as all reviews should be, it’s not to talk about game rules. It’s supposed to talk about the game itself and how it works in terms of playability and re-playability.

Every single movement in Byzantium reveals something. The money is so rare, luck could be a bitch, strength of both nations is what every player searches. I believe that, every time a player performs an action (controlling a city, make an attack, choose a civil war, build a sanctuary, etc.), although he could be doing it with a fairly amount of certainty, no one knows if it will work. Because the game seems to work against all players. The only thing that everyone should do is to minimize the possible damages.

If we make an attack with only some possibilities of victory, no matter if we accomplish it. Sooner or later the risk will come as a serious threatening thing that could take a player off board and makes him run towards Constantinople. I mean, players who risk too much don’t have the opportunity to win Byzantium in a straight way. They, if willing to win, have to go for the sudden death victory by trying to get Constantinople and assuring those precious 5 VP’s for the Arabs. And that makes Byzantium one of the most strategic games I’ve ever played. It has some tactic moves but almost everything is about strategy. And because of your opponent’s choices, this game could be played over and over because it has no formulas towards victory.

Euro Game vs. American Game
One thing that I found a bit “less euro” in Byzantium is the way to get victory points. Having a large empire with either nation doesn’t get you VP’s. It could get you strength and money to build sanctuaries and by doing so get some points. But the confrontation between Arabs and Byzantines, whether they are dressed as Bulgars or not, is what makes the juicy part of winning. Without wars no one could ever win. Usually, euro games don’t promote direct confrontation. Euros have some interaction, but without destroying too much of the opponent’s game. With Byzantium, dice included, we have also a bit of the “American way of games”.

But is Byzantium a wargame?
For some core euro gamers, like me, this is a moody way to practice some confrontation. I would say that, in that sense, it could be a wargame. Anyway, due to the way all mechanics work together, with influence cubes, money management, balance between Arabs and Byzantines, and choices that are only available to some players (e.g. Civil wars, being emperor or caliph, control Byzantine/Arab fleet) Byzantium is a real euro game with some American games mechanics, being the most important, direct confrontation.

That said…
The way each player controls both nations (Byzantine and Arabs) it’s a very clever way to add a new thematic scene in which we become mercenaries instead of leaders in the straight sense.
Martin Wallace did a great job with Byzantine. He turned this game into a very intelligent euro game with some American mechanics, and most of all, with a very tight balance between the desire of players to build an empire and a mercenary background, fundamental to achieve victory.

Paulo Soledade

PS: sorry for my english

Thread: Re: Byzantium Review

milspec — 2006-12-21T20:34:11+00:00

100%Blade wrote:
Warfrog / Martin Wallace games are normally high on my radar to play quickly. I'm not too sure why though as other than Age of Steam my ratings for his games are not as good as this statement would imply.

Age of Steam is licensed from Winsome Games, it is not like the other Warfrog games. The best Martin Wallace games are the ones that have some mention of Winsome or John Bohrer, like Railroad Tycoon or Struggle of Empires.

Thread: Re: Review - Byzantium

Daddy-O — 2006-11-22T14:47:29+00:00

I haven't played Byzantium yet, that is why I am reading this review, but from my own collection I would agree with Justin. Age of Napoleon has the most unclear rules I have ever read. Too bad too because it had potential. I do appreciate the notes here about Byzantium having unclear rules. After the Napoleon fiasco, I will probably look elsewhere for my Euro/war game fix.

Kevin

Thread: Re: Byzantium Review

pitris — 2006-11-16T14:38:04+00:00

100%Blade wrote:

I am a bit loathe to write a review of such a game after only one play particularly when I have yet to give it a chance to flourish – there is a better game in here than we experienced and it is a bit unfair for me to rate it a 5 because I am sure that with more plays we could get something good out of it. However, our one play resulted in a very disappointing game and the competition for my gaming time from other games is so strong that I rather doubt it will see the light of day again.

I think this is especially true for Byzantium. It's a hard game to digest because it's very unusual. Most of the players have no idea of what they're doing in the first game or two, and they only start understanding what one needs to do to win on the 3rd or 4th game. For some people that's not tolerable, and that's why this is one of the more underrated wallace games and it's doomed to stay that way. It's too bad, because I think it's one of his best games also...

Thread: Re: Byzantium Review

shotokanguy — 2006-11-15T22:01:59+00:00

100%Blade wrote:

I am a bit loathe to write a review of such a game after only one play particularly when I have yet to give it a chance to flourish – there is a better game in here than we experienced and it is a bit unfair for me to rate it a 5 because I am sure that with more plays we could get something good out of it. However, our one play resulted in a very disappointing game and the competition for my gaming time from other games is so strong that I rather doubt it will see the light of day again.

This is an important point. I think more so than in most games, you have to play Byzantium once or twice before you really get a feel for it. I've decided that I'm not even going to try to teach people and then play a regular game. My plan is to teach them the rules, play a practice game of one turn, and then play a real game after they have a better idea what is going on.

Thread: Byzantium Review

100%Blade — 2006-11-15T20:16:33+00:00

Warfrog / Martin Wallace games are normally high on my radar to play quickly. I'm not too sure why though as other than Age of Steam my ratings for his games are not as good as this statement would imply. Way out West is a bit dull, Liberte and Princes of the Renaissance both seem a little too clever for their own good, Runebound is banal and Struggle of Empires, although good, has recently been banished to my loft as my enthusiasm to play it wanes. Hell, for the first time ever I didn't buy the Warfrog game at Essen this year - Perikles - even though we played it and it seemed ok. This may explain why it has taken so long to get Byzantium, the 2005 Essen release, to the table.

There's nothing wrong with Byzantium. It has the usual strong historical theme, clever mechanisms, limitations on decisions etc that Wallace seems excel at, it's just that for some reason I am not particularly enamoured by it. Now this may be down to the fact that our one game ended prematurely with the fall of Constantinople - something which came about easily even though everything I've read suggests it is difficult to do. Had I read the rules properly then we would have realised that each defensive hit by Constantinople on the attacking army causes double casualties which would have meant that the attacking Bulgar army was not strong enough to bring the city down and the game would have continued. In part, this is one of the problems with Wallace's games - there are a lot of exceptions (or fiddly rules) around, many of which are buried in the text and until you're familiar with them all, the chances of playing something incorrectly - a crucial mistake in this case - is high. Of course, if you play the game regularly and often (as I do with AoS) then this is not a problem but this does not tend to be our style and it therefore makes me wonder if his games are suited to our group.

The game itself is set in the 7th Century and the fall of the Byzantine and Persian empires. Each player is an independent entrepreneur trying to manipulate both the remnants of the Byzantine empire and the emerging Arab armies. The board depicts a map of the middle east with various Arab, Persian and Byzantine cities connected by roads, sea routes and caravan trails. The map is surrounded by various action boxes and two scoring tracks - one for the Arabs and one for the Byzantines. Whoever gets the highest combined points on these two tracks after three rounds of play is the winner - except if the score on the lower track does not reach 50% of the score on the higher track then the lower track does not score at all. This forces you to concentrate on either the Arabs or the Byzantines (either of which seems difficult) or, as is more likely, a balanced approach between the two. There is one other route to victory - if Constantinople falls then the game ends immediately, the Byzantine scores are ignored and the winner is the player with the highest Arab score. As I indicated, this is difficult if you play to the correct rules but is achievable and is a typical (and I might add, welcome) Martin Wallace design trait.

The game lasts three rounds each of which sees multiple turns for each player and the rounds are separated by an income and maintenance phase. There is money (in the form of Bezants) in the game but the key resource revolves around the use of cubes which are used to represent pretty much everything including ownership of cities, number of troops and actions taken. Because players are trying to influence both the Byzantines and the Arabs they keep separate records of each treasury and army. Each turn, a player can take one of a multitude of actions - claim ownership of a city, increase the size of an army, raise taxies, donate to the church/mosque, move and/or attack with their Byzantine or Arab army. With the exception of raise taxes, a player can perform these actions as many times as they wish each turn. Or at least as many times as they have spare cubes to do so. You can buy more cubes from one of your treasuries but this is not always affordable and / or desirable. The final action possible is a 'special' action which also has multiple options e.g. increase city size, become the emperor / caliph, invoke the Bulgar nation, improve fortifications, instigate civil war, command the navy. The only difference here is that there is a limit on the number of times each action can be taken in a round, between 1 and 3 as dictated by the appropriate boxes on the board.

Combat occurs when an Arab army moves into a Byzantine city or vice versa. Wallace always uses simple dice based combat mechanisms and this is no different. Depending on the size of the city under attack, between one and four dice are rolled and the attacker loses that number of casualties from their army. If they still have a bigger army than the size of the city then they are victorious, the city is reduced one level and the attacker claims ownership and gains cash plus VP's. There are a few more complications around the use of elite troops and levies and if other armies are present but it's still fairly straightforward.

At the end of the round, players gain income for every city they own and must pay maintenance for all their troops. Again, it is important to separate out Byzantine income and maintenance from Arab ones and if you can't pay all your maintenance then you not only lose troops but VP's as well. Victory points are scored through the initial claim on ownership of a city, sacking a city, becoming the emperor/caliph or donating to the church/ mosque. In addition, ownership of cities scores again at the end of the game.

There are a number of hints and tips at the back of the rulebook which I recommend all first time players read. They all make sense and give you some direction because at the start of the game you are probably not going to have much idea what to do.

I am a bit loathe to write a review of such a game after only one play particularly when I have yet to give it a chance to flourish – there is a better game in here than we experienced and it is a bit unfair for me to rate it a 5 because I am sure that with more plays we could get something good out of it. However, our one play resulted in a very disappointing game and the competition for my gaming time from other games is so strong that I rather doubt it will see the light of day again.

Thread: Re: Bulgars too powerful?

shotokanguy — 2006-11-12T16:27:59+00:00

gilesclone wrote:
And historically, the Bulgars came very close to taking Constantinople twice.

Yes. I've seen many comments about how the Bulgars were a bunch of hacks who never had a chance to take the city, but consider the following:

1. On several occasions, Bulgars overran the territory in that area, right up to the city walls.

2. The Byzantines regularly paid tribute to the Bulgars to keep them pacified.

3. Deposed emperor, Justinian II was able to return to power around 700 by leading an army of Bulgars to the city and forcing the acting emperor to capitulate. Some of them were able to sneak into the city and could have opened it up to be sacked.

Thread: Re: Tao of Gaming Review

docreason — 2006-09-17T22:58:36+00:00

SteveBl wrote:
This game isn't about combat; it's about cube management. The rules even go so far as to say as much. The combat just adds a little bit of luck to the game (and as your review pointed out - not much).

One reason for playing both sides: because it's unique. Name another game where you play both sides of the conflict. I can't think of one at the moment.

Russian Civil War had that. That was a cool game of pure mayhem.

Thread: Three games, two Arab sudden death victories

Norbert Chan — 2006-09-04T22:04:21+00:00

Players: Don Smith, Jean Jodoin, Norbert.

Don had bought this at the Sentry Box for $72.50 and he gave us the Cole's notes rules explanations.

We took off our shirts, and wrapped it around our heads, turban style. Hey, it was hot outside, at +26 degrees. Don went first, put a control marker in Palmyara. Jean went second, and placed a control marker in Mecca. Without really sensing what to do, I attacked Jerusalem from Tabak and took it over. I then put a control marker in Nicaea, then used the Arabs to attack Alexandria. Then Don sprung into action. He used his Arab force, placed a counter in the civil war box, and we had a civil war in Alexandria. I had not seen this tactic before and we eliminated a few of our Arab units. Don's view was that he did not want to pay to maintain them. I thought it was a questionable tactical move, as it weakened both of us relative to Jean. I thought I would try something peaceful, put a control token in Thessalonica, but Don responded by using the Bulgar action and launching an attack into Thessalonica. Don had mentioned this in the rules and he asked me if I had forgot. Indeed, I had forgotten about the ~~Buggers~~ Bulgars, but I will never forget again. In desperation, I put a control marker on Candia, but Don eventually sacked that as well with his Arab army.

All this to say that Don and I had very few cubes left on our board, while Jean was virtually untouched. I decided to pass early and play for the long term, while Jean and Don spent money to take a few extra turns to put control markers on cities that were unclaimed.

At the end of turn 1, scores were Don 38 (16 Arab, 22 Byzantium), Norbert 36 (14 Arab, 22 Byzantium) Jean 35 (17 Arab, 17 Byzantium).

All this was actually for naught. In the second turn, I took the emperor, Don used the Bulgars to attack Jean at Adrianople. Jean then used the Bulgars himself to launch an attack on Constantinople, with 10 Bulgars total. I had no levies, so I could not defend Constantinople, and the city rolled two hits, eliminating 4 Bulgars, which left 6 of them to take over Constantinople and there was an Arab victory! Only Arab points counted now, and Jean got 5 VPs for taking over
Constantinople.

Scores: Jean 22, Don 17, Norbert 14.

Don gave two reasons why he attacked Adrianople. He felt that his game was not that good, and didn't mind starting over again, and he claimed he wanted us to be aware of the sudden end condition. Well, we were aware of it all right. Jean jumped on the opportunity to end the game right away, and ended it he did. I felt like I wasted time by passing early in turn 1, by trying to save money for the long term.

Game 2: Second verse, same as the first.

"I'm Bulgar the 8th I am,
Bulgar the 8th I am I am,
I got married to the 72 virgins next door,
They've been married seven times before..."

This time Jean went first, and placed a control marker in Leucosia. I placed a control marker in Mecca. Don went out on an Arab offensive right away, attacking and controlling Jerusalem, Damascus, and Palmyra. He then used the Bulgars to attack Thessalonica (no one had placed a control marker there this game, though it was worth 3 Byzantium VPs). Don's Arab exapansion was stopped when he attacked Baghdad unsucessfully.
My Arab army attacked Antioch, Edessa and Amida. All my Arab expansion got me to 16 Arab VPs. I was the first one to pass, then Don used the Bulgar action to attack Adrianople and he was up to 21 Arab VPs. Jean had 15 Arab VPs.

Before the second turn started, I asked Don what the tiebreaker was for tied VPs. He looked it up and saw that ties were broken by the player who controlled more cities. As I passed first, I went first in the second turn. I took the Bulgar action, and attacked Constantinople with 10 Bulgar armies. Only 2 hits were rolled, elminating 4 Bulgar units, leaving them with 6, so Constantinople fell, and only Arab points counted now. I gained 5 VPs for it and the scores were Norbert 21, Don 21, Jean 15. So we went to the tiebreaker, and I controlled 6 cities to Don's 4 cities, so that gave me the win. I asked Don why he attacked Adrianople with the Bulgars last turn to give me the chance to win the game, and he mentioned that his strategy was to gain as many Arab VPs as possible, so that only he could win if Constantinople fell to the Bulgars, but he said he obviously made a miscalculation. I mentioned it would be neat to see a full game of this played for 3 turns....

Game 3: Don went first and placed a control army in Adrianople, thus putting his Byzantium field army there as well. Jean went second and put his control marker on Nicaea, which was where his Byzantium field army started. They both looked at me and said that Constantinople would not fall this game. So I placed a control marker in Mecca. I then proceeded to attack the neutral cities of the board, taking control of Hira, then worked my way up to Palmyra and Mosul.

Jean would virtually spend all his actions placing control markers in Byzantium cities, building up a sizable Byzantium lead. Don and I were worried about it, but in turn 2, we began taking down his cities.

Don and Jean's Arab armies were in Jerusalem and Alexndria, respectively, giving me the run of the whole eastern board. I spent a few actions upgrading then fortifying Palmyra. (As Don mentioned to me later, I probably should have upgraded Mecca, since no one was within reach, and I could keep earning Arab money and VPs right to the end of the game). I thought I was going to move westward with my Arab army, so I thought I would leave Palmyra secure. Except in this game, any central city is not really secure.

As we moved into turn 2, I had the Arab territorial advantage in the east. This prompted Jean to build up his Byzantine army and take a swing at Palmyra. I had two Arab levies, and they both hit. Then the city also rolled 4 hits. So with 6 eliminated units, Jean could not take it over, and to add insult to injury, Jean had 6 dice to roll (with 3 Byzantium elites) and could only roll 1 hit. So his army was devasted and he had to rebuild.

In turn 3, with his army rebuilt, Jean finally took over Palmyra with his Byzantium army. I had to use my Arab army to recover my cities that were being destroyed by Jean, costing me VPs each time. I wonder if I would have made more progress by taking over the remaining neutral cities. At this point Don mentioned a key rule. "Oh, by the way, everytime you take the Emperor or Caliph, you get 2 VPs". We had not been playing that way at all, but in the first 2 games, it probably didn't matter. There was some discussion about how many times who took what, but we left it. I know I had taken the emperor 2 times before, but of course with the rule change those actions would probably go higher in priority. I was in the lead, but after Jean cut me down a few times and Don taking down my Byzantium cities, it was quite a fight. In the end, the scores were:

Don 66 (21 Byzantium, 25 Arab, 4 Byzantium city pts, 16 Arab city pts),

Norbert 63 (20/ 27 6/ 10),

Jean 51 (31/ 16/ 3/ 1).

I have to admit, I am not a wargamer. So I am lukewarm on Struggle of Empires, Princes of the Renaissance, etc. I am also lukewarm on this game. I suspect people who like those titles I mentioned will like this game as well. Instead of getting tiles with special abilities, Martin Wallace has streamlined this by getting players to place cubes into the board to gain the actions. The actions are not as fiddly as they were in the past, and you don't have to consult the rules to see what the actions are (e.g., in Struggle of Empires you had to read what the pirate tile did). It seems cleaner than the other 2 games. But there is also the in your face aspect of attacking people, which I am not a huge fan of since who gets attacked is largely a perception of who people think is in the lead. However, I am confident wargamers will love this game.

Thread: Re: Capture of Constantinople

nomad001 — 2006-09-02T07:56:23+00:00

GeoMan wrote:
If Constantinople is captured by the Bulgars the active player still gets 5 points for his Arabs. Am i right?

Yes - I agree with the rest - but it states that if Constantine falls to the Arabs, only Arab points score (and no end game city points) but what about when the Bulgars take Constantinople (ie. is it just Arab points, or both? and no end game city scoring, I'm guessing either ...)?

Thread: Re: Orange (Bulgar ) cubes missing..

nybba — 2006-08-17T16:13:56+00:00

I started to set up the board yesterday for a solo try an found that the purple emperor cube is missing. Can you send me the email to Martin Wallace as i cant get to the hompage.