Game: Perikles

Thread: Re: Commiting Forces (again)

rgmnetid — 2008-08-27T04:23:35+00:00

I recently played this again. It seems to matter if you lose, because whichever force is designated as the main force should take the casualty.

Thread: Re: Sending Additional Units - When and How Often

grokkko — 2008-08-23T01:10:54+00:00

It's stated in the rules that the player using the persian empire may spend influence markers from any city he/she has cubes on.

Thread: Re: Is the 30 the maximum number of cubes you can have on the board?

Frog1 — 2008-08-10T09:27:55+00:00

30 is the limit, although you should be hard pushed to get that number on the board.

Martin Wallace

Thread: Re: Is the 30 the maximum number of cubes you can have on the board?

Mantuanwar — 2008-08-07T17:41:01+00:00

I see what you mean, but some unusual circumstances could result in reaching 30 e.g. if you frequently missed out in elections (probably in a 4 or 5 player game) combined with a few of your city's locations going unattacked. This situation brought me close to running out in a game yesterday, hence the question...

Thread: Re: Is the 30 the maximum number of cubes you can have on the board?

rgmnetid — 2008-08-07T08:35:07+00:00

I think it's a limit.

In a 3/4 player game, choosing only one double-shard tile COULD run you out of cubes. If you never won an election and never "burned" cubes to deploy extra units, this might be a problem. In practice though, a player with a lot of cubes out will tend to win elections. And winning elections obligates you (somewhat) to fight. And in regard to fighting advantage, frequently choosing double-shard tiles is unwise due to the unit placement timing effect.

It balances out. I suspect that running out of cubes is never a problem when playing at least somewhat competently.

Thread: Is the 30 the maximum number of cubes you can have on the board?

Mantuanwar — 2008-08-07T01:14:05+00:00

I can see that it might be possible to run out of cubes, given the fact that you only have 30 per player. Is the 30 a design limit, with a player not allowed to place more cubes if he runs out? Or, can you have more than 30 (by using those from a second copy, or improvising with other counters)?

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-30T09:14:48+00:00

thiagbs wrote:
Zinho, nao da certo essa mistureba que voce fez, vai por mim...
Cara, pra vc jogar Perikles, vc nao pode achar que esta jogando um wargame. Nao eh isso. Eh outro estilo. As batalhas so servem para resolver quem foi que melhor tomou as decisoes de quais cidades controlar e quao bem sucedido ela foi. Nao tem aquele esquema de invadir territorios, controlar are e tal. A batalha eh tao somente uma resolucao do posicionamento que foi dado conforme o sucesso na fase de eleicoes. Quem nao esquecer da ideia de se trata de wargame acho que fica mesmo essa sensacao de que a batalha eh fraca. Mas o jogo nao eh de batalha, isso eh o que menos conta ao jogo, assim como eh o AoE3. Abs!

Discordo. Acho a batalha uma parte fundamental do Perikles. Em Age of Empires você pode ganhar o jogo sem se preocupar com a batalha, no Perikles, não. A intenção do jogo é ser um misto de estratégia com alocação de recursos para a guerra. E o fato da batalha não ser interessante mata metade do jogo pra mim.
Um monte de pontos de vitória estão em jogo na parte da guerra - e essa parte também consome uma boa parte do tempo de jogo.

I disagree. The battle in Perikles is a fundamental part of the game. In Age of Empires you can win without taking part in a single battle, in Perikles you can't do that. The game was designed as a mix between political strategy and war. If the war part is not fun, it kills half of the game for me.
A lot of VP are at stake in the war part and it also consumes a good part of play time.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

thiagbs — 2008-07-28T23:24:21+00:00

Zinho, nao da certo essa mistureba que voce fez, vai por mim...
Cara, pra vc jogar Perikles, vc nao pode achar que esta jogando um wargame. Nao eh isso. Eh outro estilo. As batalhas so servem para resolver quem foi que melhor tomou as decisoes de quais cidades controlar e quao bem sucedido ela foi. Nao tem aquele esquema de invadir territorios, controlar are e tal. A batalha eh tao somente uma resolucao do posicionamento que foi dado conforme o sucesso na fase de eleicoes. Quem nao esquecer da ideia de se trata de wargame acho que fica mesmo essa sensacao de que a batalha eh fraca. Mas o jogo nao eh de batalha, isso eh o que menos conta ao jogo, assim como eh o AoE3. Abs!

Thread: Re: Commiting Forces (again)

rgmnetid — 2008-07-25T20:47:13+00:00

I think it doesn't matter. Both of your examples are valid in my opinion. That is to say, if you control both Athens and Sparta, you can mix-n-match all you want in the Main box.

Thread: Re: Commiting Forces (again)

Renato99 — 2008-07-25T20:13:29+00:00

Well, its not really clear for me yet. Mister Wallace said that: "All of the counters in the Main Attacker box must belong to one player, the same with the Main Defender box. Of course, there may be different coloured units in the box as a player may control more than one city."

My specific doubt is: in the box of main attacker/deffender I can put together Hoplites from different cities? Or: The Wallace's assertion means that I can put hoplites from one city and triremes form another city fighting together as the main attacker/defender?

Examples: which example is right:

1 - I control Sparta and Athenas. I am going to attack Argos. I put 2 hoplites from Sparta and 3 Triremes from Athenas as main attacker.

OR

2- I control Sparta and Athenas, I am going to attack Argos. I put one hoplite form Sparta and one from Athenas in the main attacker hoplite box and one triereme from sparta and 2 from athenas as main attacker in the trireme main attacker box.

Have I been clear enough?

Thanks for your patience

Thread: Re: Commiting Forces (again)

rgmnetid — 2008-07-25T06:28:24+00:00

I agree with the post above. I think, however, that filling the Main Defender boxes with units from two cities you yourself control is probably not a problem. As far as I can tell, the Main boxes are to designate who gets the location tile and thus the points. So if you will get the points regardless of which city technically is defending the location, I think it doesn't matter. I haven't given it that much thought though.

Thread: Re: Commiting Forces (again)

ackmondual — 2008-07-25T05:37:04+00:00

Renato99 wrote:
SOrry guys, but I still have some questions about this amazing game

I can mix different units from different citys (that I control) in the box of the main attacker or defender, right? It means that: I can put hoplites from City A and Triremes from City B in the main attacker/defender box of the same battle or that I can put Hoplites from the City A AND hoplites from City B in the main attacker/defender box?my understanding is the main attacker has to consist of triremes and hoplites from the same city

Renato99 wrote:
What I mean is: Can I put together hoplites and/or triremes from different cities together?my take is no

And what about the allied forces? Can player B and player C put armies together in the same BOX? Hoplites from player B and Hoplites from player C? If not, I presume that there is not any problem to put hoplites from player C and triremes from player B in the allied box of the same battle, right?

Of course that the examples would be respecting all the alliance rules in the game.

Thanks again
for the allied box, I believe you can pile on the forces from as many cities as you want so long as you follow the rules on what you can and can't do..... e.g. player 1 controls Sparta and Megara. P1 can't attack Megara with Spartan forces, or something like that. I'm pretty sure you canNOT have more than one main attacker/defender. Only the main attacker/defender gets the VP for the battlefield, and having 2p as the main means splitting/equally sharing those VPs up which isn't mentioned in the instructions, save for when multiple players control Persian forces

Thread: Commiting Forces (again)

Renato99 — 2008-07-24T17:36:29+00:00

SOrry guys, but I still have some questions about this amazing game

I can mix different units from different citys (that I control) in the box of the main attacker or defender, right? It means that: I can put hoplites from City A and Triremes from City B in the main attacker/defender box of the same battle or that I can put Hoplites from the City A AND hoplites from City B in the main attacker/defender box?
What I mean is: Can I put together hoplites and/or triremes from different cities together?
And what about the allied forces? Can player B and player C put armies together in the same BOX? Hoplites from player B and Hoplites from player C? If not, I presume that there is not any problem to put hoplites from player C and triremes from player B in the allied box of the same battle, right?

Of course that the examples would be respecting all the alliance rules in the game.

Thanks again

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-21T22:24:24+00:00

Here is what I thought:

You resolve all the battles in their order, just like in the original rules. The tower starts the game with no armies at all.

1. In each round, players pick up a number of cubes equal to their committed force for that conflict (green for land and dark green for sea troops). Players also pick up a number of cubes equal to the forces of their allies (in their respective colors).

2. First, you throw in the tower the cubes for the naval battle. You eliminate cubes one by one and, if a player (or an ally) is a winner, he earns the right to add 2 extra cubes for the land fight.

3. Than you resolve the land fight throwing the remaining cubes in the tower.

4. If you are involved in another conflict down the road, you add the armies on the tray to the ones in your hand and there you go.

With this system, the last battles would become much less predictable than the first ones, because in the last battle you would have tons of cubes inside the tower and in the tray and... Hm... I don't know... Maybe I will just play Starcraft.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

sightreader — 2008-07-21T18:09:09+00:00

I haven't played the game yet. The reason the dice tower occurred to me was that the designer seemed to take great pains to add chaos to the battle resolution system, so I deduced that playtests revealed problems with excessively deterministic outcomes.
zinho73 wrote:
I would definitely prefer to play the game with the tower. And it would be quite easy to implement it in the game - you would need cubes in different shades of the same color, though - to differentiate between sea and land units.
Hmmm... I thought you might just use 2 colors for generic attack and defense? The winner of the first round could add the "farmers" to their side...

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-21T13:09:39+00:00

sightreader wrote:
BrenoK wrote:
The political part is great, but the dice kill this for me.
Hey, I have Shogun; do you think the dice tower would be a good way to resolve the battles?

The dice tower is very fun, but it is not the most balanced of the mechanisms either. If you are looking for fun, go ahead. I think the spirit of the game claims for a more controlled combat experience, but why not?

I would definitely prefer to play the game with the tower. And it would be quite easy to implement it in the game - you would need cubes in different shades of the same color, though - to differentiate between sea and land units.

And you would have to accept that the experience would be pretty chaotic.

Interesting idea...

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

sightreader — 2008-07-21T02:28:10+00:00

BrenoK wrote:
The political part is great, but the dice kill this for me.
Hey, I have Shogun; do you think the dice tower would be a good way to resolve the battles?

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

Renato99 — 2008-07-17T20:04:06+00:00

Nice, thanks a lot.

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

rgmnetid — 2008-07-17T19:38:45+00:00

Just to preempt more questions, three more clarifications:

rgmnetid wrote:
2) During the battle phase: when you lose a naval battle, you put 1 trireme of the lowest value in the dead pile; when you lose a land battle, you put 1 hoplite of the lowest value in the dead pile.The unit that dies must have participated in the battle.

rgmnetid wrote:
3) After the battle phase, ALL units NOT in the dead pile are returned to the city.This is not true for the Persians, which have no dead pile -- they always return to full strength.

rgmnetid wrote:
4) The next ruler of that city (either you or someone else), takes ALL of the city's units as usual.I said "as usual" here meaning ALL units NOT in the dead pile.

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

rgmnetid — 2008-07-17T19:21:55+00:00

ackmondual wrote:
For #2, are you sure it's not a trireme -OR- a hoplite counter when you lose that battle?
Rules wrote:
The losing side of a battle must lose one counter as a casualty. The counter must belong to the main force if possible. The lowest value counter should be removed and placed off-board. If there is no counter of the right type in the main force then the lowest value counter belonging to an allied force should be eliminated.

If only one side has forces of the right type in a round of combat then they automatically win that round.For a single combat (one location), you lose a trireme in a naval battle and a hoplite in a land battle. Which battles occur is determined by the location tile. If that battle type doesn't occur, hopefully you have no units of that type present to lose. If the battle type does occur, but you have no applicable units, you forfeit that battle. It's very similar to combat in Struggle of Empires.

ackmondual wrote:
For #4, I recall reading that you get to claim one trireme of the lowest value -OR- 1 hoplite of the lowest valueCorrect. Exactly 1 unit. It can be of either type if both types are represented in the dead pile.

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

ackmondual — 2008-07-17T19:02:14+00:00

rgmnetid wrote:
The live pile is always taken in its entirety. Therefore, no sorting is necessary. This is very simple. You have a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere that is making it complicated for you.

1) When you are leader of a city, you get ALL of the live units of that city at your command. And you can place them however you choose (the game should have provided screens for sorting out the units in a less clumsy way).

2) During the battle phase: when you lose a naval battle, you put 1 trireme of the lowest value in the dead pile; when you lose a land battle, you put 1 hoplite of the lowest value in the dead pile.

3) After the battle phase, ALL units NOT in the dead pile are returned to the city.

4) The next ruler of that city (either you or someone else), takes ALL of the city's units as usual. Also, before battle placements, that ruler claims exactly 1 unit from that city from the dead pile if there is one available.

Hope that helps.

For #2, are you sure it's not a trireme -OR- a hoplite counter when you lose that battle?

For #4, I recall reading that you get to claim one trireme of the lowest value -OR- 1 hoplite of the lowest value

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

rgmnetid — 2008-07-17T17:32:24+00:00

The live pile is always taken in its entirety. Therefore, no sorting is necessary. This is very simple. You have a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere that is making it complicated for you.

1) When you are leader of a city, you get ALL of the live units of that city at your command. And you can place them however you choose (the game should have provided screens for sorting out the units in a less clumsy way).

2) During the battle phase: when you lose a naval battle, you put 1 trireme of the lowest value in the dead pile; when you lose a land battle, you put 1 hoplite of the lowest value in the dead pile.

3) After the battle phase, ALL units NOT in the dead pile are returned to the city.

4) The next ruler of that city (either you or someone else), takes ALL of the city's units as usual. Also, before battle placements, that ruler claims exactly 1 unit from that city from the dead pile if there is one available.

Hope that helps.

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

Renato99 — 2008-07-17T16:00:45+00:00

OK, one more question: how do I organize the live pile at the beginning of the game? I mean: the weakest on the top or the strongest? When I commit forces can I choose the military counters that I need (I am talking about the power, not the type) or I just take the counters on the top of the pile? And how I reorganize the live pile after the battles?

Many questions, I know, sorry for that. But I really want to play this game with the right rules.

Thanks again.

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

ackmondual — 2008-07-16T03:28:01+00:00

Renato99 wrote:
OK, and how many counters I take from the live pile?You use all thp counters from the "live pile" when you do the phase where you commit the military counters

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

Renato99 — 2008-07-16T03:14:44+00:00

OK, and how many counters I take from the live pile?

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

rgmnetid — 2008-07-15T23:46:29+00:00

The losing side of a battle must lose one counter as a casualty. The counter must belong to the main force if possible. The lowest value counter should be removed and placed off-board.This is the "dead pile."

All Military counters that were not eliminated are now returned to their cities.This is the "live pile."

Each player takes the Military counters from each city that he is leader of. Note that only the counters on the board can be taken, not those that are off-board.These come from the live pile.

Going clockwise from the first player each player must recover Military counters from the â€˜deadâ€™ pile. They must recover one counter belonging to each city they control. They can choose whether they recover a hoplite or trireme. They must take the lowest value counter of the type selected.These come from the dead pile.

Thread: Re: Dead pile and commiting forces

ackmondual — 2008-07-15T21:25:34+00:00

I thought that's what it meant. When you lose a battle, a military counter goes into the dead pile, as in off the board, perhaps in the box as a designated place. On the next round, as the city's leader, you get to choose 1 counter of the lowest value for triremes OR 1 counter of the lowest value for hoplites and use it for the upcoming battle

Thread: Dead pile and commiting forces

Renato99 — 2008-07-15T12:27:28+00:00

What is the dead pile? I presume that is the pile in the City's Military Force Box. So, do I have to take one military counter from each city that I control? Someone here has said that the dead pile is the the pile of the deads counters, but in the manual says that "only the counters on the board can be taken, not those are off-board". And later it (the manual) says that the lowest defeat military counter "should be removed and placed off-board".
So, what is the dead pile? Do you resurrect army from the dead or just take from the city box?
Thanks for the help.

PS: I really liked the game.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-13T22:04:59+00:00

Jonathan Degann wrote:
It does get sort of lopsided. But the nice thing is that now you can tweak the numbers to create whatever odds you think are appropriate within the framework of the combat relationships.

Well, that's an idea. Thanks for the input.

To Thiago:
I don't think the automatic majority resolution will work either, because you would be doing just the opposite: giving too much strength to the majority of just one troop.
The +3 and +5 could work, though. We would have to play this way and see if things go more smoothly.

And in Portuguese: isso é que é contribuição intensa! Que que eu fiz pra merecer isso?

Abração, Thiago.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

Jonathan Degann — 2008-07-12T18:40:47+00:00

It does get sort of lopsided. But the nice thing is that now you can tweak the numbers to create whatever odds you think are appropriate within the framework of the combat relationships.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-12T12:31:55+00:00

Jonathan Degann wrote:
asfhgwt wrote:
Can't you just design your own single-roll chart? Dice are easy....

I've already done that. Check out the file at
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/25743

This is simply phenomenal work, but I really don't like the odds in this combat system. But your table does solve the problem of multiple rolls.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

Jonathan Degann — 2008-07-12T06:57:45+00:00

asfhgwt wrote:
Can't you just design your own single-roll chart? Dice are easy....

I've already done that. Check out the file at
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/info/25743

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

thiagbs — 2008-07-11T18:02:21+00:00

My english is the worst... Very easy to Mr. Wallace solves this problems... First, the exchange of 2:1 and 3:1 table by +3 and +5. Then, using my battle variant in the topic that I created.

p.s.: Zinho e Breno, vao a merda!

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

dragonblaster — 2008-07-11T17:01:55+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
"elegant." (Whatever that's supposed to mean.)

How about euroy-ish? I made up that word, it means elegant.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-11T15:43:06+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
dragonblaster wrote:
It didn't seem very elegant for a Wallace game.

Wallace games (the ones I've played) do not strike me as "elegant." (Whatever that's supposed to mean.) Rather, they feel like you're biting down on aluminum foil until all your fillings are singing.

Nice image. I read your post before going to sleep and had a dream with myself chewing aluminum foil. Thank you very much!

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

dardman — 2008-07-11T12:48:58+00:00

We have now played this four or five times at our club. Each time we have played, the game has grown on us further as we realize the rich interaction between the political and military phases, and across turns. As fans of History of the World, the idea of protecting your prior domain(s)has added appeal. One player really doesn't like the combat system and has faded as a regular player of Perikles; the other five of us are eager to play again and find that the richness of the game overcomes any disinterest in the combat mechanics.

(Even on that point, most players like the allocation decisions of where to place your forces - it's the two rounds of combat and the odds table that feel weird to a few people. I have no problem with either.)

All in all, Perikles is a engrossing game that continues to pull most of us back to it, and gets us talking enthusiastically about it after each play.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

fellonmyhead — 2008-07-11T06:11:17+00:00

The elegance of Martin Wallace's designs completely depends on where you're looking at them from. They are generally hybrid designs, which usually means he's taken a theme that belongs in the old-school and adapted it to the more streamlined (and, I suppose, elegant) Euro-style.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

Drew1365 — 2008-07-11T03:56:58+00:00

dragonblaster wrote:
It didn't seem very elegant for a Wallace game.

Wallace games (the ones I've played) do not strike me as "elegant." (Whatever that's supposed to mean.) Rather, they feel like you're biting down on aluminum foil until all your fillings are singing.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

BrenoK — 2008-07-11T03:54:09+00:00

I really liked this game the first time I played it. The second and third time, not so much. The combat not only feels slightly unbalanced (11 to 9 being the same as 16 to 9?) but it's resolution is tedious as well.

The political part is great, but the dice kill this for me.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-11T03:35:55+00:00

Thanks everyone for the compliments on my English. I feel encouraged to write more and to improve it. I really like to write in Portuguese and I'm trying to write more in English too.

To dragonblast:
I think you can get used to this kind of combat. I'm not sure I want to.

But I do understand your point of view. Maybe if I already knew what it was like, I wouldn't be so disappointed. In Runebound I kind of expected all the dice rolling, so I was OK with it from the start. And I do like Runebound.

To ackmondual:
We've played with the odds table, but it just got me more frustrated. Because, in the end, we were rolling dice and luck did played a part in the results. By the third turn, nobody looked at the chart anymore. We just learned the hard way that, if the difference of troops isn't big, the combat can go either way. Having the double of the troops makes a huge difference, but otherwise, I'm not so sure. Maybe after a thousand plays the odds would become more realistic - but in one game, anything can happen.

To Andrew:
My friends and I are talking about some changes in the system. If we can come up with something that we like, I'll let you guys know.

And to everyone:
I think the game deserves a chance. It is very thematic and not everyone in my group was bothered by the combat as I was.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

enzo622 — 2008-07-11T02:31:21+00:00

Just got this game in the mail today from a trade and I'm looking forward to trying it out with all these comments in mind.

And I agree, your English gooder than a lot of people.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

asfhgwt — 2008-07-11T00:58:46+00:00

Can't you just design your own single-roll chart? Dice are easy....

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

swaits — 2008-07-10T22:12:14+00:00

You shouldn't apologize for your English writing. It's excellent.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

ackmondual — 2008-07-10T21:15:16+00:00

I've played this game once 2 of 3 rounds and another time 1 of 3 rounds completed. I'm buckling down and gonna learn all the rules and scenarios so that I can go to a longer gaming session and squeeze in a whole game.

I definately would like to play with specific people since I've played various other games with them and know how they think and are overall pretty good at games.

What really annoys me is how to work out the combat odds. Despite the examples in the instructions, I'll probably end up printing out the odds table that someone posted here on BGG

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

cannoneer — 2008-07-10T19:59:15+00:00

dragonblaster wrote:
...It didn't seem very elegant for a Wallace game...

hahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

dragonblaster — 2008-07-10T19:32:51+00:00

I was exactly like you after my first play. I HATED the combat entirely and brooded about it for a couple weeks. For all the reasons you mentioned, but I must also include it just feels silly to constantly roll.

We'll I did hate it and almost gave the game a rating of 5. I tried the game again, and knowing what to expect with the silly combat I really enjoyed myself. The theme popped out a lot more the second time around, and I 'got' the strategy on setting up troops. A third play was enjoyable too.

I was shocked at how silly the combat was the first go. It didn't seem very elegant for a Wallace game. I was also shocked by the dicefest Runebound because of the same reason. I now enjoy both.

Thread: Re: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

rplea — 2008-07-10T19:18:03+00:00

I've yet to play my first game of this, which I own. I like what I see in the rules, so will be interested to find out whether I feel the same way as you did. Meanwhile thanks for the review; your English seems faultless, and I particularly appreciate your omission of the rules stuff!

Thread: Roll again! Roll again! Roll again… Oh, boy…

zinho73 — 2008-07-10T18:32:48+00:00

I really like half of this game. In the following review I will try to explain why. I will probably fail, but I will try anyway. Two words of caution:

1. I normally don’t go too much into the rules in my reviews. Other people do this best and I just want to give my opinion and my general feeling about the game;

2. English is not my first language. Some bizarre choice of words is almost guaranteed. It might add to the fun – but be warned.

The Concept
You are a disembodied Greek entity during the Peloponnesian War, trying to control the various cities involved in the conflict in order to accumulate the infamous Victory Points. There are two ways to do this: politically (yeah!) and militarily (oh, boy).

The game alternates between those two phases and will end in turn three or with the fall of Athenas or Sparta. You also cash in VP by the end of the game for each surviving cube.

Politically - By having the most cubes in one city you can become this city Big Kahuna (or the equivalent in Greek), which is accomplished with clever tile shopping. From a selection of tiles available to all players you must, in your turn, choose one that will give you cubes in a certain city, the chance to participate in the election for any city and/or the opportunity to kill a cube from another player.

You can only select four tiles total and one tile per city. This part of the game is very strategic, entertaining and, sometimes, brilliant. You can do some clever stuff to get the edge on your opponents here.

The city you control will give you soldiers to battle in the next phase. And my problems with the game begin.

Militarily – Each battle won gives you Victory Points, but you must choose your battles carefully. If the cities you control (or have controlled in previous turns) are attacked, you’d better protect them, because each defeat suffered by a city, lowers the VP value of that city. This idea is very interesting, because you can’t fight in all fronts and, sometimes, you will want an alliance with a rival player, because both of you have controlled the city in question. Nice stuff all over.

Then the battle begins…And my interest in the game just leaves my body and keeps itself hidden under the table until the next political phase.

The combat system is not broken. On the contrary, it is probably very mathematically correct, but it just annoys me to no end. I will try to explain why, but the real reason might as well be some deep psychological trauma, because I disliked the system in the first die roll. But I will try to elaborate more.

How the combat works?

You roll two dice trying to get a number based on the number of armies (or platoons, whatever) you have committed to the battle at hand. So, if you have 3 guys (or armies, whatever) attacking Atenas and the defender player has 2 defending, you are going to have to roll above x and the defending player will have to roll above y. As you have the advantage, the number you have to get is lower and, supposedly, easier to get on the dice. You both keep rolling the die simultaneously and the first one to get the desired result two times wins, If you get it at the same time, you start rolling again. You are always playing two battles in sequence for the same city (one at sea and the other at land). So, if you have won the previous battle, you start the second one with one victory already in the pocket – more power to you!

Why the thing doesn’t work for me?

1. It lacks confrontation. The feeling of rolling against the chart is not the same feeling of rolling against a number generated by your adversary’s roll. I know lots of game has charts and they really didn’t bother me before, but here they do.

2. The whole system looks like it is designed to mitigate the randomness of the dice, but the troops are allocated secretly, so you are just comparing stacks of army tiles, and not real army strength. In other combat games you kind of know the odds and you have at least an idea of what you are getting into.

3. It is absurdly expensive to get a real advantage in combat. If a guy has 9 troops and you have 16, you are considered to have just 2 troops of advantage. Troops are hard to come by in the game and every one should count as an advantage. I’d ratter prefer roll 16 dice against 9, add the results and whoever makes more points is the winner. It is ugly, messy and chaotic, like a real war should be. And besides, you’d roll the 16 dice at once instead of rolling the same two dice sixteen times trying to get that frigging 8!!!

4. Tactically, every time I try some kind of smart move, I get completely trashed in combat. So I just put everything I have in one or two battles every time and try to concentrate in the political phase. It works. If you just do that you will have a very competitive score.

Final Words

When it comes to combat, I really don’t have a preference. I love the strategy of Dungeon Twister, the “God please be with me” dice rolls of Dust and the elegance of the cards in Hannibal. I used to think that, as long as someone is dead by the end, any weapon would please me, but I was wrong. Perikles mixes things in a way that, when I look at it, I don’t see enough strategy, I don’t see enough elegance, I don’t see enough randomness and, more important, I don’t see enough fun.

Ironically, I would play the game again if everyone in the group is willing to, because I really like the political part. Yes, I’m that easy.

Thread: Re: Rules You Might Miss

rgmnetid — 2008-07-09T21:03:25+00:00

ackmondual wrote:
They're not referring to "round" as in 3 rounds in the game, they meant previous turns in that same Influence Tiles phase?Right.

ackmondual wrote:
The manual says to handle this by having each player who took control of the Persian forces to place a leader statue chit/tile on that location tileThat's better, I think. Cubes are points -- don't want any uselessly tied up as markers. Although it's probably sufficiently rare as to not matter either way, but to need a marker for this AND need all nine statue tokens would be quite the feat.

Thread: Re: Rules You Might Miss

ackmondual — 2008-07-09T20:47:02+00:00

dipdragon wrote:
Influence Tiles
In the 2nd and 3rd rounds all 36 influence tiles are shuffled - including those left on the board from the previous round.

You can't choose two tiles with the same colour - unless you have no choice.The manual says "if he has already selected one of the same color in a previous round". They're not referring to "round" as in 3 rounds in the game, they meant previous turns in that same Influence Tiles phase?

dipdragon wrote:
Persians
If the Persians win a battle and gain a Location Tile, all players controlling the Persians that turn place a cube on that tile and each get the VP for that tile at the end of the game.

The manual says to handle this by having each player who took control of the Persian forces to place a leader statue chit/tile on that location tile

Image

kilroy_locke — 2008-06-19T12:52:16+00:00

After: Athens on the brink of destruction!

Image

A.Men — 2008-06-13T09:55:45+00:00

storage solution

Image

ackmondual — 2008-05-22T08:33:04+00:00

Inside the box. Relavitely few components for a relatively complex game. Wrap includes 5 to 6 more small ziplock plastic bags

Image

ackmondual — 2008-05-21T09:11:53+00:00

box side

Image

craniac — 2008-02-18T03:41:49+00:00

I retained Sparta and won the game by three points.

Image

Niyes — 2008-02-06T17:50:56+00:00

A "lovely" game of Perikles

Image

pepzaza — 2007-10-19T20:33:40+00:00

Martin Wallace is happy to sell another copy of Perikles

Image

mdu2boy — 2007-08-30T21:33:37+00:00

From Bobby Tweak's game night

Image

Zapata — 2007-08-16T23:39:44+00:00

Custom/ DIY Boardmap Version

Image

Zapata — 2007-08-16T23:39:01+00:00

Custom/ DIY Boardmap Version