Game: Age of Renaissance

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

iamspamus — 2008-08-07T11:36:50+00:00

Asperamanca wrote:
I made a printable version (here), including exact printing sizes so they'll fit neatly on the map.

I've taped them on my map, and never looked back. The changes might seem subtle at first, but I think they really improve the game.

Yep, they are simple and elegant, but substantial changes.

Jason

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

Asperamanca — 2008-08-05T14:48:49+00:00

I made a printable version (here), including exact printing sizes so they'll fit neatly on the map.

I've taped them on my map, and never looked back. The changes might seem subtle at first, but I think they really improve the game.

Thread: Re: Playing London in AOR

iamspamus — 2008-07-31T10:11:28+00:00

Pompey4,

Interesting analysis. I would never try it. Mostly because I'm not a high risk player AND with the combination of luck and math skills, I'd end up with $79 on turn 3 , not $80.

I do really like this game though and like thinking outside the box. So, thanks.

Jason

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

iamspamus — 2008-07-31T10:02:22+00:00

West2 wrote:
I got an early Crusades card in the WBC tournmanet last year, and still couldn't pull out the win...

But it doesn't guarantee a win, it's just a tool, albeit a powerful tool, towards winning. I like it when Paris or Hamburg gets it...:-).

Jason

Thread: Re: Intial Bidding Strategy for Age of Renaissance

Fritsvv — 2008-07-16T16:30:05+00:00

Statistics.
Greg quoted some statistics to support his opinion abut the quality of the capitals.
I play in a group of players in the Netherlands. And for a while we recorded the outcomes and had a personal rating.
My figures are totaly different then Gregs though.

6 Player game London Paris Genoa/Venice/Barcelona Hamburg
Genoa Venice and Barcelona almost equal differences of less then 3%

5 Player game London Paris Genoa/Barcelona/Venice

4 Player game Paris Genoa/Barcelona/Venice

3 PLayer game Barcelon/Venice/Geona

As we also had a rating system for each player I found it a lot more interesting to see how they did with each capital.

I looked at all the games which the two highest rated players played and came up with the folowing.

Hamburg is the worst by far.
For the rest

IT DID NOT MATTER

Usually they bid zero and just took what was left.
The only capital which they tended to avoid was Hamburg.

After many discussions about this aspect of the game with several people.
We came to the following conclusion.
Hamburg is the worst of the capitals.
The rest is more or less equal, though different.
Each with its own advantages and shortcommings.

We recorded 181 games. Which of course statisticaly means nothing.

Frits van Varik

PS Civil war is the strongest card in the game.

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

iamspamus — 2008-07-10T11:03:32+00:00

Innocent Bystander wrote:
Morganza wrote:
While you've got a valid point, many people feel that a game that requires people beating up on the leader to be balanced is inherently unbalanced.

There's also a tragedy of the commons effect -- A gets Crusades in the first turn. B, C, and D spend a lot of resources pounding A back down to parity. E puts just enough effort into beating on A to be a "team player", but builds up a subtle lead...

I see no tragedy here.. just smart play by B,C, and D and smarter play by E

If you are relying on the game to balance things out then it seems like half the fun is gone to me...

The problem I have is that I never play this with the same group. So, you end up with one or two guys who are experienced and a few that have no clue. So, in your first time playing a game it's hard to tell who's "winning". But overall, I really love this game. I tend to like the 3 or 4 Euro-changes, including the map additions and switcheroos.

Jason

Thread: Re: Playing Hamburg

Joe Lux — 2008-07-05T10:38:45+00:00

I don't see any winning chances with Hamburg, unless you bid $0.

Both Caravan and G-2 are practical purchases. Take a hit on stabilization on misery. Expand to Prague and either Nuremberg or Srassburg for DOMs. Satellites in Settin and AMSTERDAM are necesities.

You will only upgrade to G-4 turn 2. Bid no more than 13. Expand to either Bordeaux (you may have to offer Prague to Paris for peace) or Cornwall and Danzig, plus Bergen or Stockholm (arranged with London), and Riga, and Novrogod.

Now you can buy either Overland East, or the Heavens on turn 3, and off you go!

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

Innocent Bystander — 2008-06-28T13:42:52+00:00

Morganza wrote:
While you've got a valid point, many people feel that a game that requires people beating up on the leader to be balanced is inherently unbalanced.

There's also a tragedy of the commons effect -- A gets Crusades in the first turn. B, C, and D spend a lot of resources pounding A back down to parity. E puts just enough effort into beating on A to be a "team player", but builds up a subtle lead...

I see no tragedy here.. just smart play by B,C, and D and smarter play by E

If you are relying on the game to balance things out then it seems like half the fun is gone to me...

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

West2 — 2008-06-26T14:58:39+00:00

I got an early Crusades card in the WBC tournmanet last year, and still couldn't pull out the win...

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

talrich — 2008-06-26T14:52:34+00:00

I often make the same argument myself. I wonder if the detractors are uncomfortable with player-related-balance, or if they're playing single epoch games where there might not be time for an early leader to regress to the mean?

I also find that there are several other cards as powerful as the crusades card, and I find it strange that they get less scrutiny.

I don't blame anyone who doesn't like it, but I like the standard rules for crusades just fine.

-Greg

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

BFoy — 2008-06-26T11:28:24+00:00

meyerg wrote:
Many people tell me crusades turn one is too powerful.

I have even thought of holding a first turn crusade for turn 2 to hope to lobby for a lesser pounding, but then trying to win is too much in my makeup.

Crusades is even more powerful on turn 2!

meyerg wrote:
It is a multiplayer game. When you can't realize who is winning, you probably shouldn't win. When someone plops down the crusades on turn one (we play US rules), they have a big target painted on them. If they win it is because everyone felt guilty after "pounding" them so badly early, they let them "off the ground".

I've found the Crusades are fine with people who know what they are doing. When I get Crusades, I don't go wild and try to get the whole area. I only grab a couple choice territories. My opponents usually leave me alone for a turn or 2. You don't want to get so far ahead that the other players feel compelled to gang up on you.

meyerg wrote:
Similarly I have seen someone running away with an advanced civ game early. I have mentioned, just don't trade with him until we are all even with him. Unfortunately people who play advanced civ just want to trade with everyone; it is in their genetic makeup.

You should run in Adv Civ if you can get away with it. The beatdown isn't nearly as bad as it is in AoR.

Thread: Re: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

Morganza — 2008-06-26T05:13:48+00:00

While you've got a valid point, many people feel that a game that requires people beating up on the leader to be balanced is inherently unbalanced.

There's also a tragedy of the commons effect -- A gets Crusades in the first turn. B, C, and D spend a lot of resources pounding A back down to parity. E puts just enough effort into beating on A to be a "team player", but builds up a subtle lead...

Thread: Crusades turn one is too powerful Waa, waa

meyerg — 2008-06-26T05:02:17+00:00

Many people tell me crusades turn one is too powerful.

Just like they tell the doctor it always hurts when I do this. The doctor says don't do that.

It is a multiplayer game. When you can't realize who is winning, you probably shouldn't win. When someone plops down the crusades on turn one (we play US rules), they have a big target painted on them. If they win it is because everyone felt guilty after "pounding" them so badly early, they let them "off the ground".

Similarly I have seen someone running away with an advanced civ game early. I have mentioned, just don't trade with him until we are all even with him. Unfortunately people who play advanced civ just want to trade with everyone; it is in their genetic makeup.

I have even thought of holding a first turn crusade for turn 2 to hope to lobby for a lesser pounding, but then trying to win is too much in my makeup.

greg

Thread: Re: Missing Pieces

thecvw — 2008-05-31T21:18:40+00:00

After many years of owning AoR, it seems that my commodity markers for Venice have gone missing. Does anybody have a set for trade or sale?

If you are talking about the little rectangles you can have mine for $2.

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Roja — 2008-05-06T07:45:08+00:00

I've played with both the Euro and US rules and prefer the US rules. Most of all, the leader use mechanism in the US version works better IMHO.
In the Euro version, the use of leaders of other depends on your position in the turn order (for the first few leaders), while in the US rules you can place any amount of money on your leader. Any player wanting to use this leader has to pay you this amount. So to make a profit from your leader, at least two people need to use it. This is an extra tactical aspect i really like.

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

iamspamus — 2008-04-25T10:23:46+00:00

MickeyD wrote:
I'm thinking of using the map changes this weekend if I can get others to play AOR. I'll also use the Euro rule changes. I am just hesitant to change my board. Has anyone felt that the map changes are necessary? -MickeyD

Hey MickeyD, I'd recommend the map changes. As stated, they help some of the countries that need help. They are also a good compliment to the Euro changes (which I really like).

Someone somewhere online has the four changes in a format that can be printed. I just scaled them as needed and printed them out on color paper. Not the cleanest solution, but it involves me not marking up my map.

Or play online!

Jason

Image

Horconboy — 2008-04-21T13:55:40+00:00

Playing Age of Renaissance, home-made version, at CLBSK, April 2008

Thread: Missing Pieces

madhatter — 2008-04-16T23:30:49+00:00

After many years of owning AoR, it seems that my commodity markers for Venice have gone missing. Does anybody have a set for trade or sale?

Thread: Age of Enlightenment 2008 Results

TrimChris — 2008-04-15T15:50:20+00:00

http://www.boardgamers.org/specific/aor08.htm

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

Petri — 2008-04-07T23:28:50+00:00

I think the map changes are nice to have. They help London, Paris and Hamburg a bit and make the heavens more attractive technology for Venice and Genoa. I recommend especially removing Smolensk for Hamburg and granting access to Cheshire metal for London. For the wine of Loire we use a simple piece of paper and it works reasonably well.

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

Solamar — 2008-04-04T16:04:20+00:00

MickeyD wrote:
I'll probably skip the map changes, then, as I'll be the only guy who has played before. In the meantime, I'll look for something sticky like lable paper, so I can remove it. Thanks for the insite! -MickeyDJust for reference: Avery Removable (Full Sheet) Label Paper

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

MickeyD — 2008-04-04T13:42:17+00:00

I'll probably skip the map changes, then, as I'll be the only guy who has played before. In the meantime, I'll look for something sticky like lable paper, so I can remove it. Thanks for the insite! -MickeyD

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

Solamar — 2008-04-04T01:09:17+00:00

I printed the changes on removable label paper and put it on the board. It comes off pretty easily when needed.

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

DrakeStorm — 2008-04-03T23:21:23+00:00

When our group used to use the map changes, we just stated what they were and didn't make any physical changes to the board (we have all played the game a ton, so remembering the changes wasn't too bad). We didn't use the extra cloth/wine/or whatever it is province, but did use the other changes.

Thread: Re: Using the map changes

thalcos — 2008-04-03T22:55:49+00:00

I typically play with the Euro changes but with no map changes. I think it's just fine like that and I doubt your group will notice much of a difference unless they're hardcore AoR players.

Thread: Using the map changes

MickeyD — 2008-04-03T20:57:03+00:00

I'm thinking of using the map changes this weekend if I can get others to play AOR. I'll also use the Euro rule changes. I am just hesitant to change my board. Has anyone felt that the map changes are necessary? -MickeyD

Thread: Re: AoR openings

iamspamus — 2008-03-31T16:03:44+00:00

Petri wrote:
In the European ruleset crusades, silk, spice, Walther the Penniless and Rashid ad Din are removed from the deck, timber is added to the deck and then 3 cards are dealt to everybody. Players keep two of them, and there's no initial card draw. So crusades never appears on turn 1 and the probability of it appearing on round two is smaller than 50%. I think this is a nice thing.

This is one of my favorite games. I have played both the US and Euro versions and I really prefer the Euro changes. In addition to the 4 changes on the map, the other Euro changes really make the game.

Keep on truckin'.
Jason

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Petri — 2008-03-21T12:33:15+00:00

Exilas wrote:
Hi Petri,
thanks for the link. Reading it I find the Timber on Epoch 1 change, but nothing about skipping the T1 card draw.

About cut-throating, I should've said that those are mutual agreements. Our first turn goes something like "Standard T1, everybody agrees?", and usually the answer is positive, unless a player would like to try something new, probably dictated by his two cards.

So, for instance, there's no risk for GEN in bidding higher that PAR. However, since usually we choose PAR before GEN, I sometimes bid $17 with GEN, to go even with PAR but move ahead of him to secure Lyons (in this case I put just one token in Naples).

In our games, cut-throating starts in T2, usually with a dispute around Tunis and the Greece provinces.

Ciao
Marco

Here it's said:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/Svellov/Euro.html

Thread: Re: AoR openings

ewan — 2008-03-20T20:07:30+00:00

I think that the variance on T1 is actually increasing, slowly. Especially in 6-player games, which is in turn partly driven by increased bids (and I still think that the bidding system is flawed, and the matrix system I used when I ran WBC AoR is better).

But norms? Hamburg generally bids 10, but may or may not take the 3-card. London usually bids 12 or 13, and may or may not also take the 3-card if Hamburg does not. Barc almost always bids 14 - gets the 3-card less often these days, but has useful satellites if not. I have toyed several times with going the Caravan route as Barc, but never done so; I need to play more non-tournament games to try this out! Venice is highly variable - I have seen as low as 13, as high as 19 (aiming for the 6-card). Genoa is almost always highest, often as high as 24 (aiming for the 6-card, can be really hosed if someone else takes it!). In general, the T1 territories are rapidly agreed and going against that would make an enemy - certainly if Genoa gets squeezed they are going to need to lash out at someone!

Thread: Re: Intial Bidding Strategy for Age of Renaissance

BFoy — 2008-03-20T13:25:10+00:00

Fritsvv wrote:

We found that certain cards actually were good for some capitals and not for others.
Paris for example does not like the crusades.

This is a list of the cards which we came up on which you would bid to get a certain capital.
Of course this is modified by what you like to play. Or what you think is the best(better) capital.

Crusades
Best for london and Hamburg. Any seafaring nation will do. Taking Paris is a nono.
Medium bid

Everyone likes Crusades in Epoch 1, you are guanteed to get at least 1 area and you can potentially get a bunch more. Having a caravan and no ships doesn't hurt you. And if I get Crusades and Paris initially, Paris will be a seafaring nation!

Thread: Re: Intial Bidding Strategy for Age of Renaissance

BFoy — 2008-03-20T13:10:06+00:00

Roja wrote:
Our group hasn't experienced the problem as a couple of people always bid low. They don't win though!!

I think it very hard to believe that people who bid low have (or will) never win in your game group. Or do you base this on only one or two games? In our group the balance may shift a little towards the southern capitals (I don't record game end results) but the northern capitals surely have won their share.

I prefer the have-nots because I like not having to worry about people messing with my position early in the game. I usually do fine if I am playing with experienced players. There are exceptions. In one game London decided he was going to conquer Hamburg (me). London got Civil War and Alchemy, which he played on me. I tried to convince him not to do it, to no avail. So I spent the rest of the game attacking London until I chaosed out. Needless to say, London didn't win.

Thread: Re: Intial Bidding Strategy for Age of Renaissance

BFoy — 2008-03-20T12:58:15+00:00

meyerg wrote:
All starting positions are not equal, especially in a 4, and even more in a 6 player game. I believe the order should be Venice, Barcelona, Genoa, London, Paris, and Hamburg.

I disagree, it really depends on group-think and the number of players. In a 4 player game Paris is strong. But the people who play in the WBC AoR tournament think Paris is nearly unwinable in a 6 player game. They prefer Hamburg to it.

Thread: Re: Intial Bidding Strategy for Age of Renaissance

BFoy — 2008-03-20T12:48:15+00:00

The 6 starting capitols are split between the haves and the have-nots. If you are playing with people who don't know what they are doing, playing one of the haves is much better. Even with people who know what they are doing, playing one of the haves is slightly better. Barcelona will be better with some groups and worse with others. London should be taking some Barcelona territories. Generally the have-nots will negotiate since it doesn't do them any good to fight. Besides the good territory is in the south.

If you play with a certain group, you know the group's preferences. That will affect your bidding decisions. I partially agree with Dave, if you play with a group of strangers, the default bidding method isn't good. But his bidding method is too slow. Better to use the bidding grid that Scott Russell has already described. You need to settle on a way to interpret the grid however. The system I've seen used is recursive passes to determine who has won each column. With a dice roll ultimately resolving ties.

Thread: Re: Intial Bidding Strategy for Age of Renaissance

Roja — 2008-03-20T10:55:04+00:00

If it goes for 5 or less, usually the player goes for caravans and the whole Iberian penisula and then heavens + boats on turn 2 for 4-5 areas (very good if combined with armor/stirrups).

You'd have only Galley-2 (+Heavens) in Turn 2 this way, which means you only can reach four provinces: West-Africa, Fez, Algiers and Sicily. You'd already have to fight for the rest of your provinces, and you might even have to cede Fez to London, as he'll almost certainly attack it. Genoa will likely take a shot at Sicily as it starts to worry for Famine. If someone moves before you, you're even more screwed, since with Galley-2, you cannot attack. On turn 3, the others will already have Gally-6, while you're lagging with a Galley-4.

IMHO, the caravan strategy for Barcelona (or Venice) will only really work if you have the Cloth/Wine card and you're able to secure three of these provinces. This way you'll be able to get Seaworthy Vessels on turn 2. It means you'd have to have Alchemists Gold as well, as it will otherwise be played on you. You also have to worry for Pirates/Vikings, as you're an abvioous choice for a hit.

Thread: Re: AoR openings

DrakeStorm — 2008-03-20T10:53:19+00:00

The openings do tend to be the same each game unless someone gets a card or two which make them deviate from the script. Of course you have to play with the same people since adding a new player might cause an unexpected move.

After playing ALOT, I finally came up with a Variant to alleviate the problem. Or if not alleviate it, at least mix the game up.

Variant #1: You can place your Capital ANYWHERE within the starting regions (i.e. not the Med or Overland East). You cannot start on a Grain space (this we had to add because we play with harsher misery rules and with Famine it made the Grain spots too powerful as Capitals). The region you pick is your home area for Nationalism. Multiple people can pick the same region.

This variant actually is balanced very well, and I would say better than the original game since if you pick a bad spot for your capital its your own fault. Some of the same spots get picked (Venice and Genoa are still good), but someone who wants to start in England can pick Chester rather than London (since Metal is a better commodity its better to have your capital on it than say a wool since it defends better and is easier to take back).

After playing with variant 1 awhile we added in this next variant to change the start even more. This variant has no effect on a 6 player game, but we usually would be playing with 4 or 5.

Variant #2: The whole board is in play. Randomly remove provinces from the game based on the number of players. (You can either play that the out of game provinces are impassable or you can play that you may Caravan through them.)

I don't have the board in front of me, but I think when you add in the Hamburg player you are adding in 7 provinces (that have commodities, don't count the support spots). So with 5 players you would randomly remove 7 provinces from the game and play with the whole board. You would do the same thing if playing with 4 players (see how many provinces are in the London and Hamburg regions and remove that many at random). We use the city markers from the player not in the game to mark off which places aren't in the game.

This changes the game a fair amount, and I think makes it more interesting since depending on what gets removed some cards become more powerful while other less. For example, if 2 silk get randomly removed then its not as valuable, or if a bunch get removed from the Overland East region then that advance is not as valuable, etc.

Both of these Variants have been tested alot and work well. If you use Variant #2 you have to use Variant #1 (but you can use Variant #1 without #2).

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Roja — 2008-03-20T10:42:46+00:00

We play in almost the same way as Marco described, although we stick to the original US rules. This means we all have two cards, of which we only knew one before the token bid.
Paris usually bids 19 or 20, taking either 6 provinces (expansion card) or dropping a few tokens in empty provinces. This means he can bid lower on the second turn, in which moving earlier might be much more important.
Since in our group as well most of the first turn is relatively standard, Genoa might even bid 24 and take the 6-token card.

Thread: Re: Balancing the Religion advances

Roja — 2008-03-20T10:31:19+00:00

I do agree the Religion advances are strong, but they are also relatively expensive, as there is no rebate available for HI or Cathedral (or Proselytism, but let's neglect it). I agree that it is a necessity to but Holy Indulgence at least within one turn after most other have purchased it. Cathedral however is a big investment for anyone, and it's usually a choice to go for either Religion or Exploration in one turn. A lot of times I've seen Cathedral bought as a way to catch up with leading players.
When you're lagging in score, you might want to forego some rebates on other advances and deviate your plans from what the leaders are doing. Buying Cathedral in such a turn can improve your board position, setting up a bigger income for the next turn.
It's not a watertight plan, but it certainly is a way to catch up. I don't think Cathedral unbalances the game, and consider it one of the many roads to victory.

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Exilas — 2008-03-17T10:51:59+00:00

Hi Petri,
thanks for the link. Reading it I find the Timber on Epoch 1 change, but nothing about skipping the T1 card draw.

About cut-throating, I should've said that those are mutual agreements. Our first turn goes something like "Standard T1, everybody agrees?", and usually the answer is positive, unless a player would like to try something new, probably dictated by his two cards.

So, for instance, there's no risk for GEN in bidding higher that PAR. However, since usually we choose PAR before GEN, I sometimes bid $17 with GEN, to go even with PAR but move ahead of him to secure Lyons (in this case I put just one token in Naples).

In our games, cut-throating starts in T2, usually with a dispute around Tunis and the Greece provinces.

Ciao
Marco

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Petri — 2008-03-17T01:22:04+00:00

Hi, we use "Additional Eurogame Changes" in addition to the normal new rules. They can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/aorkg/AoR/EurogameChanges.htm

Our way of playing seems much more cut-throat than yours: If we have additional tokens we almost always use them to tease opponents. Usually Hamburg takes Nürnberg metal instead of Lübeck stone, because it slows down Paris a bit and you may be able to have Prague longer. If Genoa bids a lot, Paris would always take his metal (additionally Venice would of course take Milan and Florence), so in our group a bid of 18 would be a very bad move. If Venice always bids 14 in your group I figure Genoa's optimum bid would be 14 as well. And I'd take Milan, Florence, Montpellier (deny Barcelona the card), a 4-cost province (either metal or stone, depends on if you have stones or not) and the single expansion token. If Genoa moves first of the 3 with a bid of 14 then you are very well set to be the strongest power of the mediterranean. And the pirates and rebellion are not so likely to hit you, because for random strikes those 5-sized provinces would be very attractive targets.

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Exilas — 2008-03-17T00:26:41+00:00

Our group has settled on a "standard" opening, too, albeit a little differently from Petri's group.

HAM bids 10, purchases both Galley2 and Caravan (leaving it with no money for Hand Stabilization) and occupies Lubeck, Cologne, Prague and Stettin (mandatory to reach Novgorod in T2 and Kiev in T3/T4).

LON bids 12, purchases G2 and takes Portsmouth, York, Edinburgh and St. Malo, its jumping point for the Med. Usually that means it has enough cash for The Heavens in T2 to complete its expansion both North (Bergen, Iceland) and South (West Africa, Fez and/or Seville).

BAR bids 14 and purchases G2. That's enough for 5 provinces (Basque, Toledo, Granada, Valencia, Montpelier, 11 tokens) and a 3-tokens card. Coupled with the extra card for the largest expansion, it makes for a good quick start, and leaves BAR with a good amount of cash for T2.

VEN bids 14, purchases G2, and goes to Florence, Dubrovnik, Belgrade, Vienna and Salzburg.

PAR bids 17, purchases Caravan ($3 for HS) and takes Bruges, Nurenberg, Basel, Dijon, Bordeaux, leaving Strassbourg for T2. That's 5 cities as BAR, but later in turn order, so no extra card.

GEN bids 18, purchases G2 ($3 for HS), and grabs Lyons, Marseilles, Milan, Rome, putting 2 tokens in Naples, much needed to keep VEN pace running eastward.

The major diversion from this scripted T1 is HAM forfeiting his "backdoor-to-OLEast" and investing the cash saved not purchasing G2 in 7 more tokens to invade also Bruges and Strassbourg/Nuremberg before PAR. This strategy however makes for a war-oriented game for HAM, with a bitter enemy (PAR) and an happy sailorman (LON) running north to grab Stockholm and to place some token in Danzig.

Sometimes PAR decides to forfeit his HS, bids 20 and occupies also Strassbourg on T1, reaching 6 cities and taking the extra card. This usually happens if PAR knows he'll play both his cards, and/or a stone card will be played on T1.

Petri wrote:
In the European ruleset crusades, silk, spice, Walther the Penniless and Rashid ad Din are removed from the deck, timber is added to the deck and then 3 cards are dealt to everybody. Players keep two of them, and there's no initial card draw. So crusades never appears on turn 1 and the probability of it appearing on round two is smaller than 50%. I think this is a nice thing.

We play with a mix of USA and Euro rules: we remove Crusades, Silk, Spice, Walther the Penniless and Rashid ad Din from the deck (but no Timber is added) then 3 cards are dealt to everybody. Players keep two of them, but we still have the initial card draw. This way of course crusades can appear on T1, and sometimes that could change this, even if usually the Crusades are played on T2 or T3.

BTW, Petri, I have the French (Descartes) version of the European rules, and I see mention neither of adding Timber to the initial (Epoch 1) deck, nor of skipping the T1 card draw: where are those two rules coming from?

Ciao
Marco

Thread: Re: AoR openings

Petri — 2008-03-16T22:06:06+00:00

In the European ruleset crusades, silk, spice, Walther the Penniless and Rashid ad Din are removed from the deck, timber is added to the deck and then 3 cards are dealt to everybody. Players keep two of them, and there's no initial card draw. So crusades never appears on turn 1 and the probability of it appearing on round two is smaller than 50%. I think this is a nice thing.

Thread: Re: AoR openings

talrich — 2008-03-16T01:08:39+00:00

I'll agree that we don't see too much variance in the first round, excepting first turn Crusades (which isn't a big deal, but does change things).

The second and third round are where things start to diverge.

-Greg

Thread: AoR openings

Petri — 2008-03-14T22:56:44+00:00

In our gaming group the opening round bidding is almost always similar from game to game. Every now and then someone might try some fancy moves, but I'm starting to believe these openings are the best - or close to best. Bear in mind that we play with the Euro-ruleset.

Hamburg bids 9-13. Typically Hamburg buys caravan and galleys, bids all what he has left (9-10) and then plays his cards or stabilizes with misery. Occassionally someone might play timber card on first round to acquire an extra province from Paris area by bidding 13. Sometimes a bid of 12-13 is seen and only galleys are purchased. This opening is usually combined with the purchase of 3 token card.

Venice bids 12. There's really no reason not to bid 12 as this is ultimately the best bid Venice can make. You'll either gain 3 provinces and a card or 4 provinces if you move before Genoa and/or he doesn't take Milan or the cloth province. If a player has cloth/wine in hand, lower bids have been seen to ensure payoff of 45-80 after round two, or 45 with round 1 cloth shortage.

Genoa bids 12-15. If you want to move before Venice, bid 12, otherwise 13-15. Regardless of what you bid you'll gain approximately the same number of provinces. An expansion token is a must, but other than that Genoa typically settles with metal, wine and stone provinces.

Barcelona bids 15. This happens almost always, because by purchasing caravans and bidding 15 (taking misery hit from stabilization) Barcelona gains the whole Iberian penisula and the expansion card. Sometimes we've seen bids of 11-12, trying to move before Genoa to acquire 3 wine provinces, but usually it's better to gain many provinces than to see that someone reduced your wine with pirates card before you got the chance to play the commodity. Also, a bid of 11-12 combined with galleys is OK, because Barcelona has access to 5 provinces even then. Still, a caravan start does not slow you down too much and it's generally stronger.

Paris bids all money he has minus 20. If you start with a stone card, it's best to go to Paris, because you'll gain additional token during round 1 and you don't have to pay stabilization costs for the card. Paris buys caravans on round 1 and takes all provinces he can. Almost always there's enough room for all of your tokens, because Hamburg is not stupid and does not start with caravans only. Occassionally Paris might want to contest London to move before him to gain St. Malo and the cloth province.

London bids 15-16. London bids 15 if he thinks he'll move before Paris doing so and otherwise 16. If Paris moves first, he'll always take St. Malo and thus the 3 additional tokens are best to be used to purchase a card. If someone bought the card and Paris took St. Malo then you're in bad shape, but you can still put expansion token to Amsterdam.

These are our views of "optimal" play. Usually the first round in our games lasts only a few seconds, because everyone knows what to do and we'll start the game from round 2.

Thread: Re: The WAR card

DrakeStorm — 2008-03-14T01:27:15+00:00

talrich wrote:
I've seen most wars as much milder than the black death, and many other hits. It's a powerful card, but the deck is loaded with those, including the commodity cards.

The problem isn't a turn 1 War, its a turn 2 or 3 War. If you lose 4 or 5 cities on turn 2 or 3 you are out of the game unless everyone else is nice to you for the next 10 turns.

Black Death is bad, but its a 2nd Epic card so you have time to prepare for it, and you don't actually lose cities, just have to reduce them. That's why I think War should be 2nd Epic, its just not balanced for the 1st Epic.

I can't think of any other card played in the first few turns that could ruin the game more than a bad War - especially for beginners. The only thing close would be Alchemy and Civil War in the same turn which I've only seen happen once or twice (and neither the person playing the cards nor the victim had any chance of winning since the two just fought the entire game).

Thread: Re: The WAR card

talrich — 2008-03-14T00:43:56+00:00

Long thread, but I'll just add my two cents to say that I play plenty, and just don't see this as an issue. The key is realizing that the only unsupportable provinces are the ones that you reach by tech.

I've seen most wars as much milder than the black death, and many other hits. It's a powerful card, but the deck is loaded with those, including the commodity cards.

-Greg

Thread: Re: The WAR card

BFoy — 2008-03-13T11:51:08+00:00

Hector Vortac wrote:
I like better the 'draw 3-keep 2' or 'draw 2-keep 1' fix to improve chances of drawing at least one card that doesn't suck.

I always seem to get Mysticism Abounds, so I like that variant. I will take War any day.

Thread: Re: The WAR card

Hector Vortac — 2008-03-13T08:01:46+00:00

DrakeStorm wrote:
perfalbion wrote:

I see little reason for the player holding the card to either admit that they have it or make such a deal....................

I left out the actual way we make deals. We never say exactly what cards we have (that would give away too much information). Nowadays we always say like "I can pay you off around 30-50 dollars can you do the same for me", etc. Sometimes its obvious what cards people are talking about but not always. We also add in things like "And I won't play the Civil War card on you for 4 turns" (Of course you have to be a good bluffer if you don't even have the Civil War card!). Deals aren't binding so you can get burned if you have to play your cards first, but in a 4-6 hour game you really don't want to piss someone off early.

This is how we do it all the time. For players who play a lot (100+) it's a lot easier just to make these deals AND make good on them. Just do the same. Economically it makes sense; instead of pursuing several markets you 'might' win just take the mutual benefit play. And you make a bigger jihad target reneging on this deal than playing War on the first turn, says me.

As for the WAR card. The easiest thing to do is PUT THE WAR CARD IN THE 2nd EPIC. I seem to recall when the game was more popular and played at conventions/tournaments the one and only rule change was to put the War card in the second epic. It might have even been suggested by the designer, I don't know. To balance out the card number you could move a 2nd Epic Timber into the 1st Epic......

I remember this variant in the California tournaments, including swapping the 2nd epoch timber card with War. I like better the 'draw 3-keep 2' or 'draw 2-keep 1' fix to improve chances of drawing at least one card that doesn't suck. And it really is more worthwhile just to hold the card till it's opportune to play it. Some even hold it specifically for 2 epochs, to make sure it doesn't shuffle in to come back again.

Thread: Re: The WAR card

perfalbion — 2008-03-13T06:40:41+00:00

DrakeStorm wrote:
This is true, but as you play more you will find its sometimes better to just play a payoff card that helps other people just to get it out of your hand.

Unless I'm paying huge carrying costs or can cut a deal I believe in (and I've played a ton of Diplomacy and Empires in Arms, so I'm paranoid), my carrying costs for the card would have to be astronomical for me to do this.

So if you had 2 fur and the person with the Fur card has 2, they might just pay it off rather than spend the time to get the other 2.

I don't necessarily care about having them all, but I will wait until I have a majority.

I have the AH English Edition. I'm saying that the misery slides you get from buying Religions (as well as the Religious Strife Card) aren't nearly as painful if you start at 0 misery than at 50.

Misery early is very rarely an issue, so I don't sweat those much. Misery late in the game is a much, much bigger deal. But it might be interesting to try.

As for the WAR card. The easiest thing to do is PUT THE WAR CARD IN THE 2nd EPIC.

I just don't see it as an issue. It's not a good turn 1 play, and is probably pretty risky on 2-3.

I understand there's some good variants out there. I'd just prefer to sink my time into something else.

Thread: Re: The WAR card

perfalbion — 2008-03-13T06:36:12+00:00

Exilas wrote:
Ken,
I think you misread Gary words: as I understand them, he says that having 20 tokens he could repeat the attack to take his capital back up to three times (6 x 3 = 18), and he actually succeeded only on the third attempt.

I did indeed. I read it as "I needed to roll a three."

Thread: Re: The WAR card

DrakeStorm — 2008-03-13T01:43:22+00:00

perfalbion wrote:
But if this is the case you need to make a deal with the player holding the Fur card before they decide to take them all from you.

I see little reason for the player holding the card to either admit that they have it or make such a deal. The former provides information that I or others can use to stymie your efforts, the latter limits the profit from the card. Since the game doesn't have an explicit diplomacy phase or rules, we'd require these conversations to occur over the table, and there are no enforcement provisions for such agreements.

I left out the actual way we make deals. We never say exactly what cards we have (that would give away too much information). Nowadays we always say like "I can pay you off around 30-50 dollars can you do the same for me", etc. Sometimes its obvious what cards people are talking about but not always. We also add in things like "And I won't play the Civil War card on you for 4 turns" (Of course you have to be a good bluffer if you don't even have the Civil War card!). Deals aren't binding so you can get burned if you have to play your cards first, but in a 4-6 hour game you really don't want to piss someone off early.

perfalbion wrote:
And if you don't hold a commodity that they care about, then there's even less reason for them to make an unenforceable agreement (particularly if they end up before you in the turn order).

This is true, but as you play more you will find its sometimes better to just play a payoff card that helps other people just to get it out of your hand. So if you had 2 fur and the person with the Fur card has 2, they might just pay it off rather than spend the time to get the other 2. The problem is that inexperienced players don't know when to settle for what they have, so they would keep attacking fur and that just hurts you two and helps the other players.

perfalbion wrote:
Plus - the US rules set is not well organized or edited.

I can agree with that!

perfalbion wrote:
I believe you've the European version of the game if Holy Indulgence and Cathedral work the way you're hinting at. For example, in the US version, Cathedral allows you to win one competition automatically against each and every player that doesn't own it in a turn. It doesn't assist you in managing misery.

I have the AH English Edition. I'm saying that the misery slides you get from buying Religions (as well as the Religious Strife Card) aren't nearly as painful if you start at 0 misery than at 50. So you don't need to think twice about buying them. Start at 40 or 50 misery and it no longer becomes a no brainer to start buying Religions. You need to get one to get a tier for misery relief, but that usually means getting Patronage. Going for Holy then Cathedral becomes a much tougher choice and some of the other weaker advances become more viable and make the game play out different each time rather than always going for Religions which in my mind makes the game better and alot more enjoyable.

As for the WAR card. The easiest thing to do is PUT THE WAR CARD IN THE 2nd EPIC. I seem to recall when the game was more popular and played at conventions/tournaments the one and only rule change was to put the War card in the second epic. It might have even been suggested by the designer, I don't know. To balance out the card number you could move a 2nd Epic Timber into the 1st Epic. The other option I've tried is to limit the number of cities you can lose (2 in 1st Epic, 4 in 2nd and 6 in 3rd).

I've played the game at least 100 times (yes that much, at 5-6 hours a game that's alot of hours) and have tried out numerous variants. Of all the ideas for the War card, our group settled on moving the War card to the 2nd Epic AND you get to pick the 2 players in the War. I can't say this is the best way of doing it since we play with other changes that might make this option better for us and not for you.

If you keep it in the 1st Epic, there are 2 alternatives you can use.

1) Play with the Euro-Varinat for starting cards - You get dealt 3 and keep 2 (returning the other 1 to the deck) and the first draw phase is skipped. That way if you get the War card to start you always have the option of not keeping it. I highly recommend this approach no matter what other changes you make.

2) Threaten Jihad on anyone who dares play the War card on you in the first couple turns (if you don't have it), or just hold the card for awhile and suffer the stabilization costs if you do have the card.

I personally prefer my variant.

Thread: Re: The WAR card

Exilas — 2008-03-13T01:30:16+00:00

Gary,
as Ken said, you can always expand from your home capital (not nation), that's why I said your T1 expansion could have been the same. BTW, I can confirm this is true also under the french (european) rules.

Ken,
I think you misread Gary words: as I understand them, he says that having 20 tokens he could repeat the attack to take his capital back up to three times (6 x 3 = 18), and he actually succeeded only on the third attempt.

Ciao
Marco

Image

filwi — 2008-03-11T13:46:25+00:00

The most common way to play AoR: searching the rules.

Image

smcneil — 2008-02-11T00:43:21+00:00

Province/Commodity cards for Age of Renaissance. See http://www.boardgamegeek.com/file/18696

Image

jsper — 2008-02-09T12:48:32+00:00

Side of the box

Image

gsilva — 2007-05-28T14:45:41+00:00

Big, giant Age of Ren game at KublaCon '07

Image

shawn_low — 2007-05-24T01:41:29+00:00

The money and dice from the game.

Image

itsmarty — 2007-05-19T17:58:13+00:00

Widescreen desktop (1440 x 900)

Image

itiswon — 2007-04-12T18:33:35+00:00

rule book of German edition

Image

Konwacht — 2007-04-10T17:37:43+00:00

german version from AoR

Image

talrich — 2007-03-09T03:10:21+00:00

The gameboard straight on at higher resolution.