Game: Kingsburg

Thread: Re: A Brief Look at Kingsburg

Jim Marshall — 2008-07-06T10:25:28+00:00

Nice review. I've only played it once and broadly share your plusses and your minuses (it's perhaps a little too long, and I was the only newbie at the table).

I really have no issue with dice as long as they're something you can assess and work with, as they are here. With something like Monopoly or Talisman, your turn is pretty much dictated by what you roll. With a good dice game such as Kingsburg, it's about assessing your options and making the best use of them - you have choices.

At the broadest level, I see no difference between the dice roll here and a card or tile draw. Indeed, I'd argue that there's less luck here than in a tile draw game. Taking the esteemed Tigris and Euphrates as a point of comparison, with Kingsburg you can see what everyone's options are once the dice are cast (so there's no hidden knowledge based on the luck of the draw), while with T&S you just don't know what tiles your opponents have drawn.

Indeed, if you feel uncomfortable with the luck of the dice in Kingsburg, you can buy buildings that mitigate against it. All part of the decision-making process!

Thread: Re: A Brief Look at Kingsburg

Stephen Glenn — 2008-07-06T10:18:51+00:00

Larry Levy wrote:
The Golden Age of Dice Games continues with this new entry from Italy. And a very nice one it is, with gorgeous components and some clever mechanics. I’ve played it about five times now, with 3-5 players, and have enjoyed it every time.

I've played this three times now and enjoyed it as well. I promised myself I'd limit myself to 10 new game purchases this year -- Kingsburg threatens to be one of them. The fact that my son loves the game (and is quite good at it) makes it pretty much a done deal.

Larry Levy wrote:
(I've since found out that this is called the "Embassy Rush" strategy.) While this didn’t work out quite as easily as I’d hoped, I was basically able to implement this and managed a close victory.

I've seen the Embassy Rush strategy work twice in the three games I've played, but never by a huge margin.

Larry Levy wrote:
I’ve found that when I roll low, I can often get just about as much accomplished as my opponents do by splitting the dice up and going for the low numbered characters.

Precisely! I love this aspect of the game. In my game yesterday I rolled 1-1-2 (blucch!) and got two advisors. Granted, they weren't great, but I was pleased at being able to bend the ears of two advisors with such a poor roll.

And I ended up winning -- by a point (Embassy Rush Rules!)

Larry Levy wrote:
I'm also very interested to see what they do with the expansion that they're working on.

Yup. The expansion is a must-own for me. Does that mean it has to count as one of my ten???

Thread: Re: Solo White Die and +2 Markers

Luke the Flaming — 2008-07-06T07:52:55+00:00

I'm glad that you're liking it, Stephen.

The rule is there because of both the reasons you noticed (to ease identification and to limit power), plus it limits the possible combinations (making life easier both for the player that must study how to deploy his dice and to his opponents that are trying to block him and/or do not want to get blocked by him).
It was born as it is now... it worked... it stayed.

We didn't find that the game suffered by removing this restriction.
I'm sure the game can survive this change, in fact. But is it improved by it? If you think so, feel free to house rule it (as long as your mates agree, of course!).

Thread: A Brief Look at Kingsburg

Larry Levy — 2008-07-06T07:29:32+00:00

The Golden Age of Dice Games continues with this new entry from Italy. And a very nice one it is, with gorgeous components and some clever mechanics. I’ve played it about five times now, with 3-5 players, and have enjoyed it every time.

The way in which you use the dice to select characters is appealing in its simplicity, but it’s implemented well enough (with the +2 chips and some building powers) and with enough variety in the abilities that you consistently have pleasant decisions on how to split your dice. I also think the designers did a good job with the different strategies inherent in the buildings. Requiring that the buildings in a row be constructed in order is a key rule and gives you enough varied strategies to try out to keep the game fresh. In fact, in my second game, I decided to go for a strategy based on the bottom row of buildings, with the plan being to build the last two buildings (which can generate VPs each season) as quickly as possible. (I've since found out that this is called the "Embassy Rush" strategy.) While this didn’t work out quite as easily as I’d hoped, I was basically able to implement this and managed a close victory. As one who usually favors tactical games, I found this quite satisfying.

With any dice game, there’s always a concern of what role luck plays and that goes doubly for this one, since there’s a planning and strategic element to the play. Obviously, there’s some luck involved; a player rolling a high number (the right high number) at a key moment can change the course of a close game. But the principal concern—-that success is more about rolling well than choosing well--is thankfully unfounded. I’ve found that when I roll low, I can often get just about as much accomplished as my opponents do by splitting the dice up and going for the low numbered characters. It’s by no means a guarantee and you need to take both the needs and the individual die faces of your opponents into account, but I’m able to pull this off more often than not. This is a sign of a good design. Of course, consistently rolling poorly will probably doom you (since there are some items that are only available with average to good rolls), but unless you walk around with your own personal dark cloud, you should find the luck of the seasonal dice rolls to be at an acceptable level. There’s also plenty of catch-up mechanisms worked into the design, so even a temporary string of bad luck shouldn’t be a killer. I was also concerned about the die roll used to resolve the battle each year. In theory, this could determine the game, since a player who consistently gambles with his army strength will benefit from good rolls and be crushed by bad ones. However, in practice, this doesn’t appear to be a major problem at all. There’s enough reason to win battles that ignoring your military doesn’t seem like a particularly viable strategy. And with a reasonable portion of the enemy cards, the losing effects aren’t that severe. I’m not saying that one or two of the battle die rolls couldn’t be very important in a game, but they don’t seem to dominate things nearly as much as I feared, so it winds up adding a little spice to the game without bothering us luck-averse types too much.

My only complaint with Kingsburg is that our games have gone on a little longer than I’d like. Because of the mechanics, there’s little downtime, but I’d be happier with the listed duration of 90 minutes than the slightly longer than two hour games I’ve played. I was hoping it would play more quickly with three than with five, but even with that number, it seemed to last just a bit too long (maybe because the decisions are a little more interesting with a crowded board, I’m willing to deal with a longer game with more players). Perhaps with more experience, we can shorten this up, but it takes a bit of time to decide how to split your dice and react to your opponents’ choices, so I’m not sure this will happen. Not a big deal, but enough to maybe keep this from my personal top 10 from last year’s strong list of designs. Still, overall I think this is a very appealing entry from new designers Andrea Chiarvesio and Luca Iennaco and I hope we’ll be seeing more from both of them in the future. I'm also very interested to see what they do with the expansion that they're working on.

Thread: Solo White Die and +2 Markers

Stephen Glenn — 2008-07-06T07:10:30+00:00

Greetings,

This question is directed to the designer, but I'd welcome comments from anyone.

I'm curious as to why the white dice and/or the +2 markers cannot be played by themselves on an advisor.

Is it an identity issue -- meaning you have to remember which player is using the advisor since there's not a player color there.

It it to limit the power of the white die / +2 marker.

Or is it a combination of both?

You can eliminate the first problem by simply placing a building token with the white die / +2 marker. This is, in fact, what we did before realizing that we were breaking the rules.

We didn't find that the game suffered by removing this restriction. On the other hand, we haven't played it *that* many times.

I'm curious to hear any thoughts on the issue. At any rate, this is a great game and a new favorite in my group.

Thread: Re: Turn Order and White Dice

Luke the Flaming — 2008-07-05T09:59:55+00:00

Apocryphile wrote:
ok - thanks for clarifying, Andrea. I assume this applies for every productive season, not just Spring?
Of course.

Apocryphile wrote:
I also assume a player carries over (holds onto) any white dice from one year to the next and does not return them to the supply at year end?
If you have the Farms, you get one white die each Season. If the Farms are destroyed during Winter, you no longer get the white die (until you rebuild the Farms).
The "Help of the King" is one white die ONLY for the Spring immediately following the Phase when the Help itself is awarded.

Have fun! :meeple:

Thread: Re: Turn Order and White Dice

Apocryphile — 2008-07-05T04:24:54+00:00

ok - thanks for clarifying, Andrea. I assume this applies for every productive season, not just Spring? I also assume a player carries over (holds onto) any white dice from one year to the next and does not return them to the supply at year end?

Thread: Re: Turn Order and White Dice

tanis — 2008-07-04T07:51:19+00:00

Apocryphile wrote:
I think your question is still valid, in light of the designer's comment (on BGG) that the use of any white dice is always optional. To my mind, there is still an unanswered question here - is it mandatory to use the white dice in determining turn order? If you read the rulebook closely, it never says this.

Yes it is. Using the dice is optional. Adding up the number rolled with the white dice for determining turn order is mandatory.

Thread: Re: Turn Order and White Dice

Apocryphile — 2008-07-04T06:19:20+00:00

I think your question is still valid, in light of the designer's comment (on BGG) that the use of any white dice is always optional. To my mind, there is still an unanswered question here - is it mandatory to use the white dice in determining turn order? If you read the rulebook closely, it never says this.