Game: Machiavelli

Image

megadoux — 2008-04-05T12:25:03+00:00

End og a game, the Papacy was the clear winner with 14 cities and a couple more at hand

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

citylife — 2008-02-14T19:41:55+00:00

Thanks for reviewing Mach, it was well worth the read. I'm inlcined to disagree with the thrust of your review though that dip and mach are the same.

Technically you are correct and practically there are many many more options open for you, I agree. The post about being able to resolve bounces by bribing is a good example. So yes they are different.

But to my mind the premise and underlying nature of the game remains the same. Two players will always beat one player all things remainign equal. There are just are few more factors to consider. If you are facing two player alone you can avoid a bounce by bribing one of thier units. However they can also do the same but with twice the amount of cash. So I would argue that, despite all the additional flexibility in the mechanics the game still plays the same. You must ally with other players and coordinate your forces.

So perhaps we can say that the mechanics are different but the game still plays in the same way as diplomacy. Afterall a good diplomacy player will beat a bad one in mach just as easily as in dip. And the skills required to play both are incredibly similar. Certainly though the point is taken that mach is more complex and allows a little more cunning.

I would make a similar argument for Game of thrones, except that is another step removed again from dip. But besides all the addons, the primary mechanism is diplomacyand there is nothing around that.

On another point I also wonder if I read your comments correctly. They seemed to imply that you had a problem with lying, but not with decieving. Therefore Mach is a better game for you because the mechanisma made deceiving easier. To my mind lying is just a more overt form of deception and I view both in the same light in diplomacy. Still I can see how others might feel differently. Either way I would argue that there is as much room for deciving in diplomacy as in mach. The less specific an agreement the more wiggle room there is.

To my mind Mach is a good alternative for Dip, though I would be wary of thinking of Mach as anything more than a dip varaint with bells on. Thank you for the review and for stimulating the discussion.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

donpaulo — 2008-02-14T11:12:10+00:00

It is quite rare for a bounce in mach, at least after the first bounce. After that first instance the money gets spent.

Diplomacy often turns into a bounce fest resulting in someone backstabbing another. But you need to team up on someone to make it work... unless one of the original players makes an error.

In mach you can pay your way through a bounce.

bribe the unit
fund a rebellion

plenty of other options in mach a much improved system.

Its like saying that roll and move is monopoly. Well monopoly is roll and move but not all roll and move is monopoly.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

Sphere — 2008-02-14T06:40:28+00:00

out4blood wrote:
This game was described to me as 'its kindof like diplomacy'.

Yea, the reviewer stated that "to think that Machiavelli is simply ‘Diplomacy in Italy’ is to do Machiavelli a grave injustice." Yet nowhere in the review did I find anything to make me think it was NOT like Diplomacy.

A little more depth on the differences in the two games would be helpful. Not that I will ever play either, but you know, I'm just sayin'...

It really is Diplomacy with some added chrome. You've got a Dippy style map and Dippy style units, and you write Dippy style move orders for simultaneos resolution.

As the OP said, there are a bunch of additional rules that modify the base system. Some folks will think that makes the system more fun, and others will think it just muddies things up. But I can't see how anybody that has read the rules can dispute the lineage.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

stephenhope — 2008-02-14T03:55:29+00:00

I used to like this game a lot (probably still would, actually), but the one thing that stuck in my craw was the bribery system--a little too chaotic for the rest of the game. Which is too bad, because it ruins the tactical analysis that is really at the heart of what makes Diplomacy great. There are plenty of stab-your-neighbor games. Diplomacy is special because it's layered on top of a simple yet interesting tactical system. While I like several of the tweaks in this game (variable incomes from different cities, elite units) the bribing and counter-bribing was a drag.

I think I'd choose to play it over Diplomacy still, but probably try some variant where you couldn't bribe opposing units, or at least where the money you spent to protect your units from bribery was preserved and could be used at your option as "bribery defense" in later turns. The biggest single problem with the system that I recall is that the best defense was definitely a good offense so the game degenerated into people disbanding opposing units all over the place.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

drabel — 2008-02-13T20:46:17+00:00

There's nothing sweeter than bribing your way into Venice, except of course, bribing your way into Venice with money from another player who was originally paid by Venice to attack you.

This is by far my favorite variant. Before learning this, we were playing Blood Royal where you have all this money and nothing to do with it. Machiavelli taught us what money is truly for.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

da pyrate — 2008-02-13T19:18:38+00:00

This game was described to me as 'its kindof like diplomacy'.

Yea, the reviewer stated that "to think that Machiavelli is simply ‘Diplomacy in Italy’ is to do Machiavelli a grave injustice." Yet nowhere in the review did I find anything to make me think it was NOT like Diplomacy.

A little more depth on the differences in the two games would be helpful. Not that I will ever play either, but you know, I'm just sayin'...

The difference is when you use the advanced rules. In Diplomacy every unit has a strength of one and units cannot be bribed. This means that the 'front-line' can be rather static.

The Financial Rules create many more options and make it easier to 'break through' and opposing force. Also, Elite units (each side is allowed to have one) have double strength - it is much more difficult to just 'hold the line' and try to 'stonewall' your opponent.

You also have the chance, with the optional rules, of plagues and rebellions occuring which creates more randomness in the game. Diplomacy has very little randomness regarding combat resolution.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

out4blood — 2008-02-13T18:26:29+00:00

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

Alexfrog — 2008-02-13T09:26:19+00:00

This game was described to me as 'its kindof like diplomacy'.

Thread: Re: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

Myrdin T Sasnak — 2008-02-13T03:03:04+00:00

And I quite like the trim of your review sails. If I ever need a pirate, I know who to look for.

The tournament you played in sounds really neat. The three player team idea sounds like it was a lot of fun.

Thread: No! No! No! Machiavelli is NOT the Same as Diplomacy!

da pyrate — 2008-02-12T23:00:03+00:00

Yesterday I read a Geek List that pointed out that there is no review for Machiavelli – I took that as a challenge.

]]>
I have played Machiavelli several times – both face-to-face and by mail. My initial reaction to the game was that it was a Diplomacy clone. That opinion was based on ignorance – to think that Machiavelli is simply ‘Diplomacy in Italy’ is to do Machiavelli a grave injustice.

The Components
Originally published by Battleline, Machiavelli was reprinted in two different editions by Avalon Hill. I have owned all three versions.
Battleline – the counters were in strong primary and secondary colours and were double thickness (as was the habit of Battleline). The map was on cardboard and had the home territories colour-coded to facilitate the set-up of counters.

]]>

]]>
Avalon Hill 1st Edition – used the same box design as Battleline. The map was mounted and rather than having entire provinces colour-coded, only the edges of the provinces were of the colour matching the initial owner. The counters were the same colours as previously but only half the thickness (normal Avalon Hill thickness).

]]>
Avalon Hill 2nd Edition – game moved to a book-case box. The counters went to tertiary colours – much softer than the original counters (on the eyes - not to the touch) . The map became a work of art with many shades of blue representing the sea and the land areas replaced with shades of gold and brown. There is a soft colour shading at the edge of provinces to show initial ownership. It is so subtle as to be virtually a waste of effort – but the map does look really attractive.

The Rules
The game has several scenarios – one of the scenarios is for 8 players and the other three scenarios are for 6 players. There are suggestions for variations on the number of players so the game can be played by fewer than 6.

The game has Basic Rules which are virtually the same as the rules of Diplomacy.

The Advanced Rules, however, give Machiavelli a totally new dimension and allows for many more options regarding both strategy and tactics.
Finances – money is gained by controlling territory. Forces are built using this money and you may build one elite unit. You can lend or give money to other players.
Expenditure - money can be spent on Famine Relief (optional rules), Rebellions, Assassination Attempts (if successful the victim’s forces do nothing for a turn), Bribing Enemy Forces to disband or even change sides.

]]>Playing The Game
You should really play with the Advanced and Optional Rules. They add no real complexity to the game but add massive variety and opportunities. I played one game where I was able to take out my neighbour on the very first turn of the game. I hate to say it but I lied to him. I let him think I was his ally and I borrowed money from him. I used this money to disband two of his armies and to gain control of a third. On the first move I marched into his two provinces where his armies had been disbanded and used the third army to take control of his third and last city. He was out. I now cringe at the thought of it and ask myself how could I ever have acted in such a way to a person who trusted me. Needless to say I didn’t have to repay the money I had borrowed.

Is It Really Different To Diplomacy
If you only use the Basic Rules the answer is "NO", it really is 'Diplomacy in Italy'.

If you use the Advanced and Optional rules it is quite different because the military aspects of the game become much more open, much more variable and have an element of randomness. Combat in Diplomacy is not random - two units will always beat one unit and three units will never beat another three units. This all changes in Machiavelli. Due to random factors such as plague and rebellion armies may die and provinces may stop producing income. Due to Assassination armies you expect to move may do nothing. Due to the Bribery of armies some of your units may disappear or even turn against you. Due to Elite units having the strength of two ordinary units a single army can now defeat another single army.

It is all due to money and how you use it. A worthwhile strategy is to play a low-key, save your money and when you have enough in reserve become very aggressive. The is a much stronger feel of randomness in Machiavelli - Diplomacy has a much stronger element of certainly when it comes down to military affairs.

Honesty in ‘Diplomacy-type’ games
When I first started playing this sort of game I was under the misapprehension that lying was a mandatory part of the game. I used to feel sick in the stomach because I was lying to people. It made me feel really uncomfortable, even though it was only a game. I was quite happy to shoot and assassinate people – but lying was a different thing altogether. Happily I have found that you don’t HAVE TO lie at all. You can adopt the policy that you think long and hard about your agreements and you word them in such a way that you can honour them and win. I will now frequently put a time limit or a condition that the agreement is in effect until certain things happen or even simply have a clause that two turns notice will be given between cancelling an agreement and then attacking the former ally. I find this works for me and actually makes it easier for other people to deal with you.

An Amazing Tournament
One of my most amazing gaming experiences was a Machiavelli tournament for teams of 3 players. In each team one person was the Ruler, another was the Marshall and the third was the Diplomat.
The rules were as follows: Rulers could only talk to their personal Marshall and Diplomat. Diplomats were allowed 10 minutes in the diplomacy area to talk to other Diplomats. Each Marshall was allowed to choose to talk to another Marshall for 5 minutes (this meant that if each Marshall chose a different person that would get to talk to two others for 5 minutes each – if by some chance two Marshals chose each other they would get 10 minutes).
The Ruler would instruct the Diplomat regarding what he wanted said and who he wanted it said to. He would also instruct the Marshall, in general terms, who were friends and who were enemies.
The Diplomat would talk with other Diplomats and report back to the Ruler (I was the Diplomat – goodness knows why).
The Marshall would make all military decisions.
As it turned out, we did very poorly for the first 6 turns. After that we stopped talking to the other Diplomats and let our armies do our talking for us and our situation improved. Clearly the Marshall was better at his job than the Diplomat.

"Dead Men Tell No Tales!"

Image

jsper — 2008-02-09T12:57:00+00:00

Side of the box fist edition AH

Image

jsper — 2008-01-04T23:03:55+00:00

Cover Avalon Hill edition

Image

Aingeru — 2007-12-07T16:02:41+00:00

Machiavelli Ed. 1995 Frontbox

Thread: Re: Plague and famine table

DorianGray — 2007-10-19T20:03:47+00:00

check out http://medlem.spray.se/machsite/ they have a 2nd edition famine table.

Thread: Plague and famine table

bert_nerdsen — 2007-10-19T16:41:49+00:00

Having just bought 1st edition, I'm now trying to do a 2nd edition update myself. I've collected all the necessary information except for the actualized plague and famine tables. Can anyone help me out?
Thanks!

Thread: Copy of Machiavelli Rules

DaveE — 2007-09-09T21:34:31+00:00

Hi

Can anyone help please? I've lost the rules for my AH 1st edition of Machiavelli, and would really appreciate a photocopy or scan. Happy to pay costs for this.

Dave

Thread: Re: Machiavelli players wanted! (PBEM)

donpaulo — 2007-08-11T07:33:17+00:00

I have a copy of the game here at the house and would love to play this game. Question is where do you find the players ?

I would even be willing to judge a game on a rotation basis.

Thread: Re: How much is this game worth?

miyazakigrognard — 2007-06-22T02:04:13+00:00

Arguably. It depends on what one is looking for. Visually, the game is a work of art. The gameplay will appeal to those who prefer something even more akin to "pure" Diplomacy than is evident in the Battleline edition. Two things the second edition does have in its favour (other than looking very lovely indeed):
1. it plays quicker - benefit of fewer land and sea areas.
2. a Venice/Venice Lagoon rule which makes better sense than in the original game.

Thread: Re: How much is this game worth?

Liumas — 2007-06-06T04:24:59+00:00

2nd edition is the Keeper.

Thread: Re: How much is this game worth?

DrFlanagan — 2007-06-06T01:10:58+00:00

I believe there are two AH editions, plus one Battleline. Open the rulebook; if it is copyrighted 1995 it is the second ed.

This game will vary in price more than many games. It is a good one, however, worth keeping.

Thread: How much is this game worth?

elcomadreja2 — 2007-06-06T00:16:34+00:00

I can't seem to find a clear $ value on this game. This is confouned by the different editions. I have the AH bookcase. little help here?

Thread: Machiavelli players wanted! (PBEM)

shaldon — 2007-02-02T11:01:20+00:00

There is a small but committed Machiavelli community using the diplomacy judge moderation system at www.diplom.org.

However, due to the small number involved, games often take a while to start or find replacements if someone drops out (rare with the current community but it does happen).

If you are a fan of Machiavelli and want to play by email regularly, then consider this a call to arms!

If you are unfamiliar with the email judges, they use certain syntax to interpret orders - e.g. you have to 'sign on' at the beginning of your email, which is then automatically interpreted and resolved when the deadline comes. Each game has a moderator to deal with any problems. Players communicate via email sent through the judges also. Deadlines are normally 3 days for moves, if you are late you still get a chance to get orders in.

To join the queue for the next game: http://www.diplom.org/DP-cgi/Machiavelli/setqueue
To join an existing game (Possibly a starting game where a player has dropped out): http://www.diplom.org/openings/openings.html (the majority of these are diplomacy - most of the Mach games are run on judge DEDO).

Game 'December' is forming and needs a few more players, so make this your first port of call!

Thread: Re: A copy of the rules

peralba — 2007-01-31T21:20:11+00:00

Go to http://medlem.spray.se/machsite/. The site has the original and second edition rules under the Mach Rules Clarified Topic.

Thread: Re: A copy of the rules

zugzwang11 — 2007-01-31T20:49:30+00:00

Charlie. Did you ever get a copy of the rules?
As I have found a copy in a charity shop. I could photocopy them for you if neede. Let me know asap. please. Andy

Thread: An Early Campaign

dpfaigin — 2007-01-21T23:27:27+00:00

Today, for my birthday, my wife organized a Machiavelli game. We could only scare up a total of four people (including me) so we did the early campaign that started in 1385, and used fortresses. I played Milan, my daughter played Venice, Jeff played Florence, and Lauren played Naples.

For those not familiar with this scenario, it is a weird one. France and Austria are neutral. Venice starts out with little Venetian territory -- just Venice, Dalmatia, and Regata. Naples and Florence are pretty standard, and Milan is rich based on territory. This is also the only scenario that uses fortresses. We were using the Battleline rules (yes, my copy is that old) plus a few house rules.

I ended up winning the game, as Venice was weak and I was starting to march over them while Florence and Naples carved up the Pope and the southern islands.

What did I think of this scenario? I won't play it again. The rules don't covered fortresses well: are they fortified cities when they are used? Unclear. Do they earn city points? Unclear, but it makes no sense if they don't. It is also unbalances, for with lots of autonomous garrisons out there, there is little need for negotiation.

I'd still like to get a full 8-player balance of power game up. Oh well. Times have changed.

Image

Lev Mishkin — 2007-01-08T23:46:27+00:00

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

This game would probably qualify as the one I've set up the most in anticipation of playing, only to be forced to re-package the entire thing when the correct number of gamers didn't arrive for the evening. Fortunately, this time we gathered a sufficient number of players to actually play the game!

For those unfamiliar with this Avalon Hill title, Machiavelli is a variant of Diplomacy, using the same negotiation, order-writing, movement and conflict mechanics. I much prefer this to the standard Diplomacy, as it does add a number of additional features and problems one must deal with. Economics, plagues, briberies, famines, etc. ... all play a role in Machiavelli. The game is no longer as straight-forward and methodical as Diplomacy or Colonial Diplomacy. Not that I don't enjoy these two games ... I do. However, I feel Machiavelli adds much more spice to this type of gaming experience and forces a player to adapt to many more potential situations and occurrences.

Machiavelli has consistently remained in my 'Top 5' games, residing at # 1 for quite some time. However, I'm beginning to feel that the bloom is off the rose. However, this is mainly due to changing tastes on my part rather than the game wearing thin or becoming stale. Before, I used to enjoy the haggling and inevitable back stabbing which are rife in games such as Diplomacy, Machiavelli and Intrigue. Now, however, I'm beginning to get a bad taste in my mouth for this consistent deceit which is inherent and necessary in such games. This is probably a totally irrational emotion as I recognize that it is, after all, just a game. However, I find myself much preferring the deal making aspects of games such as Chinatown, Bohnanza and their ilk wherein players negotiate deals and each are reasonably satisfied with the resolution. In Diplomacy style games, you're going to back stab an opponent and quite possibly devastate him and his chances at victory ... and you in all likelihood did this while bold-faced lying to him during the negotiation rounds. I used to take enjoyment out of this carefully planned deceit, but now I'm finding it troublesome. Am I just getting old and mellow?

Of course, it could also be that I have always played Machiavelli within the confines of our Westbank Gamers group. These are all guys I've grown to know reasonably well and have developed friendships with. It actually tears at me when I back stab one of these guys, and then see the look of shock and maybe even hurt on their faces. Perhaps this is a game which is much more suited to playing on a tournament level when one doesn't have a vested friendship with his opponents. But it's probably just me being too sensitive.

With a full contingent of eight players, we launched into the Balance of Power scenario, which begins in Spring 1454. The power overlords were Eric Alleman (Venice), Jon Comeaux (Papal States), Jerry Maus (Turks), Bill Sanders (Naples), Willerd Fann (Florence), Ashton Arnold France), Mike Hayman (Milan) and me (Austria). We did use ALL of the Advanced and Optional rules.

In the very first negotiation round, Milan, Venice, France and Austria all agreed on territorial rights and expansion paths. Our hopes were not to conflict with each other early so that we could each expand without bashing heads. Unfortunately, this gentlemanly agreement went awry almost immediately.

In what I perceived as a totally logical and reasonable move, AND one which I thought I had successfully explained to Milan, I left an army in the Tyrol, using it to support my army from Austria in its move into Carinthia. To my astonishment, this outraged Milan, who felt that I was now threatening his possession of the valuable province of Milan, which contains a city valued at three points. I in no way contemplating such an aggressive move, especially at this early stage of the game, but Mike perceived this as a grave threat. Apparently, my assurances that I would convert the army in Tyrol into a garrison on the very next turn (which I did) still didn't assuage his fears, as he launched an assault into the Tyrol on the very next turn.

Now it was my turn to be outraged and I became hell-bent on ousting his army from mein heimat (my homeland). I wasn't able to convince him to strategically redeploy out of the area, and our subsequent discussions in the next negotiation round still found him to be antagonistic. In fact, he made even further incursions into my territory, moving into Austria on the very next turn, using money he had acquired from the French to force my army there to disband. It became clear that our hopes at an early alliance were failing miserably.

With a bellicose Milan in my homeland, being supported financially by France, I turned to the powerful Venetians. We launched a two pronged attack against Milan, and succeeded in moving a Venetian army into Milan and an Austrian army into Como. Mike quickly sensed the danger to his very existence and struck an agreement which allowed him to strategically redeploy his army in Austria back to the Milan homeland. We again made a non-aggression pact, but both were very uneasy about its potential success.

Venice, however, was becoming a serious threat. Due to their ability to enjoy double variable income, they had gained an impressive 21 gold in the Spring financial phase. The Turks, Papacy and Naples all made heated arguments that Venice must be dealt with. Milan agreed and began making serious incursions into Venetian territory. In dire need of money and still smarting from the previous Milanese invasions, I ultimately came to the aid of the Venetians, but only after I saw Milan growing at an alarming rate. Eventually, we succeeded in driving Milan back to its home borders, but at the same time keeping Venetian territorial possessions at an acceptable level.

The Turks and Naples managed to keep a truce throughout the entire game ... so far. The Turks seemed content to drive up the eastern European coast and the Balkans, leaving most of the southern Italian peninsula to Naples. Naples also extended its sea power up into the Ligurian sea, threatening France and its coastal provinces. I was thankful for this as it diverted French attention away from any thoughts of invading Austria or substantially aiding Milan.

Florence and the Papacy also managed a game-long truce, which is not surprising considering the two leaders. It seems that whenever Jon and Willerd are in a game, they almost inevitably form an alliance. However, the Papacy is clearly getting the best of this arrangement, and is tied for the lead in cities at the game's mid-point with seven under Papal control.

After the first few tumultuous turns, the game settled into a 'sitzkrieg'. Venice continually attempted to break out into the Upper Adriatic, but was rebuffed at every attempt by the combined efforts of Turkey, Naples and the Papacy. Eric thought he had Papal agreement to support one such attempt, but Jon cleverly mis-wrote the orders, rendering them invalid. Ahhh ... such innocent deceit!

On the final turn of the evening, and staring financial ruin directly in the eye, I made some bold moves. I successfully negotiated an agreement with the Turks to swap control of Croatia in return for my attacking Venice in Friuli. This would render Venice's efforts to again emerge into the Upper Adriatic fruitless. Also, in an effort to grab more territories and cities so I could acquire enough income to support my troops in the Spring, I also successfully invaded Swiss, Carniola and Verona. This brought seven cities under Austrian control, but displeased Venice, Milan and France. I'm likely in deep trouble!

The move was necessary, however, as it gives me enough income to support my troops in the field. Further, Milan and I both have loans due in the summer and are likely to be unable to pay them. This will force us into bankruptcy, which means we will be unable to move our troops during the summer AND face the likelihood of several rebellions. This may well spell 'the end' for Milan, but I'm taking a calculated risk as my position on the board is a bit more isolated. Plus, Venice is heavily in debt and will most likely be forced to commit nearly all of her income to repay the debt and support her troops in the field. It's a slim chance, but hopefully I'll be able to emerge with at least my homeland intact.

We halted the game with plans to complete it next week. At the break, the following is the 'cities under control' tally. Twelve cities are needed for victory:

Austria 7, Papal States 7, Turkey 6, France 6, Naples 5, Florence 5, Venice 5, Milan 3

These figures are a bit misleading, however, due to the impending financial disaster awaiting both Austria and Milan.

Our plans are to finish the game at the conclusion of our next playing. If no one has reached the required 12 cities, the player with the most cities will be victorious. The tie-breaker will be the player with the most financial income. If still tied, it will be the player controlling the most provinces.