Game: Tom Clancy's Politika

Thread: Re: THIS COULD BECOME A COVETED GAME!!!!!!!!!!

Iceberg1 — 2008-07-29T15:20:31+00:00

I'm interested.

--James

Thread: Re: THIS COULD BECOME A COVETED GAME!!!!!!!!!!

kentreuber — 2008-07-29T14:52:46+00:00

If you haven't already, you might give a listen to a two part podcast episode on Politika done by the lead designer. It might give you some insight into the game and what might be changed.

http://www.thevintagegamer.net/2006/11/20/tvg-24-tom-clancys...

Thread: Re: THIS COULD BECOME A COVETED GAME!!!!!!!!!!

dogmatix — 2008-07-29T04:28:21+00:00

I'd love to see it worked up simply so I had *any* reason to pull Politika off the shelf [other than the send it back to the thrift store I found it at].

Ok, that answer is a bit flip, but I'd be interested to see what you could do with it...

Thread: THIS COULD BECOME A COVETED GAME!!!!!!!!!!

Lt Col Lippert 1944 — 2008-07-29T03:33:25+00:00

The rules to Politika could easily be incorporated into the Original Risk.
This would raise both games to a peak level.
Any Takers?
Ideas?
I am still formulating my plan but who would like to see this develop?

Thread: Re: User Review

Iceberg1 — 2008-07-01T15:54:07+00:00

Thanks for the review.

It sounds like this game is quite dated by today's standards and that there are far better games available to play. Anyone want to trade me for my copy?

--James

Image

lukaszkuch — 2007-11-21T17:19:03+00:00

Image

lukaszkuch — 2007-11-21T17:18:41+00:00

Politika - parts

Image

2007-06-13T15:06:01+00:00

Thread: Reformers show the Money and get the Victory.

ooogene — 2006-10-08T04:26:48+00:00

Yeltson is dead!! Russia has fallen into turmoil, but out of the ashes of this panic rise 5 factions to rule the motherland. The Reformers led by the always alert Mike, the Military lead by General Derrick, the KGB led by Officer JVK, the Nationalists controlled by Representative Eric, and the Mafia directed by machine gun toting Adam.

The first round of play began with Mike gaining a couple of influence in the East and of course receiving money from foreign politicians and getting rich of them. The Military had a great amount of influence in all the uprising and with it’s ability to move the uprising anyways he had the eastern regions covered. The Mafia and the Reformers mostly controlled those eastern regions. The KGB offered an alliance with the Military but was turned down for moral reasons. The Nationalists were able to make their offer of an alliance with the Military good, for some unknown reason. When it came to the Mafia turn, they agreed to join the rich Reformers and traded influence in Moskava, Chernozem, Ural, and St. Petersburg.

The second round began with a Reformers vendetta on the Military. Once the dust settled, the Reformers had gained two influence. The Military called on some regional support in Tuva to gain an influence. The KGB, after stealing from the Nationalists, spent 60,000 rubles and still lost even though he had more dice than the defender. The Nationalists also laid down a lot of dough to challenge two different regions and lost also. The Mafia and his thugs took off for Kamchatka and gained and influence there.

Round three was pretty uneventful, however the Reformers again gained more influence, this time in the oil rich Sibir. The influence in the game at this time was Reformers 17, Military 16, KGB 15, Mafia 14, Nationalists 13.

The Reformers were able to gain another influence with the help of their ally the Mafia in round four.The Mafia played a coalition collapses card and negated the alliance of the Nationalists and Military, which allowed the Reformers to gain influence. The KGB used its secret police to hurt the Military and gained two influence at their expense. The labor uprising was appeased and took on the colors of the influence in Moskava which was the Mafia and Reformers.

Round five, due to happy Russians, all defenders would get an extra die. The Reformers challenged in Evenkia with 5 dice and won. Then the Military moved in there and challenged twice, winning both. In the end though, the Reformists with all their capitalistic ways were able to gain control of the Russian Government and win the victory!

The final scores were Reformers 18, KGB 16, Mafia 14, Military 13, and Nationalists 11.

Image

hockeyjedi — 2006-08-20T18:02:03+00:00

Back cover

Thread: Re: User Review

Philip Thomas — 2005-11-03T20:51:31+00:00

Yes, the components suck. I have agreed to play this again in return for my game group playing Mare Nostrum (+Mythology Expansion)- playing MN first!. Maybe it will be better...

Stealing 20,000 from another player is worth 40,000. As for the Action card which takes 20,000 from the bank, I think it is fine, just means there is a chance your purchase will be pointless.

Thread: Session Report

Jvsquare — 2005-06-07T19:52:17+00:00

We have a regular lunchtime game session at RSE, and a co-worker of mine asked me to drag this out for old times' sake. As I was thinking about reusing some of the elements I felt that worked for another game, I figured, "Hey, why not?" It'd also allow me to get some feedback from one guy who hadn't played it yet and who was a good judge of games; I wanted to see if his opinion matched mine. And I wanted to do some analysis of my own, after another eight years of game-playing experience.

Of course, a game of this length isn't well-suited to a 1 hour lunchtime scenario. It took us about 20 minutes to review the rules and get it set up after a false start with the influence layout (hey, it's been eight years...). Since each turn is rather involved, it took about 5 minutes per player, and we had 4 players, so we got through only two rounds. So not a game to play if you're boiling an egg.

One thing we did to try to move things along was to skip some rules. So we skipped the trading phase, and along with it, alliances. Skipping trading was a mistake, as I'll comment on below. The other reason that I wanted to remove alliances was to see how the basic combat played without it -- it always felt like two players got stuck together once an alliance was established, because breaking an alliance was suicidal. We also tried to establish a hand limit of 5 -- as I think was suggested by Greg Schloesser.

We played with four players. Gary was the Mafia, I was the Nationalists, Marq was the Military, and Eric was the Communists. I got the short end of the stick as far as influence, so I got a little extra cash instead. Gary set off by attacking the Military and I. I responded by counterattacking him, and then attacking the Communists -- as Eric was the best game player I figured he was the biggest threat. Marq responded against me... I could go on, but the upshot was after that point one everyone pretty much attacked the leader and no one really made much progress. The exception was Eric who had purchased a large number of cards (possibly more than 5: see above), and since he went last he ended up winning the game by a margin of about 3, even after just 2 rounds. Clearly proceeding through standard combat wasn't necessarily the way to go -- if you got the good cards, they could be more useful. And going last was also a big advantage.

Based on this session, I have to say that some of the comments about this game are well-founded. The special abilities of some of the factions feel particularly weak compared to the others (as the Nationalist, I felt screwed). The cards, depending on which ones you get, are either too weak or too powerful. Playing with the trading phase would have helped in this aspect, as you could have traded cards with another player, allowing you to improve your hand.

Beyond that, my high-level analysis of the game is it has two problems: 1) There are too many choices. 2) the game is fairly static. Being able to move, attack, play cards and buy cards is just too much to do in one turn -- or maybe it's just too long to wait until your next turn. And what do you get? Maybe you win one or two influence pips. It's hard to build up an effective defense that won't be demolished by the other players in subsequent turns. The end effect is that if things are going badly you feel like you're doing a lot and accomplishing nothing.

However, in all fairness I think part of the "staticness" (if that's a word) in this session comes from skipping over the trading phase. It has been a while and a day, but I do remember that wheeling and dealing was as much or possibly more a part of the game than just rolling dice and trying to take influence that way. So by removing that, a great part of the fun is lost, too. But if that's the case, the core gameplay should have been structured around trading, not combat. Ah, how late these realizations come...

As far as what worked, the flavor is still good, with the event cards reflecting actual events in Russia back in the day (1997). The production distribution feels well balanced. The movement rules are still kinda neat. And when the dice are rolling well or you get the cards, it's fun to smash your opponents.

In summary: Politika is a wargame for the beer and pretzels crowd. You won't get a great feeling of accomplishment from it, but you get to hang out with friends, beat up on them for a few hours, and talk in Russian accents. Even from my biased position as the designer I still feel justified in disagreeing with those rate it a 1. You can see that after all this time I'm clearly not in love with all of it, but I think there's certainly some worth to be found in it with the right crowd and the right attitude.

As a side note: based on how I felt after this play session, and some of Derk's comments in a recent Geekspeak about a designer bumping up ratings for certain games, I pulled my rating for this game. I can't in all conscience give it the rating I originally did, and even if I disagree with its abysmally low rating I can't really be objective in any case. But hey, it's got good company with Monopoly, right?

Thread: Re:General Comment

Jvsquare — 2003-07-05T19:53:28+00:00

krainer (#10192),

I'm not sure I fully get your point, but yes, I'd be the first to admit that there are flaws in the design, and that Greg's ideas are some steps in the right direction for correcting them. I've had some ideas for reworking the rules, but considering the low rating I'm not sure there would be enough interest to make it worthwhile.

But it is also true that the game as is plays a lot better with fewer numbers, and I've had comments from players to that effect. Hence my entry.

Thread: Re:General Comment

krainer — 2003-07-04T17:32:53+00:00

Jim Van Verth (#1075),

Sorry Jim, but I have to take issue with a game when the lead designer says it does not really work with the number of players specified on the box. Essentially you are admitting that the game is poorly designed within its specifications - which lends additional credence to the fairly obvious flaws enumerated in the reviews here.

Image

RaDiKal — 2003-06-14T16:19:46+00:00

Image

RaDiKal — 2003-06-14T16:19:26+00:00

Image

RaDiKal — 2003-06-14T16:19:09+00:00

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Politika was not designed by Tom Clancy. In fact, I was lead designer on it.

Other database fields: it takes 3-8 players, and is best with 3-4. With 3-4 players I believe it will take 1 to 1-1/2 hours. Anybody who plays this game with 7 or 8 players is crazy -- it was a requirement of the design but IMO the turns are too long and it drags like nobody's business.

Thread: Session Report

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

Our normal gaming session was moved to Tuesday this week since Wednesday fell on Christmas eve. The same will be true for next week ... Tuesday gaming so as not to interfere with New Years Eve celebrations.

As expected due to the holidays, we had a small turnout. We did welcome a new face to our group, though ... Dr. Willard Fann, a professor at the University of New Orleans. Jon Comeaux knows him and invited him. Willard plays mostly traditional wargames but was interested in seeing what we were all about. I think he enjoyed it and will likely be back. He teaches European history at UNO.

In attendance: Jon Comeaux, Jay Ouzts, John Moore, Willard Fann and Greg Schloesser. Jerry Maus dropped by but couldn't stay. Something about plumbing problems at his daughter's house!

For a full review and critique of Politika, see the section. Also, see the section for variable rules and 'fixes'.

This is the new release by Tom Clancy's Red Storm Entertainment. The premise is that Yelstin has died and there is now a power struggle amongst various factions within Russia to take control. The game is billed as 'The Strategy Game of political intrigue in modern day Russia'. The game simply sounded too intriguing for me to pass up. The fact that it was available at my neighborhood Toys 'R Us made it easy to pick up, too.

As a side note, Toys 'R Us has an exclusive with Red Storm Entertainment to distribute the game. This has caused some discontent amongst gamers, who prefer to give hobby shops their bucks. Others, however, see this as an opportunity to expose the gaming hobby to many more people. It should prove interesting to see the eventual outcome.

I will say, however, that the game appears to have been 'dumbed down' somewhat. Early reports on the game from initial playtesting sounded as if the game had more of a sophisticated feel. It now feels as thought the game falls somewhere between Risk and Milton Bradley's Samurai Swords (Shogun) on the complexity level.

Again, please see the section for a full description and review of Politika.

In this game, the Church (Jon), Mafia (Greg), Military (Jay), Separatists (John) and Nationalists (Willard) were active. John's power continually gave him double income and, as a result, he had oodles of cash. Jon, on the other hand, seemed poor throughout. Cash is important as during most attacks, you are required to 'buy' your attack dice. Without cash, no attacks! Also, you use cash to purchase 'Action' cards, which give you certain powers during the game. Again, no cash, no action cards. This resulted in John being able to purchase large quantities of Action cards and hoard them until the final rounds of the game.

John was also aided by the initial random placement of the influence markers, which resulted in him having influence markers in most of the six key Separatist regions. This gave him double income each time one of those regions produced income (which seemed quite often).

In the early turns of the game, players tried to get a feel for the games mechanics and appropriate strategies. The game basically followed a pattern of going after the player who happened to have the most influence. This resulted in the game remaining close throughout. But the major fault of the game became apparent in Turn 5 as we all began noticing John Moore's strategy of buying and hoarding Action cards. By then, however, it was too late. John blew us away on the final turn, capturing a victory with 24 points. The final tally:

John: 24 Jay 16 Willard 16 Jon 15 Greg 15

We will try Politika again, but with the modifications suggested in our section.

Thread: Session Report

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

With the unusual and always problematic number of 7 gamers to deal with, I broke out Tom Clancy's Politika, which can handle 8. In spite of the game's drawbacks, I thought this group would enjoy the negotiation and card-play aspect of the game. They didn't.

I won't go into a full review of the game, as I have covered it comprehensively on our section of our website. I will say that we did use ALL of the variants which are listed on our website, and this did improve the flow of the game (in spite of John Moore's whinings about being limited to only five Action cards). However, in spite of the improvements, it doesn't save the game.

The game still has several flaws, one of which is MAJOR. That is, the person who moves last on the final turn has a HUGE, perhaps fatal advantage. That player can attack at will without fear of retribution as the game will end on that turn. We have attempted to solve this problem by adding a variable ending, with the chance of the game ending increasing with each passing turn, but as the odds begin to favor the game ending, the final player can go for broke on the final turn, likely scooping up major influence points, and win the game.

This problem was even more evident in our game as the hour was growing late and the players decided to roll at the end of turn 6, with a 50% chance of the game ending. Otherwise, we would have played a turn 7 and the game would definitely ended at that point. I happened to be selected last on turn 6 (we used a player order selection identical to that in Air Baron) so clearly had the advantage.

Another flaw is the game's length. Normally, our group doesn't mind longer games, but this one is very repetitive. In spite of the card play, event cards and attacking each turn, rarely does one break out of the pack for a substantial lead. And if he does, he is mercilessly set upon by the other players and knocked back into the pack. There is no incentive to grab the lead as the leader gets pounded upon. Thus, the only turn which really matters is the final turn.

This is all sad, as the game's premise is intriguing. It even has some interesting mechanics, but as a whole the game fails. I probably enjoyed it more than everyone else, but that is probably based more on my desire to like this game than on the actual merits of it. What a shame.

Here were the players and the factions they represented:

John: KGB
Eric A.: Military
Eric S.: Nationalists
Stephen: Church
Lenny: Mafia
Greg: Reformists
Clyde: Communists

Again, since the game is described and reviewed in detail in the section, I'll just give the round-by-round influence tallies:

Round 1: Eric 14, Greg 12, Stephen 12, Eric A. 11, Lenny 10, John 10, Clyde 9

Round 3: John 13, Eric S. 13, Stephen 12, Eric A. 11, Lenny 10, Clyde 10, Greg 9

Round 4: Stephen 13, Eric S. 12, Lenny 11, Eric A. 11, Clyde 11, John 10, Greg 10

Round 5: Stephen 14, Eric S. 12, Lenny 12, John 12, Greg 10, Eric A. 10, Clyde 8

Round 6: Greg 15, Lenny 14, Eric S. 13, Stephen 13, John 13, Eric A. 11, Clyde 10

My victory was based in large part of hoarding cash (I received 1 point for each $60 in cash ... I acquired 4 points this way) AND moving last in round 6 (which wasn't determined until the last chit was drawn). I do believe that altering, or perhaps even eliminating, the amount of points earned for cash is necessary.

The ratings continue to be disappointing for Politika:

Eric S. 6, Eric A. 5, John 5, Clyde 5, Lenny 5, Greg 5, Stephen 4

Thread: User Review

gschloesser — 2000-07-09T18:09:35+00:00

Tom Clancy, the famous author of military-style thrillers, long been a wargaming fan. Now, he has entered into the wargame market with Politika, produced by a company of his own, Red Storm Entertainment.

The premise of the game is that Yelstin has died and there is now a power struggle amongst various factions within Russia to take control of the vast country. The game is billed as 'The Strategy Game of political intrigue in modern day Russia'. The game simply sounded too intriguing for me to pass up. The fact that it was available at my neighborhood Toys ‘R Us made it easy to pick up, too.

As a side note, Toys ’R Us has an exclusive with Red Storm Entertainment to distribute the game. This has caused some discontent amongst gamers, who prefer to give hobby shops their bucks. Others, however, see this as an opportunity to expose the gaming hobby to many more people. Should prove to be interesting!

I will say, however, that the game appears to have been 'dumbed down' somewhat. Early reports on the game from initial playtesting sounded as if the game had more of a sophisticated feel. The game in its present form falls somewhere between Risk and Milton Bradley’s Samurai Swords (Shogun) on the level of complexity.

Players each represent one of eight possible factions struggling to take control of Russia following Yelstin's demise. Each of the factions has a special power which allows it to perform a particular action (a.k.a. Cosmic Encounters). For example: The Russian Mafia can extort $20,000 from another player each turn; The KGB can steal an action card from another player each turn; The Separatists receive double income production from the six separatist regions; etc

These powers do not seem to be well balanced, however. For example, the Separatist power continually gives that player double income if he has influence in one of the six separatist regions. As a result, that player usually has oodles of cash as compared to his opponents. Cash is important as during most attacks, you are required to 'buy' your attack dice. Without cash, no attacks! Also, you use cash to purchase 'Action' cards, which give you certain powers - many of them extremely powerful - during the game. Again, no cash, no action cards. Thus, the player with the Separatist power can have a noticeable advantage, one that is difficult to overcome.

Each area can hold three influence markers. Players begin with an equal number on the board (there are a few instances, depending upon the number of players, where a few players will have one or two less on the board, but they are compensated for this deficiency with extra money at the beginning of the game). The object is to convert as many of your opponents' influence markers into your own. Of course, they are trying to do the same to your's!

A player's turn works in this fashion:

1) Draw a Production Card: This card usually lists three regions. Each of these regions produces $10,000 for each player who has an influence marker in that area. $10,000 per area is the limit even if you have more than one influence marker in the area.

Sometimes, the production card turned over will trigger a random event which can temporarily alter play (Snowstorms, Strikes, etc.).

2) Move Representatives and/or Uprisings: Players can move their two representatives
and/or any Uprising in which they have influence. Representatives are important, as in order to attempt a takeover of an opponent's influence marker, you must have one of your representatives in the targeted area. Representatives’ movement are limited by where they began their turn and a player's ally. Basically, if your representative begins a turn in a region where you already have an influence marker, you can move across adjacent regions as long as either you or your ally has at least one influence marker in the region. However, if your representative begins a turn in a region where you or your ally do not have an influence marker, you can only move to an adjacent region.

There are three uprising markers on the board. These also hold 3 influence markers each. If a player has influence in an uprising, he can move it as many regions as the number of influence markers he has in it. The effect of the Uprising is to block any production from the region where it is located.

3) Trade and Alliances: During this segment, the active player can freely trade action cards, influence markers and money with the other players. His opponents can only trade with him, not each other. Since I enjoy games which have trading and negotiation elements, this was my favorite segment and the saving grace of the game.

Players can also make alliances with one other player during this segment. The advantage of an alliance is two-fold. One is the movement bonus listed above. The other is defensive in nature. If an opponent is trying to oust one of your influence markers from a region, you normally get one die to roll in defense for each influence marker you have in the region. However, you also get one additional die for each influence marker your ally has in that region. Thus, alliances aid in defense.

Alliances can be broken by attacking your ally, or during the next alliance phase.

4) Challenges: In each area where a player has one of his representatives, he may make one attempt to remove an opponent's influence marker and replace it with his own (or someone else's, if he desires). Basically, the challenger can buy attack dice for $20,000 each. The defender gets one die for each influence marker he has in the region, as well as one die for each influence marker his ally has in the region. Dice are rolled, with the highest total being successful. Ties go to the defender.

5) Buy Action Cards: The active player can purchase Action cards at $20,000 apiece. Action cards can be used to modify some of the games events. Some action cards give players extra dice in attack and/or defense. Others give players free attacks with a certain number of dice in regions stated on the cards. Others allow players to steal money from their opponents or the bank; etc.

Some thoughts on the game:

1) Some of the components suck. The influence markers are tiny ... 1/4" X 1/2". Due to their miniscule size, they are difficult to handle. Further, they are color coded on one side only - the other side is white. Since they are so small, they are easily flipped over by mistake. This problem is compounded since the Church's color is also white. How difficult would it have been to color the counters on both sides and make them a bit larger?

The Uprising markers are small stands (similar to, but a bit larger than, those used to support the General figures in Hannibal and We the People). You are supposed to slide the three influence markers in the stand. However, since the influence markers are so small, they are barely visible. And, again, since they are only printed on one side, it is difficult to tell which players actually have influence in the Uprisings.

2) A limit needs to be placed on the number of Action cards a player can have in his hand. Otherwise, a player who is cash rich can purchase vast quantities of cards each turn and have an overwhelming advantage. Most of the cards give players 'free' attacks in regions, so a player with a large quantity of cards can make numerous attacks each turn as opposed to most other players, who are limited to two. This occurred in one of our games, as John Moore (playing the Separatists) continued to get double production from the Separatist regions. He was very wealthy, so bought 5 or 6 Action cards per turn. In the final round, he was able to make over a dozen attacks and sweep the game.

Solution: We have suggested a hand limit of 5 Action Cards.

3) Turn Order: This should be varied each round, with a system such as used in Air Baron. As it stands now, players know exactly when their turn is each round, so can plan accordingly. Further, some of the special powers bestowed by a player's faction could be useless or 'checked' depending upon who came before or after him. This would be less likely to occur if the turn order was varied.

Solution: Use a variable turn order, such as in Air Baron. Place a chit from each player in a cup and draw the turn order at the beginning of each turn.

4) Action Cards: One of the action card allows a player to steal $20,000 from the bank, while another allows a player to steal $20,000 from another player. The problem with this is that purchasing an action card costs $20,000 anyway. So its a wash!

Solution: Up the amount able to be stolen to $40,000.

5) Defender Dice: As mentioned, in an attack, a defender gets one die for each influence marker he has in the region, as well as one die for each influence marker his ally has in the region. More often than not, this limits the defender to one die, while an attacker can purchase as many dice as he desires and can afford. If a player is fairly wealthy, he usually can muster significant advantages in his attacks.

Solution: Allow the defender to purchase up to one more die for $20,000.

6) Game End: The game is scheduled to go 6 rounds. Players can decide before hand to play up to 10 rounds. With the timing of the game's end clearly known to all, the player going last has a BIG advantage, as he can hoard his attack cards (as John did, in one of our games) and blow everyone out of the water on the last turn without fear of being counter-attacked.

Solution: Vary the turn order, as suggested above, AND vary the games end. It can end anywhere from Turn 6 - Turn 10. Beginning with Turn 6, a dice can be rolled following each round. After Turn 6, the game ends on a roll of 1 or 2. After Turn 7, it ends on a roll of 1 - 3. After Turn 8, it ends on a roll of 1 - 4. After Turn 9, it ends on a roll of 1 - 5. It automatically ends after Turn 10.

The game has promise, and I do like its premise. However, one gets the feeling that it was not playtested very well or extensively. If, in our first playing, we were able to spot these many problems, one has to wonder how much playtesting was actually done.

It does seem important to make challenges early in the regions where production value is high, as these have a much higher probability of surfacing in the production deck. Further, if the Separatist power is in play, players must attempt to keep that player from developing influence in the six Separatist regions where he gets double production income.

We also had an interesting occurrence where a player played the action card "Thieves Cut Telephone Lines" during the final round (there are six rounds). This has the effect of severing ALL alliances. The problem is that, at the end of the game, the player with the most influence markers wins. If there is a tie, the alliance with the most influence markers wins. If the Action card mentioned above is played in the final round, it seems to prevent the possibility of any alliance victories. Kind of strange. But, then again, the game has many quirks such as these. Some rule revisions and modifications are needed to make Politika an acceptable game worthy of replay.