Game: Magna Grecia

Thread: Magna Grecia - A Review: Difficult Decisions Every Turn

Celtic — 2008-09-03T23:20:08+00:00

Magna Grecia comes from the initially surprising team of Leo Colovini and Michael Schacht. Surprising, because I had thought of Signore Colovini (Carolus Magnus & Doge) and Herr Schacht (Mogul & Web of Power) as very much solo designers. However, both have in fact worked with other designers before - for instance on Vabanque and Fist of Dragonstones respectively. The common factor in both those cases is Bruno Faidutti - which makes me wonder about the existence of some sort of European Game Designers' Club (a very classy social scene I would imagine, in order to match Monsieur Faidutti's dinner-jacketed image).

In any case it is interesting to speculate whether Magna Grecia is part of what appears to be an increasing trend towards joint designs (following the path taken by Wolfgang Kramer and Alan Moon - to the extent that a 'solo' game from either is a relative rarity these days) or whether this is simply a one-off collaboration. While it would be interesting to know who contributed which parts of the design, what probably concerns you more is whether there are any very visible 'joins'. There the answer is no - this is very much a whole rather than two half games bolted together.

Previous games from both Colovini (e.g. Clans & Meridian) and Schacht (e.g. Don & Isis and Osiris) have shown a tendency towards the abstract and Magna Grecia is well towards that end of the spectrum - though no more so than, say, Tigris & Euphrates. On the plus side this means that it isn't loaded down with 'chrome' but neither is it over-endowed with atmosphere of time and place. While the theme of road and city building is carried through to the mechanics the supposed setting (the Greek colonisation of Southern Italy) is pretty irrelevant. Nevertheless, there is enough of a theme here for me to hop on board and enjoy the ride - and I am someone who doesn't much like abstract games.

But what about the game and how does it play? Well, despite this being a big box game the components are fairly straightforward. Each player is given a victory points marker, some wooden markets and a supply of road and city tiles. In addition there are a number of 'Oracles' (placed on the board at the start of the game) and some Player Order cards.

The size of the box is explained by the board, which unfolds to reveal a large hex-grid map, with scattered village sites where markets can be established and cities built. The objective of the game is to build networks of roads and cities which will let you score the most points from the cities you control and the markets you establish in other players' cities. In both cases your score is determined by the number of places the cities are directly connected to by road. While these will provide your bread and butter points, there is also some interesting jam in the form of the Oracles - which score a fixed four points each but are controlled by the most important (i.e. best connected) city directly connected to them. Unlike cities, control of the Oracles usually switches back and forth during the course of the game (the Oracles are arrow shaped and are rotated to point to their current controlling city - a nice touch) so you need to keep a close eye on your opponents' moves as well as planning your own strategy.

At the start of the game, the Oracles are placed in village sites of the players' choice. These sites will then become the target of players' attentions, although they can no longer be used for markets or city building. Players then take turns to build across the virgin landscape in the sequence determined by the Player Order cards. Central villages are usually more profitable but players must start in one of the specially marked villages around the edge of the board. In subsequent turns players may extend their own network or build from another starting village or another player's city (an important rule, which keeps the game very 'open' and makes it impossible to shut someone out of the game) so it takes a few turns to get to the more central village sites - which are likely to have the potential for links to a number of Oracles.

The 12 Player Order cards (one for each game turn) are semi-randomly shuffled so each player will go first and last (and points in-between) an equal number of times over the course of the game (and within the first 4 turns, turns 5-8 and the last four turns). These cards are stacked face up so the order for next turn is always visible - which helps forward planning. Importantly, the Player Order cards also control the actions which players may take each turn. Each card has values for three actions - showing the number of tiles players may use for (1) road building (2) city building and (3) the number of replacement tiles players may take. The value of these actions vary from turn to turn, with some being good for road building, some for tile replacement etc. Players can chose only two of the three actions - or take a single action at a higher value.

Managing your supply of tiles is a critical aspect of the game - you start with only four each of your full supply of road and city tiles in your hand and you therefore need to replenish your stock of tiles at regular intervals - the timing of this is crucial. As with all good games, each turn leaves you with the feeling of wanting to do more and you need to plan ahead to be successful. It is therefore vital to keep an eye on the next Player Order Card to be sure you have enough tiles to make full use of your next turn - particularly if you want to be able to exploit the 'extra strength' single actions.

While road building is free, city building or expansion costs one victory point per tile used. While the obvious conclusion might be to build roads rather than expanding cities the tile supply is such that you will run out of roads before the end. Besides, a one-tile city can have a maximum of six connections while larger cities have the potential for more - and there are some nice tactical considerations because extending one of your cities can restrict others' options since opposing cities can't be built adjacent (there are also some nice road building tactics to restrict other players' expansion, but these tend to be more expensive in terms of the number of tiles needed as opposing roads can be built alongside each other).

The cost of city tiles also introduces a further delicate balancing act - while you start with a supply of victory points you need to keep an eye on them to ensure that you can expand your cities when you want. You can sell your markets (which are placed free of charge in each city you build) to gain more points (according to the number of connections it has), but only one can be sold, and only at the end of your turn, so again you'll need to plan ahead. Our experience has been that players need to do this at least once each game to stay solvent - obviously it's most profitable when a city has maxed-out its number of connections. An alternative to selling a market at the end of your turn is to buy one to place in one of your opponent's city sites. This costs one victory point more than your opponent will have paid for the city - so large cities with many connections will cost you more to establish a market there, but will pay off more at the end of the game. This can be a crucial way of making an extra few points and means that you might even want to avoid competing with an opposing city, if you've invested in a market there (particularly if you did so when the city is small, as you will get the benefit of additional connections gained as the city is expanded at your opponent's expense).

Overall then, a few simple rules give rise to a number of options and difficult decisions every turn - which will usually impact on the possibilities open to you next turn - so there is a fair amount to think about. The more we play Magna Grecia the more I enjoy it. It is a fairly deep, multifaceted, game - with each game we've seen new tactics and options opening up (for instance we've still to fully explore the tactics around initial placement of oracles) - and like a bottle of good red wine it improves with each tasting (and, even better, it feels like there's still plenty left before we'll get to the bottom of it).

Apart from our first attempt, our games have been pretty tight (with one 3 player game even ending in a 3-way tie - the winner being decided on the tie-breaker of most tiles left in hand) so each move is crucial. Despite this, we've found that Magna Grecia plays fairly quickly but, like all games of this nature, it could become bogged down by overly serious players attempting to maximise their score every turn by analysing every option. Perhaps there are some who think that is the 'proper' way to play it, but this would make the 'down time' between turns stretch enormously and would for my money totally kill the enjoyment factor by turning it into a purely abstract mental exercise. I would suggest a chorus of loud raspberries should you encounter the problem. And stronger measures should that not suffice!

There has been some comment about the colouring of the map and player components - all in fairly subdued, autumnal shades, though some have complained it is too yellow. I have to say that it takes a little getting used to and is not a colour scheme which I would want to wrestle with in anything other than good lighting. However, it is in keeping with the contemplative nature of the game and we rather liked it (and, unlike the rest of the game, it at least reflects the putative setting - invoking as it does the colours of the landscape of Southern Italy). While you may disagree on the aesthetics, whatever you do, don't let the absence of a garish colour scheme put you off an excellent game.

(Originally published in Counter Magazine, Issue 22, September 2003)

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

skrebs — 2008-06-04T05:48:45+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
Before you guys go crazy about adding luck to this dry game, I'm not suggesting rolling any dice.

Instead, in our one play so far, we just used dice to mark how valuable each city was. It made it very easy to evaluate the board position and plan moves. You could quickly see how strong a competing city was for oracles or just how much each market was worth.

Some people might say that doing those valuations are part of the game, but I think they are being silly. I look at the pictures on the geek here and just shudder at trying to comprehend the board position.

So next time you break out Magna Grecia (not likely I know), you might want to grab some dice to speed things along.

With your idea, I might be able to wrap my head around this game. Thanks!

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

Isamoor — 2008-06-03T17:06:50+00:00

ekted wrote:
That could be useful, but one of the problems that often occurs in solutions like this is data integrity. If it's common that players forget to update the dice after adding roads/cities, then instead of everyone calculating the values of cities all the time, they will be checking if the dice are correct all the time. This is a similar issue to Liberte.

We didn't experience this in our one game so far, but yea, you'd have to be diligent about updating the dice.

And it's quite possible that for certain groups it just won't help in the end.

I just generally dislike AP and downtime. And I can almost watch people chunk through the connection count on each city. It's not very stimulating or enjoyable.

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

Windopaene — 2008-06-03T16:21:03+00:00

What a great game. But yeah, soooooo dry.

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

Drew1365 — 2008-06-03T16:13:40+00:00

Isamoor wrote:
I looked over your ratings, but dang man, I can't pin you down for what you like.

I can't pin me down either.

There's no auction or hand management, but there's also little to no randomness. *shrug*

It's not that I necessarily want randomness. Too much randomness can make me cranky. But I think I'm in a bit of a "dice" phase, though.

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

nomad001 — 2008-06-03T16:06:22+00:00

Hmmm ... an interesting idea. It would definitely reduce AP problems that seem to kill this game with certain players ... I will have to try it out the next time it hits the table.

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

ekted — 2008-06-03T16:05:10+00:00

That could be useful, but one of the problems that often occurs in solutions like this is data integrity. If it's common that players forget to update the dice after adding roads/cities, then instead of everyone calculating the values of cities all the time, they will be checking if the dice are correct all the time. This is a similar issue to Liberte.

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

Isamoor — 2008-06-03T15:27:14+00:00

Drew1365 wrote:
And now I learn that you're foolin' me!

Yea, sorry. There's no randomness other than the order of the turn tiles that come up. And even then that pretty much just shakes up turn order and makes you decide when to fill up on resources.

I need to play it some more, but I'm enjoying it thus far.

I looked over your ratings, but dang man, I can't pin you down for what you like. I don't know whether to recommend Magna Grecia for you or not.

There's no auction or hand management, but there's also little to no randomness. *shrug*

Thread: Re: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

Drew1365 — 2008-06-03T15:22:08+00:00

I was about to say "I didn't know there were any dice in this game!"

I haven't played, but have been curious about it, given that it's by two of my favorite designers. And the idea that there might be dice in it . . . well, that makes it sound even better.

And now I learn that you're foolin' me!

Thread: Who knew dice could do so much for a dry game?

Isamoor — 2008-06-03T15:14:20+00:00

Before you guys go crazy about adding luck to this dry game, I'm not suggesting rolling any dice.

Instead, in our one play so far, we just used dice to mark how valuable each city was. It made it very easy to evaluate the board position and plan moves. You could quickly see how strong a competing city was for oracles or just how much each market was worth.

Some people might say that doing those valuations are part of the game, but I think they are being silly. I look at the pictures on the geek here and just shudder at trying to comprehend the board position.

So next time you break out Magna Grecia (not likely I know), you might want to grab some dice to speed things along.

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-29T17:48:45+00:00

action cards, front and back

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-29T17:47:22+00:00

parts inventory

Image

Rokkr — 2008-04-29T17:46:17+00:00

rule book cover

Image

puppi — 2008-03-25T17:43:50+00:00

Image

mdu2boy — 2008-02-21T23:28:33+00:00

From Bobby Tweaks game night

Thread: Re: Building markets?

jerkules — 2007-09-21T18:40:46+00:00

Yeah, I don't think Oracles are considered "Oracle villages". They are just Oracles and can only be connected to, not built on.

Thread: Re: Building markets?

MurWiz — 2007-09-05T13:37:04+00:00

Just to be completely pedantic ... Can you build a market on a village which has an Oracle in it?

I'm pretty sure you can't upgrade an Oracle-village to an Oracle-city.

Thread: Re: Magna Grecia starting position session report

MWChapel — 2007-06-18T00:59:47+00:00

Yes I find it's nice to start the game building off another player taking it to the dead center. Luckily for later players, a three city came out, which in the center of the board is "NICE"! Which is what I would have done as well.

Thread: Re: Magna Grecia starting position session report

sodaklady — 2007-06-17T23:00:20+00:00

Nice idea for a session report. This is one of my favorite games so I'll be watching your posts and picking up hints.

Thread: Magna Grecia starting position session report

hamzy — 2007-06-17T20:44:32+00:00

Finally, we got to play a meaty game. One I think gets far less plays than it should. Perhaps it is the horrible color scheme. What ever the reason, it remains on my list of hidden jewels -- rarely played but great games. I was the brown color in this game. For the first tile that was turned up, it was orange (MWChapel), red (Ed), yellow (Nick), and brown (me) with 2 roads, 3 cities, and 3 resupply. Mike, as the first player was somewhat hosed. He did what I would have done and built a city (1) which connected up to a oracle. Ed was somewhat in a bad situation as well and decided to build off of Mike's city and create a two city spot (2) hoping to eventually grab and control oracle B. Nick was new to this game. However, he made an excellent move. One that I desperately wanted to make myself. He built off of Ed's city and created a three city spot (3). This would give him a commanding control of oracles A, B, C, and D! In fact, the very process of building roads to those oracles both claims the oracles (4 points) and gives his market 1 more point. At the end of the game, he could hope to have a city with ten connections and 4 oracles. Which would give him 26 points! Ed, of course, connected to oracle B with a road on aa. However, Nick did make a mistake and place a road on spot bb which connected to oracle C. This forever cut off his access to oracle B. He should have instead built a two road connection on spot bb to oracle B. Surprisingly, Nick left oracle A alone. Even though it was two spots away. I decide to build off of Nick and create a three city spot (4) as well. I had hoped to control oracles A,J, and H. However, as it later turned out, someone built on the village spot north west of my city and connected to the oracle. This cut off my ability to reach oracle H with my city. It turned out to be sad, but not entirely unexpected.

During the game, I noticed that Mike was planning to take over oracle J. I knew I had to act immediately. If Mike was able to place a road to oracle J, he would have a city with one more connection to it than I would have. This would give him final control over it and 4 points. So I placed a road along path z to connect to a village. This both cut Nick off from being able to connect to my oracle and stopped Mike from taking control of oracle J over. Since you need to have a city with more roads connected to it for its allegiance to switch over.

]]>

Image

samoan_jo — 2007-02-12T12:07:38+00:00

'Die Wiege der Zivilisation' - full frame shot of the German edition (Clementoni)

Image

shimmergloom — 2007-01-06T18:23:22+00:00

End Game

Image

shimmergloom — 2007-01-06T18:13:53+00:00

Thread: Re: Confused about scoring & "income"

sodaklady — 2006-12-27T02:03:12+00:00

Here's an exerpt from a thread that you might find useful. The full article is here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/128467

This leads to the most interesting and lucrative strategy of the game, let’s call it the Sell and Expand strategy. The rules allow each player to have only one market in a city but what if you expand one city so that it connects to another city, creating one large city? One of those markets is eliminated from the game. The trick is to sell one of the markets before you expand your city and eliminate the sold market. I’ve read arguments about this not being a profitable move but in the game I played Saturday, I expanded a 5-point city, scored the 5 points, expanded again and scored the 7 points and at the end of the game scored 9 points for my new and improved city. To put it clearly, I scored my original 5-point city three times. I won by a considerable amount so I don’t want to argue about it!

Thread: Re: Confused about scoring & "income"

Windopaene — 2006-12-26T23:31:21+00:00

Selling markets is how you gain points. But the thing you need to realize is that a market's value will often times be "set" fairly early in the game, (when it becomes obvious that it won't be connecting to any more cities). There is no benefit to saving up a market to score at the end versus scoring it during the game. So you need to make decisions during the game as to which cities are going to gain more connections, and which ones won't, and sell off those that are "dead".

Thread: Confused about scoring & "income"

Ice X — 2006-12-26T23:19:32+00:00

We tried playing our first game last night (2-player). We feel like were must have missed something in the rules, because the economics seemed way too tight. You start out on position #10 on the scoring track and we went backwards pretty quickly adding cities & (secondary) markets. Towards the end of the game, I was broke, so I sold some markets to be able to place more cities, but when it came time to score, I had shot myself in the foot, because those sold markets weren't eligible for scoring. Besides selling markets, is there anyway to get points before the final scoring?

Thread: Re: Action Tiles

sparky — 2006-12-13T09:46:49+00:00

hey so don't be so coy, Teemu.
Which color combinations are to be avoided for 2-player?

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until e

sparky — 2006-12-13T09:39:02+00:00

this thread is old and stale, but to the benefit of anyone reading:
yes, I think you're missing something.

As I read the rules, the only connections that count for this (as well as for valuing markets) are direct connections, meaning places linked to the city with a road *with nothing else in-between*.

So in example N, if the two cities were connected, red would have 3 connections and orange 4. (Because red doesn't count connections that are on the other side of the organge city.)

I'm a newbie, and could be wrong, but that's how I read it.

Image

ManlyWan — 2006-12-06T17:07:25+00:00

Counter Sheet. They are are basically the same. One per color (Red, Brown, Orange, Sand)

Thread: Re: is a reprint due or something? crashing prices abound.

facesnorth — 2006-11-27T22:57:12+00:00

Seems available to me, I didn't know it was OOP.

Thread: is a reprint due or something? crashing prices abound.

astroglide — 2006-11-27T21:50:30+00:00

i got a flurry of trade requests from people looking to get rid of this game recently, and i see that tanga listed it for $12.99. is it just coincidence?

Thread: Re: Connection example for Oracle attention

Windopaene — 2006-10-22T07:30:20+00:00

No, it has to enter it. Example must be screwed up.

Thread: Connection example for Oracle attention

chad56s — 2006-10-22T03:45:46+00:00

On page 13 of the rule book in Example O, it shows red and yellow competing for an oracle. It shows yellow with 4 connections, however connection number 2 is where I'm having trouble.

The road at connection 2 doesn't actually enter the brown city. It veers away from it. Yet the example counts it as a connection. I assumed that in order to be "connected" a road must actually enter a city/village. Does it only need to be adjacent to the city?

Thread: Re: My Favorite Game

sodaklady — 2006-09-30T20:34:11+00:00

It's o.k., gentlemen, I can understand that Magna Grecia isn't for everyone. Just like Caylus and Reef Encounter don't do it for me. As Frank said, my mind just doesn't work that way or enjoy it if I try to force it into that type of thinking. Thanks for the comments anyway. It's always nice to know someone's interested in reading my opinions.

Thread: Re: My Favorite Game

Frank Hamrick — 2006-09-30T19:47:32+00:00

Admit it, this one is just beyond you! Of course, I've played games where the strategy that is so evident to others is completely hidden from my comprehension. So, I think it isn't a good game. But of course, I have to admit - it probably is a great game - but doesn't fit with the way my mind works. Example - most trick-taking card games completely escape me! I never (seldom) play them, for my mind just doesn't work that way. Gang of Four, for example. Yet, I know it's a great game, but not one I can sink my teeth into - it's "beyond me."

Thread: Re: My Favorite Game

Kalidor — 2006-09-30T19:34:14+00:00

Oooph.
While I always enjoy reading Mary's posts/comments etc. I can't disagree more.
I just didn't "get" this one.
In fact, I hate it and will probably never play again.
In fact, I don't even know why I am commenting on this at all...Mom told me long ago...if you have nothin' nice to say...

Thread: Re: My Favorite Game

Windopaene — 2006-09-30T19:11:02+00:00

Yes, it is a totally excellent game, one of, if not the best, connection game out there. Super hard to teach though.

Thread: My Favorite Game

sodaklady — 2006-09-30T15:53:53+00:00

After a long absence from the game table, I got to play Magna Grecia again on Saturday and it reminded me why, even after adding over 100 games to my collection, this is still my favorite among the heavier games.

I originally bought it when there was very little information to be found because of the Turn Tiles, which are still very cool and one of the reasons I enjoy the game. This is the only bit of luck in the game and the second most-complained about aspect. The tiles show the turn order as well as the allowed actions—the number of roads you can build, the number of city tiles you can place, or the number of tiles you can restock to your supply for the current turn. They are shuffled and stacked in such a way that there is randomness to the turn order but you will never go too long without being first player. Some people don’t like this randomness but I think it’s unique and interesting. The other complaint I’ve read about deals with the color on the edge of each tile which can be glimpsed while the tiles are stacked and give away who will be the first player for each turn. The simple solution is to stack the tiles face down.

The most popular complaint for this game is, of course, the color scheme. I have to agree even though I have no problem discerning the difference between red, orange, yellow and brown. It sounds lovely in an aesthetically pleasing, decorator sense but for a board game, it’s a bad combination.

Alright, now that we’ve gotten the complaints out of the way, let’s talk about what really sings about this game. This takes us back to the Turn Tiles which each have a different combination of road and city tiles that you can lay that turn and a number of tiles (in any combination of road/city) that you can restock. Since you can only do 2 of the 3 actions each turn, this game has a very tough hand-management aspect which I love. It reminds me of Hacienda which also forces you do choose between building what you feel you really need and restocking your hand. The difference in Magna Grecia is that you not only see what this turn has to offer, but the next turn as well because 2 Turn Tiles are displayed. This removes the luck of the draw that games like Hacienda and China have; you always know what’s coming up and you have no one to blame but yourself for a bad choice of actions.

The scoring is straight forward in Magna Grecia. I don’t have to deal with getting cards to turn into cubes which I use to buy buildings that have powers which I can use to earn points. (The preceding is an exaggeration and not intended to represent any particular game.) Markets placed in your cities, or a market in another player’s city that connect to one of your cities earn a point for each road leading somewhere. Temples earn 4 points for the most prominent city (the one with the most roads) that connects to it. I don’t like games where I have to deal with the “trickle down” system to earn points.

Another under-appreciated design feature is the distribution of city tiles and road tiles that each player has. The first time I played, I built small cities and lots of roads with the result that I ran out of roads before the last turn. This small but important feature means you are forced to build bigger cities rather than just run roads all over the countryside. Others have complained about this but I see it as hand-management within hand-management and I think it’s excellent.

To make the game even more interesting, let’s throw in money management. You see, not all of your actions are free. Every city tile you place costs you 1 point, building a market in someone else’s city costs you 1 point for each city tile in that city plus 1 point for each market already there. At the beginning of the game, you are given a set amount of points to spend and when they’re gone you either don’t place any more city tiles or markets, or you sell one of your markets.

This leads to the most interesting and lucrative strategy of the game, let’s call it the Sell and Expand strategy. The rules allow each player to have only one market in a city but what if you expand one city so that it connects to another city, creating one large city? One of those markets is eliminated from the game. The trick is to sell one of the markets before you expand your city and eliminate the sold market. I’ve read arguments about this not being a profitable move but in the game I played Saturday, I expanded a 5-point city, scored the 5 points, expanded again and scored the 7 points and at the end of the game scored 9 points for my new and improved city. To put it clearly, I scored my original 5-point city three times. I won by a considerable amount so I don’t want to argue about it!

Since I am not put off by “Take That” games, let’s not forget that aspect of Magna Grecia. You can cut off people’s roads if they leave them unfinished or build a road that blocks an opponent from reaching his destination. You build a cheap market in an opponent’s city and, if you’ve chosen well, share his points. You may decide to Super Size your turn action, catching your opposition off guard.

Ah, yes, Super Sizing your turn. Another wonderful option in case there weren’t already enough. If you so choose, you can decide to take only one action this turn (instead of two) but now you’re allowed more city or road tiles to build or more tiles to replenish. This can be a very handy and surprising move, getting you where you want to go before someone can cut you off or block you.

Magna Grecia is an excellent game that keeps the tension on through every turn, every decision. It’s a shame that the color scheme, especially the nauseatingly yellow board in the original production, kept so many people from enjoying this bit of brilliance from Leo Colovini and Michael Schacht. Rio Grande Games now shows it as being out of print and that really is too bad because, in my estimation, it’s a wonderful gamer’s game.

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until end?

AmericanEagle — 2006-09-26T21:24:59+00:00

wow, that went by me like a speeding bullet!
I feel like I'm saying the same thing :-)

My example may have been too vague, maybe I should use a reference?
Let's say page 12 example N

Red has 2 connections and Orange has 3 connections. Red places two road tiles to join the Red city to the Orange city, both would then have 5 connections. This seems like something Orange would want to do and not Red; This way no one could win it back, Am I still missing somehting?

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until e

tool — 2006-09-26T21:06:32+00:00

Huh? This doesn't make any sense to me. You don't count the number of connections to the Oracle - for each city connected to the Oracle, you count the total number of connections it has to all distinct places. There is no way Yellow can add a single connection and tie with Red unless they were tied to start with.

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until end?

AmericanEagle — 2006-09-26T20:53:52+00:00

Question? If two people are completing for the same Oracle, what happens when a connection is made between the two completing factions? Example: Red has 3 connections and Yellow 2 connections to the same Oracle. Yellow then joins one of his connections to one of the red connections. Yellow would then have 5 connecions and so would Red; So I guess he would not do it, but if Red joined them together both would have 5 connections and it would stay under Red's attention. How could Yellow ever win it back? Any new Yellow connection that would be added to that Oracle would also be adding to the number of Red connection? Am I missing something?

Thanks

Thread: First look at the game

jedik77 — 2006-08-22T19:17:37+00:00

Hi there!

Just bought this promising game yesterday, and played with it a little by myself to see how it stands on the table...

About the so many times mentioned colors - well, since my group will probably play with 3 players, I'll suggest we leave orange color, because it is, in my opinion, most "distracting"... If 4th player comes along, I guess we'll have to concentrate a little bit harder. All in all, I think it's not that much of a problem if you like the game. OK, they wanted to pull us in this hot and burned south Italian land...

Do you have some favorite color combination in 3 player game ( or 2 )?

Peace!

Image

cmessenger — 2006-05-02T23:34:57+00:00

Magna Grecia using RR Tycoon roads and blacking out redundant roads

Thread: Re: Magna Grecia

kristopherjwolff — 2006-04-14T16:28:26+00:00

It's one of my personal favorites, but my wife doesn't like it. I would say it's a perfect game, except for one simple, but important, fact (the exact reason my wife hates it): there is a LOT of counting and recounting just to know who's "in the lead". That doesn't really bother me, but it drives my wife nuts. We both love the mechanics of the game; the fact that you "spend" your points is brilliant; like other Colovini games, the switchup of play-order each round is also great; plus, if you like careful resource-management, you should like this game.

Hope this helps!

Thread: Re: Magna Grecia

sodaklady — 2006-04-12T23:12:08+00:00

One of my all-time favorites. As Brad said, the rules have a few twists but once you've played a game or two, I think they make sense. I like tile-laying games and I like games where you can interfere with other players plans, and this one is IT. It even plays pretty well with 2 as long as you don't hang back but play aggressively.

Thread: Re: Magna Grecia

RaDiKal — 2006-04-12T20:28:08+00:00

If you like tile laying games, this is a good fit.

If you don't mind dealing with a non-intuitive rule concept (the actions surrounding the markets), this is a good fit.

The game design is fairly elegant and although the components and physical design of the box insert detract from the functionailty, they certainly don't break the game. The board color is not as harsh in my copy (US .vs. german I think) but the component colors are strong and detract from the overall perception. Remember to retain the empty cardboard frames after you pop out the bits, you'll need them to keep the bits in the insert (poor manufacturing decision).

If you like games you lose which are almost entirely your own fault (little luck), you'll like this game.

Not for casual gamers.

Be sure to grab the player mats from the download section.

Thread: Re: Magna Grecia

Windopaene — 2006-04-12T20:07:23+00:00

It's in my top ten.

That being said, there are a few negatives about it.

1. It is very hard to explain to others. The rules are pretty simple, but there are quite a few "exceptions" that make it tough to explain.

2. It will take about half of a game before new players will "get it", and many folks are already turned off by that so they won't play a second time. It's also rather a brainburner.

3. It's pretty ugly, and the color choices were horrendous, as weere some of the other artistic design choices.

But other than that, it's the second best "connection" game I know of, only losing out to the supreme elegance that is Through The Desert.

Thread: Magna Grecia

jjloc — 2006-04-12T19:54:03+00:00

I would like to know is this game worth buying, I would like to know from some people who have some experience with this game as I have never played before but looks very interesting.

If I get good reviews will be buying tonight.

Thanks.

Thread: Re: Roads next to Oracle - example error (pg 8)?

DougA — 2006-03-28T02:13:45+00:00

Villages -

Just looked at the same situation for Villages and it seems that it is probably the same for the mid-board Villages.

But, it would seem that with the Green Border Villages, that you are allowed to place roads next to them regardless of anything else.
(Somewhere in the book it mentions that you start by building roads from the green villages.)

BUT, I could be wrong. I can see that maybe they force you to build a City on your starting village before branching out via roads. But I would think if this were the case they would have pointed it out clearly.

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until end?

DougA — 2006-03-28T02:04:19+00:00

goldy wrote:
The best reason to evaulate as you go along is that ties keep influence on whoever has it. So if you never moved the oracle, then when you got to the end if two people had the same number you'd need to try and remember who connected first.
Ah yes, that would be a reason for it! Thank you!

kristopherjwolff wrote:
You evaluate attention after "each move". Otherwise, once you connect to a given oracle, then someone else connects and beats you, there's no way for your original city to regain that oracle's attention.

I think you are agreeing with me, that you change the attention immediately when someone makes an already connected city more important than the one it is currently pointing towards.

Thanks

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until e

kristopherjwolff — 2006-03-28T00:49:15+00:00

You evaluate attention after "each move". Otherwise, once you connect to a given oracle, then someone else connects and beats you, there's no way for your original city to regain that oracle's attention.

As for why you re-evaluate during the game (instead of just at the end of the game), mainly it's so that it's easy to tell who's currently "winning" a given oracle -- then you don't have to recount all the cities each move. Also, in the case that two cities tie for the most importance, you know which got an oracle's attention first (which is the one that scores that oracle's 4-point award).

Thread: Re: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until e

goldy — 2006-03-27T23:02:21+00:00

Okay, I'm going from memory here, but I believe that influence is only evaluated when a new city is connected. The best reason to evaulate as you go along is that ties keep influence on whoever has it. So if you never moved the oracle, then when you got to the end if two people had the same number you'd need to try and remember who connected first.
CSH

Thread: Oracles: Does it really matter who has attention until end?

DougA — 2006-03-27T20:37:00+00:00

The short question is:
What difference does it make which city has the attention of an oracle until the end of the game?

The reason for asking is that the rules are a bit unclear when discussing the timing of when importance is checked and attention moved. But in the end, it seems that it makes no difference until the end of the game when points are scored.

Unless I am missing something, you could simply not even bother indicating which has the attention during the game. The only good it does is to let you know which city has the most attention so you could more easily see what you need to do to take attention away.

Also, going back to the question of when attention is changed, the answer feeds into or stems from the assumption of my above question.

Implied from the example on page 13, attention will change immediately when a city gains more importance than the current city with attention.
The confusion is that the rule itself on page 12 makes it seem that you only check for change of attention when a new city is connected.

I'll assume that my original question above is answered as I assume. If not, then the scoring at game end can be affected.

Thread: Re: Roads next to Oracle - example error (pg 8)?

DougA — 2006-03-27T20:23:23+00:00

Fledermaushaus wrote:
I think So although the first tile is adjacent to the oracle, its adjacency to the opponent's city makes it a legal placement. Just imagine the road being built gradually from the city to the oracle rather than just appearing as a complete road.

Yes, that was the question and answer I was looking for.

The rule as stated: "a road tile may only be placed adjacent to an oracle, when the player has at least on of his roads already connected..." makes it clear that you could not do the above move. The player does NOT have a road already connected so he can't place it.

The ironic part of this is that the answer is actually obvious when you think of the simple and accceptable sitution of a long road connecting to the Oracle.
R R R R O
Duh! You had to place the road next to the Oracle to do this, so the explanation you gave is quite understandable now.

The rule then is actually keeping you from placing a freestanding road next to an oracle out in the middle of nowhere.

Here's a clearer statement of the rule:
"a road tile may only be placed adjacent to an oracle, when the player has at least on of his roads already connected... or is also placed adjacent to any City or one of your road tiles."

Thread: Re: Roads next to Oracle - example error (pg 8)?

Fledermaushaus — 2006-03-27T08:28:55+00:00

I think I see what you're getting at. It is another example of how rules that seem clear to one person can seem wrong to another. You are thinking that the first road cannot be placed because the rules say you can only place a road adjacent to an oracle if you already have at least one of your roads adjacent to that oracle and the player hasn't already got one there. But it is really meaning that you can't just start a road from an oracle, whereas you can start a road from an opponent's city. This is what the first road is doing, so it goes from the city to the oracle and then the second tile goes from the oracle out the other side. So although the first tile is adjacent to the oracle, its adjacency to the opponent's city makes it a legal placement. Just imagine the road being built gradually from the city to the oracle rather than just appearing as a complete road.

Thread: Re: Roads next to Oracle - example error (pg 8)?

RPardoe — 2006-03-27T04:25:54+00:00

The examples assumes that the Brown City already exists on the board; therefore, brown can build roads from this city.

In other words, the examples looks only at valid road placements given the city/oracle condition depicted on the board. It is not looking at a combination of road-city-road placement.

(Edit - the above was written concerning the 2 Brown roads in the lower left of Example F. If as Steve/Jackie point out below, the questions concerns the 2 roads around the oracle (upper right) - I agree with S/J's response. The road build sequence is first a road connecting the yellow city to the Oracle, then another road connecting the Oracle to the village.)

Thread: Roads next to Oracle - example error (pg 8)?

DougA — 2006-03-27T02:36:46+00:00

Roads can only be placed next to Oracles and Villages if you have a road already connected to it.

But, in Example F on page 8, it shows Brown placing one next to a city which is OK, but it also places the road adjacent to an Oracle/Village.

And then it immediately places another road on the other side of the Oracle/Village - which is ok once the original road is placed.

But I'm confused how it is OK to place that first Road?
I thought maybe it had something to do with the 'double expansion' as they describe for City placement, but no, that doesn't work. Or maybe because placing it next to the city takes precedence over the Oracle?

Doug A
Confused in California

Thread: Re: Timing of oracle checks

kristopherjwolff — 2006-03-03T16:55:27+00:00

Ah, I suppose it was implied since you seemed focused on actions on the left-most city.

Alrighty, in that case, I agree with the previous post: re-evaluate Oracles' attention after every tile-placement.

Thread: Re: Timing of oracle checks

ekted — 2006-03-02T18:08:29+00:00

I don't think you are understanding my example. At no point did I mention connecting the 2 cities to each other.

Thread: Re: Timing of oracle checks

kristopherjwolff — 2006-03-02T16:15:58+00:00

But wait... You started like this:
ekted wrote:
5---O+--5
...and your cities were NOT already connected...

Then you connected your 'left' city to something else...
ekted wrote:
6--+O---5

...and still your city and your opponent's are not connected.

So, if you connect your two cities that's an additional connection for EACH of those cities, so it should be like this:

7--+O---6

...and you're STILL in the lead. I don't see the problem...