Game: Vinci

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

cymric — 2008-08-22T22:06:21+00:00

ratbulogg wrote:
1) Vinci as a race game is a specious analogy. This analogy can be applied to ANY game where players score points during the game...
I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. The analogy in the way I meant it---comparing to an F1 race---cannot be applied to any game where players score points along the way, it can only be applied to games where the point goal is known in advance. In a genuine race, you must position yourself for a final sprint at a specific time and still keep ahead of the others. In the 'fake' race, only the keeping ahead is important. The random endgame variants in whatever form, including your own suggestion below, cause a change in aspect. As I stated earlier, to each his own, but I still believe you're throwing away the baby with the bathwater if you do so.

2) The best way to play is open victory points until a player reaches 70 points, then hidden (and if you can memorrize the scores, make it 60). So you KINDA know how people stand.. the game according to published rules degenerates because with 2 or 3 turns to go, everything can be calculated, making these 2 or 3 turns last 1/2 hour each. Unacceptable. And let's not forget poor player going last: you know it is the last turn. You are palyer 2. do you knock player 1? no! his score is fixed! then player 3 knocks players 4 and 5 because he cannot harm palyers 1 and 2. So the last player gets utterly slammed by everyone else.
I utterly disagree---which should come to no surprise. I've already explained the underlying aspect shift, that's one.

Two: you assume everything can be calculated with still two or three turns to go. You must be playing with human computers instead of guesstimating humans. I can only calculate my own turn, and perhaps that of the player coming after me. Two or three full turns are impossible. I'm willing to admit that my mental skills may not be as good as yours, but in that case I'm quite sure that you described a group-related problem rather than a game-related one. Or, phrased another way, this particular game brings out some nasty aspects of the group---the group should change its ways or not be playing this title. This is not meant in a derogatory fashion, by the way: I have similar experiences with Die Händler von Genua which just never 'clicks' with my group owing to their predominant mode of play. It is simply one of those things which seem to happen from time to time.

Three: your reasoning of which player knocks whom is naive. You knock whomever gives yourself the most points in the end. Comparing point totals is not sufficient with Vinci. If there's any arguing about compensation of whomever goes last, it should be in making sure that everyone gets the same amount of turns. (Right now, that is not the case---and I suspect the game's end is placed so far away because only then the relative difference between n and n+1 rounds becomes small enough to be neglegible.) Compare this to Java at 4 players, where the last player truly gets screwed because it is impossible for him to achieve a majority in any of the citadels.

3) the random end ala evo is annoying, and is the reason I stopped playing Evo. It kept happening that I was leading at the time the game 'should have ended' but sinc ethe game 'went too long' I got eclipsed by people who were clearly bidding too much for stuff, and thier stuff caused them to pull ahead.
Sounds to me like you missed out on the correct strategy: since you now don't know when the game will end exactly, you keep on playing at your best. I find it intriguiging to notice that you used Vinci-tactics in Evo, and are now advocating at least a partial instatement of Evo-tactics in Vinci!

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

perfalbion — 2008-08-22T21:39:17+00:00

ratbulogg wrote:
Wow, I know half the people on this thread!
1) Vinci as a race game is a specious analogy. This analogy can be applied to ANY game where players score points during the game...

Depends on how you define "race game." I'd define it as a game where the winner is either the first to reach a fixed number of points or the end game is triggered by a player reaching a fixed number of points. Using that definition, TtR isn't a race game, Antike is.

2) The best way to play is open victory points until a player reaches 70 points, then hidden (and if you can memorrize the scores, make it 60). So you KINDA know how people stand.. the game according to published rules degenerates because with 2 or 3 turns to go, everything can be calculated, making these 2 or 3 turns last 1/2 hour each. Unacceptable. And let's not forget poor player going last: you know it is the last turn. You are palyer 2. do you knock player 1? no! his score is fixed! then player 3 knocks players 4 and 5 because he cannot harm palyers 1 and 2. So the last player gets utterly slammed by everyone else.

I don't find that appealing myself. I think there's more than enough strategy involved in figuring out who can do what in their last few turns and acting appropriately. Add memorization and math to it and you bias the result towards someone with a good memory. Why bother? The game works well as printed.

3) the random end ala evo is annoying, and is the reason I stopped playing Evo. It kept happening that I was leading at the time the game 'should have ended' but sinc ethe game 'went too long' I got eclipsed by people who were clearly bidding too much for stuff, and thier stuff caused them to pull ahead.

But the end isn't random at all. It's fixed and you can watch as people approach it. Can someone manipulate their score to prevent the game from ending? Sure. But that's part of the strategy (and it might be either good or bad strategy at that).

The strategy in Vinci (to me) comes from putting your civilizations into decline at the right moment. That's how you maximize your scores and pressure your opponents. If you're finding the game isn't interesting with the victory conditions as they are, it's possible you're trying to milk your civ's for more than you should and are leaving them on map for a turn or two too long.

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

ratbulogg — 2008-08-22T21:15:28+00:00

Wow, I know half the people on this thread!
1) Vinci as a race game is a specious analogy. This analogy can be applied to ANY game where players score points during the game...
2) The best way to play is open victory points until a player reaches 70 points, then hidden (and if you can memorrize the scores, make it 60). So you KINDA know how people stand.. the game according to published rules degenerates because with 2 or 3 turns to go, everything can be calculated, making these 2 or 3 turns last 1/2 hour each. Unacceptable. And let's not forget poor player going last: you know it is the last turn. You are palyer 2. do you knock player 1? no! his score is fixed! then player 3 knocks players 4 and 5 because he cannot harm palyers 1 and 2. So the last player gets utterly slammed by everyone else.
3) the random end ala evo is annoying, and is the reason I stopped playing Evo. It kept happening that I was leading at the time the game 'should have ended' but sinc ethe game 'went too long' I got eclipsed by people who were clearly bidding too much for stuff, and thier stuff caused them to pull ahead.

Sturat

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

docreason — 2008-08-12T16:45:18+00:00

Speaking of making homemade versions. Anyone interested in making a homemade version of Poisson d'Avril?

Can discuss that in this thread here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2548711

This might be of interest to someone who has an unused stained glassed window around.

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

larienna — 2008-08-12T16:03:01+00:00

I have tried doing some black and white components and writting the readme/rule book. I'll eventually create a web page for this game but right now the files can be found here:

The black and white cards:

http://ariel.bdeb.qc.ca/~ericp/boardgame/pdf/Vinci_CardsBW.p...

The readme can be found here:

http://ariel.bdeb.qc.ca/~ericp/boardgame/pdf/Vinci_Readme.pd...

The maps will be added before the end of the week (I hope).

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

larienna — 2008-08-12T02:54:26+00:00

I have made some updates on the maps and cards. But I'll probably print them soon in Black and white for playtesting.

Here is the new map.

]]>

Some textures are lighter. The mines and ports now have a texture. I tried changing the shoal borders on the island on the bottom right but it's a pain to do so I am not sure If I am going to do it to every map. Right now, there is only 1 map part left to do.

The text box of the cards are lighter to view the text better. I am now testing sans-serif fonts for the cards, but the shot bellow have the old font. Bellow, you can see the new god cards with the reshuffle the deck cards.

]]>

I have tought of 3 different ways to play the god cards which will probably be the choice group of players:

1- When you pick a civ, pick 1 of the 3 gods available (counter balance the luck factor of civ card combinations)

2- You are a god, keep the god card until the end of the game.

3- Each civilisation had a god of it's own like in the 3 card variant.

Probably I could test the game this week-end. 1 or 2 playtest would be enough. If people are interested, I could release the black and white printout on the net.

Thread: Re: Religion tile?

Hieken — 2008-08-07T07:37:39+00:00

Great idea and seems logical. A civ in decline may be a decadent, hopeless or otherwise perspective-less people that is seeking a future. Religion attracts them.
So let's say:
Religion enables you to pick each round one population token from a declining civ off a province adjacent to one of yours (by converting). This would be like "Medicine" but instead of just getting one pawn each round, another civ looses one.

Thread: Re: New civ tiles?

Phil Fleischmann — 2008-08-06T23:28:16+00:00

How 'bout:

Strategy - The first time each other player attacks you, it costs +2 tokens.

So it's sort of like Fortification, but it only works in one area per other player's turn. Hmmm... Maybe that's too powerful. Maybe it should only be +1 token on the first attack against you. That way it's like Fort, but you don't have to specify which area gets the fort, but only the first one counts for each player.

Or maybe a defensive version of the Field General - you get extra tokens to distribute at the end of your turn, but you can't use them to expand with.

How 'bout this for Trade: +1 point for each Active Civilization you share a border with. (If you also have Astronomy, you can trade across seas.)

Here's another, I'm not sure what to call Culture/Art/Philosophy? something like that - +2 points for each "complete set" of area colors you have, one each of plain, pasture, hills, forest, and mountain. Maybe it should be +3 points? Maybe call it "Well Rounded," "Robust," "Wealth".

Thread: Re: Religion tile?

Phil Fleischmann — 2008-08-06T23:14:25+00:00

Hieken wrote:
Or how about this: Religion enables you to steal each round one population token from another player off a province adjacent to one of yours (by converting). This would be like "Medicine" but instead of just getting one pawn each round, another player thus looses one. So one may only steal a token from a province where there are at least two tokens.
Not bad! This should only happen at the *beginning* of the religion player's turn, of course, otherwise, you just weaken the other player to the benefit of one's opponents.

But this still might be too powerful, since players will be motivated to not leave multiple tokens in a region next to yours, which makes them easier to attack. Can you take a token from a region with two, and then attack the same region once it only has one? That doesn't seem fair, not very "religion-y".

Here's a thought: Instead, you can only convert tokens in decline. A civ in decline is in need of religion anyway. You pick up one "declining" token and convert it to your color, leaving that region empty, which you can then take over normally. And you do this once per turn.

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

Phil Fleischmann — 2008-08-06T22:38:12+00:00

While I've never pursued the idea of making my own set, I had thought about changing the board. My idea wasn't to make a modular board, but was to make different maps of different areas. Instead of the map of Europe, perhaps a map of Africa, or North America, or wherever you like. With sufficient ambition, one could do some research into the terrain types in different regions and make "realistic" maps.

And in some areas a different mix of civilization tiles might be appropriate, perhaps with some brand new ones.

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

larienna — 2008-08-06T22:20:15+00:00

I'm a little confused about your cards. The original game uses tiles. Aren't these placed in regions on the board during play? Will cards be too large?

That is the biggest change. I will use cards instead of tokens. because there is no really a need to keep to tokens on the board. Most people keep the tokens with them last time we played.

There are few abilities which are used in reaction to other players action, like militia, which has been removed. Else, fortification will use tokens of their own the board so it will be easy to see that there is something special about that territory.

There will be a small player sheet with some information and locations to place the cards of the active and declining civilisation.

I like how you have differentiated the anchor and pickaxe better than in the original.

There is 2 version of vinci and the 2nd version of the board surround the anchor and pickaxe.

What application are you using for drawing?

Basically, I am using corel draw 7, but I also use paintshop pro 7 to make the textures. The artwork on the cards are not with paint shop pro. The technical aspect is handled by corel draw.

Here are other suggestions from one of my friend:

- Use a non-serif font for the cards text.
- Have a paler or whiter text box to make text clearer.
- Add a paler line around the cost to make it clearer that the shoals and province is the same area.
- Use paler textures on the map (probably the forest and mountain)

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

ekted — 2008-08-06T06:46:22+00:00

I like how you have differentiated the anchor and pickaxe better than in the original. What application are you using for drawing?

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

garygarison — 2008-08-06T03:28:02+00:00

I'm a little confused about your cards. The original game uses tiles. Aren't these placed in regions on the board during play? Will cards be too large?

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

larienna — 2008-08-06T02:56:51+00:00

I have some sample of the maps and the cards. If everything goes well, It might be ready next week. I am not sure if I'll playtest even if I only done slight modifications. I'll think about it.

The series of picture below shows the process to make a map board.

]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>
]]>

The maps looks acceptable. The province border are thinker when converted to JPG. I like it like that so I'll probably thicken my borders. I don't know how I could enhance the map. The port and mining icons does not look so good so might try adding a texture on the background.

The maps are tilable with each other and they each have the same number of territories so that when you combine 4 maps you get 44 provinces ( the original game had 45). Here are other map samples:

]]>
]]>

I have started to work on the card. Right now there is only the civilisation trait cards and there is only the icon in the circle missing. I also made the text description bilingual since most abilities did not use much text. In the summary on the header of the cards, I might change these key words for icon to make it independant to language. Here are some samples

]]>

I'll need to make the god cards and the "reshuffle the deck" cards. The cards will be printed in 2 copies, but I am not sure yet for the gods. Can 2 civilisation worship the same god? probably yes. Having 2 reshuffle the deck cards will make deck reshuffle much more often.

That's it for now, do you have any comment?
Does the artwork look like a professional game (or almost)?
Is it acceptable?

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

wargamer66 — 2008-07-27T16:23:15+00:00

We play with open scoring, and don't allow "teleportation" of all the disks. Where your civ comes on, there it stays. We also use a variant where the first player is the last to pick his or her civ.

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

larienna — 2008-07-26T21:46:22+00:00

Since I am going to make a modular board, I will need to place the civilisation bidding and scoring track off board on another chart.

I might take a chance to simplify some exception rules and modifiy a few weak special abilities. Or maybe even add new ones. This could make an unofficial 3rd edition.

On BGG there is a suggestion for 3 cards civilisation.

But I had another Idea where the civilisations's 3rd card would be a god, deity or mythoy (ex: God of war, agriculture, etc) inspired from greek mythology.

The goal of the god is that it's a 1 time use ability which cannot be used on the first round you invade. So it can incite you to at least stay in play 1 turn before declining your civilisation.

If I ever finish the print-outs, I'll post it on BGG.

I've not even played Vinci yet

The most surprising element of that game is the combat mechanics. Vinci becomes a war game playable by non-gamers.

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

garygarison — 2008-07-21T08:26:19+00:00

I've not even played Vinci yet, but I'm convinced making a DIY version would be worth the time. Because as you mention, this wouldn't be a difficult one to construct. Consider using peel and stick vinyl flooring available at the dollar store for board and game tiles. Just print images on standard card stock and affix to the vinyl flooring. This stuff cuts easily with an xacto knife -- just score, snap, and finish the cut on the opposite side.

For player pieces, I plan on using old wooden Risk cubes. These are by far my most useful generic game bits.

Thread: Re: Making a homemade version

arielle — 2008-07-20T06:27:27+00:00

I have never played the game but I think that if you have a fun time making the game then it is worth it. Good luck with whatever you decide to do!

Thread: Making a homemade version

larienna — 2008-07-20T05:29:48+00:00

I have just played vinci and I said to myself that I could make an homemade version of that game. The componets are pretty simple:

Player's token: Une bingo chips of 7 different colors.
Civilisation tiles: Print on cards(with description) instead of tiles.
Decay tiles: Either a 8th type of bingo chip, or glass bead, etc.
Board: Personally, I would have made a modular 4 part baord that I could reconfigure to change the map from game to game.

What do you think, does it worth the effort since it's not available anymore?

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-27T20:55:55+00:00

tile explanation card, front and back

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-27T20:54:25+00:00

map key

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-27T20:52:40+00:00

blue tiles confer special abilities

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-27T20:51:49+00:00

pink tiles affect attacks

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-27T20:50:49+00:00

yellow tiles affect victory points

Image

Rokkr — 2008-06-27T20:49:41+00:00

rule book cover

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

ekted — 2008-06-26T23:21:04+00:00

cymric wrote:
Personally, I feel that the reason for doing things like the rules say is simply to be as consistent as possible within the framework of the two choices offered to each player on their turn: extend an existing civ, or put it into decline and choose a new civ. Everyone's turn at the beginning is essentially the latter option, and since there's no civilisation to put into decline, all you do is select a new one. Your turn is then over. This way, no special rules are required for the first round.
That's a great way to look at it. I think I'll use that next I time I teach Vinci.

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

cymric — 2008-06-26T22:20:26+00:00

Personally, I feel that the reason for doing things like the rules say is simply to be as consistent as possible within the framework of the two choices offered to each player on their turn: extend an existing civ, or put it into decline and choose a new civ. Everyone's turn at the beginning is essentially the latter option: because there's no civilisation to put into decline, all you do is select a new one. Your turn is then over. This way, no special rules are required for the first round.

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

DaveD — 2008-06-26T16:40:50+00:00

eker wrote:
cymric wrote:
eker wrote:
The starting player chooses a civ. (2 counters) He starts from an edge and conquers land. Count his score. Distribute his units as he want.
Wrong. You all choose civs first. Only then does conquering begin. You do not, as you play, choose a civ and then immediately begin subjugation of Europe.

That is way we have played it for years -maybe you are right.

-But I cannot really see the difference in practice. You all pick the civ you want, and start to conquer where you want. Either way you play it - the gameboard will look exactly the same after first turn.

(And I am talking about first turn only - not later in the game when decline starts).

We did make this mistake for some time and it is probably true that in most cases it makes no difference, but it possibly could. If you go first and immediately invade the board, you can't be absolutely sure about what civilisations are coming after you. If everybody has already picked then you can base your decision on where you start based on this information for example if you know that someone to play later wants a particular terrain type you might choose to avoid that type.

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

D-Rider — 2008-06-26T16:39:28+00:00

eker wrote:

-But I cannot really see the difference in practice. You all pick the civ you want, and start to conquer where you want. Either way you play it - the gameboard will look exactly the same after first turn.

(And I am talking about first turn only - not later in the game when decline starts).

There can be a difference if a player picks a civ with Rebirth as their first civ, goes into decline after just one turn, and picks their second civ before other players have had a chance to pick their first civ yet. This means that second civ is no longer available for the other players to select from and play as their first civ, which will cause the board to look different after everyone has taken one turn. This is not a very likely scenario but it could happen...

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

eker — 2008-06-26T16:12:27+00:00

cymric wrote:
eker wrote:
The starting player chooses a civ. (2 counters) He starts from an edge and conquers land. Count his score. Distribute his units as he want.
Wrong. You all choose civs first. Only then does conquering begin. You do not, as you play, choose a civ and then immediately begin subjugation of Europe.

That is way we have played it for years -maybe you are right.

-But I cannot really see the difference in practice. You all pick the civ you want, and start to conquer where you want. Either way you play it - the gameboard will look exactly the same after first turn.

(And I am talking about first turn only - not later in the game when decline starts).

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

uiek — 2008-06-25T15:11:38+00:00

Thank you all. I hope that now I'll be able to play.

I am going to test it on Friday

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

cymric — 2008-06-24T21:39:31+00:00

eker wrote:
The starting player chooses a civ. (2 counters) He starts from an edge and conquers land. Count his score. Distribute his units as he want.
Wrong. You all choose civs first. Only then does conquering begin. You do not, as you play, choose a civ and then immediately begin subjugation of Europe.

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

ekted — 2008-06-24T21:06:20+00:00

smtudor wrote:
The defender, however, does lose his token(s) if the province is conquered.
The defender lose 1 unit permanently each time one of his provinces is taken over. The rest are kept in front of him until the end of the current players turn, at which time he can distribute them onto already-controlled provinces.

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

eker — 2008-06-24T20:58:03+00:00

The starting player chooses a civ. (2 counters)
He starts from an edge and conquers land.
Count his score.
Distribute his units as he want.

Next.

Next player does the same.

Coming back to starting player in next round:
He picks up all his units - except one in each territory. (well, you may, but...)
Use his units to expand.
Count his score.
Distribute his units as he want.

Next.

Next player does the same.

At some point you will not gain more territory.
You declare decline.
Remove all units except one in each territory.
Mark them with decline counter.
Count your score-
Pick a new civ.

As an attacker you never loose units - but defender does.

Thread: Re: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

smtudor — 2008-06-24T20:49:36+00:00

At the start of the game, all the non-mountain provinces are occupied by brown neutral tokens (representing indigenous tribes). The starting player chooses a province bordering the board edge (or just one ocean space away from the board edge) and conquers it immediately by paying the cost.

Attacking a province has its cost (2 per province + 1 for each defending token + 1 if mountain or forest, etc.), but the attacker never "loses" tokens - they get placed in the conquered province, and can then be redistributed at the end of that player's turn. The defender, however, does lose his token(s) if the province is conquered.

Thread: Beginning of the game and conquering provinces

uiek — 2008-06-24T20:23:47+00:00

After reading the game rules several times I still have two questions:

1. How does the beginning looks like? All players choose their starting civilization and what is next - do all player choose their starting province and then they start to conquer the Europe? Or maybe player can conquer during the same turn in which he puts his bits on the board?

2. Conquering - to conquer a certain province I must use some of my "people". But do I loose them (I pay for the conquering) or I must put them in the conquered province (and at the end of my tur I can freely distribute all my bits).

Pleas help, because I want to try it as fast as possible.

Thread: Re: The End Game

cymric — 2008-06-21T20:15:14+00:00

No other options, but in my humble opinion, any 'fixing' of the endgame ruins the careful jockeying for the home stretch in the end, and relegates the game to an excercise in point hoarding which just goes on and on for some time. In any real life race, we don't throw dice within sight of the finish line either, the very idea is ridiculous. And if players all of a sudden hit on the leader near the end, the game explainer should step in and point out that such group behaviour is extremely childish, and that more timely actions to reel someone in are required in the future. Everyone knows when the game ends, and it's not like noone saw it coming that a player leading by a comfortable margin for a long time would win unless kept in check.

Vinci needs some 'steering' so to speak, and in games where such steering is neglected, it breaks down and kludges are proposed to 'fix' the game. And that when in fact it is the group's behaviour that really needs 'fixing'.

But I digress. Excuse my little rant.

Thread: Re: The End Game

NickDanger42 — 2008-06-21T19:45:11+00:00

Hidden VP's have one flaw IMO... It benefits someone who has good memory skills.
After all you still need to count the VP's at the end of each turn, and so if you have good memory skills, you would have a good idea of who is ahead.

In the game I just played last week, we had the end game problem...
the finish line was there, we could all see who would pass it. There was very little we could do to alter it and in fact it came out just like that.

The d6 end game will be what I'll be pitching for next time.

Image

chezzilla — 2008-06-16T22:14:53+00:00

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

waddball — 2008-06-11T14:38:12+00:00

DarrellKH wrote:
But what's the consensus on score-keeping? Open, or hidden?
I've played open mostly, but the issues there are well-documented and real. We tried hidden once, which was decent (no one is a hardcore counter). We also tried the random ending variant (once you hit the threshold, you roll a die after each turn to see if it's the final one, so you can't know the exact end), and I liked that OK, but I prefer hidden (less fuss, more predictable).

There's no perfect solution. It's Vinci's biggest flaw (well, that and the ruling that you can pick up all your discs and re-enter the board from anywhere).

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

Harald — 2008-06-11T13:12:17+00:00

DarrellKH wrote:
But what's the consensus on score-keeping? Open, or hidden?

Open of course. That is what the track around the board is for.

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

smtudor — 2008-06-11T12:08:24+00:00

Awesome... I just scored an unpunched copy of Vinci on eBay, so this review is music to my ears

I have heard nothing but praise for this game on BGG. It's confusing (and kind of annoying) that Vinci has sat OOP for so long. Descartes should sell the rights to another publisher if they aren't going to do another printing.

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

DarrellKH — 2008-06-11T11:59:45+00:00

But what's the consensus on score-keeping? Open, or hidden?

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

dcjackso — 2008-06-11T10:34:06+00:00

Great review! I wish I could play this game more often--the more you play it and the more you think about it, the cooler it gets.

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

windmill88 — 2008-06-11T04:31:24+00:00

I absolutely agree ... great game!

We use hidden victory points to prevent the Kingmaker aspect. At the end of a turn we hand out poker chips that we stick under a player's cup.

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

mwdalrymple — 2008-06-11T02:57:48+00:00

My buddy picked this up 5 or 6 years ago. Such a simple (but great) game! Lots of great choices to be made during play

Thread: Re: A True Classic?

Samuraicat — 2008-06-11T00:26:57+00:00

Excellent review! I wrote a very similar article here (http://www.charcon.org/forum/showthread.php?t=97), recently. We are obviously of similar opinions when it comes to Vinci. Here is how I ended the piece:

And possibly the worst thing about Vinci is that it is out of print! If someone were to reprint this game I would undoubtedly add it to my collection. Someone at the table suggested that Vinci is a modern classic in the board gaming hobby, something with which I wholeheartedly agree.

Thread: A True Classic?

Dweeb — 2008-06-10T21:32:24+00:00

Vinci (Descartes/Eurogames, 1999) is sometimes compared to the classic History of the World, a game with which it has some mechanical similarities. But I believe that Vinci deserves the description "classic" in its own right. Vinci saw a lot of play at our local game club when it was first released, as does just about every game. But Vinci has lasted - we still play it regularly now, 9 years later.

The game components are fair, with a perfectly clear stylized map of Europe, wooden tokens in six colors, cardboard tiles and markers, and some player aids. The rules are not really the best I've ever seen, and the designer dealt with a lot of questions when the game was first released. The rules in later editions may be better. There is also a component error in the first edition - one of the "Specialization" tiles should have been "Barbarian". I believe there is also an error on the reference card regarding the "mining" tile.

The mechanics of the game are rather simple. Each player chooses from a set of 6 ranked empires, each of which is defined by a random draw of two tiles. Each of these tiles bestows a special power upon the empire. These pairs of tiles are laid out ahead of time, with a new pair replacing those that are selected. As Empires are selected, those higher in the ranks "slide down", making them cheaper.

One of the more clever mechanics of the game is that if the player does not like the first set of tiles, he can pay VPs to skip over it and choose from any of the 5 other pairs higher in the ranks. Players who later choose the skipped empires gain those VPs, a neat balancing mechanism in a game were the strength of the empires can vary widely.

In addition to the powers, the tiles also grant a certain number of armies to the empire. Cleverly, the tiles that provide fewer armies grant generally stronger powers.

Players begin by spreading their empires on the map, with a specific cost in armies to take each area. On subsequent turns, players can pick up any armies they like from their empire and use those to expand further. Since empires generally only get a fixed number of armies, sooner or later they will run out of steam. The player can decide to forgo the turn's expansion and instead send his empire into "decline" and choose another from the ranks for the next turn. At the end of each turn, players score points for the number of spaces held and for certain bonus provided by the tiles.

While the mechanics of the game are very simple, the choices are very interesting. The different tiles mean that many combinations are possible. Some are stronger than others, and their value also depends on the board position, the phase of the game, and the number of players. Deciding just when to send an empire into decline and choose another is also a big decision, as players may only have one active and one declining empire in play at a time. Declining an empire causes an older declining empire to vanish. Also, it can take a few turns for an empire to expand to its full potential, so starting a new empire late in the game is often unwise. Also, perhaps a very valuable empire is available in the ranks - it might make sense to decline your current empire and grab it before an opponent does so!

As you might imagine, the variable powers and interactions between empires means that the game has extremely high replay value. There are tile combinations we're dreamed of but haven't even seen yet (Field General with Slavery?). There is really no chance of playing the same game twice.

The main complaint about the game regards a marked "Kingmaker" aspect that can arise near the end of the game. Scores are open, and the game ends on a turn when one person reaches a point goal (100 or 120 depending on the number of players). Players who are not in contention to win might feel themselves placed in an uncomfortable position of "choosing the winner". However, players in our group usually decide to try to maximize their own point totals when such a situation arises, and nobody will take them to task if this more "gives the game" to someone. This is not to say that we won't "bash the leader" earlier in the game! Also, some folks have complained about down-time when playing this game, but I don't believe it's any worse than it is in most of the "heavy" euros.

I believe this game has shown itself to be a "true classic" and I recommend it for any gamer's collection.

Thread: Re: Vinci - 1st versus 2nd edition?

eker — 2008-05-24T23:33:40+00:00

2. ed have a better graphic map. - And a different box design.

1. ed have a small error in number of counters. The X2 special is printed twice. It make no sense to draw them together. It is subtituted by another counter. Everything else is the same.

Thread: Vinci - 1st versus 2nd edition?

rsolow — 2008-05-24T23:17:53+00:00

Can anyone tell me the differences between the 2 editions? Were there any changes to the components that would prohibit 1st edition game being played with a downloaded copy of 2nd edition rules?

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

frunkee — 2008-05-19T21:22:35+00:00

Our preferred way to play is to roll a 20 sided die at the end of each turn where the player with the highest score is within 10 of the normal ending score. If the roll is equal to or less than the amount the player's score exceeds the boundary they win. Else it goes another turn.

This means you frequently have a choice whether to push on one turn, or hope the leader doesn't win and make a more effective push the following turn with better odds of ending the game.

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

Devonelle — 2008-05-19T20:44:32+00:00

I'm happy with the way the game plays as is. It's all timing, really. If a leader exists, the leader should be thwarted at every possible turn. [Even when laying down one's first civilization]. I liken the flow of this game more to leap frog than anything else.

The more accustomed to the variations and combos that certain civs give, the more foresight you'll gain in understanding who will really pull ahead on a given turn.

The real question at that time? Do you have what it takes to stop them? Or at least slow them down? Odds are a concerted effort and a little diplomacy can.

Understanding the surge a player can get from certain groupings of civs is very important to understanding this game.

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

discoking7 — 2008-05-19T20:09:43+00:00

I can't agree with that. Sometimes there is an obvious winner, but usually there are several players with a strong possibility of winning. You shouldn't have one player run away with a huge lead.

Thread: Re: Fix for Last Turn Syndrome

Sandy Petersen — 2008-05-14T18:54:51+00:00

No i'm aware of the way the last turn works. Everyone else gets their turn, but the winner is often (not always) quite obvious at this time.

Thread: Re: How to Stop Leader Bashing?

johnclark — 2008-05-14T01:39:52+00:00

You are confusing two things here: "Leader Bashing" and "Kingmaking".

The main complain about Vinci is "Kingmaking", not "Leader Bashing". That is, because the game has a set endpoint, and assuming that 2+ people are in contention in the last round, a player who is out of contention can effectively artibrarily decide who wins the game, simply by who he/she attacks.

"Leader Bashing" is not a problem in games - in fact, it should be encouraged! - but "Kingmaking" IS a problem in games, particularly Vinci, but this is somewhat solved by any of several variable endpoint variants.

Thread: Vinci - A Modern Classic?

Samuraicat — 2008-04-21T16:35:11+00:00

I recently had the pleasure to play Vinci with other members of the Appalachian Gamers. I posted some thoughts on this game and a few other civ-type games on the Charcon site, here:

http://charcon.org/index.php?pageid=hobbynews

Image

Horconboy — 2008-04-21T13:50:03+00:00

Playing Vinvi at CLBSK, April 2008

Thread: Doctor-diplomats start slow, but grow, Grow, GROW

daw65 — 2008-04-20T17:57:05+00:00

Carcassonne ended first, and a bunch of folks from that game left afterwards, just as the others were beginning their pursuit of the cure of the red disease. Of that game, only Jim remained. When Pandemic finished, the four of us joined Jim for a game of Vinci.

Jim won the draw to start the game, and chose a strong civilization, with Mining and Fortifications. He paid 6 VP to get it, but hoped that it would last a long time on the board and collect a bunch of points in that time. Helen looked to expand quickly with a Field General/Port Building civilization, and quickly occupy those ports to get the bonus points. Stiev jumped on the four extra VPs and took Livestock and Slavery. The slavery would make his conquests pay off, but Livestock Breeding wasn't a particularly warlike feature, so it was unclear how much conquest he'd do. Dave then took Agriculture and Mining (and 2 VP) for his civilization. He had a spot on the board in mind where he could get some bonus areas fairly quickly. And Carrie paid 2 VP to pick up Medicine and Diplomacy. The Medicine would require a little patience to grow, but the Diplomacy would make it a bit easier to grow unmolested.

Jim began in Greece and spread his 15 tokens across the Alps and into southern Europe. Then, when Carrie reminded that he only got 9 tokens, he reset, and expanded a little less extensively. Helen began in Scandinavia, and expanded toward Poland and Germany. Stiev entered in northern Russia, along the mountains, and with his slavery he managed to collect 8 VPs to begin, giving him the early lead (and the early target). Dave entered in the southeast, near the Black Sea, and expanded out of the Balkans. Carrie began in Ireland, and grew into Normandy. It was slow going for her, but there weren't many people around her, which gave her some room to slowly grow.

Jim continued to spread through the forested Alps, eventually running into Helen as she grew into central Europe. Stiev also grew toward central Europe, and picked off one of Helen's provinces in the process. Dave expanded one additional space, but it was a mining forest, so meant an additional three points. That pulled him into second place at this point, within 3 VP of Stiev. And Carrie again slowly grew, heading down into Spain.

Jim continued his push north, and took two of Helen's provinces. Helen, reading her Scandinavian runes correctly, decided to put her civilization in decline, and chose one with Agriculture and Revolutionaries. She hoped that the revolutionaries would let her find some fine farmland to practice her agriculture. Stiev continued to hit Helen's old civ, and Dave pushed eastward into Odessa, on the northern shore of the Black Sea. It'd be his last province, as his civ is stretched thin. Carrie completed her push into Spain and Portugal.

At this point Jim decided to decline his civilization. It had a pretty good setup, with forts that would stick around to defend, and with the Mining that continued in a declining civilization. He also saw a nice new combination, and paid 4 VP to take Mountaineering and Weapons. With that he could take mountain spaces and earn points for them, and from them swoop down and attack easily, thanks to the mountain bonus and the Weapons bonus. Helen's revolutionaries spring up in the Balkans, hitting at both Dave and Stiev. In turn, Stiev and Dave both then declined, with Stiev taking Messages and Weapons and paying 4 VP, and Dave taking Livestock Breeding x2. Stiev was looking for the flexibility of Messages plus a nice attack bonus, while Dave wanted the 4 VP available on the Livestock Breeding, and hoped that he could move in, take a couple pastures, and then decline the civ for some nice residual points, since both of the Livestock Breeding traits continued when in decline. Carrie, meanwhile, quietly pushed eastward in France, heading into the Ardennes.

Jim brought in his new civ, entering from the Urals, where he totally wreaked havoc on both Dave's and Stiev's declining empires. Combined with his own declined civ, this move brought him a whopping 18 VPs! Immediately everyone saw him now as a threat to be addressed. Helen took action, expanding into two of Jim's territories (one from the declining civ, and one from the active civ. Stiev was very threatened by Jim, and so brought his new civ on in Turkey, finishing off Dave's declining civilization (?). Dave's Livestock Breeding would be most beneficial in the Polish steppes, so he came in via Scandinavia, taking out some of Helen's declining civ. And Carrie finally became offensive, moving into the Alps and hitting one of Jim's declining civ's provinces.

On Jim's turn, he looked over the board, and seeing the defenses placed around his active civ, he decided to do nothing. It still earned him 12 VP that turn. Helen, for her part, took back an agricultural province from Stiev, to help her Agricultural civ be more productive. Better late than never, Stiev then turned on Jim, and hit his active civilization in the north. Dave quietly expanded into Lithuania, and Carrie came down from the mountains into the Low Countries, taking out two more of Jim's declining civ's provinces.

At this point Jim recognized that his mountains were untenable, and instead took the northern forest spot. Helen decided to go into decline, paying 8 VP to take Medicine and Fortifications. Both civ abilities have shown to be useful, but was it too late for Medicine to perform its magic? Stiev also declined, and took 6 VP while taking Agriculture and Messages. Dave took one more pasture land, which was about as far as it could go. And Carrie took Italy and retook Portugal, which she had abandoned in order to do more damage to Jim's declining civ in previous turns. By this point Carrie's empire was sizeable, but it had grown so slowly that she was well behind on the VP track.

Jim then declined, which ripped up his vanishing initial civ, and he took Livestock Breeding and Port Building, and 2 VP in the process. This was the first time he didn't pay VP for a civ. Helen brought her new civ into northern Norway, immediately hurting Dave's active civ, while Stiev entered his new civ in southern Scandinavia, quickly blocking Helen in. Dave declined his Livestock Breeding x2 civ, as planned, and chose a 2VP civ with Militia and Diplomacy. It was a very defensive civilization, but since we were nearing the end of the game, would that prove more useful and a more offensive civ? And at this point Carrie finally decided to decline her initial civilization, which has a huge portion of Europe, and she paid 4 VP to take a civ with Astronomy and Heritage.

Apparently Turkey is a great place for livestock, because just like others before him, Jim entered his new civ in that area. Helen pushed into the Ukraine, hitting at both Dave's and Jim's declining civs. Stiev expanded down into Germany and France, which took him to 92 points, threatening the 100 point finish line. Dave brings his militia into the Northern Urals, taking three of Stiev's declining civ's provinces, and getting to 84 points himself. And Carrie started in southern Norway, and used her Viking longboats and her Astronomy to head to Germany and France, further punishing Stiev.

Jim just wanted some peace and quiet at this point, and he quietly expanded into Turkey, well out of harms' way. Helen finished the job she started, expanding throughout the Baltic and wiping out the last of both Dave's and Jim's declining empires. And Stiev surprised everyone by going into decline already, after just two turns with his active empire. He chose Militia and Port Building, which had four VPs on it. He finished at 99 VP. That meant there would be one more round, at most. Dave came down through the Balkans, and took out Helen's declining civ, getting him to 90 VP. Carrie brought out her longboats again, and travelled long distances to hit at both Stiev and Jim, and creeping her way to 86 points.

At this point Jim hoped the game would last longer, and planned for such, putting his civ into decline and taking 2 VP with his Port Building/Currency civ. Helen pushed into Finland. Stiev brought his new civ in via the Ural Mountains, aiming at hand hitting Dave's active civ twice. That earned him 2 VP, taking him to 101, which declared this to be the last round. Dave tried to recover, but couldn't. He did take some provinces from Jim's declining civ, but could only get 6 VP, to 96. Really, even without Stiev's attack, Dave would only have gotten to 98. But Carrie continued to push, taking both Finland and Switzerland. Combined with her declining civ (which stuck around nicely, thanks to her Heritage civ), she earned 16 points that round. Adding that to her previous 86, that gave her 102 for the game, and an amazing, come-from-behind win!

This is one we hadn't brought out in a while, the last time being back on June 23, 2006. It was good to get it back out again, even if it did take a long, long time. Alas, that's pretty common for us, and I wish it weren't.

Image

Inkygirl — 2008-03-01T14:12:20+00:00

Setting up

Image

Inkygirl — 2008-03-01T14:09:51+00:00

Iain, Jeff and Reid play Vinci