Game: Bridges of Shangri-La, The

Thread: Re: Is it a filler or a serious contender?

clearclaw — 2007-12-25T00:17:07+00:00

I play and like it as a 90+ minute serious 3 player (only!) game.

Thread: Is it a filler or a serious contender?

Dougmazur — 2007-12-24T19:12:57+00:00

Bridges of Shangri-La is game that slips through the cracks somewhat. The rules are simple and it plays quick enough to act as a filler game or warm up game while waiting for your whole group to arrive, but it also packs a tactical punch which for small groups could play as the main course for the evening.
The game supports 3 or 4 players. While some posters have played and enjoyed 2 player versions of the game, my inclination is that while anything that causes more enjoyment and interest is worthwhile, the feel, tactics and tension of the game will change dramatically. I can not guess at the intended "feel" the designer was aiming for, but I believe more players, add more tension and agonizing choices. In this light, I would reccommend the full complement of 4 players as the optimal number. While the mechanics and choices are simple enough for a young child to participate, the tactics involved will likely make it more appropriate for mature teens and up.

Components:
The box seems a little large for the contents but not overly so.
The artwork on the box is well done with excellent "shelf appeal". The board is also nicely done without the usual scoring/victory point track or tables that detract from the look of a game. The game pieces are simple wooden arches, (representing the bridges that will be used and broken in the game) glass stones (that will mark when a destination has been isolated from the rest of the board), and the student/master chits that form the backbone of the game. Unlike the rest of the artwork, the main playing peices are cartoonish renditions of the several disciplines the students in the game hope to master. I would have prefered artwork to match the rest of the game, but a minor complaint at best.

Rules:
The rules are easy to understand and simple to implement with minimal reference to the game manual even with your first game. The game board is divided into several mountain villages connected by bridges. Beginning players can choose to set the game up with reasonably balanced oppurtunities by assigning their beginning "masters" to villages as specified in the rules. More advanced players will undoubtedly choose to make their own placement of the starting pieces.
master and student pieces are only distinguished by position on the board. First placement in an eligable position is automatically considered the master. Another eligible piece placed on top of the first, is the student. Players may take one of three actions during their turn. Place a single master, (only in villages where one of your masters already exist.) Place 2 students on any two of your existing master tokens, (each master may only have a single student at a time). Or take the students journey to another village, (which will destroy the path they travelled along, as each path/bridge can only be used once). If a village becomes completely isolated, no other actions can be taken in that village. In the end, nearly all the villages are isolated and the player who owns the most masters wins. The object of the game then is to supply your masters with students and then send them elsewhere to become masters in their own right. Students will become masters in new villages if they came from a "stronger" village (in terms of total students and masters) either mastering empty disciplines or taking the place of existing masters in the weaker village. It is possible to move from a weaker village, but as this frequently results in just losing students, it is really only used to burn bridges while you go as a defensive stategy.
While the rules are simple to understand it is not immediately obvious what the best way to implement them is. There is also significant inertia to the game that if you find yourself too far behind it is nearly impossible to catch up late in the game. In reality the game is really an abstract. Their is little that links the way the game is played or feels to the theme. There is no randomization elements in the game and other than who plays first, no luck elements. It is a combination area control, tile placement and hand management game, pretty much in that order. The main twist in the mechanics is the bridge destruction aspect. Each connecting path between villages can only be used once, The key to victory is figuring out when to make the journey. Similarly, while the turn options are limited, there is enough going on to make the choices difficult, and if your party is prone to analysis paralysis, this game might not be your first choice. Strategies and contingencies must be planned and are not immediately intuitive. A few poor choices will haunt you for the rest of the game.

Strategy:
While I have not played it enough to be an authority, it appears beneficial to be able to react to another players action rather than initiate the action. If a player is building strength in a village, you can place students in the same village or in a neighboring one. The first action, allows you to piggy back on the others journey, when they choose to make it, setting up your own masters in a new location without having to make the journey yourself. The second action could allow you to knock out a bridge before they attack. Even though you lose one or more students doing this, they will not be able to journey from that village again and if isolated, lose the usefullness of all the students they recruited.
There is a large advantage to being the last to enter a village. If another player journeys to other villages you have the chance to get there last and take advantage. With more players, the things that can happen before it is your turn again multiply and I think makes it even more critical to react to the situation rather than initiate it. Placing masters is a good way to advance your position without initiating too much, but by themselves may be vulnerable to replacement.

The good:
Simple rules with enough strategy to keep you thinking, engaged and looking for alternate solutions. Plays quick enough (once you've played your first game and your players are not overly prone to analysis paralysis) and well with fewer people that it could be used as a warm up or filler game. Appealing look to the game. Not a lot of bits to lose and relatively easy to improvise spares in case you do.

The bad:
Nothing really ties the game to the theme, so you have to enjoy abstract games. While players can gang up on a leader, there is little oppurtunity for player interaction. The game is unforgiving in a catch up sense, if you get too far behind, you will stay there.

Overall:
I think the abstract nature of the game, makes it more overlooked by the geeks here than it should be. The game is a reasonably solid contender in the area of strategy based games and should have a broader appeal. Perhaps the cartoon chits detract enough or make people think the game will be silly so that it is not brought to the table as much.
I rate it 4 out of 5 for having good replayability and tactical choices but without the awe factor of a really outstanding game.
If you like abstracts, you will like it, get it.
If you like strategy over luck games, pick it up online or ebay.
If your group is a mix of different styles, it is worth getting if you can get a good deal.
If you like a lot of player interaction or someone in your group perpetually over analyzes the situation, maybe you should pass on this one.

Image

Rokkr — 2007-12-06T09:24:50+00:00

the 7 disciplines and the 4 player colors

Image

patrel — 2007-11-04T19:54:58+00:00

Bridges of Shangri-La Uberplay boxfront cropped

Thread: Re: Cities getting Stoned

dcclark — 2007-10-08T20:16:44+00:00

Your group may be like mine. We seem to like strategy games, but they get pushed back by highly thematic games more often than not -- given the choice, Betrayal at House on the Hill or Shadows Over Camelot will win.

Thread: Re: Cities getting Stoned

mtnman69 — 2007-10-08T16:31:53+00:00

My group has only played this once. We enjoyed it, and it was a good strategy game and played well with four players. I've wanted to play it a second time, but it keeps getting pushed back by other titles. I guess it wasn't as big of a hit with the rest of the guys, but it was fun nonetheless.

Thread: Cities getting Stoned

dcclark — 2007-10-08T02:06:29+00:00

I recently saw Bridges of Shangri-La on Tanga at a really good price, and ended up picking it up on a whim. I have previously owned (and traded away) Leo Colovini's "Masons" which, while interesting, felt like it lacked both theme and strategy. Last night, Matt the Squiggly and I popped open the box, read the rules, and sat down for our first game.

A quick rules rundown for those unfamiliar with Bridges: the theme, such as it is, is of wise men representing various clans teaching students and sending them out to spread their teachings throughout new cities. The board consists of a number of cities which are linked together by bridges. Each city has seven symbols, representing the seven types of wise men in Shangri-La. Each player has a number of wise men tokens of each type, in their color. Players take turns doing one of the following: Placing a new "master" of one type or the other in a city, adding two new "students" to cities which already have masters, or invading a city. This last step is really the key to the game: a player cannot place new masters in a city unless that player already has masters in the city. Invasions are the only way to get masters of your color into a city you aren't yet in. A city's strength is based on the total number of masters and students in it. If a stronger city invades a weaker one, students from the invading city can displace masters (and students) of the same type in the weaker city and become masters themselves. A weaker city can also invade a stronger one, in which case it is possible for invading students to be returned to their owners instead.

Once one city has invaded another, the bridge between them is broken. If all of a city's bridges are broken, a small green stone is placed on the city, and nothing more can be done with that city. It was quickly decided that closed-off cities would be referred to as "stoned", in recognition of their settling into eternal peace and enlightenment, at least until they realized that the Fritos truck could no longer make deliveries to their city.

The game ends when all but two cities have been stoned. The winner is the player with the most masters -- not students -- on the board.

Now back to the game. After receiving the box, I was eager to see if my purchase was a good one. Myself and Matt the Squiggly sat down to play a 2-player game, per one of the 2-player variations set down in this forum. We put Stones of the Wise Men on the top three cities and each picked a single color for ourselves.

I won't be giving a blow-by-blow account of the bloodshed which followed, but here is the general sequence of events:

Being new to the game, we didn't know how to place our starting masters well. Instead, we more or less ended up distributing them evenly. Most cities had one master from each of us, similar to the suggested 3- and 4-player beginning setups.

The first few turns focused on the bottom left cities in the board. I successfully built up a few students, and was able to overrun a few of Squiggly's masters. Shortly thereafter, I invaded again from a different direction, totally removing him from the city, and sealing off all escape routes. The city was stoned, my masters celebrated.

For the next several turns, both of us built up strength by defensively placing masters and students. We kept several cities more or less balanced, so that an invasion would be a poor choice. Things came to a head when I fell behind defending one particular city. It was clear that on the next turn, Squiggly would invade and kick two of my masters (with students) out of one city. That was when we discovered the magic of a tactical defeat -- that is, deliberately invading a stronger city. I deliberately used the weaker of these two cities to invade the stronger one. I lost one student in the process, but the invasion totally sealed off the stronger city, stranding two of Squiggly's students and keeping my own masters safe.

The later game consisted of very careful maneuvering from both of us, to avoid being surprised by each other (while trying to surprise the other!). The remaining cities were slowly stoned, generally with equal numbers of masters in each. Every turn involved a lot of careful counting of masters and students.

I ended the game with a few poor choices, leaving the remaining cities largely in Squiggly's control. By a few last minute student placements, I was able to piggyback on an invasion, essentially breaking even.

The final score: Me -- 25, Squiggly -- 22. The difference was almost entirely decided in the early game.

Some things I noticed
Our first game hilighted some interesting aspects of the game.

Tactical defeats: deliberately invading a stronger city can be useful in the bigger picture. While you may take losses during the invasion, you may net a bigger profit by avoiding a disastrous invasion from the larger city. Along those lines...

Stranding students / shortages: Squiggly suffered from a shortage of certain types of masters. This was a direct result of me stranding several of his masters -- with students! -- by invading a city at the right time and removing its last bridge. This essentially gave me some free invasions later on, when he couldn't build up students of certain types in a target city.

Chain reactions: Both Squiggly and I kept trying to set up chain reactions, in which one invasion would leave the invaded city strong enough to invade another immediately. While this seemed like a good strategy, we both were able to foil each other's plans, and such a chain reaction never happened. It seems more likely that you could pull this off with more than 2 players.

Distraction: Shangri-La has a nice aspect which reminds me of Go: the ability to take your opponent's attention away from an attack by building up force in a different part of the board. We both used this to good effect, to distract the opponent from their plans. Being able to do this at the right time can give you just enough breathing room to set up an important maneuver.

It's abstract: No, really. The theme is very, very pasted on. I like a good abstract strategy game. Don't expect this to be anything but that.

Overall, my first game was very enjoyable. Both Squiggly and I had a great deal of fun. Shangri-La does involve a great deal of sitting and thinking very hard, both on your turn and off it. I expect to enjoy many more games... as often as I can convince someone to play it!

Thread: Re: What happens to isolated students?

dcjackso — 2007-07-15T11:18:07+00:00

We also play that they are trapped in the isolated city.

Thread: Re: What happens to isolated students?

clearclaw — 2007-06-20T05:21:09+00:00

I see justification under the rules to do anything but leave them where they are. Anything else would be an addition.

Thread: Re: What happens to isolated students?

coolpapa — 2007-06-20T04:50:28+00:00

I've always played trapped forever, but I could be wrong on that.

Thread: What happens to isolated students?

DavidEl — 2007-06-20T03:09:44+00:00

I've looked through the rules and am apparently missing something. What happens to the students in a town that becomes isolated and receives a Stone of the Wise? Are they trapped forever or do they return to the supply?

David L.

Thread: Re: Wondering about the endgame

Vitriool — 2007-06-18T12:34:09+00:00

For my experience, you play the game too much on safety. If you take some risks and play it very aggressively (making some suicidal moves) you "never" end in such a situation.

The first time we played it (and did not know anything of strategy) we ended in this situation too. Now, everyone wants to take control from the first step. Of course it is possible that we just won't end in the same situation again and avoid it no matter what, but I think it is just a matter of safe/aggressive play.

Thread: Re: When does this game end, exactly?

wmspringer — 2007-06-04T01:36:25+00:00

I have the Uberplay version and it says, as above, that the 12th is a spare and the game ends when the 11th stone is placed, leaving 2 villages without one.

Thread: Re: When does this game end, exactly?

cymric — 2007-05-29T06:55:51+00:00

Thank you kindly for digging up the original Kosmos rules. I'll definitely adhere to those in the future :).

Thread: Re: When does this game end, exactly?

Fledermaushaus — 2007-05-29T06:41:08+00:00

The original edition of the game, by Kosmos states that there are
'11 stones of the wise and one spare stone'(elf Steine der Weisen und ein Ersatzstein).
Further on it says in the Preparation section that 'eleven coloured glass stones ('Stones of the wise')are placed ready next to the board. The twelth stone is only a spare stone'(elf bunte Glassteine ('Steine der Weisen') werden neben dem Spielplan bereit gelegt. Der zwölfte Stein ist nur ein Ersatzstein).
The game ends 'as soon as the last stone of the wise is placed - there are always two villages remaining at the end that do not have 'stones of the wise' on them)' (Das Spiel endet, sobald der letzte Stein der Weisen gelegt wurde - es bleiben immer zwei Dörfer übrig, auf denen am Schluss kein 'Stein der Weisen' liegt).

Whilst I can only guess as to the reason for the difference, if I was a gambling man, I'd bet that it was a translation error!

Thread: When does this game end, exactly?

cymric — 2007-05-28T22:05:34+00:00

This is a silly question, but the answer is ambiguous. When does the game end?

In my Dutch rules (see [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=8750]the PDF in the Files section), the game ends always when the 12th stone is placed on the board, irrespective of the number of players.

In one version of the English rules (see [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/fileinfo.php?fileid=6936]the PDF in the Files section), the game ends when the 12th stone is placed on the board---same as the Dutch ones.

However, in another version of the English rules (see [url=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/1337871#1337871]this contribution in the thread) the game is played with just 11 stones (the 12th being a spare), and therefore ends when the 11th stone is placed on the board, irrespective of the number of players.

Leo Colovini himself, in [url=http://www.spielbox.de/phorum4/read.php4?f=1&i=79578&t=79116&]this thread on Spielbox (it's in English, folks :)), mentions that you play the game with 11 stones too, ending it when you place the 11th of 'em.

I have seen the nasty endgame which results from placing all 12 stones a few times now, and am going to adhere to Colovini's interpretation from now on. In other words, leave one stone in the box, then mark off one or three villages for the 3- resp. 2-player game, and play until what remains has been placed. But I still would like to know the following:

- what does the German Kosmos edition say? (I cannot find a PDF of the German rules, although [url=http://www.poeppelkiste.de/messen/2003/essen/kosmos/kosmos.htm]the site of the Ditts implies that it is 'end at the 11th'.)
- why was the rule changed in the Dutch and at least one English edition? Copied translation error, perhaps? Or is there a deeper reason?

Image

bill_andel — 2007-05-27T13:48:52+00:00

Uberplay edition - rules summary (NOT THE FULL RULES!) on reverse of setup cards

Image

bill_andel — 2007-05-27T13:47:54+00:00

Uberplay edition - suggested setup cards (3 & 4 player)

Image

bill_andel — 2007-05-27T13:46:54+00:00

Uberplay edition - unpunched counter sheet (2 of 2)

Image

bill_andel — 2007-05-27T13:46:03+00:00

Uberplay edition - unpunched counter sheet (1 of 2)

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

TGov — 2007-05-15T22:42:07+00:00

I played this with 2 of my students tonight and we had a good time. It took a while to get the hang of what we were trying to accomplish. The score ended up 25,24,21 so it was pretty close. I think the next game will be even closer now that we know how to build a strategy.

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

Dweeb — 2007-05-15T17:27:11+00:00

cvlw wrote:
I'm not sure how a four-player game would work. I imagine that you'd have to be very careful since there is a apossibility that for every move you made there would be a cost of some sort.

Absolutely. There is also another tactic - plopping down a student in a city that looks like it will soon be attacking so you can "tag along" across the bridge.

A great and underrated game.

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

marioaguila — 2007-05-15T16:05:59+00:00

With 3 or 4 players it is a mixture of patience and hurry. Patience to attack when the destination city can be, after that, be protected from another region. Hurry, because a weak city could cut the bridge before receiving the attack.

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

Drew1365 — 2007-05-15T15:22:35+00:00

cvlw wrote:
I'm not sure how a four-player game would work. I imagine that you'd have to be very careful since there is a apossibility that for every move you made there would be a cost of some sort.

Absolutely. I noticed that when sending students to another city, often I would both lose a Master and gain a Master for a zero-sum result. The trick was in making sure that I had a net gain of at least one, and anyone who tagged along had a net gain of none.

Also, quite often when one city was building up students in preparation for a massive assault . . . er, I mean "re-education effort" . . . on a weaker city, someone from that weaker city would sent a student toward the stronger city, and toward his doom, but thereby knocking out the bridge to protect that weaker city from the assault.

Because there were four of us, I often built up students in the hopes that another player would make the journey, so that I wouldn't have to use a turn to do it myself. In that sense, it felt a bit like a game of "who blinks first." As I say, I rather liked it. (But maybe because I won!)

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

cvlw — 2007-05-15T12:40:31+00:00

I'm not sure how a four-player game would work. I imagine that you'd have to be very careful since there is a apossibility that for every move you made there would be a cost of some sort. For 2-players, this game is actually an intimate affair. It somehow feels much like a duel. If you give it a shot, let me know it goes - I'd be curious to hear another 2-player experience.

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

Drew1365 — 2007-05-15T05:48:17+00:00

We've had one play of Bridges so far . . . 4-player and reception was mixed, I think. I really liked it for what it was, and immediately pegged it as a less chaotic Tongiaki.

As for 2-player Tongiaki, it works just fine without any rule changes at all. It's actually an intensely thinky two-player game as you attempt to puzzle out the optimal moves for sinking your opponents while spreading yourself out. It's a tough game.

I will have to try Bridges as a two player with the variant you suggest.

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

TGov — 2007-05-15T04:13:55+00:00

There are 2 ways to play Tongiaki 2 player. The most popular one involves using a que of different colored ships that you place on the islands in order. This rule was designed by the games designer I believe.

I prefer using the original rules for 2 player. You play it as normal, but you can only advance to islands via sea if the number is 2 or less. This makes for a TON of strategy when planning your moves and taking advantage of royal islands. At first it seems kinda broken, but if you give it a chance you will see a "chess" like element appear in your decisions. It is not for everybody though. 2 player can be a brain burner, while 5 or 6 is chaotic. 3 player is the sweet spot if you ask me :)

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

cvlw — 2007-05-15T03:56:51+00:00

I appreciate your Tongiaki comparison. I also recieved that game recently and have been unable to get it to the table ahead of games like Keythedral Have you played Tongiaki with 2 players? How do you go about it?

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

TGov — 2007-05-15T03:42:19+00:00

Am I the only one that sees this game as Tongiaki's spiritual cousin? Similar movement mechanics with the random "tile" element removed. I am glad to hear that this works well with two. I just picked it up from GOTD and am anxious to test it out :)

Thread: Re: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

marioaguila — 2007-05-15T03:24:49+00:00

I have never played before with only 2. But with 3 and 4 is a fantastic game. I remember Through the desert...
I made an instructional video in Spanish: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/18307

Thread: (2P and general) Be One With Your Strategy

cvlw — 2007-05-15T01:46:43+00:00

Our collection has grown recently from 0 (not counting Risk and chess), eight months ago, to about 60 today, including games like Power Grid, Samurai, La Citta, Goa and other Euro-game shelf classics. We have purposely focused recent acquisitions on these standards in order to have a strong core which our collection would be built around. However, we still get the game that maybe isn’t popping up on the front page of BGG but is recognized as a top-flight experience: Keythedral, Leonardo da Vinci, Carolus Magnus. However, we are most pleased when we get a game that is neither a stalwart nor does it seem to be widely recognized, though it may have decent ratings and so on. Leo Colovini’s The Bridges of Shangri-La has turned out to be this kind of game for us – one where we expected very little except mere confirmation that it was rated solidly. It turns out, though, The Bridges of Shangri-La is more than a worthy addition to a collection which tries to restrict inclusion to the kind of game that will consistently deserve our attention as gamers who appreciate good design and a challenging experience wrapped in a beautiful package. Moreover, for a game not specified for two players, it was doubly pleasing to find that the game works better than well for a pair.

THEME AND ART DESIGN
First, this game is a beautiful game. When I received this game and opened the box it was shipped in the art simply jumps out at you. The box is adorned with rich and vibrant colors that convey a sense of texture as if painted. I deeply appreciated this – I love Eurogames as much as the next person, but have you looked at Caylus or Il Principe recently – faces only a mother could love. The box cleverly depicts the 7 characters of the game with a nice view of the highlands the game takes place in. Similarly, the board is a piece of art itself. It is a work of simplicity – it depicts 13 cities perched on plateaus surrounded by (I think) bottomless drops. Connecting these cities are winding paths. On each city are 7 spaces for each of the characters. That’s it. No scoring track, no draw pile, no money or gold coins. The other components of the game are four sets of 6 of each of the seven characters. There is a bag of jade green counters and, finally, a number of wooden bridges.

]]>

The theme of the game itself is simple and maps nicely to the mechanics – you control aim to make your students into masters by sending them into weaker villages where they may displace other masters and students. The person to have developed the most masters in the game wins. The idea of sending students on journeys feels decently authentic mostly because of the unobtrusive gameplay and beautiful board.

MECHANICS AND RULES
A virtue of Bridges is that it is remarkably simple to learn and play yet opens up space for some strategic thinking. My fiance took this game to a cafe and read and learned the rules in 15 minutes with only a few references to the rules. By the second play, we fully understood the rules.

The game is set up as follows: for two players use all cities except the top three (place counters on these cities to avoid confusion). Between all other cities place a bridge. Next players alternately place one master in a city. Players may share a city but not place the same master. Invariably, you will start off in at least one or two cities on your own.

]]> ]]>

On your turn you may do one of the following: place a master (but only in a city where you already have one of your own masters; place two students; embark on a journey.

That’s it – you’re ready to play the game.

PLAYING THE GAME
The game plays as follows: Bridges is essentially an area majority control game. Once the game is underway you will likely focus on trying to get more masters onto the board. Since you can only place a master where you already have at least one other, and since you can only place students on top of masters, you should already have an eye out for what approaches and moves you want to make. It should be noted that student and master tiles are visually alike – the only way to know the difference (and the only time the difference matters) is when tiles are stacked on top of each other – the top tile is always the student. When students go on journeys, the top tiles are the ones that are sent to the new city. Masters are never moved but they can be removed if students travel to their city and displace them. In this case, the tile revert to the owner’s pool of tiles.

The key aspect to Bridges is timing your student journeys just right. Let’s take an example: in city #4 you have 4 masters each with a student (but there are a total of 6 masters in the city, including your opponent’s [but your opponent has no students]): healer, dragonbreeder, firekeeper and priest. Now let’s say you have access to city #5 where you only have two masters – astrologer and rainmaker –and your opponent has two masters: healer and dragonbreeder. When you make the journey what will happen is that the firekeeper and priest students will settle on their spaces as masters. Your healer and dragonbreeder students displace your opponent’s masters and now your students are the masters. You now control 6 of the 7 spaces in the city. How did this happen? Displacement is determined by which city is the stronger – if the city you are making a journey to has less total tiles (masters and students combined) then students from the journeying city displace the appropriate masters. If the cities are equal then the target city is always the stronger.

When students make a journey, the bridge between the cities is removed effectively removing the chance for anymore movements between the cities. When a city has had all connecting bridges removed due to journeys then that city is closed for the rest of the game and a counter is placed on it to indicate that fact. When the last city has been closed off the game is over.

STRATEGY
As you have noticed, this is a remarkably simple game. When we first opened the box, my fiance and I looked at each other with a degree of scepticism – “that’s it?” Do not be mislead. This game is a 45 minute game that will keep you fully engaged, especially if you have a wily partner. There are a few confounding factors in the strategy of the game.
1. when any player undertakes a journey, ALL students go including any students that belong to your opponent. It can very often be the case that in the process of making a journey you displace one of you own masters in the target city. Your movements require calculation as to the cost of what you gain.
2. so you’ve made a journey from a city with 4 master to a city with 2 master and now you have a total of 4 in each. But...the city above your traveled from city is teeming with your opponent’s masters and students – you are now an easy target. You must be judicious in your timing. Similarly, you can’t wait too long to make any move since a swift thinking opponent can make significant strides in a few moves.
3. there are time when making a journey to a stronger city is to your benefit. Let’s go back to the example above and let’s imagine that you are actually making a journey from #4 to #3 and that you have a student there. This doesn’t seem to make much sense. But let’s say that #4 is connected to #5 in which you do have a strong presence and masters and students in spaces occupied by your opponent in #4. The only thing preventing you from making the move is a difference of 2 tiles. If you make the journey, remember everyone goes, so now 2 students are out of play and #5 is free to make the move.

The above points speak to the fact that there is actually a lot to think about in Bridges. The board is always a shifting landscape of majorities. And, every move counts. What adds to what surprisingly turns out to be a pretty intense experience is that you can do very little per turn but actions can add up. It was surprising to me to be upset over watching my opponent place 2 students when I had just placed one master and realize that I gave her the opportunity to overrun my city. Similarly, watching bridges come down between cities, therefore your opportunity to make a move on your terms, lends the game a sense of urgency that keeps you leaned forward into the board.

WEAKNESSES
While I think there is a decent match between the theme of masters training students who journey to spread their masters’ teaching, there is a corresponding lack of a match between the types of masters and the game. The game could just as easily been about beekeepers, bone readers, tickertape sages, race car afficianados, etc. I need to be careful about this criticism since the idea of the game is strategic placement, not variable player powers, but nonetheless, there wasn’t much to keep me invested in the deeper mythos of the game. In this sense, many will find the theme to be tacked on. A pertinent note for those who like to travel with their games – the box is unnecessarily large. It could have been 1/3 the height very easily as there is a lot of dead air in it once everything is packed away. While others may find some other weaknesses in the game, I don’t see anything that should keep people away.

2-player CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The Bridges of Shangri-la is specified for 3-4 players, but this is truly puzzling. I looked over some threads here. One BGG-er suggested taking on 2 colors. Do not do this – you will find that managing the movements of one color is quite enough. If you play 2 colors your first time around there is a good chance that you will not play the game again – doing so, I easily imagine, is an unnecessarily fatiguing experience. However, we took the advice of dakman and simply left out of play the top three cities. This works so well that it’s hard to believe Colovini didn’t see this himself. Either that or the game plays at such a high level with 3 or 4 that he considered it a waste to recommend it for two. While this is surely a possibility, I am writing this review to let folks know that if you like your games tense and strategic and less than 60 minutes long, you ought to give Bridges a serious look. It has become one of our favorite multiplayer-for-two players in a while.

We currently rate the game an 8 but may revise that upwards upon some more plays.

-c-

Thread: Re: 2-player pairs rejoice! It works!

dcjackso — 2007-05-02T18:56:30+00:00

Good to know! Thanks for posting.

Thread: 2-player pairs rejoice! It works!

cvlw — 2007-05-01T23:05:45+00:00

Today we popped open a recently acquired copy of Leo Colovini’s Bridges Of Shangri-La. As usual, it was only the two of us playing this game. It’s worth mentioning the game is specified for 3-4 players. This is really puzzling. There’s a variant suggested here that goes the route of playing 2 colors each player. Don’t do this! Another variant suggested by dakman here on BGG, the one we used, simply suggests that you play the game as usual omitting the three cities along the top. This works extremely well. Now to be fair, we didn’t’ play the other variant but I think it would detract from the elegance of the game. Moreover, there are enough tough decisions with managing one color that I would fear the game extending it’s welcome in essentially taking on the responsibilities of two players.

First, when you open this game, you will likely have two reactions. 1) Man this is a beautiful board! 2) That’s it? Yep, when I first opened this game and saw the board and the pieces I didn’t think there’d be a lot of game here. But, I was deeply impressed with the board – it is a nice work of art. What’s particularly compelling about it is the absence of the usual trappings – scoring track, spot for money cards, etc. Instead, there are a number of cities with space for 7 pieces in each. These spaces represent the 7 masters each player is responsible for supporting and multiplying.

The theme of the game is that of masters training students and sending them off to spread their teachings in other cities and becoming masters themselves. In a nice twist, when you’ve deemed it appropriate to send them off to another city, the bridge behind them is destroyed. The basics of how it works (I’ll explain this in a full review soon) is that you place a master first in the city of your choice so long as there is space and you later can place an additional identical tile on top of the master. When you choose to send the students in that city off on a journey, only the student tiles are removed and if your city is stronger than the one you’re going to, you will either simply take the spot in the other city if it’s empty, but even sweeter, you will displace your opponent.

What gives this game it’s level of tension is that every city is tethered to at least 2 others if not more. This means that victory over a city can be fleeting for sending your students to another city makes your own weaker. In other words, this game is an interesting take on majority control.

The setup for this game is extremely simple. You open the board, you each place 7 masters, place the bridges, and you’re off. The win victory is that when the last the Master Stone has been place, the person with the most masters on the board wins. Very simple.

All those who play games as a pair should give this a go. We played 2 games back to back and they were really tense. There’s a great deal of tactical decision making here and the depth of the game is surprising given the layout.

The first game had a spread of 6 points, the second game I conceded – I was bested by a wide margin. However, the great thing is that the game stays tight throughout. Even when it opens up, there’s still the opportunity to get back unless there’s obviously only a couple of turns left.

I’ll post a review soon, but we already recommend this game. It’s been a great surprise for us.

-c-

Image

wererat — 2007-04-17T18:22:45+00:00

Bridges of Shangri-La box and components

Thread: Re: Wondering about the endgame

philipms — 2007-04-17T05:59:25+00:00

I played two games, and in the 2nd, the same thing happened. We just ended the game, by calling the last plays a stalemate tie, meaning that both villages had the same # of masters & students combined. I don't know if this is correct by the rules, but it seemed like a simple solution.

Image

JCwid — 2007-04-09T05:48:56+00:00

4-player free choice setup

Image

fractaloon — 2007-02-24T16:50:49+00:00

Inside the box.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant

dakman — 2007-02-23T16:31:36+00:00

I enjoy the suggested variant above and think it plays very well. However, for a shorter, more manageable game simply remove two additional cites from play (for a total of three removed). The designer already intends for the red city to be removed in a three player game and removing two more seems to be about right for a two player game.

After studying the board, I would suggest removing all three across the north side (the side with the snow). For variation, you can try removing any two cities adjacent to the red city or the two directly south of the red city (along the east side). Again, this should make for a well paced two player variant.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant

dakman — 2007-02-23T16:29:35+00:00

GreatWolf wrote:
Actually, I've played this 2-player, just playing double-handed and totalling the scores of my two colors at the end of the game. Interestingly, this works fairly well, because you need to make sure that the students from your one color don't accidentally displace your masters from the other color.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

I agree that this works very well. However, for a shorter, more manageable game simply remove two additional cites from play (for a total of three removed). The designer already intends for the red city to be removed in a three player game and removing two more seems to be about right for a two player game.

After studying the board, I would suggest removing all three across the north side (the side with the snow). For variation, you can try removing any two cities adjacent to the red city or the two directly south of the red city (along the east side). Again, this should make for a well paced two player variant. :D

Thread: Juggernaut

citylife — 2007-02-22T03:24:17+00:00

It was a fine session of bridges. We built on the experience of the first session by adding more strategy and have a much better graps of the mechanics. The bridges of Madison County as we like to call it unfolds like an onion. Mechanics, strategies, and then counter strategies. We are ripping more off it each time. Some games I feel like I understand in 1 or two plays, this one will take some more.

Anyway the winning strategy basically involved moving many students at time. The result was that we ran out of more than one type of master as we sort to move and control on a grander scale but always with the same type of masters. One major area of control was the decider and capitalising on the investment in that spot.

Several trends in our development

a) This time we learnt to piggy back a little more by placing students to take advantage of other groups of students
b) There was some counter tactics where a weaker village would cross to a stronger to burn the bridge and protect itself.
c) There was cooperation between parties so that they could both propagate while not escalating difficult situations.
d) There was less master placement and more student placement.

What we did not do well was

a) protect our large investments from invasion, by force or by cooperation
b) plan the burning of the bridges to take advantage and protect areas of strength
c) diversify in our types of masters, it was quite possible that a player or two may not have had a move at the end which could have resulted in a great benefit for those that did.

The winner scored 26 which was three types of masters plus another good set plus some change. Second was in the 20’s and 3rd at 18, so a vastly improved effort by all, even the Newbie.

Image

IronMoss — 2007-02-15T20:35:27+00:00

Yeti Whisperer Master Tiles

Thread: Re: Yet another error in the Dutch rules

IronMoss — 2007-02-13T19:48:28+00:00

Flyboy Connor wrote:
Hm, I do not think you are correct. The English rules state (and this is literal): "The game ends when the last (twelfth) Stone of the Wise Men is placed on the board (one village in play will be left without a stone)."

There are 13 villages. 12 stones are placed, so 12 villages are disconnected from their neighbours. That automatically means that the 13th will also be disconnected from every other village, so no bridges are remaining.

Just for posterity sake . . .

I just opened my (English version) of the game and played it this past weekend. My version of the rules states . . .

"Stones of the Wise Men - Eleven colored glass stones are placed near the side of the game board. (The 12th stone is a spare stone). In a 3-player game, place one of these atop the unused red village."

Thus, a 4-player game uses 11 stones, and a 3-player game uses 10 (the 11th being placed on the unused red village at start up).

And then for endgame . . .

"The game ends when the last Stone of the Wise Men is placed on the board (Two villages in play will be left without a Stone)."

Thread: Re: regarding ties

IronMoss — 2007-02-13T18:51:23+00:00

For endgame scoring:

"Players count up how many Master tiles they have on the board - whoever has the most is declared the winner. Note: Only Master tiles are counted, not the Students. Ties are broken by the number of villages occupied by the tied players."

We had a game where the Blue and Purple players both had 19 Masters on the board at game end; however, Purple had Masters present in 11 villages, which trumped Blue's 7 villages. Thus, Purple won.

Thread: Parity

citylife — 2007-02-06T21:21:02+00:00

I liked this game. I really did. The nature of once over the bridge. The requirement to duplicate and move and the ability to piggy back on others was great. Most importantly though I think this is a game that comes down to very small margins, and small margins make for exciting gameplay.

I can't even remember the flow of the game but I learnt a number of important lessons. One, you have to economise on moving your students. Hence a first move may be to put two students on an area you have two pieces and then move these to an adajent. If an adjacent has two more of your pieces then four can then be placed in teh next two moves and moved. By this stage the place you moevd four to is particularly strong and can be a base for more large expansions.

Two, it is important to piggyback where possible. If a player has played two different students in one area then if you can get a student in there then do and lets someone else move it for you. Piggybackl wherevere possible.

Three, this is a game of reaction and conflict. it may seem at first glance, or first play to be an optimisation game. But in truth it is a game of conflict with fine margins. As the mid game approaches there will be few opportunities where needs do not conflict. You may better to burn a bridge and deny your opponent the opportunity to move into an area you are vunerale in than build up for the next move

Four, you only have so many moves. Time will run out, and run out in a hurry and it is important that potential is converted into points. Each move may gain you points and deny your opponent points. Jacob should have won this play, but Jason did. In the countup I was responsible for destroying 5 of Jacobs masters and only one of Jasons since we were positioned close together. In this respect Jacob played a little better once we knew the rules but by this time it was too late. In the end our score were 19,18,18 and I'm not sure what.

All in all I loved this game and look forward to some more plays. I am not sure that this won't become a little repetitive down the track. I also agree that it is a calculation game with an advantage to the beginning player. I also think it looks like a Kingmaker game to a degree. But despite these potential negatives it is a very tidy and attractive game and I can't wait to play again.

Thread: Re: Wondering about the endgame

clearclaw — 2006-05-04T23:47:56+00:00

When this happens, both the players involved in the standoff are playing badly and giving control of the game to the third player.

Thread: Re: Yet another error in the Dutch rules

Flyboy Connor — 2006-05-04T16:48:24+00:00

Actually, I have been thinking that it might be a good thing to let the game end with the 10th stone. In that case, the ridiculous build-up at the endgame where nobody wants to move over the last two bridges is avoided.

Thread: Re: Yet another error in the Dutch rules

Flyboy Connor — 2006-05-04T14:20:46+00:00

Hm, I do not think you are correct. The English rules state (and this is literal): "The game ends when the last (twelfth) Stone of the Wise Men is placed on the board (one village in play will be left without a stone)."

There are 13 villages. 12 stones are placed, so 12 villages are disconnected from their neighbours. That automatically means that the 13th will also be disconnected from every other village, so no bridges are remaining.

Thread: Re: Wondering about the endgame

Flyboy Connor — 2006-05-04T14:15:26+00:00

Well, we made lots of pre-emptive journeys, so we recognized that. However, what you describe is exactly what happened in one of the games: two villages, completely filled up, staring at each other. The problem was that each of the villages had one player with a huge interest (at least five disciplines). The one of those two who would move first would be wiped out, handing the big victory to the other one. I had no stake in either of the villages, so I could only watch and wait to see who would win - and it would not be me. Basically, one of these players handed the win to the other player. I do not like such a resolution, and I could do nothing to avoid it.

Thread: Re: Priest symbol

Flyboy Connor — 2006-05-04T09:15:12+00:00

We always call it the "coffee grinder," but prayer wheel seems to be the correct answer.

Thread: Wondering about the endgame

Flyboy Connor — 2006-05-04T09:13:24+00:00

I have played Shangri-La only twice, but in both games at the end a situation arose in which nobody wanted to move to a bordering village, because the first one to move would lose the game. That was because all villages were tied, and moving means being the weaker village, and thus not only losing the students that move, but also weakening "your" village which can be taken over by another neighbour.

So, players started to place students and masters wherever possible, to postpone the need to move. The first one who had no alternative moves left, was the unlucky one.

I found this a very unsatisfying way of concluding the game. During the game, players managed to stay on relatively equal footing, but the last moves, which were forced simply because there was no choice left, decided the game.

Now, I was wondering: does this happen in most games or is it because we do not understand tactics yet?

Also, one of my friends suggested changing the rules so that, in case of a tie when moving, the moving village would be the stronger one instead of the receiving village. In that case, people would be more inclined to move, the game would be faster, and such irritating endgame situations would not arise. Would this work? Has anyone tried this? I assume Colvoni considered this alternative when designing the game and rejected it, but why?

Thread: Yet another error in the Dutch rules

Flyboy Connor — 2006-05-04T09:03:59+00:00

The Dutch rules state that the game ends when the eleventh stone is placed. This, however, is only true for the three-player game. In the four-player game, it is the twelfth stone that ends the game. Again, the English rules are correct. Who the hell does these translations?

Actually, I wonder why the rules do not state that the game ends when all bridges have crumbled. I mean, that IS the case with the placement of the last stone.

Thread: Re: Error in Dutch rules

Flyboy Connor — 2006-04-20T18:26:25+00:00

Exactly. I had to study the rules once more to find that out. It should be so simple to explain this - why do all the rules I have encountered make such a mess of it?

Thread: Error in Dutch rules

Flyboy Connor — 2006-04-19T22:24:49+00:00

The Dutch rules state that when a student travels from a weak to a strong village, he will be removed from the board if he finds a master of a different color on his intended spot. The rules do not state what would happen if he encounters a master of his own color. The English rules are more clear: it does not matter what the color of the encountered master is, the student will be removed. To put it in other words: a travelling student can only become a master; if there is no room for a new master he will be removed (he makes room if he travels from a strong to a weak village).

Thread: Session report Bridges of Shangri La

dedefortin — 2006-03-30T03:51:03+00:00

We were supposed to play AoS for our second game of the night but Martin had to leave for an obscure reason, was it because of his lost in the first game or was it because of the agressive Mario ?. So 4 players were left. Since our last game of Bridges of Shangri-La we all wanted to retry it. We really had a good feedback from our last game.

Pierre had a good start and had a majority in many cities in the east. Mario was the favorite target of Pierre since Mario seemed to be in a good position for the end of the game. Sophie was slow at first but she had a good comeback and was moved several times by Mario.

This game was even better than our last. We move our students early in the game and we didn't wait to have our cities full of student before initiating the travel. Game was extremely close and second place was decided by the number of cities you occupied since there was a tie of 3 players !

Final scoring:
Pierre: 24
Mario: 20 (11 cities)
Laurence: 20 (9 cities)
Sophie: 20 (9 cities)

Thread: Session report Bridges of Shangri -La

dedefortin — 2006-03-03T03:35:58+00:00

It has been a long time since our last game of Shangri-La. Even if we had a good experience with this game many people were afraid to retry it. Bridges of Shanri-La reputation was good but we all know it was a real brain burner. Tonight was the night and Mario, Marc-André, Martin and Pierre seemed ready.

Marc-André started the game in placing many students and he had the initative in many cities and initiated many travels that were very good for him (even if Pierre was transported several times by his moves). Mario then wake up and began his offensive in the north against Martin and Marc-joined him in several places to help him or take profit of him ? During this time Pierre was building in the south and was able to take control of many cities and breaking the brigdes that could threaten him. Martin was left alone in many cities in the center and cruel Mario and Marc had no pity for him.

We really had a very exciting game. It's fun to watch the creation and breaking of the alliances between players. We will retry it soon. Colovini is one of our favorite game designer.

Final score
Mario: 28
Marc-André: 22
Pierre: 21
Martin: 17

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant

GreatWolf — 2005-11-17T18:20:53+00:00

Actually, I've played this 2-player, just playing double-handed and totalling the scores of my two colors at the end of the game. Interestingly, this works fairly well, because you need to make sure that the students from your one color don't accidentally displace your masters from the other color.

Seth Ben-Ezra
Great Wolf

Thread: 2 Player Variant

Hazekel — 2005-11-17T15:35:26+00:00

Has anyone come up with a good two player variant of this game? It looks like one is possible but I haven't come up with anything yet. Please let me know.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant

ropearoni4 — 2005-10-10T13:46:48+00:00

Works fine. Still, a better game with four players. Too bad the board wasn't larger and a 5 or 6 player game could be played.

Thread: Re: 2 Player Variant

ekted — 2005-10-08T19:21:04+00:00

It's been a while since this variant was posted. Any comments from those who have tried it?

Thread: First time on the table

MurWiz — 2005-08-14T14:12:09+00:00

Okay, but no big shakes...

This came out for the first time since I acquired it. None of us had played before. My immediate problem with the game is that there is so much information spread all over the place, and it's difficult to form a plan. Eventually I hit on recounting the apparent points every few turns, to set up to block or attack the leader. That kept me in contention, but it wasn't enough to win it.

We played using the recommended 4-player starting setup so as to avoid floundering around with picking starting spots when we didn't know what we were doing. Nobody seemed to have a big edge early on, but by the middle of the game Karin was falling behind the rest of us. I think she got nailed a few times by what I thought of as the "big ow" play: where you lose not only a master, but a student to an incoming student -- that means you have lost a point, and a turn-and-a-half (one to play a master, and half to play a student on it). Everyone got taken this way at least once, but Karin got it more often.

Final scores: Thom 20, Jeff 19, Paula 19, Karin 15. The general consensus was that this had replay value, but it wasn't going to be a classic.