Game: Marco Polo Expedition

Image

folko — 2007-11-01T20:39:11+00:00

caravan

Thread: Re: What is Kantshou in real life?

Gimli_sk — 2007-09-18T11:16:04+00:00

Lanzhou ... Ganzhou ... It seems that chinese is not a piece of cake
But I think we both means the same town.

Thread: Re: What is Kantshou in real life?

Aurum — 2007-09-17T13:26:08+00:00

It should be 甘州Ganzhou (張掖Zhangye). Marco had lived there for a year before he went to 汗八里Khanbaliq (北京Beijing)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhangye

Image

Tobold — 2007-07-08T13:55:47+00:00

Box Insert

Image

Tobold — 2007-07-08T13:43:37+00:00

The Chests

Image

Tobold — 2007-07-08T13:42:26+00:00

The Caravans

Image

Artax — 2007-06-30T19:47:51+00:00

Image

Artax — 2007-05-28T17:16:12+00:00

Image

petersjs — 2007-03-13T03:13:42+00:00

The five types of cards (each type is available in each of the five colors) and card back.

Thread: Re: Two Player Game

Gimli_sk — 2007-02-19T09:42:45+00:00

No. Each player has only one set of cards for both of his camels. Players only takes two traders cards, only for better determination of camels ownership. May be this is the rule poin, that confuse you.

Leaving one camel behind is not good strategy. Remember, that there is two major gold income during the game (In Kantchou and in Daidu). Player got number of gold depending on numbered possition before Kantchou (Daidu) where his camel(s) stands. Therefore even if your single camel reach Kantchou first and score 6 gold. Opponent can reach spaces numbered 5 and 4 and scoring 9 gold total.

Thread: Two Player Game

monkey8 — 2007-02-18T13:11:09+00:00

I'm a little confused about a two player game. First- I am pretty sure that you have seperate cards for both of your explorers but share tresure chests. Is that right? Also could you mainly just focus on one of your charcters adn leaave the other one sitting in the beggining, i'm not sure if that is a good strategy, but maybe if you couild rush him up to Daidu very fast you could win, while your opponent is focusing on both of his people?

Thanks

Thread: Re: What happens at Kantshou?

ssmooth — 2006-12-09T10:08:18+00:00

Yes, Marc, you're basically right, and I think you've got all the details right.

Thread: Re: What happens at Kantshou?

Windopaene — 2006-12-09T08:39:58+00:00

What happens in Kantshou...

Stays in Kantshou

Thread: What happens at Kantshou?

mperkins — 2006-12-09T07:15:38+00:00

I'm a bit confused regarding the events that take place after scoring Kantshou. The rules say "After the intermediate scoring, the playing pieces on the scoring spaces are placed in Kantshou." This sounds as though you're supposed to remove all pieces that have reached the Kantshou scoring spaces (1-6) and place them in the city area; is that correct? If so, how does play continue?

My best guess is this: The first player to continue (the player to the left of the person who reached Kantshou's #1 spot) only needs to pay the resources required to place in the first location after Kantshou (i.e., one caravan leader), regardless of where they were when the Kantshou scoring took place (as long as they were on one of the numbered spaces). Then, assuming the first player placed their piece, the second player would need to pay to place their piece ahead of the first player (i.e., one caravan leader), and the third player would need to pay to place their piece ahead of the second player (i.e., two of the same goods, assuming both the first and second players placed), and so on. If a player was not in one of the numbered Kantshou scoring spots when Kantshou was scored, then they are required to pay the resources to move to Katnshou's #1 space (as normal), but then are immediately placed into Kantshou (scoring spot #6) and may continue placing as normal from there.

The way I'm reading this, it sounds like this rule allows all the slower players to skip the expensive scoring spots at Kantshou that were in front of them when someone reached Kantshou.

Does this sound right?

Image

William Hunt — 2006-11-26T21:22:19+00:00

Image

William Hunt — 2006-11-26T17:25:14+00:00

Daidu

Image

William Hunt — 2006-11-26T17:14:47+00:00

Thread: Re: Serious "run-away loser" problem

grandslam — 2006-10-18T20:56:31+00:00

We have this game and like it far more than its rating.

I am a thrifty soul when playing games and can say that the runaway loser problem is as bad in Marco Polo as it is in Age of Steam. If you don't spend cards, hoping others will do your dirtywork, you won't keep up. Better in a 45 minute than than a four hour game.

On the other hand, with the two player variant with two camels each (at the end of the rules), leaving one far behind is a viable strategic choice.

Thread: Re: Continuing on to part two after Kantshou scoring

Psauberer — 2006-05-17T10:44:23+00:00

No, we do not wait for lagging players to get to a scoring space. The rules do not say to wait. They do say, "Playing pieces that have not reached Kantschou can only be placed on Kantschou once they have reached one of the value spaces." This clarifies who gets placed on the Kantschou space at the intermediate scoring and is not an instruction to give extra turns to lagging players.

Thread: Re: Continuing on to part two after Kantshou scoring

m_r_tyler — 2006-05-17T05:22:15+00:00

Psauberer wrote:
I don'y understand how turns would be skipped. The player to the left of the one who triggered the scoring would be the next one in regular turn order.

Sounds like you are saying that players do *not* wait for those lagging behind to reach Kantshou.

Turns would be skipped if the players *did* wait. For example, suppose players A, B, C, D, E are playing. Suppose player A reaches Kantshou first and that players B, D, and E are also in one of the scoring positions (1-6). Now, A, B, D, and E are all on Kantshou. Do players A, B, D, and E continue to wait at Kantshou until player C reaches scoring position 1 and teleports to Kantshou? If so, once player C reaches Kantshou, it will immediately become player B's turn, which means that players D, E, and A will have lost a turn.

Thread: Re: Continuing on to part two after Kantshou scoring

Psauberer — 2006-05-17T04:32:41+00:00

I don'y understand how turns would be skipped. The player to the left of the one who triggered the scoring would be the next one in regular turn order.

Thread: Continuing on to part two after Kantshou scoring

m_r_tyler — 2006-05-17T00:03:58+00:00

The rules state that "Play continues to the left of the player who triggered the Kantshou scoring..."

Does play continue immediately after a player reaches Kantshou (and all players in scoring positions are "teleported" to Kantshou), or do players wait (and draw cards in normal clockwise order) at Kantshou until the players not in scoring positions finally reach the first scoring position and "teleport" to Kantshou? If it is the latter, then that means some players turns will be skipped when the player to the left of the Kantshou triggerer starts the second half of the game.

Thanks for your help on this one.

(Sorry for the double post but this seems to be the right place to post this rules question.)

Thread: Re: Scoring at Kantshou?

m_r_tyler — 2006-05-16T15:03:57+00:00

The rules state that "Play continues to the left of the player who triggered the Kantshou scoring..."

Does play continue immediately after a player reaches Kantshou, or do players wait (and draw cards in normal clockwise order) at Kantshou until all players (those not in scoring positions) finally reach the first scoring position and teleport to Kantshou? If it is the latter, then that means some players turns will be skipped when the player to the left of the Kantshou triggerer starts the second half of the game.

Thanks for your help on this one.

Thread: Re: Serious "run-away loser" problem

Dearlove — 2006-04-27T23:16:32+00:00

mevett wrote:
The game suffers from a serious "run-away loser" problem.

That's not a problem, that's the design.

If you are unfortunate enough to fall behind the caravan by two or more spaces, you are probably doomed.

Nothing unfortunate about it, it doesn't happen by accident. You play badly, you lose.

This is might be acceptable for a game intended for adults, but it's pretty hard to tell your 10 year old daughter to "just keep playing" when you know there is absolutely no way they can even come close to getting back into the running.

Most games don't work if played by the wrong audience.

Thread: Re: Language Independent

BeyondMonopoly — 2006-02-25T19:49:09+00:00

Indeed it is... No text on any game components. You'll just need a rules translation or have to make do with the english rules.

Thread: Language Independent

Soledade — 2006-02-25T19:27:06+00:00

Hi you all.
Is this a language independent game?
Thanks.

Thread: Re: What is Kantshou in real life?

Gimli_sk — 2005-12-27T12:00:43+00:00

After looking on Marco Polo´s route map and todays China map I am assuming, that Kantshou could be city named Lanzhou. You can found notices that Lanzhou was a part of Silk road. But it is only my opinion.

Thread: What is Kantshou in real life?

hammiesink — 2005-06-29T23:21:03+00:00

A google search for "kantshou" only brings up links to this game. Anybody know what actual city it is? Strange how the game uses obscure names (i.e. Daidu instead of Khanbalik).

Thread: Session Report Marco Polo

Kalidor — 2005-05-05T13:30:07+00:00

At Mike Z.'s house we got together for a few games. One of which was this Knizia effort. Although this isn't a review, I'll tell you that the game left me a little flat. And I am a Knizia fan.
The players were myself, Mike Z. and Scott.
The game is terrible a paly-by-play description, with players basically laying sets of cards to hop or skip over spots on the board and/or other players. We can fast-foward to the scoring spots I think.
The first stop came and due to some spending of gold to advance over difficult terrain, the score very close, which I am sure is the norm for the first leg of the journey. I lead with 9, Scott and Mike Z. were tied with 8. This HUGE lead, however, put me in a position of fewer cards for the second stretch. I suppose I could have bided my time, and not ended the round, but I was 2 positions back and the 3 point swing was too tempting. It didn't matter, as round 2 began, my foes jumped out to early leads and I lagged behind.
With the game coming to a close, all 3 of us eventually wound up cluttered again near the finish line, Daidu. This is the part of the game I do not really care for. We were all 3 in a row, taking turn after turn, drawing cards to get that last mix of trade goods needed to land on Daidu. This laster several rounds, just drawing, drawing, drawing cards until...whomever was lucky enough...drew the correct mixture and ended the pain.
No real mystery as to who was going to win. No real strategy towards the end. Just drawing and hoping.
I do understand the subtle strategies during the game of hand management. When to spend gold to advance, when to wait for big jumps, etc. The game is NOT a total flop. I just don't think a game of this depth needs to take 60 minutes to play.
Overall, not overly pleased and would only play once in a blue moon ( a much better Knizia game, btw )
Scott was the victor with 19
Mike Z. with 17
Me with a lowly 13 And no, this has nothing to do with how I feel about the game. The feeling was concensus

Thread: Session Report

garrylloyd — 2005-04-13T18:50:21+00:00

We finished off with a new game from the prolific Reiner Knizia, this one based around the journey of Marco Polo from the Mediterranean to China. The game is a card set collection game, whereby to move from one location to the next requires a certain combination of cards. However, if someone is at that location, you can only move to the following location, which requires a different combination of cards. This means you have to try and judge which space you are likely to move to next, but others may not do as you expect. On your turn you either move and pick up a card or pass and pick up a card, and it is likely that people will try to move regularly as, if you get left behind, it can be difficult to catch up (although you can spend a gold chest in order to move an extra space). Certain locations along the way reward the person to land there first with a gold chest and once a person reaches Kantshou, there is a scoring round where gold chests are awarded depending on how close to Kantshou each player is. The same happens when someone reaches Daidu, which also marks the end of the game. The person with the most gold wins.

Our game involved a lot of jostling for position. Unfortunately, John lost touch during the second half of the game and was unable to catch up. I spent too many gold chests trying to keep in contention, whereas Mark K started slowly but timed his moves onto the valuable spaces very well, giving him the win. This struck me as quite an easy game to get into, with plenty of second-guessing what other people were planning to do, but it didn't quite hit the mark with most of us. It worked ok but just seemed a bit processional, with no real chance of catching up if you fell a little bit behind.

Players Result Ratings
Mark K 14 6
Mark G 12 6
Nige 11 7
Garry 11 6
John 9 7

Thread: Re:Comments after one play

Alan Kwan — 2005-02-23T14:18:42+00:00

Dr Murke (#28450),

There are generally several good reasons for moving:

1. Move to jump someone. If you wait, he moves away and you have to play more cards or pay more gold.

2. Move to get a chest.

3. Move from a high-cost space onto a low-cost one (e.g. 2 caravan leaders), so that when others jump you, they benefit less.

4. Move to score more points when on the numbered spaces.

The player in front should move only when he has a good reason (and #1 naturally doesn't apply), but the board is mostly packed with chests, etc. so that there is usually some incentive to move.

Thread: Session Report

Palpatine — 2005-02-20T14:50:42+00:00

This was my wife and my second game of Marco Polo this week. We decided to play the normal two player mode where you could only move one of your caravans per turn.
As she is younger she started in the first and third positions, and I was in the second and fourth positions ( starting from the front ). We began quite slowly, each making sure we got rid of the proper cards early on, as many could fit the bill for the first few spaces. It was slightly further on that you really needed the correct color combos or type. By mid point we both finished in the scoring areas, which is pretty normal for a two player game. Our scores were very close. To begin round two we placed all four caravans on the same space and began leg two of the journey. We noticed several big spaces coming up, including color spaces ( for all five colors ), etc., with a couple of piddly caravan spaces in the way.
II wound up making the first move, and playing enough cards to advance three spaces. the jockeying back and forth was quite even it appeared. I noticed my wife spending one or two more treasures than I had to get even. As it turned out, I had started accumulating four of the same type of cards for the end piece about five turns left in the game. I was hoping to let my wife do the other spaces, so that I could jump over them for the last space, and the big points. I also managed to get the space before the last one as well ( lucky card draw ) and ended the game.

Final score: Peter 27

Wendy 22

Thread: Session Report

Palpatine — 2005-02-20T14:50:42+00:00

This was our second game in as many days. This time my wife and I played the two player’s variant where you could move with either caravan in any order you wished. This was under her suggestion, so I gladly obliged. It sure seemed like a different game. I believe overall it was a little faster, and had more room for tactics. It seemed more tense with regard to card play, whether to hang onto the cards a little longer to advance a larger move in your next turn and leave your opponent further behind, or take the easy path by making shorter moves with a few less cards of the right type. By midpoint it was dead even. It seemed both of us were choosing to advance both of our caravans on the same turn, using on of our caravans to hop over the other, in an effort to get to our final goal.
It is neat to see whether your opponent is choosing not to move and draw cards...most of the time I was thinking, “Please just draw a card...” I am sure she thought the same thing.
We both hovered in the final scoring range, picking up card on our turn and wondering what the other player would do. It was Wendy this time that managed to secure the points for the last two places by advancing her caravans to the end area first.
I think we will be playing this option when we play more two player games of this.
Final score:
Wendy 28
Peter 25

Thread: Session Report

Palpatine — 2005-02-14T03:50:57+00:00

This was the first time I played this game with my wife. Looking for a nice light Sunday diversion, we decided to crack open this game and give it a go. I have the Ravensburger version, which is different from the RG version as far as I know only by the rules set ( multi language in Ravensburger ). I noticed that the English portion of the rules had a few ambiguities that were not present in the German portion of the rules. Also, my start player cards had the same backs as the rest of the other cards, and did not have the summary of symbols printed on their backs.
After explaining the rules to my wife and positioning our two figures each, we began the game.
By mid point, I had a lead of two treasures, but my wife was very close. It is interesting to see what cards your opponent picks up, and also which cards you pick up, wondering if you will get to the next position first, and if you should start saving for the position beyond just in case she gets their first. I wound up spending a few treasures more than she did, and ultimately I think this did me in. We jockeyed back and forth and got quite into the way the game was played. There is a bit of luck of course, and it is hard to have lots of strategy in this game, as it is more tactical, but we enjoyed the ride. By the very end, despite me securing the big points for landing in the final city, my wife won by one point.

Thread: Re:Serious

Palpatine — 2005-02-13T22:57:26+00:00

Propo Pod (#83315),

We haven't run into this either after seven plays...

Thread: Re:Serious

Propo Pod — 2005-02-06T06:56:02+00:00

I just haven't experienced this unless people are simply making poor decisions and wasting cards. The only reason you should be hanging around the back is if you are gathering a bunch of cards. Then you whack your camel on the butt at the right time and take the lead--and hopefully a chest or a good position on the scoring track--with a huge play.

Half the game, to me, is careful timing and careful positioning during the middle and final scoring opportuntiies. Being in the lead is pricey card-wise and the occasional chest reward can sometimes be outweighed by the card expenditure.

Thread: Re:Serious

Numskull — 2005-01-20T03:57:58+00:00

Know ye the perils of not advancing when ye can. Verily, thinking "I shall wait for someone else to occupy that space and then skip ahead" is a recipe for disaster most...uh, disastrous.

My first game had 5 players, and the guy in last at the mid-way point didn't get any gold, but he did a fair bit of redemption later on. Also, the way we understood the midgame catch-up rule, a player jumps to the "6" space after reaching any of the numbered midpoint spaces after the payoff for the people who got there first.

Thread: User Review

i7dealer — 2005-01-19T15:47:56+00:00

I've played this one a few times, but I don't think it'll be showing up much in the future. In a few words, MPE makes for very tense end game play, but the tension is broken by the lucky player who makes the final run.

I won't describe the mechanics in detail, it's been done in several other places. I would rather add some commentary about how the game ends up playing.

On your turn you are supposed to play a set of cards that matches the symbols in the next symbol ahead of you. The requirements get progressively more difficult to fulfill, but there are some that are real doozies, requiring a lot of effort to gather the needed cards. Since any player occupying a space lets people jump over them without paying, you have to gather enough cards to get well past the bad spots or else other people will just jump you and thank you kindly. These spaces are choke points that basically stop the game until a player feels confident enough that they will leave the other players far behind.

There are some really cool bits about this game. I really liked the mechanism where you are rewarded based on your place in the mid scoring zone, and then after getting a score, all those spaces are basically collapsed into a single space (letting people that are behind catch up to the leaders). I like the throwing away a victory point to skip a space if you are behind the leader. But the end game has so far always disappointed.

After a initial movement, a player or two will start to seriously hoard cards until they can make the sequence to advance all the way to the end. I've done it myself, and I've yet to see the hoarder not win the game. To me it gives the tension I experience when playing Gin, in that you have no real clue how close someone is to ending the game until the game is over.

This aspect of the game makes it kind of a crap shoot, see who can meld first. It's gotten so that multiple people do this and make the game suddenly over with a large disparity of scores (the hoarder coming in way ahead of the pack). I enjoyed the first game or two, but the last three I've played have taken on this Gin game feel that makes the people I've talk to say it's not coming out again soon.

Thread: Serious "run-away loser" problem

mevett — 2004-11-24T01:55:42+00:00

I've played a couple times now. The game suffers from a serious "run-away loser" problem. If you are unfortunate enough to fall behind the caravan by two or more spaces, you are probably doomed. The problem is that, yes, you can spend gold to catch up to the rear of the caravan, but gold can quickly run-out, and god help you in that case, because playing multiple sets of cards just to catch up to the rear of the caravan can be extremely daunting. The problem is accentuated by the mid-game pay-out. In our games, we always had one player who was so far behind that they did not receive any gold at the mid-game pay-out, while the leading player gained 6 gold. This virtually guaranteed that the leading player would never fall behind while guaranteeing that the rear player would stay there.

For the players in the front of the caravan, the game is fun and strategic. But for a player siginificantly bvehind, there is no tomorrow. This is might be acceptable for a game intended for adults, but it's pretty hard to tell your 10 year old daughter to "just keep playing" when you know there is absolutely no way they can even come close to getting back into the running.

Thread: Marco Polo Variant

zzini — 2004-10-15T20:51:38+00:00

we like this game a lot as little more than a filler, easy to get almost any one to play, the only thing we didnt like is when the game sometimes drags when every player takes cards for a few rounds (i know veteran players will use their cards more wisely but...) so we used the following variant and liked it, it sped up the game and made some players use more gold and also kind of set up a cat and mouse game of who is in front or behind in the caravan line:

- whenever all the camels are in a row with no empty spaces between them, all players except the camel that is in front may jump out 2 spaces ahead of the leader by playing the correct card combination for that space (this will leave 1 space between the camel that is now in front and the camel that was in front at the start of the current turn). as in the original rules you may not trade in chests to move out in front of all the other camels. if there is one gap in the line of camels at the start of a players turn, they may move to that space (as long as it is ahead of them) by card play or trading in chests, thereby filling the gap in the line, and then use cards to move out in front of the current first camel by 2 spaces by playing cards.

one player suggested letting the last place camel (in a 4 player game) jump out 3 spaces ahead (leaving 2 empty spaces) but most felt that too extreme

Thread: Re:Gold chests recycled

groovylemon — 2004-10-02T01:34:53+00:00

skeletodoc (#57155
Thats nothing, check out the camels in the game Karawane (1990) by Ravensburger. Deja vu, man.

Thread: Re:Gold chests recycled

bonkheadmom — 2004-10-01T05:09:46+00:00

skeletodoc (#57155),

I noticed!!!!!
You're exactly right.

Thread: Gold chests recycled

skeletodoc — 2004-09-30T02:36:27+00:00

Did anyone notice that the gold chests are identical to the sunken chests from another Ravensburger game, Secrets of the Deep (1991)?...........I could swear they were left in a closet for 14 years and recycled as they are exactly the same down to the minutest detail.

Thread: Re:User Review

Alan Kwan — 2004-09-25T04:01:22+00:00

CortexBomb (#55378),

Suppose we are sitting in front of a 4-card space with a chest.

Of course, the ideal is for one to collect enough cards to not only enter the 4-card space, but also the space beyond so that your opponents have to either pay 4 cards or 1 chest to enter the 4-card space.

However, this does not mean that everyone should simply sit and wait until he draws all the needed cards. While it is clearly better for one to collect enough cards to move 2 spaces instead of just moving one and getting jumped over, it is a different question whether it is better for one to enter the 4-card space and get a chest but subsequently get jumped over, or to let an opponent who already has all the needed cards to move into and past the 4-card space, getting the chest and leaving one yet to clear the 4-card space. When you know or feel that your opponent has already got enough cards, it may be better for you to grab the chest. If you get jumped over now and spend the chest later to skip a 4-card space, you're even with your opponent, but if you just sit and wait, you'll be behind by one chest. And of course, this is especially true when one is behind the opponent who is about to clear the spaces: if you don't move now, you'll need to clear even more spaces later.

Thread: Re:marco polo 2 player question?

Alan Kwan — 2004-09-21T23:54:49+00:00

groovylemon (#50094),

You start with one hand of 5 cards. Think about it, and you'll understand why it shouldn't take more cards to move 2 caravans than 1.

Thread: User Review

CortexBomb — 2004-09-21T14:10:29+00:00

Designer Reiner Knizia has a long history of crafting quality board games, many of which have gone on to the elite neo-classic echelon for German board game enthusiasts. Titles like Euphrat & Tigris, Ra, Modern Art, and Through the Desert have established Knizia as one of Germany's finest exports.

After the publication of his last "gamer's game" (Amun Re) Knizia revealed that he was going to be working primarily on youth and family oriented titles for a time though; and thus it was with some trepidation that I approached his newest Ravensburger / Rio Grande release, Marco Polo Expedition.

The basic plot outline behind MPE is that the players are following the caravan of Marco Polo through the rich continent of India in the 13th century and the components of the game evoke the theme effectively.

The first thing that leapt out at me was "Camels!", indeed, like the famous Through the Desert, Marco Polo Expedition prominently features camels; and while they are much smaller in number (only 1 per player) they are also much sturdier in construction, and nicely detailed. Aside from the camels, the box contains a skinny board, a deck of cards, and a few smallish plastic treasure chests.

The gist of the game is as follows: Each player has a hand of cards which come in a few basic varieties. There are 4 different types of commodities, as well as caravan leader cards. Each of these 5 types of cards additionally comes in 5 different colours.

On the board there are a series of circles, and each circle requires certain cards to be discarded before one can enter it. Some are relatively benign and only take 2 goods cards (any colour, any goods) while others are much more difficult to meet, requiring 5 cards, either goods or caravan leaders, but one of each colour.

This movement scheme can arduous at times because one can only draw a single card per turn from either a line of 5 face up cards next to the deck, or off the top. When you combine slow card acquisition with multiple specific card requirements the game tends to bog down at several spots on the board, primarily the difficult 4 to 5 card requirement areas.
The movement does have a layer of intrigue though. Only one player can occupy each circle, so players can 'leap frog' their opponents to the next available space, skipping over anything in-between. If anything, this slows the game down even more though because a player faced with a high requirement circle will want to not only move into that square, but get beyond it to try and force their opposition to also pony the high cost requirement in turn.

Another rule that was ostensensibly included to keep players from falling too far back in the pack also brings things to a crawl: the 'excess baggage' dump rule. Using this up to once each turn, players can dump one chest of gold (the scoring mechanism, each player starts with 3 chests) to move forward into a space for free, but only if the space was previously reached by at least one of the other players.

While this does tend to keep the game closer, it also means that the only player paying the full cost on the 4 and 5 card squares is the leader, as the others will gladly surrender one gold chest to save a handful of valuable cards.

These two rules culminate in paralysis on the board, no one wants to actually move forward until they are able to put a substantial amount of distance between themselves and their opponents, so large portions of the game tend to break down into players drawing cards, and drawing more cards, and drawing yet more cards, building up monster hands in search of large, several circle moves.

The scoring mechanism tries to balance this out to a degree by encouraging players to keep going, and to be the leader at least. There are two scoring areas, the first, mid game scoring set consists of 6 circles with a gold value between 1 and 6, the final of 7 circles between 1 and 7 in value, both increasing in order. The first player to reach the 6 circle in the middle of the board will trigger a scoring round with each player scoring the number of the circle they are currently on (assuming they are on a scoring circle) in gold chests. Because this is the only way to get gold, players are encouraged to be conservative with their 'baggage dumping' along the route, and to try and get into the lead, or near the lead in the scoring areas.

Unfortunately, it still isn't enough to keep the game moving at a steady pace. The treasure chests are valuable for the end game scoring, but cards are worth enough to insure that players still want to build up their hands to gaudy sizes and try to make a break for it, triggering scoring rounds in a cataclysmic series of card plays and cashing in at the other player's expense. The game penalizes the leader for doing anything but this, and it kills any flow the game would otherwise be able to build.

I note however, that MPE clearly states in the rules that it is intended for players 8 years of age and up. With this in mind, I can step outside my 'Heavy German Game Fan' frame of reference, and say that for children of that age (and perhaps even a year or two younger) this would likely be a fun diversion, and good for hours of entertainment. With the colour recognition and basic set building, this game is perfect for 'setting the table' for slightly more advanced games like Ticket to Ride, while still not being a mind-numbing, Candyland-like experience in the present.

I think the mistake that many are making with this title is assuming that because it has Knizia's name on the Ravensburger box that it is intended for us, the players of Taj Mahal and other heavy fare. It is clearly not, and as such I caution any players looking for a serious title to steer clear of it. For the younger players on your shopping list this would be a decent investment though, and is much more engaging than the drab youth fare that major manufacturers like Hasbro and Milton Bradley would foist on the kids of America.

Thread: marco polo 2 player question?

groovylemon — 2004-08-20T00:03:52+00:00

My question is: in the two player version of Knizia's Marco Polo, does the player start with a hand of ten cards, or two seperate hands of five cards each (one for each caravan)? Appreciate any insight.

Thread: Session Report

Yoder — 2004-06-03T03:14:50+00:00

We tried this two player as our last game of the day. For the two player game, one person controls two colors of camel.

In the early game, John concentrated on zooming ahead with one camel to pick up the treasures on the track. I concentrated on ditching his hindmost camel, making sure that there was space between it and my camels as much as possible. Soon John decided to let it languish.

In the first scoring spaces, John picked up the 6 while I got the 5 and 4. It’s just too easy to keep up with one camel; even when John opened up a space between us I was able to skip spaces using my other camel. I also used treasure chests a couple of times to pass the more difficult spaces. At this point I think John realized his strategy wasn’t working and began spending the treasure he had accumulated to move his second camel up. It was a case of too little, too late, however, and in the end I cruised to an easy victory.

I was mildly entertained, but it doesn’t feel like there's a lot of game there. With one camel, it seems like the decision making process would be even more attenuated. But I’m willing to try it with more people. It’s got a light, breezy, carefree quality that I usually like in games.

--Joel

Thread: Re:

dougadamsau — 2004-04-14T04:44:46+00:00

I won't go into any details of the gameplay cause the instructions are available on BGG (kudos to whomever translated)

You're welcome :-)

Thread: "Auf den Spuren des Marco Polo" - It's great!

pschwar — 2004-04-03T19:17:22+00:00

Not much info about "Auf den Spuren des Marco Polo" yet so I thought I'd write....

Let me first say, that I *LOVE* Reiner Knizia, he is by far my favorite designer and I love his style of games. So I may be a bit biased here, but I thought Marco Polo was great. No, it won't be winning any awards (probably won't be nominated for any either) but this title is definitely worth a look at.

Another important thing: This is a family game and this is a filler. I guess people saw "Knizia" on the big box and assumed it's something more, but it's not. Your non-gamers will enjoy this, your girlfrend/wives will enjoy this, and even your kids will be able to easily understand this one and enjoy it (although I doubt they'll win).

The difficultly level of this game is on par with Reiner's "Africa", in fact, this game is easier to learn but more strategic/tactical IMO - You could easily teach Marco Polo in 2 minutes.

And it's a filler, but a rather meaty filler IMO - you could easily finish a game of this in 30 minutes no problem. I've played only one 3-player game of this so far, and I would SUSPECT that 3-players is optimal for this and it would be good with 4-players as well. But I'm GUESSING that it's broken with
2 or 5 players. Of course, with fillers, there is a fair amount of luck in the game but not enough for me to complain...it IS a filler remember!

If you want to compare it to other games, think "Goldland" meets "Cartagena"
(I'm stealing this comparising from Tommy & Teemu). Players are part of Marco Polo's caravan across the Middle East and Asia and your pieces remain tightly together. Just like with Cartagena, when you land on another piece, you move up to the next available spot. In order to land of that spot, you need to have the required cards which changes from spot to spot....similar to Goldland.

I won't go into any details of the gameplay cause the instructions are available on BGG (kudos to whomever translated) and they're a very quick read. One thing I've read is that "once a player falls behind...he stays behind." I didn't find this to be true at all, I can't imagine how this would happen, you'd have to either be extremely unlucky or extremely bad at playing. Our caravans were tight the entire game, our final scores were something like 19-16-10 - I'm sure after a second game it would be much tighter.

Anyways...it was a fun, quick, & intense game. Nice bits, the camels are almost like porcelin (sorta). It definitely has a Knizia feel all over it.
If you hate Knizia, you won't like this one. If you like Knizia, definitely check it out. Recommended. I can' wait to play it again. I give it an 8 out of 10.

- Phil

Thread: Re:Scoring at Kantshou?

dougadamsau — 2004-03-10T23:25:19+00:00

Thank Johan, I've had a closer look at the rules and it appears to match what you have said. Those who didn't make it to a scoring location "teleport" to Kantshou when they reach one of the spaces.

Thread: Re:Scoring at Kantshou?

Dr Murke — 2004-03-10T23:18:59+00:00

dougadamsau (#30087),

As I recall - I don't have the rules right now - the players do move automatically to Kantshou, but only those who scored. Players behind scoring locations move in a normal fashion until they reach the first scoring location after which they automatically move to Kantshou.
And yes, it does violate the rule of at most one caravan in one space. But that's the way we interpreted it.

What actually happens is that as soon as anyone is in a reasonable distance of Kantshou, every one else hurries to reach the scoring positions, so as not to fall too far behind in gold chests. So the situation when someone does not make it tho scoring positions should be rare.

Johan.

Thread: Scoring at Kantshou?

dougadamsau — 2004-03-10T11:08:22+00:00

I'm struggling a little with the German rules... exactly what happens after scoring at Kantshou?

Here is my attempt...

The players on the scoring locations 6, 5, ..., 1 receive their gold chests.
These players move their caravans to Kantshou (so they all occupy the same space, right?)
Then the players who didn't make it to the scoring locations move their caravans to Kantshou.
Play continues to the left of the player who triggered the Kantshou scoring...

This doesn't sound quite right, mainly because elsewhere in the rules it says only one caravan can occupy one space. Suddenly they all pile up at Kantshou?

Some help would be appreciated

Thread: Comments after one play

Dr Murke — 2004-02-19T12:13:16+00:00

The description of this game is slightly misleading.
It is definitely a racing game but the pay-one-gold-to-move-forward move is only allowed once in your turn, and only if it does not take you into a leading position. You may jump over other players camels for free, but otherwise you must pay cards to move from one space to another.
Combining these facts, one finds that it is often advantageous not to be in front. In fact, in several situations, the player in the lead prefer to stay where she is, just drawing cards, because she realizes that as soon as she moves forward, everybody else will benefit from it.

With the caveat that I have only played this game once, there is a duality to it that I find disturbing. It looks and sometimes feel like a family game, yet there are situations where shrewd tactics are rewarded. Worse, the game is often unforgiving, and a bad move can give one or two other players huge advantages. At the same time, it lacks the spark that would make it absorbing to dedicated gamers.

While I am not sure the game is as bad as the first rating implies, I doubt it will make its way to the collection of regularly played games. Personally, I would like to play it again just to find out whether the “traffic jam” situation always occur and if the first player to come to her senses always looses.