|
Andrew Rae
New Zealand
Wellington
-
Football, of all sorts, often rests upon a knife edge. Everyone has heard a commentator lament about that extra coat of paint that kept the ball out of goal, or the extra inch needed for the first down or the failure to call that illegal play. In any case games often hinge on the roll of a dice or the critical play of a single card. Princes of the Renaissance is no different. Such fine balances are why I heard a fabulous quote from a friend last night. The quote was almost a year in coming, the result of pent up tension and disappointment. “Martin Wallace loads his frigging dice against me”.
Princes reminds me very much of Struggle of Empires in the changing nature of alliances. One of the very best parts of it is the need to change your loyalties and work with different people every turn depending on the situation. The game reminds me of Diplomacy as you negotiate agreements over who is best to lead various forces and how much they should pay for such a privilege. And it reminds me of Owners Choice and Acquire as a market model where you invest to try to improve the value of those investments. None of these games are the same, and in fact none of the mechanics are even borrowed but the skills required to master this game are similar to all of those, and the blend is intriguing.
Princes is nothing special to look at. It is a muted nondescript box with a very plain board and many simple components. Money and influence are simply numbers on a coloured background although many of the tiles contain individual art. The tiles are bigger, and more attractive than Struggle of Empires while the board itself is more functional. It’s not attractive, in fact one person commented that it was ugly, but maybe we are better to say dated. However the package is definitely functional and does not impede play, and in an ironic fashion the dated aesthetics of game add something to the feel and theme.
The feel and theme are surprisingly good. The mechanics and the nature of pieces make this extremely good. As the prince of a noble family you strive for influence and use that influence to gain riches, armies and ultimately control or Italy. Along the way you use treachery, bribes, call in favours from famous characters, all in a quest to be the strongest. Everything in the game works to this end, and the euro points scoring mechanism is hidden from sight. Very very good.
What was not very good were the rules. Our German speaker confirmed that the German versions were similar and several things were not explained. It was not that they were unclear they just weren’t there. A revamp of the rules would decrease downtime in the first couple of games.
The basic mechanic of the game is that you purchase influence (invest) in one of five cities by influencing a key member of that city. This is essentially a share that will earn you a return at the end of the game. There are six available for each city and no player can have influence in more than three cities. It forces people to focus their resources and make implicit alliances with their choices.
Each city has a certain in game value which is affected by special tiles and by battles. One action a player may make is to declare a battle between two cities. Players bid for the right to use their armies for either attack or defence and the winning city increases in value while the losing city decreases. In an extreme victory the change may even be double. At the end of the game the rank of the cities determines the victory points each influence tile will score you. In addition there are a raft of other bonus points for most money influence etc.
Lets take a trip back to the knife edge. Although there can only be 12 battles in the game each battle hangs on a knife edge. Each battle is based upon a 6 sided die roll plus the strength of your army. Therefore the defining factors of who wins the battle are special treachery tiles that can be played, and the roll of the dice. A couple of wild dice rolls, or a well timed treachery can swing the ranks of cities wildly and have some leaping for joy and others with their faces on the floor.
The treachery tiles are powerful and playing them is a skill element. The dice however are not which would leave someone to ask whether a double dice mechanism might have worked better? I believe the mechanism is manageable and just adds that element of randomness that gives everyone a chance when it comes to battle. I would compare it to the effects of Twilight Struggle, but softened somewhat. The wild swing of an amazing coup attempt will not happen with the same regularity as it does in Twilight but big changes will happen occasionally, such is the nature of dice.
All in all this is a fine game. It really does require cunning and political astuteness to succeed. The feel of the game seems historically accurate and it creates an authentic experience. Perhaps the game is better with 5-6 than it is with 4, and in this sense it suits large groups well. If you’re looking for a big group game with plenty of subtlety then look no further than Princes. It is a gamers game sure to intrigue those who enjoy negotiation and the nature of a politically fractious game. PS: Be sure to include a group hug afterwards.
-
Paulo Soledade
Portugal
Caranguejeira
Leiria
Madeira - Pearl of the Atlantic - The Boardgame
-
Great review Andrew.
This is one of my favorites and you absolutely reviewed the "feeling" of playing it. I mean you didn't just reviewed the game but how it feels playing it. And indeed it is necessary to understand your co players, it is best played with five or six and at the end the hug has to be included. 
Thanks
Paulo
-
Andrew Rae
New Zealand
Wellington
-
Well thank you for validating some of those 'feelings'. The game came across as a complete package and I could see the depth there. I think it has a high degree of replayability, because of the negotiation but also because of the deep tactical placement. The thinkg I like best about Struggle of Empires was the tactical placement of alliances. It is not as explicit in this game, but it is still there and it is much harder to manage. The idea that you can effectively force people into supporting you appeals to my tactical side while the concept of persauding people to support you and the deals that go along with it appeals to my political side.
A rich and emersive game.
-
Alan Richbourg
United States
Arlington
Texas
I seez u be makin ur beeg move
-
I'd love to play this more often, but at least I have good memories of the times I've had it on the table. One of the best is the look on everyone's faces when they realized I was trying to LOSE all the battles, lol.
-
Dave Kudzma
United States
Gumboro
Delaware
Muffins.
-
I've played with 4 twice, and loved it all the same. The more players, the tougher the game, but it would still be great. I'm not so sure this game would be any good with three though.
-
|
|
|
