Antiquity

I haven't played Roads & Boats, with which this game shares designers and scope. I have however watched a game and can see the family resemblance. R&B (the title may be the best bit about it) has a lot of fans. It has a ton of bits (though only of gamekit standard), costs a lot of money even new, and is an exercise in largely solitaire empire building. It is a "kitchen sinker" as the designers not only didn't leave anything out, they added a few extra bits for good measure. My read on the popularity is that you get to build lots of stuff largely on your own and the pleasure of network building and shuttling goods around is enough to carry one through. I understand that. This is Sim City in sandbox mode, with disasters turned off, but without the computer.

Antiquity is similar: a fiddly American style, old fashioned game in German Game clothing, that emulates a computer game of the woodchopping variety. Imagine just for a moment how repetitive those games can be on computer, and then imagine it executed manually. Eek. The scene is some generic Mediterranean city state, back before they have worked out how to support themselves or adopt historical names. You have a city grid plan, which fills with building assets (a la Princes of Florence, Goa and Puerto Rico). You need houses for your people, you need a market to trade, you build stables for more movement, you know how it goes from here. The flavour is passable, but nothing to write home about.

Every time you send a woodcutter, explorer, farmer or fisherman out, you incur hassle: you need a cart, a townsman, pay chopped wood for a fishery, place counters for the fish, place counters for the symbolic over fishing of the lake, and then collect the fish one at a time, turn by turn. Maximum range, without effort, is just two hexes. It all gets a bit cramped. In addition, your city pumps out pollution (more counters) onto the crowded map. And that is before you bump into your neighbours. The result is a hugely fiddly exercise of placing, stacking and retrieving 1/2 inch counters in an effort to keep your land unpolluted and clear for re-development. In most cases you will fail to grow enough food, and people start to clog up the graveyards. Eventually one builds a second city just for the sheer relief of breathing space.

The sensation is one of frustration, and of turning a super tanker. You want the results, which are appealing and nicely integrated, but the pain is off-putting and everything feels too slow. It is one of those games where you can see turns stretching ahead of you just to achieve the basics. In three turns I will have enough gold to get some pearls, in six turns I will be self sufficient in wheat and olives, in about eight turns I might be in a position to do something usefully strategic, etc. But at the end of each six turn cycle, you have to replant and start again, there is a constant strain on resources and everything (even logs) have to be stored or they spoil. Do it badly enough and you can get into a negative growth spiral. Do it very badly, and you can go bust. It is as if the same old devices have to be deployed in every game of this genre.

The shortages are what also pass for decision making. True, you want many things and can only afford one or two. A common Eurogame (Knizia, Moon, Kramer) technique. The problem here is that the two main drivers – enjoyment of building with limited funds, and the half dozen routes to victory, are subtly stacked against us. I just think it just needs to be a bit easier all round. It is great to finally build the university, but the wait and prequalifying necessary takes the edge off of it.

Victory is also rather strange. At any time you may build a cathedral and declare your allegiance to a saint. Each saint has a different objective, which, in truth, all seem distinctly remote until the very end when the slow game finally speeds up. In turn, the saints grant a special ability to all your cities. The conclusion here is that one starts the game with a saint (strategy) in mind. That would enable you to plan from the start to buy buildings that allow for rapid exploration, movement and expansion, or perhaps allow population growth, or building construction. I chose what clearly seems to be the easiest target with the most powerful (and also unbelievable) special ability, and it was. I think game two would be closer, but I don’t think I will be testing the thesis.

Why? Because this game takes a disproportionate chunk of your lifespan, even playing the solitaire elements simultaneously. Later in the game it slows up, as timing becomes an issue. So, we were almost five hours into the game when we agreed a win for me (unusual) on the basis we could project four turns ahead and I would have just sneaked in by a single counter. Since there is no major interaction outside of trade, or effective way of hindering others, the end game procession marches on. The game has the aforementioned fiddlyness, about ten cycles in the turn sequence, and one is constantly waiting for stuff to happen. The desire to be transported to CCG land, and to just play a card effect for immediate gratification is very strong indeed.

In almost every respect, this is not a Euro game, but no one seems to mind I think that this reflects a current desire for more depth, challenge and, well, gameplay in Euros. These qualities are not being delivered elsewhere except in very rare instances, and then they are usually teutonic in feel. The theme is, if you like, the building and expansion and this is clearly what gamers enjoy. Narrative is weak, but at least not even close to abstraction. But given its design premise, and the designer’s obvious love of this style of game, it all works well enough. What kills it for me, like 7 Ages, is the fiddly bookkeeping. And for those, like me, who see us moving towards American/German hybrids, this is not the droid you are looking for.

In fairness, the feeling for all at the table was that the first game was required to see what strategies one could adopt next time, and I am sure many will do just that. For me it is not going to claim four hours, three at a pinch, ever again. It just isn’t my style of game, and I had enough of that in the 1970’s. Somehow, we still haven’t shrugged the notion of player elimination! Realistically, 5/10 and a touch of the Emperor's New Clothes may be in evidence. Still, it gave me lots of concepts (though not solutions or mechanisms) for one of my games.

sumo (#90849),

Mike, it's so good to have you back!

sumo (#90849),

Thanks for the assessment, Mike. I was all ready to purchase Antiquity while in Essen, but balked at the high price (70 euros). Later, however, I began hearing the siren song of "GREAT game" and "BEST game of the year" emanating from several gamers. The obligatory "kicking myself" ensued.

However, after observing the game being played at the recent Gulf Games convention and hearing more reports from folks whose opinions I trust, the kicking has ceased. Like you, it just doesn't seem to be a game I'd enjoy.

sumo (#90849),

sumo (#90849),

As a participant in Mike's first game, I have a different view from Mike, and have enjoyed my games more than Mike.

Firstly the fiddlyness: the game has many pieces and is no doubt messy to play, but seems necessary to achieve the goals. Resources create new ones; these are converted into more options. Many games use this mechanism, but do not have this level of detail. So yes, the game is fiddly to play, but like most games, increased familiarity will yield faster play times.

Game length: Any first play of a game takes longer to conclude and Antiquity is no exception. The main task that causes extra time is the sheer volume of resource types. Since Antiquity has a huge number of these, the time is compounded. And by the time you add in the learning curve of options as they are presented to you, this increases the potential down time considerably. Fortunately, you can mainly play the game simultaneously as the interaction and impact on other players is low during the first half of the game. But with more playings, which Mike will apparently not be having the game time should make the cut of 3-4 hours. Nonetheless the gaming experience is one that should be added to your games CV.

Frustration and slow results: Each to his own of course, but patience and planning are key elements to the game. In fact, the fact that Mike is waiting for game turns to emerge is a symptom of the desire of better things to come. Again, as a first game experience it was useful to pick up ideas of how to play, without (necessarily) picking up ways to play well. It was only my third game, but already some aspects were becoming clearer to me.

Lack of decisions: While the decisions do surround your resource levels, these can be planned by earlier decisions, so is a function of longer term planning. The options are wide – but then you do exercise control on the direction that you take, so your situation is dependent on how you planned earlier parts of a game.

Victory conditions: Again, these are symptomatic of longer term planning which you cannot do in your first game if you do not know how the implications of earlier decisions lead to choices becoming wider or more restricted. But two things are worth bearing in mind: you can choose whichever victory condition you want, and select this option whenever it best suits you. I would love to know what the stats on each choice of the victory conditions arising from play testing.

Player interaction: The game has little player interaction. Trade is the main one early in the game, but I have not explored the victory condition to embrace another player in your own zone of control so I do not know how interactive this aspect is.

Conclusion: I feel that Antiquity is an experience to savour – the pleasure of survival is one of defeating the odds, which at times seem stacked up against you. When you can thrive, which does happen, albeit not quickly enough for Mike (!), the game does start to make you enjoy the experience. The hours whistled by for me and next time, which there will be, the game will shave off another hour of elapsed time. Antiquity is engaging and satisfying, which makes for time well spent.

The main problem with Antiquity is not the game itself, it is the competition for table time with a vast array of competition, but for me the table is open for another game soon.

Alan How wrote:
I would love to know what the stats on each choice of the victory conditions arising from play testing.

From memory, these where quite balanced, with a slight skew toward San Giorgio. Then again, San Giorgio is the only victory condition that can be stopped by the opponents...

Psychologically this is different - Santa Maria almost always dominates the board, but is usually surprised by another player winning earlier .

Jeroen

Alan How (#446429),

Thanks for the assessment, Alan. I'm now more eager than ever to get a copy of Antiquity. There is no doubt whatsoever that Antiquity will occupy a similar space in my collection to Roads & Boats. That is, a game which requires a serious time commitment and pays off the investment nicely. Die Macher is my favorite example of the sort of game that seems dauntingly fiddly and time-consuming, that rewards repeated play by shortening the game lengths drastically as players become comfortable with sequences and mechanisms.

My chief complaint about R&B was that the build-up to the endgame seems disproportionately long in relation to how rapidly the endgame transpires once it arrives. I wonder if Antiquity also has this potential for anticlimax--perhaps all long games do.

I have played the game twice. We had a winner in about twelve turns both times, and we played the second game in about 90 minutes.

Nice review Mike, especially with Alan's counterpoint, it was an interesting read.

I already knew this game wasn't for me, but this confirmed it, and gave me a brief glimpse of the game without that whole 4 hours of playing it thing

This isn't exactly true. If Mike is referring to a lack of violent recourse against each other, this is true. However, players have every opportunity to expand their zone of influence - through inns, and creation of additional cities. This in turn permits deployment of craftsmen virtually in the backyard of your opponents, thus directly depriving them of the opportunity for collection of resources. And I would say that's a pretty severe hindrance, in a game focused on the collection of resources.

I have a lot of respect for you, Mike, and for your work here, the Game Cabinet, Counter magazine, etc., but I submit your review of Antiquity could have been more succinctly summarized as "This game has too many chits, too many things I have to do manually, and therefore I do not like it."

Thanks for the helpful review, Mike!


I didn't feel that way at all. These observations helped me get a good sense of the pros and cons of the game:


That's a good analogy, and I understand both the appeal (I like that kind of empire building) and the limitation (I also like direct player interaction and this - though it isn't a typical Euro game - sounds like it has little, at least at first. Some players may like that and others may not.



I haven't played the game, but I expect Mike isn't alone in this feeling. Other players may like that element of looking ahead, but again, this is good information.



Again, a helpful observation. Fans of the game will have a better take on the cost/reward tradeoff than Mike did, but it sounds like an essential game mechanic, and I'm glad to have it noted.



If you read reviews for game shopping, as I do, the key question is not, 'did this reviewer like the game?' but rather 'will I like this game, and why?'

This gives a good sense of what playing entails. Thanks for posting it!