Michael Longdin
England
Crawley
West Sussex
-
CAVEAT - these are my initial thoughts after playing just one five player game
Picked this up at Essen and now have had chance to play it. I enjoyed it and really want to like it. The mechanisms were slick and worked well together and the game played quickly (2 hours including explanations) for a game of this scale. However, all five of us pretty much adopted the same approach in terms of securing personalities (victory points)
- expand to five cities and take a King
- build 3 temples for a citizen
- secure a knowledge breakthrough for a Scholar
- go for a second King, citizen and second/third Scholar (in some order)
- occupy 7 sea spaces and take a Navigation
By this time 2 or 3 of us had 7 personalities and needed one more to win the game. All the Kings, Scholars and Citizens had gone and it wasn't really practical to get a second navigation so it was simply a case of building a large enough army to go and smash someone's temple to earn the General.
Now all this sounds fine and it worked pretty well but to be honest I cannot see why this approach wouldn't always be used. In a 5 player game, 4 of the players can get two Kings reasonably easily (and it's just a race to make sure you're not the one left out) but you certainly won't get three, 1 player will get two temples (possibly the one who missed out on the 2nd King) but it would be very hard to get a third before they have all gone; 3 players should be able to get two Scholars (three if you're really lucky). Most players can get a navigation which leaves you needing 1 or 2 Generals. But waging war is expensive and, as with many multi-player conflict situations, will probably just benefit the other players in the long run so if you go for your generals early then you will miss out on one of the other personalities and also be in a wekened position compared to your opponents. Therefore it makes sense to start off by picking the low lying fruit (5 cities, 3 temples and a know-how) and then scrap for the surplus in these categories before leaving the Generals until the end (when it doesn't matter if you have weakened yourself because the game has ended)
So although the game sort of suggests there are different strategies my concern is that, in practice, there is only one.
Of course we've only had one game and I will certainly play more and vary the approach - my initial analysis could quite easily be wrong and I also have to consider that 'group think' may play a part. However, whilst I did enjoy the game, if my concerns prove founded then the game will just become an exercise in optimising your position to implement the strategy before any one else does which means it will have no long term replayability for me.
Anyone else had similar thoughts or can dispel my fears?
-
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
-
After one play, I can say that in our four-player game no two players adopted the same route to the VPs. One player started in Greece and built Temples early on, then fleets and cities (he won); another built Temples consistently thoughout the game; I concentrated on Scholars (securing three or four), and didn't build a temple all game - while others were grabbing early kings and temples, I was making sure that I was more advanced than they were in time for a "land grab" to claim three kings in pretty quick succession. I *would* have won if I'd managed to find a temple or two to sack (I just couldn't get at the first two players); the losing player concentrated on building cities and armies (having seemingly forgotten how else to get victory point cards).
I couldn't see a dominant strategy in all that, to be honest - certainly my own play was "sub-optimal", continuing a war against the weakest player who was in my way instead of trying to get an agreement that would have seen me able to get at the leading player - but it was pretty much neck-and-neck for the personalities between three of us.
Certainly a balanced building strategy - a king or two, a temple or two, a scholar or two etc - is going to be attractive to most players, but I have a feeling that deliberately unbalanced strategies can be made to work. If I get the chance to play at the weekend, I might try a Ghengis Khan approach - sack all before me, THEN build the monuments for my successors to squabble over.
-
Michael Longdin
England
Crawley
West Sussex
-
Richard, I understand what you've said but I'm still not convinced. The limitation of the numbers of Personalities means that, for example, it will be very difficult to get more than 2 King cards (at least with 5 players). By the time you get in a position to take 15 provinces there's a good chance that they've already been snapped up. Therefore that makes an expanionist strategy difficult.
It seems like in your game no one adopted a military strategy and I'm not sure it's viable because, as I've said above going to war is not cheap and someone on the board will benefit from it. I'll be interested in your findings if you do adopt the 'Genghis Khan' apporach in your next game (I will also try that but I've another 12 Essen games to get through so it may be a while before Antike gets back to the table  )
Having picked off the low lying fuit (and why wouldn't someone do that) it seems the investment approach is the only sensible one - that may be temples or knowledge or a combination of both.
-
Akke Monasso
Netherlands
Aalten
Achterhoek
-
You all seem to go for the peaceful approach. So did my three opponents when I played. I did not play along: I built a temple in iron and started to build armies. My neighbour was doing very well, so I took some of his temples. Now I was in the lead. He reacted and destroyed most of my armies. After some more turns I was in a comfortable third place and he was dead last.
Unfortunately, the other two players were being peaceful and I had no way to attack the person that was leading. I could only attack the person in second place, and that would leave me open for attacks from mister four, who wanted revenge. The guy in second place wanted to attack mr one, but he was too late...
The aggressive approach works in the short term, destroying a temple = 1 VP, which is easy money. Unfortunately, destroying a temple costs a lot of troops, so it leaves you open for attacks. So I fear that it's only useful in the last phase of the game. It may be a nice climax to the game, we'll see after some more plays.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
100%Blade wrote: So although the game sort of suggests there are different strategies my concern is that, in practice, there is only one.
As counter point: In tonight's four player game I built a temple on my first turn. On the next few turns I built two more temples so that I had a temple on each of my three initial cities for 1VP. I then expanded slowly, only as fast as needed to keep on building more temples. By the end of the game I had built 11 temples (3 VPs), been the first to buy 3 advances (3VPs), occupied 11 cities (2VPs), and occupied 7 sea districts (1 VP) for the win. I never once engaged in combat, tho I did have a nicely thick wall of military units and temples along my front line (typically 5 units plus a temple).
-
-
I won my third game of Antike by getting the third king!
-
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
clearclaw wrote: As counter point: In tonight's four player game I built a temple on my first turn. On the next few turns I built two more temples so that I had a temple on each of my three initial cities for 1VP. I then expanded slowly, only as fast as needed to keep on building more temples. By the end of the game I had built 11 temples (3 VPs), been the first to buy 3 advances (3VPs), occupied 11 cities (2VPs), and occupied 7 sea districts (1 VP) for the win. I never once engaged in combat, tho I did have a nicely thick wall of military units and temples along my front line (typically 5 units plus a temple).
Do you feel there will be many different strategies to win, a few, or just the one? It seems like any amount of military action simply hurts the 2 players involved, and indirectly helps all the rest. Is "steady expansion" too boring to give the game any long-term appeal?
-
Michael Longdin
England
Crawley
West Sussex
-
Peter The Rat wrote: I won my third game of Antike by getting the third king!
How many players were in this game?
-
Michael Longdin
England
Crawley
West Sussex
-
clearclaw wrote: 100%Blade wrote: So although the game sort of suggests there are different strategies my concern is that, in practice, there is only one. As counter point: In tonight's four player game I built a temple on my first turn. On the next few turns I built two more temples so that I had a temple on each of my three initial cities for 1VP. I then expanded slowly, only as fast as needed to keep on building more temples. By the end of the game I had built 11 temples (3 VPs), been the first to buy 3 advances (3VPs), occupied 11 cities (2VPs), and occupied 7 sea districts (1 VP) for the win. I never once engaged in combat, tho I did have a nicely thick wall of military units and temples along my front line (typically 5 units plus a temple).
I'm not sure this is a counter point as it seems to support the points I was making. You got very similar VP's as me except I had one General which was the final vp acquired.
Has anyone in a 4-6 player game won with a military approach?
-
Akke Monasso
Netherlands
Aalten
Achterhoek
-
100%Blade wrote: Has anyone in a 4-6 player game won with a military approach?
Not yet, but it seems to be a matter of playing style of the group.
I cannot imagine a peaceful player winning in a game with three agressive players.
-
Patrik Strömer
Sweden
Lidingo
Unspecified
-
When we tried the game out in Essen I played Babylonians and went for expansion/army. Ă–yvind played the phoenicians and had a comfort trip. He had won, if we didn't ended. He was out to crush with his superior fleet.
It is of course not that good to go for war, but I will have to play more games before I tell that it is a bad idea to have som armies rattling around.
You all know that you can found cities after ANY action you just performed, so the more armies you move around, the better the options for more cities?
/Strömer, from Sweden
-
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
-
It's like many other games - if you build military units and don't use them to achieve something, you've wasted units; at the same time, if you're fighting another player BOTH of you are losing resources, so you'd better make sure that you're picking on a leading player rather than leaving him to cruise to an easy victory. This was my mistake in the game I played - after some initial knowledge advances, I pursued a military strategy that targetted the wrong player - although I scored points by taking 15 cities, I should have done more about the leader. He was a tough nut to crack, though, as he'd been aiming to get 2 VPs for naval power, and all those fleets were a powerful disincentive to my huge army.
As for being peaceful, I had 17 legions on the board for most of the game; I ended two points behind the winner because I had failed to concentrate on actions that would earn points, namely temple-trashing.
There are 9 kings, 8 philosophers, 5 admirals, 6 builders and 7 generals - 35 in total. Yet the admirals and generals appear to be perceived as something that you can pick up later, after the cities and temples have been built. I wonder if that is a flaw in the game, or a flaw in our thinking.
One other point occurs to me - which side of the board are people playing? I can see competition for the admiral cards being fiercer on the Western Med side of the board; we played in the East, and there wasny much scope for 2 of the 4 players to get an admiral (indeed, I decided there was no point in my buying fleets, as it would have only seen me hemmed in on the eastern edge; at least my legions got the chance to march west).
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
I suspect expansionist military might may work if it is combined with mobility early enough in the game. Temple iron on the first turn, then buy double mobility as fast as possible...
-
Walther Gerdts
Germany
Hamburg
Unspecified
-
Temple iron on the first turn,
How did you manage to build a temple on your first turn, starting with only 2 units of marble? If you aim to build a temple as soon as possible, you have to
1. produce 1 marble
2. do s.th. in between
3. build a temple with 3 marble and 2 coins.
alternative (too expensive for my liking):
1. produce 1 marble
2. move 4 fields ahead, thus paying one gold or iron, and building the temple with 3 marble and 2 coins.
so it will be on the second or third turn, won't it?
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
Correct, I built a temple on my second turn, spending a coin for the honour. As for expensive? Not really, and especially not in the mid and late game.
-
-
Quote: How many players were in this game?
5 players! I took the last king available!
I had taken 1 erudite, 1 citizen, 3 kings, and 2 seafarer, and 1 commander! I don't remember the particular order I took them, just that I could win by either destroying a temple or conquering 4 lands on my last turn! All the temples where heavy protected and I had distributed my troops over my territory, so I choose to attack smaller provinces instead! I worked! I had to maneuver 3 times in a row to manage this!
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
clearclaw wrote: I suspect expansionist military might may work if it is combined with mobility early enough in the game. Temple iron on the first turn, then buy double mobility as fast as possible...
We played again tonight, 4 players on the German side (which I suspect is the more interesting and balanced side with smaller player counts). This time I took a different approach: Build armies on the first turn, maneuver on the next turn to shove them directly at my nearest neighbour, and then proceeed with a military buildup and expansionism approach aimed more at hemming in my neighbours than in earning rewards (I built cities rather slowly and frequently controlled far more area with militia than I did with cities). The initial goal of the strategy was to get a city or cities behind my neighbour's defensive lines and then use expensive action builds to temple them and then use them as sources to roving armies to wreak havoc on their interiors. ie a max screwage strategy. Having announced before the game that this was going to be my strategy, I then failed to execute due to silly action selection errors (I would have done better than I did if I'd stuck to the plan). However, errors aside, it turned out to be a successful approach (I won). Certainly it gave my primary neighbour fits to find a bunch of my units right on his border in turn 2. It also provided for various interesting sympathetic effects in how he and the other empires positioned themselves WRT each other as a result of my actions; quite a sympathetic system.
FWVLIW: By the end of the game I had 3 VPs from 15 cities, 2 VPs from 14 marine areas (despite starting as landlocked Germany), 3 VPs from technologies, and 1 VP from temples (I never had more than 3 temples and in fact lost two during the game which i never bothered to rebuild).
Next game I'm going to try another model: depending on player count either a gold/tech track approach (get tech VPs fast and very early), or a pure militant approach aimed rapid early attrition of neighbouring militia (kill 'em young, build cities when convenient).
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
100%Blade wrote: However, whilst I did enjoy the game, if my concerns prove founded then the game will just become an exercise in optimising your position to implement the strategy before any one else does which means it will have no long term replayability for me.
It is worth noting that Antike is actually mostly a logistics game (See Rick Heli's rating review for comments on this). If you don't like logistics games, then yes, Antike will not be a good game for you. If you do like logistics games then Antike actually does fairly well.
-
Michael Longdin
England
Crawley
West Sussex
-
Interesting. Thanks for the report JC. I will persist with it.
-
Patrik Strömer
Sweden
Lidingo
Unspecified
-
We played a 4P game on the German side yesterday. The Romans won with a gold/science strategy. I played the phoenicians and built up a solid position. The greeks was something inbetween and the Germans were more eager to attack the Balck Sea than Italy.
So obviously, building your first temple on gold and then go for the scientists is good, when noone attacks you.
Anyway, it was good to see that different strategies can pay off.
I started with marbles, then iron, then temple (on marble) and then mustering, maneuver to secure new provinces.
/Strömer, from Sweden
-
Richard Dewsbery
United Kingdom
Sutton Coldfield
-
I've played 4P and 5P on the East board - both times won by the Greeks, going for temple building, 10 cities, navies smothering the Aegean, then a bit of temple-trashing of coastal provinces with the 14+ ships they'd built and had sitting around making the place look untidy. And both times it's been hard to stop the Greek juggernaut, especially when halfwits on their borders agree "non-aggression pacts" that the Greek player honoured right up to the point when he needed one last VP.
Though my Persians have given them a very close run for the money with a steadfastly - but not rabidly - aggressive stance backed up with the might of cutting-edge technologies. And I would have won last night if I'd not accidentally miscalculated the strength of a city plus monarchy plus a temple to be 5 rather than 4.
Beware Greeks building ships. But I don't think it's a balance issue; you just need to make sure that someone else also builds ships to keep the Greek honest.
-
Michael Longdin
England
Crawley
West Sussex
-
Played again this time with 6 players on the Western Med board. Once again I really enjoyed it but it hasn't dispelled my concerns that any sort of military strategy is simply not viable. There was a lot more building of troops and flexing of muscles than in our previous game - as soon as one nation built armies/fleets then the others had to respond - but apart from the Persians no one followed through with the threat other than one or two surgical strikes in pursuit of temple sacking. The Persians on the other hand quickly got into a cycle of produce iron/build troops/manoeuvre. The cost of war was far too heavy however and they ended up last.
Part of the problem with this is that the Kings were snapped up relatively quickly and the most any nation can hope for in a 6 player game is two (everyone managed one). The other issue is that it's reasonably easy to avoid ever having to produce iron - coin acquisition can soon supply you with enough resource to build the armies/fleets you need to adequately defend the provinces you really want to keep (also with the aid of temples / democracy).
I won with the Greeks (1 King, 1 Citizen, 1 Navigator and 4 Scholars). Surprisingly as a central nation I never once felt the need to move my units into an enemy controlled province. By the mid game I was collecting 8 gold every time round the Rondel and as long as I made sure these were well defended it was then a race to get to the Scholars first.
So I like the game and will continue to play for the moment but it just doesn't evoke the 'feel' I was expecting from it. This, of course, may be down to my false expectations but it is almost bordering on a race game as players compete to get the "easier" personalities before they are all taken. As I say this is enjoyable but I'm not sure this will still be the case in 6 months time.
-
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
Those of you who think conflict is a losing action in this game...doesn't it just degenerate into multi-player solitaire? Or do you have small skirmishes to whittle down possible enemy attacks?
-
Akke Monasso
Netherlands
Aalten
Achterhoek
-
ekted wrote: Those of you who think conflict is a losing action in this game...doesn't it just degenerate into multi-player solitaire?
Our game was multi-player solitair, expect for one corner of the board. The others looked threateningly at eachother, nothing more.
-
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
-
Re: Initial thoughts and concerns about a dominating strateg
ekted wrote: Those of you who think conflict is a losing action in this game...doesn't it just degenerate into multi-player solitaire? Or do you have small skirmishes to whittle down possible enemy attacks?
My general sense is that combat is a losing proposition in Antike unless the forces are grossly imbalanced, but that the threat of combat, much like the threat of a connection win in Attika, is a powerful and useful tactic in the game.
-
|
|
