As it appears, there may result problems in finishing the game when playing with three nations.

The reason for this is a situation in the endgame, where only generals can be gained, but all temples are well hidden and protected from the enemies.

Two solutions seem possible to me:
1. The players agree on the beginning of the game on finishing with 10 personalities instead of the usual 12.
2. As it is already recommended with two players, everyone takes two nations. The resources and personalities are - as usual - kept and gained separately. The game is won by the nation, which gains 7 personalities.

The publisher is going to work on the english rulebook soon, and apart from being more explicit on the movement/combat rules, I think it would be a good idea, to tackle this topic as well!

Do you have additional suggestions or ideas on this topic? Are there any preferences how to solve this problem?

It is a game of detente. Somebody has to pull the trigger. It may be via incremental nibbling at a neighbors cities, slowly paring them down, or it may be with a rapid strike force lunging into their interior. Both work depending on the situation and position WRT neighbors. It is in this segment and the preparation for this part of the game that the game lives.



Actually my temptation is to increase the total number of personalities needed rather than reduce them. The current set allows players to win while skirting confrontation.



I'm toying with increasing all the victory requirements by two. I'm also tempted to play with each player only having one initial city instead of a balanced three (as mentioned in the rules as an advanced variant). The players would get to pick one of their initial three default cities.

While JC definitely has a point, I wouldn't mind some sort of recommendation in the rules. Like, "with these end conditions, this can happen - if you don't like it, you can do this and that". Some may like that kind of endgame, but it was primarily the reson I ended up selling Mare Nostrum - the endless endgame...

I have to say that it is not a good advert for the game if the designer himself is indicating that there may be issues with 3 players....

I think he's responding to observations in Chris Farrell's weblog. To me, the promptness of this response feels encouraging.

I agree that The promptness of the response is very encouraging (if indeed that's what has caused it)

The fact that it has taken someone form the User community less than a week to pick up such an issue (if indeed it exists) is not.

Playtesting?

Touché (but it's a miserably wet and windy Monday and I'm trying to look on the bright side )

Chris Farrell's comments are fair but evaluate the game as something it mostly isn't. Antike is a minimalist and extremely austere 4X game, not an Empire-building Civilisation-wannabe.



Not really. In economic terms this is just efficient market.

And Chris is a misery-guts. He doesn't like Shadows Over Camelot, for goodness sake!

Seriously, game reviewing is so subjective, and what is a problem for one may be a non-issue for others (indeed, some problems with certain games only arise because of a group's particular play style or group-think regarding viable tactics).

Here's a topic for discussion - can we think of a new category of victory point cards that could be added to the game which would enhance the game - particularly the 3-player game? I'm thinking that if more cards - particularly of a different type - were added to the mix it might open up some interesting avenues to victory.

My best idea so far:

At the moment, conflict brings limited rewards - with temples usually being so far behind the front line, to sack one (and get a VP, sometimes the only type of VP available in the endgame) requires a considerable investment (lots of units as well as some Advancement).

It could be that attacking cities already brings it's own reward, but how about earning a Conqueror personality card (new category) if you capture 3 enemy cities in a single turn? (I don't want to have to keep records of how many cities I've captured from turn to turn, but reckon three in one go represents enough of an investment to be worth rewarding - it might also stimulate conflict across the board, and not just where players perceive the choice targets to be. But YMMV)

Or how about a Gift To The Gods (call them priests, or something) - sacrifice a big quantity of gold and/or iron and/or marble in return for a 1VP card. Or maybe it should be coins, forcing players to save up in advance (and also preventing the temple-loving marble tarts from grabbing these VPs as well as the temple-building VPs). Maybe 5 or 6 coins for one card?

Or Explorers - awarded for establishing cities on opposite edges of the board (or maybe on different land masses/continents)?

Road-builders, for longest chain of cities? OK, I've obviously run out of GOOD ideas at this point

Oh dear, neither do I. I seem to have rated it a 2.5.



Absolutely. I'm having a variant of this phenomena in a thread on Neuland at this moment.



A couple starting caveats for me:

-- I look at Antike as a near minimalist 4X game, and in particular a game whose primary appeal is that simple austerity.

-- I've not played Antike with 3 players.



A few more King cards perhaps, or perhaps some sort of monoply bonus for given resource types.



I find this idea strange, and it seems to be often repeated. I build my temples right on the front line, especially if I'm worried about being able to hold somewhere. They're cheap defence. Of course one of the pimary values of wheels and then roads is being able to insert a roving packet of forces behind enemy lines. Just pop a nice large bucnh of guys through their defensive wall and then make hay while the sun shines running about in the backwoods knocking off cheap cities -- more especially if they haven't invested in Democracy yet.

(I'm toying with doing the following pattern next game: build a couple armies, send them wandering out near my neighbor's homes, build cities there, temple them very quickly, THEN go the standard expansionist route from there)



Then don't wait for the end game. Sack your necessary temples in the early and mid-game.



I'd be tempted to just add more King cards to the mix. I could also see having a King card change hands if PlayerA conquers enough cities to both put himself over the next 5-count of cities and for PlayerB to drop below the 5-count of cities needed to justify the king cards he has.



The problem with adding cards to the game is that you're just adding an inflationary measure. It is now easier to gain VPS and thus easier to end the game earlier. Conversely I'd rather tighten up the end-game. It is currently possible and fairly easy to win the game without ever coming into conflict with the other players. In fact our last game ended without there being a single conflict in the whole game. I'm not particularly keen on that.

4X game? It's about bad Astralian lager?



But would just adding king cards just lead to "more of the same"?



Cheap defence? Let me think about that - I have a city that takes 1 unit to conquer, or for the additional investment I have a city that takes three units (so at an added "cost" to the attacker of two iron) AND gives up a victory point. As an aggressor, I'm rubbing my hands with glee at the idea of people using temples as front-line defence. Democracy is much more worrying.


I must persuade my opponents to put the temples where I can get at them early on. I hear what you say about this, but I don't think that it's a viable defence strategy. On the other hand, early in the game before you've got the Wheel - and preferably Roads - I maintain that opposition temples are likely to be out of reach.



Losing King cards would change the whole dynamics of the game. It would, I'm sure, introduce the "bash the leader" gameplay that mot people rightly criticise in this sort of game.



I was trying to solve the reported "Argh - we've been playing for two hours and no-one can get the last one or two VPs" problem, while at the same time dealing with the "the only way to win is to grab two Kings, a couple of citizens, two scholars, then go hunting for a general or two" idea. After one game, I'm not sure that either is in fact a problem, but they could be. And I can't think of any other *easy* fix except to add more VP cards of a different type.

Adding more of the same would be inflationary - adding new types of VP cards could give the game more routes to victory. The key is making those extra cards equal in cost/benefit to the current set, while also promoting whatever it is in the game that you want to promote!

Added to which, they would be easy to make available as a download with "optional" rules. Given that Personality cards aren't shuffled (and are arguably just for flavour; the track on the board could have been used as the only way to track VPs), it's an easy solution/variant to implement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4X



Yes, but I'm not convinced that this is a Bad Thing. It might be tho. There may also be advantage to removing the odd King card from the current game. It depends on how much you think that the current game winds out a little too quickly. I'm not convinced either way, but suspect that the system is minimalist enough that any changes will seem to have a disporportionate effect.



No, two units. One for the city, and one to beat it.



At a cost of two extra units, during which period I've had the benefit of a) being able to deploy my units elsewhere and b) increased resource earnings in the meantime.



Heh. I'll simply note that the only temples I've lost to date have been temples that I didn't care about: I'd made all the VPs from them that I was ever going to make and their loss couldn't change the fact that I was going to win.



You may be right.



I can buy the wheel or any other technology on turn three. It is not possible to conquer another player's city on turn three or before.



Yep. In truth this is the only aspect of the game that concerns me.



Actually, I'm not sure that the game has enough of that problem and I think I may want more of it. All of our games have ended cleanly with one player being unstoppable for the last few moves. For instance in our last game, quoting from a message I wrote elsewhere:

And there was a reason my cities were undefended: I didn't need them any more. I was perfectly willing to let you guys walk all over them, and it made no matter to me. I had all the VPs I was going to get from cities. All I needed at that point was to slightly slow you and Eddie so that I could either build three more temples for the win (Eddie nixed that by taking my marble temple and putting me two under), enough gold for a technology for the win (you nixed that via my gold temple, putting me one under), or enough iron for enough fleets for the win (you aided that by letting my fleets move south, but I think I still had enough even if you had defended: I was 4 or 5 units over in my last build/maneuver). If you'd somehow managed to stop my fleets, say putting me one under, then I could have won on the next turn given the number of legions and galleys I had in both in range of your temple in Northern Italy and of Eddie's temple in Greece.

Note: I'd built all of my 17 legions. I had nothing left I could build except fleets, temples and technologies. As I'd lost my gold and marble temples, my second to last move was to move all my fleets away from their home cities (I had navigation and enough fleets to soak up any defence without bothering to try and conquer cities). My last move was then to build new fleets on all my now empty coastal cities for the win. Arguably the win was determined a turn earlier than that when my nearest coastal neighbor didn't muster more fleets to soak up my fleets and instead took my gold temple for a VP (he could do one or the other, not stop both).



I've won every game of Antike I've played and I've never conquered a temple. For example in my last game: 1 VP from 3 temples, 3 VPs from 15+ cities, 2 VPs from 14+ fleets. 3 VPs from technologies. I think the more critical point however isn't the exact composition of the final VPs you end the game with, but the order in which you acquire them.



I don't think that's a problem.



Yep, tho without disagreeing you could achieve the same effect by removing cards from the current set. For instance remove two King and two Fleet cards from the set, thus forcing players faster/earlier toward technologies and generals.

A snippet from an email:

Turn 0: 0 coin, 1 iron, 2 gold, 3 marble.
Turn 1: 1 coin, 1 iron, 2 gold, 3 marble. (Build 2 units)
Turn 2: 1 coin, 0 iron, 2 gold, 3 marble. (Build 2 cities)
Turn 3: 1 coin, 0 iron, 0 gold, 1 marble. (Build 1 unit)
Turn 4: 1 coin, 0 iron, 0 gold, 1 Marble. (plus two resoources from cities)
Turn 5: You can't conquer as none of your units are in regions with
enemy cities. You can maneuver into a region with an enemy
city with a potential maximal force of 3, setting yourself up
for a combat in move 6. If you don't maneuver and if your
initial two cities were anything but marble, then you can
build 1 more city this turn
Turn 6: (assuming you manuever to conquer on this turn). All I have
to do is have either two units or a temple in your target city
in order to stop your attack.

Working out the potential movement permutations and possibilities like that is interesting.

Iplayed it again last night, and enjoyed it even more than the first time.

the most interesting part of the game is the first half - and particularly the first half-dozen turns - when you see all these different possibilities unfold.

Yesterday we had people attacking temples from about halfway through the game, and an unclaimed king card right up until the last turn!

I can also see how at least half of my ideas for extra VP cards are complete idiocy.

Until someone persuades me otherwise - and demonstrates that it is not down to "groupthink" or flawed play - I'll not accept that the game has a serious (or any) problem. If following certain paths aren't winning you the game, try something else!

I agree with you that the fact that there are shortages of certain VP cards is not a flaw - it's a positive advantage, as it forces players to work quickly towards their goals rather than nancying about building up speculative positions such as walls of troops who otherwise stand about doing nothing. Of course the game might lock up if everyone did this, but a group of such players WILL lose to someone who dynamically pursues victory points rather than the illusion of a solid and cohesive empire.

(I didn't do the "Mongol horde" plan I had in mind - things just didn't pan out in the first few turns. But I *did* see people using temples for defence. Temples plus democracy plus defenders were tough nuts to crack, even on the front line; temples without were cheap VPs for the attacker)

Rubbish idea, Richard. Knocking over small cities is, and should remain, pointless unless you want to boost your production by a couple of resources. It'd be far too easy to earn VPs this way.


Using resources would be silly - rich get richer, and all that. Something that the game doesn't seem to suffer from at the moment. I'm not sure that saving coins to get VPs solves anything at all - it's certainly the death of player interaction.


Oh that's right - reward the corner-sitters at the expense of players starting in the middle! Hopeless idea.


Indeed you have. How about leaving the game alone? OK, I've not played three-player, and there *may* be a problem if there aren't enough victory points available AND the players are equally successful in grabbing what there actually is, but the fix to that is to drop the number of VPs required for the win by one.

In all other situations, I'm coming to the conclusion that the best fix is to leave well alone, and let the winner emerge from amongst those players who most successfuly gather the available VPs (because they build up to the game's goals more quickly and efficiently than their opponents).

[Please, no-one take offence at the tone of this post. If you thought I was being serious, rest assured that I have the utmost respect for RDewsbery - I'd go as far as to say that he's one of the finest games players I know. Honest.]

Here Here! I'm glad to read that people who are actually playing the game and giving it a chance are having positive experiences. (Especially considering what I spent to order this game from Germany )

How many people complain about shill/hype rocketing unplayed or half-played games up the charts here. This is just the opposite with one bad session leading to some vast pervasive impression that the game is broken or has some flaw.

Play it then play it again ... Post your initial rating and impressions all the while... Play it some more then re-rate. But if that first game left you with a bad taste in your mouth and you don't plan on repeated playings to analyze the game keep your rating to yourself. This seems especially important for power players whose opinions are greatly respected around here.

Of course, since the games designer started this thread I should probably keep my mouth shut. Too late.

I played Antike twice at BGG.con, and I think it's my new favorite game. I'm trying to find a copy to purchase (and it's unlike me to purchase games), and in the meantime, I just finished printing out the map(s) on the color plotter at work, 22x32 inches (I think it's a little big, and I don't have photoshop at work so I couldn't make it look real nice, but at least they're usable) and I intend to make my own prototype of it just to play the thing!

I don't agree with people who say it's a disadvantage to start in the center of the board... I think you need to adjust your play accordingly though. I would like to start in the center and try this strategy:
Expand to 5 cities real quick (not sure which ones, probably Marble), then crap out some Temples on Gold and Iron. Build up dudes but don't necessarily expand too much... the point being to pile up gold and advance the Technologies. The dudes are to keep you from being invaded. I guess you'd want to get at least a 6th city and build 6 Temples. If it works out, I imagine a player could get several Scholars and Citizens and a King while the other players clash up against each other's borders (because you have a pile of dudes and temples). To finish off the game one might make a militaristic press to either get another couple cities for a second king (probably more mid-game), or smash a Temple (depending on geography).

Also, I am not convinced there's a "problem" as discussed in this thread. It would be cool to see other victory conditions though, and a Clergy Ancient Personality or something wouldn't be bad - put in 1 or 2 and to get them (it?) you have to donate 10 coin while taking the Temple action or something. Saving all that coin means doing a lot less, and there'd only be 1 or 2 to go around. I think that's a good alternative to the 3-player endgame general thingy.

- Seth

I have now played with three players, to 10 victory points, and found that it gave a VERY satisfactory game. I cannot imagine ever wanting to play to 12 VPs with three players.

On the other hand, when I played it 6-player to 7 VPs, it was over too quickly - although that might have been the fault of some of the players being uncompetitive, and increasing the target to 8 probably isn't a good idea.

As an aside, I wonder if Clearclaw and I have both made a mistake in calculating how to conquer cities?

[quote][quote]
Cheap defence? Let me think about that - I have a city that takes 1 unit to conquer..
[/quote]
No, two units. One for the city, and one to beat it.
[/quote]

The rules ACTUALLY say that the attacker needs to EQUAL the defence strength of the city, and loses units equal to this defence strength before swapping the defender's marker for his own. Although the example in the rulebook has a city conquest where an attacking unit remains after combat, this DOESN'T appear to be a requirement for a successful conquest - so I COULD successfully attack a strength one city with a single fleet or legion, couldn't I?

Yes, you could.

I played a 3p game of Antike tonight. It went a different way than you guys have described... Basically, as I will describe in a session report in a minute, I went for gold - all out. I ended up winning 10-6-6, with 7 points coming from scholars.

It appears to me that with 3 players, there' plenty of space on the baord (compared to 5p), but the 'space' for vps from Scholars doesn't change. So it seems smart to go for that. Since I got so many uncontested points from Scholars, we didn't see the endgame general thing come up. However, if just 2 of those points went to the other playerds instead of me, the scores would have been 8-7-7 and we'd start to run into the General issue.

My friend Tyler didn't like the game too much, but I think that's partly a function of the small number of players. When I played with 5 players I thought it was just the type of thing he would have liked a lot. It certainly played differently twithonly 3 players, and it brings up the question (in my mind anyway) as to whether some of the personalities should be removed in smaller games - perhaps instead of increasing the number of points needed to win.

- Seth

The more I play this game the more I realise that any strategy is viable - but the winner will be the player who most efficiently manages their resources in pursuit of that goal AND who faces the least competition for the victory point personalities. Going for scholars only works if you can do it either without - or better than - the competition. Similarly conflict works best when your immediate neighbours are without strong defences.

Yeah, winning is easier if your opponents aren't trying to win... I agree