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.