RDewsbery wrote:
And Chris is a misery-guts. He doesn't like Shadows Over Camelot, for goodness sake!
Oh dear, neither do I. I seem to have rated it a 2.5.
Quote:
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).
Absolutely. I'm having a variant of this phenomena in a thread on Neuland at this moment.
Quote:
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?
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.
Quote:
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.
A few more King cards perhaps, or perhaps some sort of monoply bonus for given resource types.
Quote:
At the moment, conflict brings limited rewards - with temples usually being so far behind the front line...
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)
Quote:
...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).
Then don't wait for the end game. Sack your necessary temples in the early and mid-game.
Quote:
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)
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.
Quote:
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?
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.