ANTIKE is not a game about territories. It is a game about ancient personalities.

The geographic position of a nation influences the possible strategies. But the question remains, whether a central position of a nation is an advantage or a disadvantage?

Does a nation have to collect as many regions and cities as possible to be able to win? Consider this:
to get a first king is needed:
6 resources (2 of each kind) to build 2 additional cities
To get a second king is needed:
15 resources (5 of each kind) to build cities plus military units (cost additional resources) plus time to wander around with them (as always, time is money. One could have produced other resources in that time).
In comparison to get a simple scholar is needed:
7 resources (gold)
to get a navigator is needed
7 resources = 7 military units plus time to wander around, if not built in 7 different harbour cities.
to get a citizen is needed
15 resources (marble) for the building of 3 temples.

How to raise production?
with 15 resources investment on a new king, production raises by 5, with 15 resources investment on a citizen, production raises by 6.

Obviously, a strategy of maximum territorial expansion is the slowest way to get ancient personalities. Therefore the geographic position of a nation does not really prevent that nation from the fastest ways to victory.

However, a central nation may be threatened more often by its neighbours and therefore be forced more often to implement a military strategy. The central position has certainly more risk in it. But on the other hand it has more opportunities as well:
- there is more variety in expansion. A nation in a corner, for example trying to specialize on gold cities, may not find as many of them around as a central nation.
- in the endgame it is important to be in reach of enemy temples, a nation in a corner may have its difficulties with that.

I personally prefer to play with a central nation not only because it is more interesting, but also for their opportunities. Are central nations by real means at an advantage, or is this only a question of like and dislike?

My gaming group spent quite a while having the exact same conversation after we played out first 6-player game. The pressure is on when you're in the middle, but if your diplomacy skills are good, you'll do great in the center. My only recommendation is that you don't stick a newbie in the center on his first try.

Antike is genius, my gaming group hasn't been so unanimously thrilled about a game in a really long time. We literally played the whole game, standing. That has never happened before. And we immediately played a second game, staying up to 1:30am - a gaming club late-night record.

Just like in Diplomacy, we were running off to corners of the room negotiating with other players, making and breaking alliances. This is why I believe (after playing a 6 & 3 player game) Antike is most definitely best with 5-6 players. I love the negotiation mechanic in games, and cunning negotation is a must if you wish to win at 6-player Antike.

Unlike many war games, Antike is about well-planned, concise battles. It's similar to Wallenstein in this respect. You can't just go around fighting with whomever, whenever. And this is one of the reasons why I love Antike so much.

Soon everyone will hear about Antike and will be playing, I predict it's gonna be huge. And I think this would be great with even 7-8 players because it plays so fast. Mac, any thoughts about creating a 7-8 player expansion with new maps and pieces? Congrats on an incredible game!

I'm not sure. The are games (and approaches) where being in the centre is the best place to be (particularly if you're adopting an expansionist approach, I think), and games where you want the security of a corner position (or ANY position away from that nasty expansionist). In my view, what is the "best" position on the board depends on what you're doing, and what everyone else is doing. It's another of the game's strengths - and new players certainly shouldn't shy away from being in the thick of things.

But what I really want to take issue with is the idea that you need 15 resources to get a second King.

I can do it with 10 resources, only half of which are actually "spent" in getting the cities; 5 will remain available for other projects.

How? Use iron. With 2 military units, I can knock over an enemy city, for the loss of just one unit. And if I'm able to use naval power for my conquests, the units I'm building and moving will get me a long way towards a first (or even a second) Admiral.

Alright, I'll concede that I need to use a few more actions - whereas the temple-builders can concentrate on gathering then spending marble, I need to gather iron, recruit units AND move them. But if I call organise it in such a way that I get additional benefits - such as that Admiral card, or denying opponents key resources, or putting pressure on their early temples, then it can be a very effective approach.

I've played two games now where I deliberately left myself with a shortage of marble and gold, yet still collected more kings than any other player - becuase although it is one of each resource to build a city, capturing a city is far cheaper.

I recently played a 4 player game with me in the middle. It seemed ok at first, until I built a few temples, then everyone started homing in one me!

I'd suggest if you are in the centre, you will need more iron and military units because you have more borders, less marble, and probably an average ammount of gold.

I don't like being in the centre simply because in order to survive long enough to meet the victory goal, you must channel a good deal of resources into defense. Central positions may allow for quick expansion in the beginning, but once the pressure is on, you have but one chance at victory---if you do it too late, you lose to someone else who found a weaker point to make an attack and win; and if you do it too early, you'll not obtain the decisive victory before you are overrun by your neighbours. Given the large emphasis on 'making a slip' in this game, especially when the board is crowded, living on the edge of the board is an advantage which is not offset by a somewhat more problematic access to temples. Near the end of the game, not many temples need to be sacked anyway.

In fact, the entire 'making a slip'-thing is something I am beginning to dislike more than I hoped I would, but that is something for a different discussion.

I think the middle is worse than any of the other starts, but as was pointed out this is the strength of the middle. If you have a weaker position people should logically try and pick on the strongest (ie not you). Certainly a fun game, most good multiplayer games have this mechanic, dune, diplomacy, pax romana, ect... I am hardly an expert though, I've only played about 7 times. I still find it hard to win from the middle, but I can see it shouldn't matter where you are. Any good starting strategies for the middle by the way?
Colin

1. I don't think the analysis should be done in terms of "resources" - this is a red herring. The real constraint in the game is the limited # of actions. So an expansion strategy takes generally takes this form:

arming 2x
maneuver (build city)
[action] (build city) - get king and be +2 in resources

Another path is:

gold
marble
know-how (acquire market) - get scholar and be +3 in resources (+1 for each resource type)

You can also go the temple building route; as noted that can make you a target in later turns, but it definitely improves early game defense.

2. In my limited Antike gamign experience, I've found that a balanced strategy is often the best. Since going deep down one path is too hard when competing with opponents. Easy ones to achieve are:

1 citizen (3 temples) - an extra citizen is doable
1 king (5 cities) - an extra king is doable
1 navigator (7 seas)
2 scholars (2 techs)

It's sometimes required to sack a temple to achieve a general - that is also fairly easy. Particularly if you have the wheel.

Mac was recording some tournament games, and noting who was winning. IIRC, the Greeks and Romans seemed to have the best winning percentages. IMO, the reason for that is that they are especially suited to a naval expansion strategy, and having 7 seas occupied is an easy personality for them to achieve. 2 navigators is also possible for them, whereas is nearly impossible for the other nations. Since there's no equivalent bonus for occupying 7 LAND territories, it appears that naval-based nations have an innate advantage, more than offsetting their center positioning.

I just don't see Greeks and Babylonians on the eastern board as middle countries. They are tougher than Arabia and Egypt but the are still in a corner and only have two flanks to worry about. In all of our games the Greeks nearly always win, do to a good defensive postion and easy access to the middle of the board to sack temples and get navigation VPs.