Neueste Einträge

Yspahan machte es möglich: Jeder wollte dabeisein und schon 6 Tage vor dem Countdown waren alle WPG-Plätze vergeben und die Mannschaften für zwei getrennte Spielorte benannt. Am Westpark kam eine reine Männerrunde zustammen, in Schwabing trafen sich zwei Pärchen zum Flotten Vierer.
Bei den Männern wurden lediglich Brettspiele absolviert. Hier die Zusammenfassung.
1. „Yspahan“
Ein neues Super-Spiel von Ystari Games, die sich zu einem Garant für höchste Spielansprüche gemausert haben. Auch in „Yspahan“ ist alles stimmig, ausbalanciert, vom Konzept her intelligent und von der spielerischen Reife einfach beste Klasse. Es gibt keine Schwächen, nicht einmal vom Ansatz her:
Schon allein der Würfelmechanismus, mit dem die Spieler ihre zulässigen Aktionen auswürfeln, ist äußerst geistreich. Mit diesem Element wird das spielerische, lockere Element in das ansonsten streng planbare Spielgeschehen hineingebracht. Wer gewinnt, war zweifelsfrei der Beste, wer verliert, hat schlichtweg Pech gehabt.
Viele verschiedene Strategien bieten sich an; welche davon zum Sieg führt, wird Peter nicht einmal in seiner Rezension verraten: Ladenbesitzer, Kamelhändler, Geldwechsler, Architekt, Würfel-Statistiker oder Glücksritter, für alle diese Charaktere gibt es Betätigungsfelder mit Umsätzen auf der Siegpunktskala.
Bei jedem Detail der Spielregel kann man ins Schwärmen kommen: so durchdacht und spieltheoretisch perfekt ist das Konzept, Note Eins mit Stern! Kleines Beispiel: Drei Wochen a 7 Tage sind zu absolvieren, mit jeweils wechselndem Startspieler. Das macht 21 Runden, und wenn 4 Mitspieler dabei sind, dann ist jeder genau 5 mal Startspieler. Da bleibt noch eine Runde übrig. Wenn jetzt nochmal der Startspieler in normalen Modus wechseln würde, wäre der erste bevorzugt und alle anderen benachteiligt. Doch „Yspahan“ hat auch für diesen Konflikt eine geniale Lösung gefunden: In dieser Überschußrunde wird die Startspielerrolle nach einem total anderen Modus vergeben, die Spieler ziehen hier in der umgekehrten Reihenfolge ihrer aktuellen Spielposition. Wer bisher am meisten Pech hatte, darf sein Glück noch einmal versuchen. Ist das keine göttliche Erfinderweisheit!
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 9 (keine 10, weil schon aus WPG-Prinzip eine Differenz zu „1830“ sichtbar sein muß), Günther: 9 (Denken mit Spaß), Walter: 9 (hat sich von anfänglich 10 Punkten runterargumentieren lassen), Wolfgang: 9 (konstruktiver Glücksfaktor)
Peter hat schon eine Rezension geschrieben, Aaron muß sie nur noch freigeben.
2. „Säulen der Erde“
War standardmäßig als zweites Spiel vorgesehen, schließlich sollten alle WPGler noch eine Kostprobe von unserem nächsten „Spiel des Monats“ abkriegen. Doch zur vorgerückten Zeit scheuten wir die Dreiviertelstunde Regelerklärung. Wird wohl das nächstes Mal bei freier Liebe auf den Tisch kommen.
Peter wird eine Rezension schreiben.
3. „Vegas Showdown“
Die Spieler bieten um Gebäude rund um die Casino-Szenerie: Spieltische, Hotels, Restaurants, Büffets, Parks und ähnliches. Die Gebäude bringen pro Runde neues Geld ein, sie ziehen Publikum an oder werden sofort in Siegpunkte umgesetzt. Am Ende wirft die Qualtität des ersteigerten Gebäude-Ensemble noch mal einige Siegpunkte ab.
Der Auktionsmechanismus läuft ganz flott ab, wobei hierzu auch das funktional gut durchgestilte Spielmaterial viel beiträgt. Ein paar wohldosierte Zufallsereignisse fördern die unterhaltende Spielstimmung.
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 6 (nur! obwohl er gewonnen hat), Günther: 8 (hält es für ein Spiel-des-Monats-Kandidaten), Walter: 7 (hübsch und stimmig, aber doch nur ein Auktionsspiel), Wolfgang: 8 (leicht und locker)
Wolfgang schreibt eine Rezension.
4. „Bluff“
Im Endspiel mit einem gegen Walters zwei Würfel hatte Günther eine 2 gewürfelt und fing mit 1 mal die Fünf an. Mit 2/3 Wahrscheinlichkeit hatte er damit einen von Walters Würfeln richtig geraten. Doch Walter hatte nur eine Eins und eine Drei geworfen und zweifelte an. Damit war’s das auch schon.
Hier sieht man mal wieder die Stärke der „Immer-4-Strategie“. Wenn Günther eine 4 vorgegeben hätte, hätte Walter auch noch eine plausible Chance zum Erhöhen bzw. zum Nachwürfeln sehen – und damit verlieren – können.
Was wäre aber gewesen, wenn Günther ganz brav 1 mal die Eins vorgelegt hätte? Auch dieses Trivial-Problem ist spieltheoretisch noch nicht entschlüsselt. Mini-Mäxchen, es gibt noch viel zu tun!
Keine neue WPG-Wertung für ein Super-Spiel.

reviewed by Moritz Eggert

Jack Bauer grinned as he gripped the man who called himself Carey Grayson in his deadly armlock. "So you hid the code in a game about me, have you? What is this evil plan of yours, and why do you want to release the deadly Elvis virus in a wedding chapel in Reno and kill millions of innocent Elvis impersonators?".

"No, all is a misunderstanding" screamed Grayson, "it's just a game, just a game, you see…".

Jack Bauer pulled the steely-cold gun from his holster and pressed it to the cheek of the trembling man.

"I know you're an evil terrorist in fact. Calling anything "24" the game is a clear violation of copyright laws. This is why I might torture you to get information about your world domination plans. In fact I might start with it this very moment."

"No, the name is 24-7, you know like 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week. It's just a title! You see, my wife, she's not a geek gamer, but she enjoys gaming. I just wanted to create a game that I can play with her, and that can be enjoyed by gamers and non-gamers alike, that is simple to explain, and doesn't take hours to…"

"Stop! Why don't you shut-up and show me what the heck you're talking about!".

"It's in the bag" said Carey.

Bauer pulled out the hefty box with a clock tower. Hell, it didn't even have a picture of him on the cover. That was clearly a case of bad merchandising.

He noted that the box had a nice weight to it. There was a clinking noise inside. When he opened it, carefully of course, because he feared a deadly trap might explode into his face, Bauer quizzically looked at the contents.

"What, no cheap cardboard counters? No armies with SS-Runes, no map of the world? What is this, an un-American game? What are these white domino like tiles for?"

"These are the white number tiles that are the basis of the game. You see we took great care to produce them so that they would look and feel especially nice. We even included little wooden holding boards like in Scrabble that you can place them in, one for each of the up to 4 players!".

"And why are they numbered from 1-10? And why does the board have a 7×7 grid? Is this some secret code or something?"

"There are 40 tiles in total, one for each number. At the beginning of the game one tile is randomly selected and placed in the middle, also 3 more tiles are removed, so that one never really is sure if a certain tile will appear."

"You talk like a commie traitor, why would anybody want to hide that information?"

"You see, it makes the game more exciting. It is a simple but effective rule that works great. We added it very late in the design process."

"What does one do with the number tiles?"

"Each player places one when it's his or her turn. You either place them orthogonally or diagonally to already placed tiles. And you try to score by creating certain combos."

"Huh, I knew it – a combo to take over the world!"

"Not exactly – it's all in good fun. Gamers are peaceful people, you know? The most coveted combo is to get a diagonal or orthogonal row of numbers that adds up to exactly 24."

"I knew it! Your secret plan!"

"…but there are also other combinations." continued Grayson, unperturbed.

"7 for example. Or a run of three, or 4, or 5. Or a set of 3 or 4. It's a little like in Poker or that other great game by Sunriver Games, "Havoc – The Hundred Year's War". A wonderful game, you should try that out some time…"

"Silent! What is this pad for? To jot down the locations of our nuclear power plants?"

"No, it is to keep track of each player's score. The different combos that I mentioned give points, we call them minutes, from 20 to 60, like 60 minutes per hour."

"Bah, Humbug! Everybody knows that an hour has only 42 minutes in which something happens, the rest is commercials and toilet breaks, although never for me strangely enough….What are these hourglass symbols for?"

"They double the score, a little like in Scrabble. When you place a scoring tile there you simply get twice the score of what you scored. Even better, when you manage to create a 24 and a 7 scoring in one go you get a 60 point special bonus. That is a true killer move."

"Hah, now I know where you lied – with all these tiles it is easily possible to go beyond 24 as a sum, you were trying to deceive me!"

"This is where the beautiful red gem stones come in. When a 24 scoring took place these stones are placed at both ends of the scoring row, therefore blocking the spaces for future tile play. This can even be done tactically to hinder other players scoring in advance!"

Bauer fell silent. He knew this guy took him for an idiot. He removed the safety of his gun with a loud click. "Okay, and now to your plan of world domination. Talk. Just talk. I count to 10. 1….2…..3……4….."

Grayson suddenly smiled unexpectedly.

Summary
Rules:	bilingual (German and English), can be explained in 2 minutes
Game material:	impeccably good
Game length:	20 minutes, and you want to play again immediately

"Not World Domination. We just wanted to create a great game for everybody. Light, but not dumb. Short, but involving. Mathematical, but so that even a small kid will get it and nobody feels excluded. A good closer game for a gaming evening. And I think we managed to do just that. We have achieved our goal. To make something that it is worthwhile spending one's time with.

Speaking of which… I don't think you achieved that goal, my friend. Begone!"

And with this Grayson snipped his fingers and Jack Bauer disappeared in thin air, like a bad dream.

And then I woke up.

"24-7 The Game" is a great light game of number tile scoring, a bit reminiscent of but much better than Zatre (which plays much slower). Sunriver Games has again managed to produce a winner!

Very recommended – for all kinds of gaming groups.

by Günther Rosenbaum

Yspahan, a game by Sebastian Pauchon, was released by Ystari in October 2006.

We already published a review ) of this game. This article is about the interesting and definitely original dicing mechanism and the probabilities of different dice roll results.

The Dice Placing Rules

It is obvious that dice on the „vase“ line will not be seen very often!

Normally, you roll 9 dice. However, you are free to add up to 3 more dice by paying for them.

The cast dice are sorted: All 1s constitute one group, all 2s, …, all 6s. These groups are placed on the board which is shown at the right hand side following these rules:

• The dice group with the lowest value is placed on the lowest row, i.e. „camel“.
• The next group is placed on the next row, i.e. „sack“.
• and so on, until
• the dice group with the highest value is always placed in the top row, i.e. „gold“

On the right hand side, you can see an example result. You’ll notice that below the „gold“ row, there can be gaps.

So, it’s time to ask some interesting questions:

What is the probability that the „vase“ row gets one, two or three dice?

and

What is the effect of buying 1 to 3 dice in addition to the 9 default dice?

When optimising your strategy, it won’t hurt if you have some idea about those results, and this is why I have created the tables which now follow. However, it should be clear that there are several other factors in Yspahan which determine who wins. Besides, I did not take into account the rule which allows you to add another die to an existing dice group in exchange for a special card.

Notes on the tables

9 W6	min 1	min 2
Gold	100	59

This is the table for rolling 9 six-sided dice (9 W6). All quoted numbers are rounded percentages of probabilities.

Since the group with the highest number is always placed on „gold“, the probability for having at least one die there is 100%. (The latter statement is technically not true. In case all dice show the same number, they are put on the camel row. However, this is so improbable an event that the rounded probability for „gold“ stays 100% in all considered cases.)

The event of „at least 2 dice (i.e. 2, 3, 4 … or 9 dice) on the the ‚gold‘ row“ has a probability of 59%.

Attention:
If you notice a value of 100% in those tables, it is (the camels excepted) a rounded value being in reality a number between 99,5% and 100%. Of course, for real gaming strategies, such details are irrelevant, and that’s why I kept to rounded values.

table 1 Probabilities when using 9 dice!

table 2 Probabilities when using 10 dice!

table 3 Probabilities when using 11 dice!

table 4 Probabilities when using 12 dice

At the start of the game, or when employing the „caravan strategy“, you will probably go for „mass“. You won’t be picky about which spot to chose, as long as there are really lots of dice on offer!

Therefore, I’ve put together another table:

table 5 Probabilities for dicing groups of a certain size!

Conclusions

Everyone is free to draw his own conclusions from the tables above, and to adjust his game play accordingly. However, there are some remarks I have to make:

If the number of dice is constant, the probabilities of the lines for gold, camel, sack and barrel are, more or less, the same! As a rule of thumb, expect a group of at least 1, 2 or 3 dice with a probability of 1, 2/3 and 1/3.

This leaves the lines of chest and vase as, stochastically, somewhat more interesting.

Here is another table. It shows how the probabilities are changing when you decide to pay for adding dice to your default of 9 dice.

table 6 Probabilities of groups of dice on the chest line, depending on the number of dice used.

table 7 Probabilities of groups of dice on the chest line, depending on the number of vase used.

You will notice at first glance that paying for additional dice really does change those probabilities!

And while we’re at it…

The victory point value on the game board is more or less like this:

• Sack: 1 bis 1,33
• Barrel: 1,33 bis 1,6
• Chest: 2
• Vase: 3 bis 4

2 cubes in the chest line yield 4 victory points – just as 1 cube in the vase line. Now, the probability for having at least 2 dice in the chest line is invariably higher than having at least one dice in the vase line. Hence, in the long-term average, cubes in chest line might seem somewhat more advantageous than cubes in the vase line. However, don’t forget that I didn’t take into account some rules (see above).

I wish all of you as much fun with this wonderful game as we’ve had when playing it!

reviewed by Aaron Haag

It was Queen Victoria’s love for the island south of the United Kingdom, just 30 km long and 20 km wide, which triggered the building of railways on the Isle of Wight. It all started in „1860“ when two British railway companies, the LSWR and the LBSC, bitter rivals at the time, connected Cowes in the north with Newport in the centre of the island and Ryde with Ventor down the east coast and Freshwater in the west.

Life was not easy for the presidents of the railway companies. Terrain was difficult, especially in the southwest and the majority of the building materials had to be imported from the mainland using one of the three ferry lines of the time. Traffic was a problem, too, as most of the population lived either at the east coast or in the central city of Newport, and the revenue generated was barely enough for the companies to survive. Therefore, bankruptcy was not unusual and some companies even went bankrupt more than once but still managed to survive.

This is the setting for the latest addition to the „18xx“ series of games, which are all based on the original design of Francis Tresham’s „1829“. The object of all of these games is to invest cleverly in railway companies that build railway networks to generate profit for their shareholders. Since its first release more than forty years ago, „1829“ has seen more than twenty successors using the same basic game mechanics. All follow a common naming convention: the year of the first railway operation in the respective area.

Quite a few of the „18xx“ games have been released as game kits by hobby game designers and especially in recent years there has been no release of an „18xx“ game by larger publishers. While game kits often come with high quality components and a well tested game system (e.g. see our preview on „1895“) they need several hours of assembly time because most of the components need to be cut out, mounted or laminated.

In contrast, „1860“ is produced by the small UK based games publisher JKLM who until today has produced ten games; this is their first one of the „18xx“ series. As one would expect from a professional publication the game is – besides punching out some tokens and tiles – ready to play. Most components seem to have been produced using a colour laser printer, the material either being cardboard or plain paper. The map is mounted on sturdy cardboard and all components rest perfectly flat on the table. Credit is given to Chris Lawson for inspiring playing aids like the revenue chart and the calculation tables on the company charters, which help speeding up game play. It is also a nice idea to provide two different types of currency, one for the companies, and another one for player money. Unintentional mixing of the two can no longer happen and buying trains in the later phases of the game has no effect on the length of the game.

The rules are well written and provide enough information also for „18xx“ novices. There is only a small glitch when they state, that the game comes with £500 notes, when in fact there are £200 notes provided. According to the publisher the latter is correct. There is also a small omission in the description of the initial auction round. This round also ends if no player wants to buy or can buy any of the remaining stock of that round.

Let us look at the main features, which differentiate „1860“ from the other games of the series. The first thing experienced „18xx“ players will notice is the small size of the map in terms of track hexes. There is space for 42 track tiles only, less than in „1849 – Sicily“ but still twice as many as in „1876 – Trinidad“, both also island based games. Even more significant is the huge number of 37 cities, villages, and halts on the map. This leaves only 9 tile spaces without a stop. Combine this with the total of eight railway companies and it is obvious that the resulting railway network will be rather complex and the calculation of revenues will be difficult. Hence, it is wise to make use of the revenue chart provided with the game (note: by mistake the column for revenues ending on 80 has been omitted in the chart).

Trains come in 8 different sizes and can travel between 2+1 to 9+5 (large + small) stations. As 9+5 trains are available in an unlimited quantity railway companies are able to travel across most of the map in the end game – station markers permitting – and will rake in large revenues per operation round. This is also supported by the rule that a company may pass through one, but only one, „tokened out“ station per operation round.

A combination of three stock market and company related features derived from the historical background of „1860“ makes the game unique. First, there is the possibility that a player sells the Director’s certificate to the bank, thereby being able to get rid of all stock of a company even if no other player holds more than 10% of that company’s stock at the time. The railway company goes into receivership and while in this state retains the complete income generated in operation rounds. Eventually, the company will be attractive enough to find a player willing to buy the Director’s certificate. This feature was already present in the original „1829“ game but has not been adopted by many „18xx“ games since.

Secondly, if a company has lost all its trains and has insufficient funds to pay for a new one it becomes insolvent, a new feature to the „18xx“ series. Insolvent companies use („lease“) the smallest available train from the bank without actually acquiring it but in return receive only half of the income generated in an operation round. Insolvent companies do not pay dividends. There is no longer the need for a director to finance the buying of a train out of his own pocket making the game much less cutthroat than for example „1830“. However, if shares of a company with no trains are sold during a stock round, the selling player receives only half of the current stock price. Deciding on whether to keep or sell the shares of an insolvent company is one of the tougher choices players are faced with during the course of the game.

Finally, companies may go bankrupt. This concept is new to the „18xx“ series, too. In other „18xx“ games players will go bankrupt if they have to buy a train for one of their companies and have insufficient funds, thereby ending the game. In „1860“ company bankruptcy arises if the share price of a company reaches zero either because the director has chosen not to pay any dividends for several operation rounds or because dividends may not be paid due to the company being either in receivership or insolvent. When a company goes bankrupt, all of its shares are returned to the bank’s IPO and become available again for sale and re-floatation. Former shareholders receive no compensation for lost shares in any way. Interestingly, bankrupt companies keep all their assets (money and trains on the company’s charter and any station tokens already placed on the map) making them very attractive for re-floating. A formerly bankrupt company most of the time is a tremendously good deal as it not only has a route with stations but also lots of money and possibly even a train or two.

Looking at these three features and their effect on game play one may think that much of the thrill and suspense in the correct timing of share transactions and train acquisition has been eliminated. But during play one quickly realises that taking advantage of these new features requires just as much good timing skills and proper planning and strategy as in other „18xx“ games.

The concept of „feeder lines“ comes to mind here, which are used to provide money and/or trains to other companies of the same player but which do not pay any dividends to other players. Players deliberately shift money from one company to another by buying nearly obsolete trains from a company for large amounts of money, giving that company the opportunity to buy a better train while still paying dividends. In „1860“ the other company will eventually become insolvent and if timed correctly, the player will be able to sell all stock of the company before this happens and re-float it after it has gone bankrupt. None of this is as simple as it sounds and requires a constant look at the stock market, the priority deal and of the availability of trains, but if timed correctly it is a real moneymaker. Bankruptcy will eventually hit one or the other company so it is wise to make the best out of it.

Three conditions signal the end of the game. Like in most „18xx“ games it ends if the bank runs out of money. However, the game also ends if a railway company’s stock price reaches the top score of £340 making it an attractive possibility to accelerate the game’s end. The third condition is unique to „1860“ and simulates the nationalisation of the railway companies on the Isle of Wight. Nationalisation begins as soon as the first 9+5 train has been bought and all companies own at least one train. From then on, no more stock rounds are played and at the end of each operation round the two companies with the least revenue cease to operate, maintaining their current stock price. As soon as all but two companies have been nationalised this way the game ends. In our games this was the common type of ending and it is wise to plan ahead for it by creating attractive routes for one’s companies in order to prevent their early nationalisation.

„1860“ offers a well-balanced combination of ideas which at the same time makes it challenging for „18xx“ die-hards and not too cutthroat for beginners. The game components are of high quality and support the game play very well. For those who are „18xx“ aficionados this is a must-buy as it provides plenty of room for new strategies; for those who want to get into the „18xx“ series I can recommend it as a good introduction into the game system.

Zwei Siemens-Manager und ein Sublieferant waren heute im WPG-Quintett angesagt. Spannend war die Frage, ob sie alle die heutige Großrazzia am Standort München überlebt hatten. Hatten sie! Mit weißer Weste standen alle pünktlich um 20 Uhr am Westpark auf der Matte.
1. „Salamanca“
Die Spieler legen Landschaftsplättchen in die Pampas und bauen Villen darauf. Dann grasen sie die benachbarten Wein-, Wald- und Wiesengrundstücke ab und machen damit Kohle.
Die bösen Mitspieler können mit Wühlmäusen oder Heuschreckenschwärmen die besten Ernten vernichten. Manchmal schickt man auch einfach sein Kondom (Conde = Pfalzgraf) vorbei, um sich von fremden Ernten den Zehnten abzuholen.
Kurz und gut: Villen zu bauen ist lebenswichtig. Das Kondom rundet ab. Bei diesen beiden Spielzügen hat jeder Spieler sein Schicksal in der Hand. Doch bei den Plagen und den weiteren Katastrophen unterliegt man hilflos den Ambitionen der Mitspieler. In einer 5er Runde beträgt die Fremdbestimmung also rund 80%.
Ganz lustig, wenn man alles nicht so erst nimmt.
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 7 (8 Punkte für eine 3er Runde), Günther: 6 (eigentlich mehr wert), Loredana: 6, Peter: 5 (nach 6 Punkte beim ersten Eindruck), Walter: 6.
Walter schreibt eine Rezension.
2. „Kabale und Hiebe“
Peter wünschte sich ein halbstündiges Zwischenspiel. Was lag näher, als in unsere Kontroverse um das neue HiG-Spiel neue Gutachter einzubringen.
Peter stellte zunächst mal einen Anachronismus fest: Maiskolben stammen aus Amerika und waren im Mittelalter wohl noch nicht auf dem Speisezettel. (Nur als Randbemerkung.)
Ohne Denker spielte sich alles sehr viel flotter. Und dann sogar einigermaßen lustig. Auch wenn es nach wie vor für die Nicht-Gewinner einer gewissen Frust-Toleranz bedarf. Aaron gewann. Warum? „Ich habe es gespielt wie ‚Hol’s der Geier‘!“ (Das dürfte wohl bedeuten: Sich ganz locker auf wenige, lukrative Stiche konzentrieren.)
WPG-Wertung: Aaron: 7, Günther: 7, Loredana: 7, Peter: 7, Walter: 5 (legt einen Punkt dazu).
Moritz und Walter haben schon je eine Rezension geschrieben.
3. „Yspahan“
Nein, wir haben es nicht gespielt, wir waren ja eine 5er Runde und das Spiel geht nur bis 4 Mitspieler. Doch Peter hat es kurz vorgestellt, es ist sein neuer 10-Punkte Favorit und Loredana steht mit 9 vergebenen Punkten ganz dicht dahinter.
Das Spiel enthält einen neuartigen Würfelmechanismus zum Auswürfeln der zulässigen Spielaktionen. Günther hat schon seine Formelsammlung ausgegraben und wird demnächst ein Tableau mit den zugehörigen Wahrscheinlichkeiten veröffentlichen.
Noch keine WPG-Wertung.
Peter (!) schreibt eine Rezension.
4. „Bluff“
Im Endspiel 1:1 legte Loredana gegen Walter 1 mal die Eins vor. War das Naivität, Verarschung oder genialer Bluff. Wenn Loredana wirklich eine Eins gewürfelt hatte, so war das die einzige Vorgabe, mit der sie sofort und unweigerlich verloren hatte. Wenn sie aber keine Eins hatte …?
Schon vor einem Monat (18.10.) war Walter von Aaron mit der gleichen Vorgabe reingelegt worden. Damals hatte er eine Zwei, diesmal eine Drei. Was tun? Er zweifelte an und … hatte verloren, Loredana war wirklich mit einer Eins ins Rennen gegangen.
Verarschung war es von ihr sicherlich nicht gewesen, aber ob Naivität oder geninaler Bluff, das kann ich bis jetzt noch nicht unterscheiden. Über dem Epsilon-Durchgang durchs Unendliche liegt das ja auch ganz dicht beieinander.
Keine neue WPG-Wertung für ein Super-Spiel.

reviewed by Moritz Eggert

Phalanx continues to manage a successful line of Euro games and „geek“ games, or even a combination of the two, like in the excellent „War of the Ring“.

Since the time when Lew Pulsipher was inspired by the now forgotten hex and counter wargame „Ancient Conquest“ to create a comparatively simple wargame that creates what he calls a „sweep of history“ the mechanics of „Britannia“ have been a fan favourite, and there are now many variants of the game that recreate other place’s histories.

For an excellent overview on Britannia-like games please visit the website of one of the world-wide leading „Britannia“-experts, Rick Heli.

Andreas Steding, designer of Italia I and II, has already created one of the best known Britannia variants, the monster game „Hispania“, which recreates the history of Iberia, today known as Spain. There are „Britannia“ variants which simplify the basic system – „Hispania“ and „Italia“ certainly do not go this road but rather add chrome and special rules that give the players more choices but also more headaches.

„Italia“ is – no surprise here – a recreation of the history of Italy from ancient times. Unusual for a „Britannia“ game it comes in two completely different versions that cover two different time periods. The first one – another first – is especially designed for THREE players, and once you consider the history depicted here it makes sense. In 10 rounds the players play the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, from the Götterdämmerung of the Greeks to the final days of the empire. One player will mainly be busy with the Romans, and his task is to hold and expand the Roman position and deal with pesky revolts and upstarts. The other two players play all the minor or big empires that constantly threatened Rome, most notably the Carthaginians with Hannibal, whose campaign is actually a major event in the game.

The interesting thing is that the game system constantly forces the two non-Roman players to either gang up against Rome – which certainly has some power to defend itself – or to go for quick victory points against each other.

The second game, Italia II, recreates the history AFTER the fall of the Roman Empire, and is designed, like most Britannia games, for 4 players.

I will not go too much into the rules here, but instead add a list of major differences between the „Italia“ and the „Britannia“ system (it’s not a short list) below.

Summary of what is missing in Italia (VERY minor grapes, as the production value of this game is very high – beautiful counters, sturdy board, etc.)

A handy overview of when the units/nations of all players appear in which round – something that is usually found with any „Britannia“-style games. This info is only found on the nation cards themselves, which are covered with tiny print. A turn order list of nations on the gameboard itself. This is only found on a separate sheet that is used to look up many other things. Some nations easily amass more than 5 gold. There is a +5 counter for the money, but even with that only 10 gold can be recorded, large nations like Carthaginians and Romans easily exceed this limit. Any kind of historic reference (i.e. what time period a turn represents) – this is a glaring omission that is kind of surprising when one thinks about the detail and chrome that went into this game.

Andreas Steding has added a lot of chrome to the „Britannia“ game system here, avoiding some overly complicated mechanics that made „Hispania“ very long to play. Still, this is „Britannia“ on steroids – the decision making is much more difficult as there are lots of things large nations can do on each turn: raiding, naval moves, building cities, campaigning. The latter mechanic simulates the long campaigns of Hannibal and the like, something like a mini game in the game as other players can react to the ongoing campaign moves, also something that has not been seen yet in „Britannia“.

All this might be too much for some. „Italia“ certainly isn’t a game that makes „Britannia“ more accessible for the common market, rather the opposite. But there are many interesting ideas here – the campaign system for example.

Where the game shines is in its 3-player scenario (or rather „game“ – as the 3-player version is completely different from the 4-player version, there are different nations, even partly different rules). This is the first time it has been done right, with basically two sides representing the nations oppressed by the Romans that constantly struggle among themselves, and the third player representing mostly the Romans in their struggle to dominate the peninsula.

Game material is top notch, as usual with the „Phalanx“ line, which is always put together with great care and love, although there are some strange omissions (like a historical reference or an overview over when all nations/armies appear). The rules are not for the faint-of-the-heart – even Britannia veterans will have some new concepts to struggle with, although they will still feel at home. Recommended, but not for the casual gamer. You should have a day free for your first game, 8 hours recommended.

MAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN „BRITANNIA“ AS WE KNOW IT AND „ITALIA I/II“

NEW PLAYING PIECES

• Consular Legions/Knights (2 hits, regenerate after combat)
• Fleets (transport, naval supremacy bonus)
• Elephants (scare/destroy additional units)
• Cities (earn gold, give defensive advantage)

NEW LANDSCAPE

• there are sea spaces in which battles can be fought
• Marshland gives defensive bonus, but is no hindrance to movement
• Highland works similar to „mountains“ in „Britannia“

INCOME/SPENDING

• All areas produce one „gold“ (instead of population points)
• Cities also produce one gold.
• Gold can be saved indefinitely.

Income can now be spent on:

• Infantry legions, fleets (4 gold)
• Consular Legions (see limit in Italia I, 6.3), Knights, Elephants
• City in standard area (6 gold)
• City in „difficult“ area, marshland or highland (8 gold)

NEW UNITS

May appear in „massing areas“ which have to be left, otherwise pretty similar (7.2).

POPULATION LIMIT (2 per space)

Does NOT exist!

STACKING LIMITS

Works very differently.

In short:

• Cities/Leaders do not count against the stacking limit
• Normal/marsh: 3
• Highland/massing area: 2
• Sea area: unlimited
• Declaring as „capital“ (like in „Britannia“, presence of a city is strangely enough NOT required): +1
• Capital declaration can be changed at any time, like in „Britannia“
• Rome is always the capital of the Romans

In addition:

• When moving into combat: +1
• When moving with a leader: +1
• When doing a major invasion: +1

(all cumulative)

In a campaign:

• Unlimited stacking with leader, or also for the other players during some „reaction moves“.

Stacking limits are pretty much always in effect, even in retreating.

MOVEMENT

• highland stops like mountains, can be overcome with leader
• Straits stop movement like in „Britannia“
• marshland does NOT stop movement
• naval transport: ships may carry 2 land units each, can do naval move if starting in a coastal space, and then do nothing but naval move, may stay on sea indefinitely
• friendly cities negate terrain effects (work like Roman Roads in „Britannia“)
• leaders increase movement by 1 (of their group)
• units have different movement capabilities that are printed on the counters
• Overrun like in „Britannia“
• Ships move through each other, after all moves other players and the active player have to declare combat in spaces the active nation moved in. If anybody declares combat, combat takes place, otherwise no combat in sea areas (has to be done immediately after movement)

COMBAT

• Units have different „to hit“ numbers (printed on the counters), that have to be rolled on 10-sided dice, like in „Hispania“.
• Elephants, Knights and Consular Legions have special abilities.
• Cities don’t defend with dice, they just add defensive capabilities.
• If victorious, city can be „sacked“ and is destroyed (flipped to „ruin“ side). The pillager gets 4 gold. A city that is „sacked“ can’t be rebuilt in the same turn.
• Rebuilding: remove one unit (not leader) in the ruined space when it’s your turn, city is rebuilt from ruins.

Modifiers to the hit roll:

• highland/marsh -1 on roll
• City is defending -2 on roll
• Leader +2 (and this is CUMULATIVE – several leaders can create a super army!)
• Naval Invasion (landing with ships) or strait combat (like in „Britannia“): +2 for the defender in the 1st round only
• Fleets get +1 per transported unit
• Naval Supremacy (if adjacent sea area/s to combat space contain/s fleets of the nation in LAND combat and total number of fleets of that nation is at least double the number of fleets of the nation it fights against in those adjacent areas – I know, it sounds complicated, but that’s how it is, folks…) +1
• Raid combat (see below): one combat round only, and no modifiers to attacker, hits on a 7

Raid combat is a new concept and is directed at pillaging cities if at least one damage is created. Defending land units are NOT hurt. If city is pillaged, attacker receives 4 gold, and the city is „raided“, which is different from „sacking“ in that it can be rebuilt IMMEDIATELY out of turn sequence.

RETREAT

Like in „Britannia“, but Attacker can also retreat to OTHER spaces than the one he entered from, if they are either free or occupied by his own people.

VICTORY POINTS

Nation victory points are much more complicated than in „Britannia“ and often differentiate between „areas“ and „cities“ controlled.

CAMPAIGNS

This is a new concept. At certain moments in history nations can start campaigns, basically a huge stack of units (no stacking limit) with leader that has to be paid 1 gold for each move. After each of these moves nations adjacent to the campaigning leader can, in turn order, do reaction moves.

Either:

Move to Battle: move any number of units adjacent to the campaigner’s space into battle, disregarding stacking limit.

Or:

Move and See: Move one stack to one adjacent space ANYWHERE on the board, without initiating combat, or to join an already existing combat (either the space with the campaigning leader or an overrun space).

ATTENTION: it seems stacking limit is in effect here!

It is also possible to leave the space the campaigner has just entered, thereby giving ground (think of the real Romans reaction to Hannibal’s campaign).

Raiding in Overrunning spaces are possible, but only during a campaign (again think of Hannibal).

„BLOCKING“ is a new concept that benefits the campaigner: for 1 gold AND 1 unit sacrifice he can prevent movement in ONE adjacent space to the campaigning leader.

SUBMISSION

In general different rules for each nation, like in „Britannia“. Otherwise very similar. The subjugated nation’s income is halved and rounded UP, the subjugating nation gets the rest.

Areas controlled by the subjugated nation do NOT count as controlled, only in certain circumstances. Some nations get the possibility to REVOLT. They can be subjugated AGAIN after such a revolt. Sometimes submission is FORCED when falling below a certain threshold of units/areas. It is sufficient to simply move one unit into an area of a nation that has forced submission. No combat will take place and the nation immediately submits.

ADDITIONAL RULES

ITALIA I

Is a 3-player game and totally different from the 4-player game (ITALIA II). It has completely different nations and time periods, so one can say that Italia is 2 games in one, not one game with a 3-player variant. Some gamers actually prefer the 3-player game to the 4-player game.

• Rome can only be permanently occupied in Round 10, and is always automatically rebuilt.
• Hannibal campaign has some special rules for elephants and unit drafting (see 13.2)
• Game Turn 10 (the last) has only campaigns, and only three nations move, for all the other nations game turn 9 is the last one where they can act
• Roman legions may defect to another player’s side if controlled by Marius or Sulla (leaders), see 13.4
• Major Battles: is a new concept that describes battles with 3 or more units ON EACH SIDE. Some nations get extra points for winning major battles.

ITALIA II

Is a 4-player game.

• Knights have 2 hits like Consular Legions, but may not retreat after receiving such a hit
• Patrimonium Conversion: Twice per game the Patrimonium player can convert any one unit of another adjacent nation.

„Italia“ by Phalanx- tried out with Hans and Andrea, 9.11.2006

Andreas Steding has added a lot of chrome to the „Britannia“ game system here, but avoiding some overly complicated mechanics that made „Hispania“ very long to play. Still, this „Britannia“ on steroids – the decision making is much more difficult as there are lots of things large nations can do on each turn: raiding, naval moves, building cities, campaigning. The latter mechanic simulates the long campaigns of Hannibal and the like, something like a mini game in the game as other players can react to the ongoing campaign moves, also something that has not been seen yet in „Britannia“.

Where the game shines is in it’s 3-player scenario (or rather „game“ – as the 3-player version is completely different from the 4-player version), which is the first time this has been done right, with basically two sides representing the nations oppressed by the Romans that constantly struggle among themselves, and the third player representing mostly the Romans in their struggle to dominate the peninsula.

Game material is top notch, although there are some strange omissions (like a historical reference or an overview over when all nations/armies appear). THe rules are not for the faint-of-the-heart – even Britannia veterans will have some new concepts to struggle with, although they still will feel at home. Recommended, but not for the casual gamer.

Spiele der 18xx-Familie sind anders. Das fängt schon damit an, daß bei uns dafür gesondert eingeladen wird, damit die Ketzer, die hierfür nur 8 oder gar weniger Punkte vergeben, erst einmal wissen, was die Glocke geschlagen hat. Dann wird für 19 anstatt für 20 Uhr zusammengerufen, um der Hektik entgegen zu wirken, die ansonsten bei länger andauernden Planungsphasen der Gleisbauingenieure unweigerlich aufkommt.
Wenn dann noch ein Neuling dabei ist, wird er extra ein halbe Stunde vorher zitiert, damit er privatissime sed gratis vor dem eigentlichen Beginn der Auseinandersetzungen noch einen kleinen Überblick darüber bekommt, was ihn in den nächsten 4 bis 5 Stunden erwartet.
Diesmal trafen sich vier Zehn-Punktige und ein Neuling zum brandneuen „1861“ über die Entwicklung der Eisenbahnen im russischen Zarenreich.
1. „1861“
Neben ein paar Regel-Modifikationen, die in jedem 18xx-Spiel verwendet werden könnten, besitzt „1861“, wie jedes andere geniale Kind dieser Spielefamilie, natürlich auch ein paar ganz eigene Elemente, die ihm ein unverwechselbares Gepräge geben.
Zwischen den 5 Privatgesellschaften und den 8 öffentlichen Gesellschaften gibt es 16 Minor Companies, die zuerst betrieben werden müssen und das Spielgeschehen der Aufbauphase bestimmen. Sie werden vom handelnden Spieler versteigert und können hinterher nicht mehr verkauft werden. Ihr Auktionspreis ergibt das Startkapital; ansonsten leben und arbeiten sie wie wir das bei jeder 18xx-Eisenbahnlinie gewohnt sind.
Der Aufbau der öffentlichen Gesellschaften dominiert den Mittelteil des Spiels. Die Gesellschaften sind alle gleichwertig, besitzen keine regionale Zuordnung und können an jeder Stelle der Landkarte beginnen. Sie können über den Aktienmarkt gestartet werden, doch gehen sie meist durch Umwandlung oder Verschmelzung aus den Minor Companies hervor.
Später gibt es noch die Russische Staatsbahn, die neutral von der Bank betrieben wird. Sie kauft Züge, wann immer sie kann und erzwingt so einen ständigen technischen Fortschritt. In der Staatsbahn geht alles auf, was zwischenzeitlich den Geist aufgegeben hat.
Sechs Stunden lang spielten und kämpften wir ums Überleben, um das Dolce Vita und um die Hegemonie auf den Gleisen. Für 1 Uhr hatten wir uns ein Zeitlimit gesetzt, da wurde gerade die Endphase eingeleitet. Wir brachen das Spiel ab, ohne unseren aktuellen Entwicklungsstand in eine theoretische Siegerreihenfolge zu extrapolieren. Jeder konnte plausible Gründe vorbringen, warum er selber zum Sieger zu küren sei.
Günther hätte in den Schlußrunden die weitaus höchsten Einnahmen verbuchen können, Wolfgang hatte die meisten Gesellschaftsanteile mit durchaus guten Entwicklungschancen und Walter thronte auf den höchstwertigen Aktien, die er in den Spitzenpositionen hätte halten können. Nur Arpad war etwas abgeschlagen, er hatte sich in der Anfangsphase mit manipulativen Lok-Verkäufen innerhalb seiner Gesellschaften zu sehr selbst von der Ader gelassen.
Es war keine Sekunde langweilig gewesen, auch wenn man schon mal Denkpausen und Erklärungseinschübe über sich ergehen mußte. Den Einstieg in „1861“ haben wir geschafft. Das nächste Mal werden wir wohl einen ruhigen Sonntagsnachmittag im Winter für den Start einer neuen Herausforderung um die Eisenbahnen in Russland ansetzen müssen.
WPG-Wertung: Arpad.9, Günther: 9, Wolfgang 9, Walter 10
Walter schreibt eine Rezension.