|
News from the North: a date with Louis XIV
Amidst the chaos that is invariably a Wednesday night, the Elder Kendall has eventually managed to arrange another trip to Bingley. There are four for the evening - probably a good thing. Of the massed faces from the previous outing, Kendall remembers just one - Tom - mine host - and so it is useful to insert Pete and Sue into the memory banks.
Out of the large pile of games on the table Kendall recognizes just the one - Wallenstein. Though by no means a bad game, he is relieved to hear that it is not to be the one. A brief lingering glance at San Juan (possibly next time) and instead it is off to Versailles for a try of Louis XIV. Apparently reviews of this are 'pretty good' (Tom) and he has read the rules through once. Consequently, Sue takes the lead in reading the rules from the rules book. Now this is something to admire. Brought up in the world of the Ragnars where it's a case of dog eat dog (or rat eat wolverine eat head of the food chain) a sort of self-defence mechanism has grown up. Get your head round the rules before anyone else does so that when the heckling kicks in, you can at least vaguely follow your train of thought. Working it out on the hoof is a very different kettle of fish (to mix a metaphor, but to develop the animal theme). Only at the point when the idea of 'making a start' without having gone through all the rules does Kendall twitch. "Can we go through it all?", though as it happens, plenty of rules get forgotten at the vital moment so it probably didn't make much difference in the long run.
The immediate reaction of the group - that it has a definite whiff of Puerto Rico - proves to be spot on (although add in a dash of Aladdin's Dragons, a soupcon of Merchant of Genoaand a sprinkling ofAristo). Basically you earn the bulk of your Victory Points from achieving your missions. Each mission must be paid for with two chits; these might be orbs, scrolls, rings, helmets (?) , or crowns (which are wild) . Chits are earned by either buying them or by having most influence on a particular noble. These nobles operate a little like the jobs in Puerto Rico - each noble provides a different 'reward', which neatly changes from turn to turn. The nobles are all named - e.g. Madam de Maintenon - but sadly the names don't crop up in the play of the game - "two on number 10" sounds suspiciously similar to a night on the roulette wheel). A neat sub-system is the in-between zone for influence markers. Markers are either in general supply ('off board'), in a player's personal supply or 'on the table'. This two-step system works rather nicely - do you build up your personal supply early in a turn or do you get your markers onto the nobles to dissuade the others from placing their markers there?
There are plenty of other restrictions and any number of alternative sources of Victory Points, but as Sue proved, without the missions you can basically forget it. Albeit on only one playing, it seems to come down to maximising your mission score (four turns, a maximum of two missions per turn) whilst making as many other bonus points as you can.
How did it play? In terms of scores, it was fairly even: Pete 43, Kendall 41, Tom 40, with Sue (plus missing missions) 34. It's hard to work out how anyone might have done better - there's a lot of options available, but very often it seems that one option is no better than another option. You certainly don't sit there thinking "if only." At two and half hours plus, it also seems surprisingly long. Admittedly much groping for rules was going on, but this is still half as long again as it says on the box. Unfortunately it's one of those games where you can't really plan what you're doing until the player before you has finished their turn. Also, for a diehard lover of history, it doesn't really deliver: compared to something like Princes of the Renaissance, this is very mechanical - you're playing against a game system, not trying to deliver any history. Furthermore, in the words of Tom, it's very "tactical" - all to do with achieving things at that precise moment, whilst inconveniencing the other players as much as possible: there doesn't seem to be much long term strategy.
Overall, not a bad game at all, but possibly better as a two- or three-player game. There are so many cracking four-player games out there that it's got its work cut out to establish a place in the pecking order.
And so, home to a very late bed.
Go to top of page
|
