Graham Dean
United Kingdom
Bedford
-
Web of Power
Session report
We’d just rattled through a rather enjoyable game of Tinners' Trail (which you can read about here, but there was still time for another reasonably light game which would play in about an hour or less. One of the players brought out his copy of Web of Power which looked interesting, so we sat down to play.
I’d come across this game on BGG before, but never really read much about it. For some reason I had got the impression that it was a heavy game which I would never get anyone to play, but couldn’t square that impression with the playing time. A bit illogical, but there it is. I’m going through a ‘play-a-lot-of-new-games’ phase, so I was keen to give it a go.
The group was
Nick: The supplier of the several games to games night (although not this one) and someone who I am fast coming to realise has a large library of truly excellent games.
David: The provider of the game. Slightly older than me, and based on first impressions looks much cleverer, which I think gives him an unfair advantage.
Uncle G: Me. Very keen on light to medium weight euro style games, although I’m open to playing a wide variety of stuff. Grew up playing card games like Canasta as a child, as well as many of the venerable classics which we all know.
Pete: Younger, taller and better looking than me. Life just isn’t fair sometimes.
Game session
I was anticipating a real struggle with the rules (based on my previous misapprehension about this game), but in fact they’re quite simple, and we were underway in about ten minutes.
I started playing pretty much at random at first, and after each play David would explain what the scoring would be after that move if the game were to end, which helped me begin to understand the scoring which I found a little tricky to grasp at first.
I started on one of the cities which had four pathways to it (the one I chose happened to be in Italy), on the basis that this would help me get a continuous chain of at least 4 Monastaries as it would be less easy to block in. However for some reason no-one else seemed interested in Italy, and most of the early action was based in Lohringen, Schwaben and Burgundy.
I was quite happy about this at first, and I played mostly around the edges of the board (I had an early excursion into Aragon, and also I played quite a bit in Franken). My whole focus was to try and get a continuous route of Monasteries – I understood how to score that and I figured I would get points no matter what I did on the rest.
I was also a little wary of playing my cards as jokers (each card can be played in either of the regions shown on the card, unless you have two cards the same in which case you can play both together as a joker and play anywhere. Both placements on a turn must be in the same region). It wasn’t long before I realised that it was easy to get two cards of the same type, and that therefore jokers should be played rather than hoarded.
Nick played into Aragon, where up to know I had been the only player with a presence there, and David’s explanation of the consequences made me realise that playing in areas by myself wasn’t going to get me a good score. First place in a region gets you points equal to all the monasteries in that region, while second place gets you points equal to the monasteries placed by the first placed player, and so on. My lone monastery in Italy suddenly wasn’t looking so good – it was still the only monastery in the whole of Italy.
I looked around to see what would be the best places for me to concentrate my efforts. Italy was a poor choice in the short term, although if I put a lot of monasteries there someone else might join in. they all seemed to be occupied in central Europe, so I wasn’t too hopeful of that.
I had left it too late to jump into the seething mass in Lohringen and Schwaben. England was a no-go area – no-one had placed anything there at all. I decided on Franken, where some of the other players were spilling over in an effort to gain a connected chain bonus, and I thought I might be able to extend down into Bayern (which was still quite empty) and get a connection bonus for myself.
And before I knew it we had run through the deck of cards once, and the first phase of the game was over. It was time to count up interim scores.
David had moved into a noticeable lead (perhaps not too surprising as he was the only one of us who had played this before), although I couldn’t see how he’d done it. Nick and Pete both did well out of central Europe, but had managed to stay in touch, and there was only a few points between second and fourth places.
We were now ready to start the second phase, when a new layer is added – the advisors. I understood the basic mechanic reasonably quickly – there could be a total number of advisors in a region equal to the number of monasteries of the majority player, but with advisors there were no points for second place.
Also, there was no point in being first place in an isolated position, as points were scored by having the majority of advisors in adjacent regions.
In a rather unimaginative way I started placing my advisors in the same regions where I had monasteries – Italy and Franken. There was no point going for Aragon as Nick very quickly placed two advisors there making it impossible for anyone else to even tie with him.
Monasteries were still being played, and I at last managed to complete a continuous chain of 4 in Franken and running down into Bayern. I wasn’t able to spare much attention to what anyone else was doing, but I did notice that David had managed to get a chain of 5 running across Frankreich.
David then started playing in Italy, and I had a moment to stop and think about how my scoring was being affected by this. It was at this point that I realised that my approach (or lack of it) on advisors was too disjointed and not working at all. I needed to be in first place in adjacent regions to score points, and although I knew this as a fact, I had not understood what this meant.
I quickly re-evaluated my position, and noticed a wonderful opportunity in Burgundy. Burgundy had the capacity to have three advisors, of which two had already been placed by separate players. If I placed the third I would be guaranteed a tie for first place (a scoring position) which could never be taken away. This region was next to Italy as well, and I felt confident that David and I would be sharing a majority there as well.
In the final few rounds I gained majorities in Franken and Bayern as well, and before I was ready for it the cards ran out and the game was over. I knew I’d come back well in the final few rounds, and my final position was actually quite good. Now it came down to the scoring.
As it turned out, no-one else had noticed my chain of 4 monasteries, so I felt quite proud when I declared that. I can’t remember the exact scores, but I do know that David extended his lead from the first phase and finished a comfortable winner. I was very pleased to see that I had moved into second place, with Nick in third and Pete fourth. As with the scores after the first phase, the difference between second and third was tiny – without my four point bonus for my connected chain of monasteries I would have come last.
Analysis
My usual custom is to think through a game to try to figure out what did and did not work, in the hope that I will improve as a player.
Although the rules are simple, the implications are subtle and took me a little time to grasp. With hindsight I should perhaps have got more involved in the central regions where the other players were fighting out for supremacy.
I also didn’t pick up on the value of tying for first place (with both monasteries and advisors) until very near the end. To me a tie for first place left you one move away from second place, which is a mode of thought which is often suitable in other games. In Web of Power I think I should have focused more on setting up localised (and unspoken) alliances with other players.
I’m pleased with how I played over all, and I can’t believe a game with so much depth plays in only 45 minutes. I really enjoyed this session, and this is a strong contender for a future purchase.
Thoughts on the game
 Aim for first place ties within regions, both with monasteries and advisors.
 Don’t try to be first by a long way in one region. First place in a tie is enough. Anything beyond that is fairly wasted effort.
 Place your monasteries in areas where the other players are. You will score points for placements made by your opponents. Make them work for you.
 Everyone scores points throughout the game, so games will usually be close. This makes it quite a good game for me to take to people who don’t much like playing new games in case they will lose badly and look stupid. Every turn will bring an acquisition of points, and (based on only one game) scores should be pretty close.
-
Chief EGG Head
United States
-
Glad you have discovered this game, IMHO one of the best for 3 players. Unforunately its OOP and hard to find now. You can get China which is its slightly inferior sibling.
-
Graham Dean
United Kingdom
Bedford
-
I've never played China. In what way is it worse?
-
Chief EGG Head
United States
-
here is my comment for China "I like the original KuK better. KuK seems a little more challenging less chance for a pair, have to pay more attention to where alliances are and are not. China seems a bit easy and I'm not sure I like the double of the fortifications. It seems like you cannot win unless you play them. I enjoyed the new print it yourself board http://spiele-aus-timbuktu.de/planneu.html (also was available at Essen 06 as a poster) better than the original board"
China is not really worse it's just less challenging as far as I'm concerned. You have more face up cards to pick from and the way the board is set up for alliances is much easier. Here is a link to the rules for China http://www.spiele-aus-timbuktu.de/p/chinaeng.pdf
-
Sight Reader
United States
Colorado
-
For what it's worth, I tell new players to think of Web of Power as a "mooching" game; you trick other players into populating your stuff for you, then grab the lead at the last moment.
lorna wrote: Chin is not really worse it's just less challenging as far as I'm concerned.
I think the rules in China are more elegant than Web of Power: you don't have to worry about all that fiddly first phase/second phase stuff: the fortifications neatly double both the chain and territory scores so that they're balanced nicely with the advisor scoring.
The big downside I find in China is the map. The essential problem is this: both chains and advisor relationships are "localized" far too closely to provinces. Since multiple cities in a chain sit in the same province, you can focus your card collection on that one color and get a double bonus, since building the chain will automatically award you the province it goes through.
The result is that each player builds up massive strength in their own provinces without as much interaction. This in turn makes it far too easy for players to brush aside anyone attempting to interfere with their chosen color. This, in turn, makes it difficult to establish advisors in a foreign province, since the person owning the province will always have cards in that color to counter you with.
Finally, all this is compounded by the fact that only geographically adjacent provinces have relationships. Since it's hard to establish advisors anywhere but the little patch you control, then you can't develop the high scoring networks that made Web of Power so unique.
This is one of the reasons we designed our own map, upon which I use China or Web of Power components:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/201675
-
Sight Reader
United States
Colorado
-
Aha... I finally found where my previous comments on this were buried. Here ya go...
ssmooth wrote: I play Kardinal & König (aka Web of Power), the original game of which China is an inferior variant.
I find the fortifications to be a superior rule for several reasons:
1. Chain scoring now becomes a major factor, as forts can double chains as well as the house ("cloister") scores.
2. By doubling the impact of house scores, fortifications eliminate the need to have two scoring phases so that houses can catch up to diplomats in influence. The 3 scoring mechanisms are now in balance, making it possible to win with either a housing strategy or an advisor strategy.
3. The game is now much simpler, as there is no need to argue about when one scoring phase is over and another begins (i.e. it's a lot easier to understand and teach).
Nobi wrote: It's possible to play with the Web of Power rules on the China board, no?
I find the original Web of Power board does not have enough roads to make fortifications viable; you have so few options for expanding your chain that you get blocked every time with minimal effort.
I find the China board has diplomatic relations that are far too localized: that is, neighbors with relations also are along the same roads. This means house concentrations along a chain can be leveraged directly to control a diplomatic relationship, and as a result, no one can get a big win with advisors. Instead, you end up with several small, low scoring pockets of advisors tied to housing control that doesn't multiply up effectively.
-
|
|
