Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
We wargamers have this genre called "Card Driven Games" (CDGs). Back in the early aughts, this was popularized by GMT to mean "games vaguely based on the ideas in Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage, a game we know many of you like a lot". But things have sprawled now, and the CDG brand – to the extent it means anything at all anymore – has come to encompass a lot of games which have little or nothing in common. The Kaisar's Pirates, Empire of the Sun, and Combat Commander all show up on GMT's "CDG" page, for example.
What has diluted the idea for me is our propensity, as gamers, to focus on mechanism rather than something that actually matters. Cards, activation points, and events are mechanisms, but if that's all you know, you really know next to nothing about a game. Adding in the topic – say, the First World War – doesn't help much. We're now at the point where "a CDG on the First World War" would be an essentially vacuous description.
What made Hannibal great and distinct was not that it used cards, although clearly that was a powerful design choice. It was that it was a combination of a game that consistently managed tension well, keeping the players in constant, high-stakes conflict, combined with card design as an effective means of portraying the flavor of the period in several dimensions. In the 2nd Punic War, the loyalty of many Italian allies was fluid and having this cleanly abstracted in the card deck is great. The players know Syracuse sympathizes with the Carthaginian cause in a way that neither Roman nor Carthaginian leaders had much control over, and the cards provide an abstract way to play that out. The cards provide reasonable trade-offs between (say) using your limited political capital to get a reluctant general to seriously campaign, and reaching out to Macedon or raising auxiliaries. The system also portrays the Romans, with their rancorous and still-vaguely-Republican Senate, as having more inherent political friction than their less-representative Carthaginian foes, at least until Rome goes all-in as represented by the arrival of Scipio Africanus. All this is easy for me to say, but it requires a lot of attention to detail to get right, especially in a game of the size and scope of Hannibal.
Sekigahara is the first game to come along in a long time that manages, like Hannibal, to deliver the whole package: an elegant, playable, high-stakes game combined with highly evocative player decision-making. It's a game where risky, high-stakes battles produce great tension, and where hidden blocks give a lot of opportunity for bluffing and hoping. It plays in 90-120 minutes of high-speed action with a ruleset that can be easily taught at the game table. But what makes it a great game for me is that at the core of the design, the cards that drive the action, is an abstraction that makes sense and is historically flavorful.
In Sekigahara, you command an uneasy alliance of factions in the quest for control of Japan. Each player controls blocks of various strengths and types from four different factions. The shifting loyalties are controlled by a deck of cards (one for each player), with each card having a symbol for one of the factions. Once battle is joined, to get a block from a given clan to actually fight you need to play a matching card. Card-play alternates back and forth, with whoever is weaker needing to commit enough strength to close the gap. Large armies can be paper tigers due to the lack of sufficient political leverage to control them, while small armies that consist of dependable troops can be potent.
Of course, this being the period that it is, we have to have treachery. Each player has Loyalty Challenge cards which can cause blocks to switch sides if a clan's loyalty is borderline (i.e., if after committing it to battle you can't play an additional matching card to resist the challenge). While these challenges seem to be hard to time and rarely successful, they do make you nervous every time you commit a block with your last card for that clan and are dramatic when blocks actually defect.
Another interesting dynamic is the way cards are cycled. After battle, you replace all the cards you spent. So there isn't a net cost in cards to fight a battle, but the overall loyalty picture of the various clans tends to significantly change. Who knows what happened during the battle to cause the shift – it's below the level of the game – but nonetheless a battle where reach deep into your hand to call on the loyalty of your Samurai is a significant event with hard-to-predict consequences for loyalty amongst your factions. You may lose influence with some of your allies while another becomes more committed.
The thing about Sekigahara is that this relatively simple system creates a lot of the subtle nuance that is the hallmark of a great game. The strongest army is usually a hard core of good blocks from a single one of your factions which you can back up with matching loyalty cards, but this can be risky as a battle that uses up your cards and doesn't bring good replacements can leave that army completely ineffective. Armies of diverse clans don't pack as much punch but there is usually someone in there you can rely on if your opponent seizes the initiative. Battles can be fought for the secondary purposes of determining clan loyalty. You need to know when to press your luck because in the last battle your opponent cycled a bunch of cards and may be looking at a weak hand. And you have to know when to take a deep breath, give up significant tempo, and repair alliances by using the discard and draw action.
The last important thing that makes Sekigahara tick is the geographical layout. The game revolves around 9 castles on the board; Tokugawa starts with 5, Ishida with 4. Both players start with strong bases on opposite sides of the board, and isolated castles strung out in enemy territory. Both sides need to be super-aggressive about taking out the opponent's armies that start in their territory and consolidating control over castles. Both sides face tough choices about how to balance aggression between marching on their opponent's core areas (and relieving pressure on their far-flung outposts) against leaving enough troops behind to clean up their own backfield. Both sides face a huge amount of pressure to take the battle to the enemy, which is great and keeps the game dynamic and moving.
The designer's notes to the game – which are recommended reading if you want to understand what Matthew Calkins has done here – talks about how important personal loyalty was to this conflict, and how the game was designed with that idea at the core. I think Sekigahara does a great job of both capturing something important and interesting about the period and conflict, and bringing it to the tabletop in an elegant, highly-playable, compelling package.
-
Mark Gage
United States
Bend
Oregon
-
Beautifully written review here, and a good point about the dilution of the description "card-driven wargame."
How many times have you played Sekigahara, and do you have any opinion on one recurring complaint about the game: that the (mostly) static setup, the somewhat limited, ground-based movement, and the asymmetrical distribution of the blocks and cards all combine to reduce replayability?
I've only played four times so far, and haven't experienced this yet, but I think I can see their point. My guess is that most every game between experienced players might play out along the same story line: Tokugawa dominates the east, Ishida fights to take a couple of castles/reinforcement spots in the west, and a big decisive clash near (hey!) Sekigahara. I'm wondering if this might start to feel a little confining after a while.
But concentrating on the donut, not the hole, I have to say this is a beautifully produced and very interesting game that I rate a 9 at the moment. I think it is great -- but will I still think so a few years from now? Maybe.
-
Brian Lenz
United States
Kentwood
Michigan
-
Excellent points and comments. I couldn't have said it any better myself. I personally find myself drawn into the game by its sure beauty and the elegance of how the static scenario drives home the final battle between Isheda and Tokugowa. You get a real sense of attrition when using your cards and how they affect your daimyos when mustering them into play. In my mind this is a classic struggle of power and you feel the same type of tension from playing a game of chess with a worthy opponent. With that said, the CDG aspect of the game does give it an element of surprise and replayability that most would enjoy. The game is very pleasing to play in my opinion and well balanced.
-
Jon Williamson
Canada
Calgary
AB
-
Very nice review. Thanks for putting it together for us.
I have only been poking around with the game to date, but what I have seen really intrigues me. On the surface the card play appears to be very interesting.
One notion that .... that ... I would not say concerns me, but rather has caught my attention is what you mention regarding the card divestment in battles and sieges. I have a niggling feeling that seeing a victorious army suddenly neutered by the following card draw will give my pause. However, your description as to what is going on in this case (that the currying of loyalty for a battle may cause weaknesses in that very loyalty) is something that I had not considered before.
I look forward to getting to explore this game. Oh happy day!
In addition, I quite liked the Designer Notes.
-
Chris B
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
-
Great review - one of the better ones I've read in a while. I've been mucking about with this for a few days, I hope to get it on the table over the next week.
-
Paul Franklin-Bihary
United States
Seattle
Washington
-
I love the comparison with Hannibal, and I'm surprised that I didn't think of it in my own review. Nicely put, and yet another glowing positive to put this game in its rightful place amongst the best introductory block/card wargames.
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
Remediator wrote: How many times have you played Sekigahara, and do you have any opinion on one recurring complaint about the game: that the (mostly) static setup, the somewhat limited, ground-based movement, and the asymmetrical distribution of the blocks and cards all combine to reduce replayability?
I've played the game about 10 times, and I think it's probable that Sekigahara will play out at some point, although that point is also probably pretty far out. I doubt Sekigahara will be good for as many games as, or will be as durable as, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. But that game had a static set-up too. I think the inherently chaotic nature of Sekigahara will make it much more replayable than you might expect, just from looking at it, even if the general contours remain the same. Again, the contours of great games like Hannibal or Napoleon's Triumph often remain the same, but the game can still maintain a high degree of tension through many plays.
Still, to me it does seem like Sekigahara offers a somewhat more limited game-space than the truly top-tier games. So while I'm optimistic, It wouldn't surprise me if Sekigahara plays out at some point.
Let's keep things in perspective though. The difference between 15 plays and 50 plays is, for me anyway, the difference between an excellent game and an all-time classic game. I'll easily pass the first with Sekigahara even if I might not make it to the second.
-
Medievalbanquet
United States
Wellesley
Massachusetts
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
-
I think Seki will play out as well. Not sure how far one must go with it (30 plays, 50 plays?)… but it feels innovative and tense. I love the card mechanic.
I've always found the enduring love of Hannibal to be curious. Its a good game but largely plays out the same way each time, in my experience with it. Sure, its 'tense' in that scores are close but, to me, that just means the two sides are on closely aligned railways powered by equally fast engines--- they get to the finish line neck and neck not by skill but by design.
Anyhow, I know I'm in the minority.
Great review.
-
tom moughan
United States
Rochester
New York
ahh....I love the smell of a stack of sketchily placed animals in the morning!
-
cfarrell wrote: Remediator wrote: How many times have you played Sekigahara, and do you have any opinion on one recurring complaint about the game: that the (mostly) static setup, the somewhat limited, ground-based movement, and the asymmetrical distribution of the blocks and cards all combine to reduce replayability? I've played the game about 10 times, and I think it's probable that Sekigahara will play out at some point, although that point is also probably pretty far out. I doubt Sekigahara will be good for as many games as, or will be as durable as, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. But that game had a static set-up too. I think the inherently chaotic nature of Sekigahara will make it much more replayable than you might expect, just from looking at it, even if the general contours remain the same. Again, the contours of great games like Hannibal or Napoleon's Triumph often remain the same, but the game can still maintain a high degree of tension through many plays. Still, to me it does seem like Sekigahara offers a somewhat more limited game-space than the truly top-tier games. So while I'm optimistic, It wouldn't surprise me if Sekigahara plays out at some point. Let's keep things in perspective though. The difference between 15 plays and 50 plays is, for me anyway, the difference between an excellent game and an all-time classic game. I'll easily pass the first with Sekigahara even if I might not make it to the second.
Aside from your point, that is where I think its important to loan your copy to a close friend who will get another 10 plays out of it and you can revel in a bit of in-depth strategic discussion that may reignite your interest in giving it another go around.
cheers!
-
Bill
United States
Sayville
New York
-
I played this game with a friend once and it instantly went onto my buy list. It's been quite a while since that happened.
I had been reading about this game for a long time as it moved up the P500 cue, but I never had much interest in it because I know next to nothing about Japanese history. Like with many of the best wargames though, playing this game and reading the designer notes have led me to seek out more information about the period.
-
Martin Ralya
United States
R'lyeh
Utah
Father, husband, publisher, writer, gamer, geek. Even paler in person.
The books I write because I want to read them, the games because I want to play them, and stories I tell because I find them exciting personally. -- Gary Gygax
-
Your writing is superb, and this is one of the best-written reviews I've read on the 'Geek. Thank you for taking the time to write it!
My interest in this game went from zero to "Let's open the game page and give this a closer look" thanks to this review.
-
K A
United States
Unspecified
-
cfarrell wrote: Remediator wrote: How many times have you played Sekigahara, and do you have any opinion on one recurring complaint about the game: that the (mostly) static setup, the somewhat limited, ground-based movement, and the asymmetrical distribution of the blocks and cards all combine to reduce replayability? I've played the game about 10 times, and I think it's probable that Sekigahara will play out at some point, although that point is also probably pretty far out. I doubt Sekigahara will be good for as many games as, or will be as durable as, Hannibal: Rome vs. Carthage. But that game had a static set-up too. I think the inherently chaotic nature of Sekigahara will make it much more replayable than you might expect, just from looking at it, even if the general contours remain the same. Again, the contours of great games like Hannibal or Napoleon's Triumph often remain the same, but the game can still maintain a high degree of tension through many plays. Still, to me it does seem like Sekigahara offers a somewhat more limited game-space than the truly top-tier games. So while I'm optimistic, It wouldn't surprise me if Sekigahara plays out at some point. Let's keep things in perspective though. The difference between 15 plays and 50 plays is, for me anyway, the difference between an excellent game and an all-time classic game. I'll easily pass the first with Sekigahara even if I might not make it to the second.
Is the potentially limited game-space primarily a function of the limited number of locations and connections? Looking at pictures of the board it looks to have around 40 locations and only 3 major roads going from once side to the other. Could a different map with no other game rules changes make for a much more diverse game? I'm not looking to create boards, just curious.
Thanks
-
Eric O. LEBIGOT
France
Paris
-
Thank you for the review!
cfarrell wrote: It plays in 90-120 minutes of high-speed action with a ruleset that can be easily taught at the game table. Do you think you play very fast? the main game page lists 180 minutes…
-
Medievalbanquet
United States
Wellesley
Massachusetts
And if you never have, you should. These things are fun and fun is good.
-
lebigot wrote: Thank you for the review! cfarrell wrote: It plays in 90-120 minutes of high-speed action with a ruleset that can be easily taught at the game table. Do you think you play very fast? the main game page lists 180 minutes…
Agreed. Not sure this one could resolve in 90 minutes but that's awesome if one can do it and feel like they made the right decisions.
-
Sean McCormick
United States
Brooklyn
New York
-
Excellent review of an excellent game. I've been writing about how problematic I find the use of cards to represent political events in many CDGs. Sekigahara is a wonderful example of having cards work as political events in a thematically correct way without any of the hindsight problems created by structured decks. By having the cards represent faction loyalty, you can elegantly capture the uncertainty that the protagonists felt about the loyalty of their own armies and have the action evolve organically instead of in a scripted fashion. It's quite brilliant.
-
Pierre Pinguet
France
Paris
-
GamePlayer wrote:
Is the potentially limited game-space primarily a function of the limited number of locations and connections? Looking at pictures of the board it looks to have around 40 locations and only 3 major roads going from once side to the other. Could a different map with no other game rules changes make for a much more diverse game? I'm not looking to create boards, just curious.
Thanks
I'm sure adding connections would "open the game-space", but it wouldn't really be Japan anymore.
The fact is that the Tokaido and the Nakasendo really were the two major highways, running parallel to the coasts, with limited coast to coast connections (Japanese Alps are in the way).
Even after Sekigahara and Tokugawa consolidation, you can see the highway infrastructure was limited : the Gokaido (5 roads)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JP_-Gokaido.png
Anyway, what I meant is that the geography of Japan also plays a major role in shaping the conflict. 
-
K A
United States
Unspecified
-
Pippin123 wrote: GamePlayer wrote:
Is the potentially limited game-space primarily a function of the limited number of locations and connections? Looking at pictures of the board it looks to have around 40 locations and only 3 major roads going from once side to the other. Could a different map with no other game rules changes make for a much more diverse game? I'm not looking to create boards, just curious.
Thanks
I'm sure adding connections would "open the game-space", but it wouldn't really be Japan anymore. The fact is that the Tokaido and the Nakasendo really were the two major highways, running parallel to the coasts, with limited coast to coast connections (Japanese Alps are in the way). Even after Sekigahara and Tokugawa consolidation, you can see the highway infrastructure was limited : the Gokaido (5 roads) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:JP_-Gokaido.pngAnyway, what I meant is that the geography of Japan also plays a major role in shaping the conflict.
I agree that changing the map could/would lessen the theme. Was just curious if the theme is limiting the strategic options.
thanks
-
Justin Rebelo
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
"Stock dollar maybe dollar; run dollar always dollar." (B. Beard)
-
GamePlayer wrote: Pippin123 wrote: Anyway, what I meant is that the geography of Japan also plays a major role in shaping the conflict. I agree that changing the map could/would lessen the theme. Was just curious if the theme is limiting the strategic options. thanks
That pretty much goes without saying, it's kind of the point. You could really open up the strategic options by making both sides perfectly balanced in card to block distributions and block powers, etc. Eliminate the special properties that set the two sides apart and, voila, you have a game that has absolutely nothing to do with the battle for the Unification of Japan. :S
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
lebigot wrote: Thank you for the review! cfarrell wrote: It plays in 90-120 minutes of high-speed action with a ruleset that can be easily taught at the game table. Do you think you play very fast? the main game page lists 180 minutes…
I was surprised also, because advertised wargame playing times are almost always lowballed. I haven't had a game of Sekigahara come in at more than 2 hours, and it's usually about 90 minutes. As always, YMMV - playing times are obviously hugely dependent on who's playing. But I've played this game against at least 5 different opponents and again, it's always come in at 2 hours or less.
-
Justin Rebelo
Canada
Victoria
British Columbia
"Stock dollar maybe dollar; run dollar always dollar." (B. Beard)
-
cfarrell wrote: lebigot wrote: Thank you for the review! cfarrell wrote: It plays in 90-120 minutes of high-speed action with a ruleset that can be easily taught at the game table. Do you think you play very fast? the main game page lists 180 minutes… I was surprised also, because advertised wargame playing times are almost always lowballed. I haven't had a game of Sekigahara come in at more than 2 hours, and it's usually about 90 minutes. As always, YMMV - playing times are obviously hugely dependent on who's playing. But I've played this game against at least 5 different opponents and again, it's always come in at 2 hours or less.
Similar to my findings, Chris. Since you've mentioned some numbers here, can you also mention approximately how many of those games went the full number of turns as opposed to premature victories?
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
jrebelo wrote:
Similar to my findings, Chris. Since you've mentioned some numbers here, can you also mention approximately how many of those games went the full number of turns as opposed to premature victories?
Just guessing, but probably at least half went either the full distance or close enough. I think only one game was decided by the halfway mark, and only two by auto-victories – the rest were on castle/resource counts, or where one side or the other conceded a clearly lost position in the last turn or two.
-
K A
United States
Unspecified
-
jrebelo wrote: GamePlayer wrote: Pippin123 wrote: Anyway, what I meant is that the geography of Japan also plays a major role in shaping the conflict. I agree that changing the map could/would lessen the theme. Was just curious if the theme is limiting the strategic options. thanks That pretty much goes without saying, it's kind of the point. You could really open up the strategic options by making both sides perfectly balanced in card to block distributions and block powers, etc. Eliminate the special properties that set the two sides apart and, voila, you have a game that has absolutely nothing to do with the battle for the Unification of Japan. :S
Obviously. As I said I'm not looking to redesign the board (or the game for that matter). I only brought it up as one of the things that has kept me on the fence is repeated comments about this game potentially having limited replayability and I was curious to know what was driving that perceived limitation: board arrangement, piece count, players' hair color, etc. Still I expect I'll be buying it as it looks fun and beautiful.
-
Evil Bob
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
-
Honestly, I'm not sure why people believe that this game would have limited replayability.
Consider:
- 2 player game of direct conflict
- Limited forms of movement
- Limited locations of movement
- Limited number of pieces
- Diceless combat
Which game am I describing?
If you answered "chess", then you're right. Now, I think you'd agree that chess has alot of replayability. I know a bunch of people who've played upwards of 100 games of chess, and still play it.
Now add in the following to the mix:
- fog of war
- a variety of cards used as resources to enhance movement and combat
- multiple goals for victory
- card hand management
- slightly random element of staring units and reinforcements
- slightly random element of cards drawn
Based on the addition of those criteria, I believe that Sekigahara has a fairly large amount of replayability.
The only limiting factor I can see is that Sekigahara has a limited duration (14 turns), whereas chess has a limitless number of turns.
-
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
-
Comparing Sekigahara to Chess or Go doesn't pass the laugh test. The number of reasonable options for any given Sekigahara position is going to be fairly small compared to Chess. Sekigahara's position tree may be technically larger (it's not clear to me that it is, but it might be), but it's far more easily pruned.
But look, beating up on Sekigahara too much for any supposed lack of replayability is silly also, which is why I didn't make too much of it in my review. All games which are themed and aimed at the hobbyist make compromises by their very nature - to ask a game to be both infinitely replayable and true to its subject matter and teachable in 20 minutes and playable in 90 and to have a reasonable learning curve and to be enjoyable when played between opponents of differing skill levels is to ask the impossible. Sekigahara does a ton of stuff right, is a great game, and gets the highest recommendation from me. That's saying something; I don't say that for very many games. The fact that I don't think it's going to be as highly replayable as some other games is not a knock. It's an acknowledgement of the design space it lives in.
-
K A
United States
Unspecified
-
cfarrell wrote: Comparing Sekigahara to Chess or Go doesn't pass the laugh test. The number of reasonable options for any given Sekigahara position is going to be fairly small compared to Chess. Sekigahara's position tree may be technically larger (it's not clear to me that it is, but it might be), but it's far more easily pruned.
But look, beating up on Sekigahara too much for any supposed lack of replayability is silly also, which is why I didn't make too much of it in my review. All games which are themed and aimed at the hobbyist make compromises by their very nature - to ask a game to be both infinitely replayable and true to its subject matter and teachable in 20 minutes and playable in 90 and to have a reasonable learning curve and to be enjoyable when played between opponents of differing skill levels is to ask the impossible. Sekigahara does a ton of stuff right, is a great game, and gets the highest recommendation from me. That's saying something; I don't say that for very many games. The fact that I don't think it's going to be as highly replayable as some other games is not a knock. It's an acknowledgement of the design space it lives in.
Thanks. I don't purchase very many games each year but this is now on the short list. In hindsight, I guess the conversation was muddied by imprecise terms like 'replayability'. Wasn't asking that it be anywhere near chess or go in depth/replayability but just wanted to make sure that it doesn't feel all samey after just 3-4 plays.
-
|
|
