Travis R. Chance
United States
NYC
New York
-
Age of Conan is a strategic board game in which four kingdoms from the Hyborean age battle it out for dominance over the setting of arguably the first commercial fantasy hero. For Conan fans like myself this is too good a premise to pass up. The imperial conquest portion of the game is well designed and features interesting mechanics. Player actions are dictated by Fate dice that are rolled at the beginning of a round - the players then take turns in clock wise order, choosing which rolled action that would like to perform and removing that die from the pool. Players have their own deck of Kingdom cards which work not unlike those of a Collectible Card Game; the player pays the gold cost of a card to play it on the table and "taps" it (turns the card sideways) to use it. Tapped cards cannot be used until the player pays the gold cost again to "untap" it.
The goal of the game is to achieve more empire points than your opponents by the end of three phases, or "ages," of play. Empire points are earned in a number of ways: subjugating a neutral province, sieging an opponent's strong hold, or controlling Conan. This last method is where the game falls apart for me, and here's why; controlling Conan isn't based on player skill but on luck, it's also worth the most empire points in the game, and it is easy for a lucky player to monopolize Conan.
So here's how controlling Conan works - the players bid on Conan by placing a Strategy card face down along with a Conan bid token. Strategy cards are drawn from a shared deck of cards and give players bonuses on dice rolls during battles. Each player has their own private stash of Conan bid tokens. Once all players have chosen a Strategy card and a Conan bid token, they are revealed and the number on the token is added to the number on the card; the player with the highest number takes control of Conan. Here is where the trouble begins. In my experience, taking control of Conan is so valuable that players will almost always spend their highest bid token, so control over Conan is effectively granted to the player who's lucky enough to have the highest value Strategy card in his hand during a bid phase. Unfortunately, the value on the tokens and the cards is more-or-less equal, so even if you devise a strategy to bid low early in the game so you have the necessary tokens to bid high later, you can still be unlucky enough to have a low value strategy card when it comes time to bid and a player who's luck has held out can play a high value card and out bid you.
Compounding this problem is the fact that all players must discard the Strategy cards and Conan bid tokens used during the bidding phase, not just the winner. And holding on to Strategy cards is difficult; you really need them during battles if you hope to win contests with other players, and the only way to get more cards is to take a Fate action allowing you to do so - meaning of course that you don't perform any other action during that turn.
Once a player has control of Conan, a random adventure is drawn from the Adventure deck. The adventure card gives a location on the game board where the "objective marker" must be placed. At the start of his turn, before taking any other actions, the Conan player can move Conan one space on the game board. If he moves Conan closer to the objective marker, he draws one Adventure token. If he doesn't move Conan closer to the marker, the adventure token is discarded. It may sometimes be in the players best interest to not move Conan toward the marker because if Conan fights with your armies you get a bonus to your dice rolls.
Each adventure has a set number of Adventure tokens that may be drawn or discarded. Once that token pile is empty the adventure ends. If at this point Conan is on the same space as the objective marker, the player controlling Conan draws a free Adventure token from the main pile. If not, Conan is moved to the objective marker and a new Adventure is drawn. Each time a new Adventure is draw, players bid on Conan once more.
Adventure tokens are what this game revolves around. During final scoring at the end of the game, having the most of each token type is worth +5 empire points (there are three types: monsters, treasure, and women). Having the most of other tokens, such as gold, is only worth +3. Now, some simple math will reveal that a lucky player who has controlled Conan for most of the game will have the most of all three token types and therefore earn +15 empire points. This creates an unfortunate situation where the empire building and army conquests are supplementary to moving Conan towards his adventure destination when in fact it's suppose to be the other way around. Nothing is more frustrating than ending the game after dominating the board with your armies, only to find that none of it mattered because the ultimate victory is whoever was lucky enough to have the most Adventure tokens.
Adventure tokens also allow the player who has them to gain certain advantages to prevent other players from over taking his lead. First, the Adventure tokens can be traded in for their value in gold or sorcery (sorcery tokens can be used to re-roll your dice during a battle), and having more gold means more armies can be bought and more Kingdom cards can be played and used.
Secondly, there are three powerful artifact cards in the game. Each artifact has a relatively unbalanced special ability that gives the player who has it a special ability that will change the entire game. How do players gain these artifact cards? They bid on them with Adventure tokens. Each artifact has corresponding token type - monsters, treasures, or women. During an age change phase (remember, there are three ages and a new age starts after four Adventures have completed) players can reveal as many tokens as they like of a single type only. These tokens are not spent, only revealed. The player who reveals the most tokens of a certain type gain the corresponding artifact card. Once again the game rewards luck instead of skill; the player lucky enough to have controlled Conan the most and/or to have chosen an artifact no one else happened to bid on will gain a powerful card granting him the ability to dominate the game board. Artifact cards not bid on are simply discarded into the game box, meaning it is very likely that only on or two players will have an artifact.
If all this wasn't enough, the numerical value of the Adventure tokens is too diverse. Once again, luck plays too big a role in the game. I've seen players who had a comparable amount of Adventure tokens to another player have a total value that wasn't anywhere in the vicinity of that player because the value on their tokens was either too low, and/or not of the right token type to compete with the player.
I also neglected to mention that the Conan player has the ability to drop Raider tokens on enemy provinces. These raiders make it more difficult to conquer a province and during an age change phase each one will cause the player to lose an empire point unless he happens to have an army in the same province as the raider and removes a unit from said army.
Before I finish this review I also want to mention that the four kingdoms in the game aren't very balanced. Specifically, the kingdom of Stygia has a much less efficient Kingdom deck than the other three kingdoms. To counter this, their home province (home provinces cannot be invaded) stretches their Northern border, giving them the entire South to romp in; only Turan or a kingdom that wants to march through Turan's territory can get to Stygia. However, in a three player game this is of no benefit because Turan isn't completely surrounded by other kingdoms and has easy access to Stygia, and the armies just don't move fast enough for the Stygia player to stop Turan from invading their territory. Furthering the problem is the fact that Turan has more powerful Kingdom cards than other kingdoms but is balanced by a small territory that is completely surrounded (in many ways, they are the exact opposite of Stygia), so if the Stygia and Turan players clash, the Turan player will often come out on top.
Unfortunately, the game manual recommends that in a three player game the kingdoms of Aquilonia, Turan, and Stygia are played. This is terrible advice, in a three player game you want to play Aquilonia, Turan, and Hyperboria - just by looking at the board you can tell these three nations were meant to clash with one another.
So in short, Age of Conan rewards player luck over player skill. The game advertises itself as a strategic game of conquest and empire building with Conans adventures playing a supplementary role. In truth, it is a game entirely based around luck during the highly abstract process of bidding for Conan and completing his adventures; the strategic conquest portion of the game hardly matters. An unbalanced three player game worsens these issues. This is a game only for the hardcore Conan fans out there.
One last thing. The dice this game comes with are cheaply made. After several games the edges are beaten and worn so badly that they won't roll properly or fairly. Also, the paint will start to peel/fade on the sides, causing the dice to lose their color. You can't replace these dice with any other kind because they have special symbols, so you'll have to buy a new game or hope FFG will send you a replacement set.
-
Hassan Lopez
United States
Saratoga Springs
New York
-
Nice comprehensive review. I remember being sorely tempted by this when FFG first released it - and then again, just a few months ago, when Tanga had a nice deal (I just noticed that Amazon has this on sale for $30, people must be really desperate to unload it). Ultimately, I opted against - in part because I know it wouldn't hit the table very often, and also because I read a number of critical reviews. Your review solidified my belief that this game has some unfortunate design flaws that ruin an otherwise evocative game premise.
-
Patrick Runyan
Japan
Matsudo
Chiba
-
Like you, I was also interested in buying this game when it first came out. I just wasn't sure so I waited.
Seems the best way to decide whether to buy a game is to wait a year and see if people are still talking about it. If not, it was all hype.
-
James Boyd
United States
Abilene
Texas
I Play With Toy Soldiers.
-
I too had high hopes for this game so I bought it ... and recently gave it away.
-
Alexander Boucharelis
Greece
Drama
-
Thanks Travis for the well writen review. What else can i say? i am a hardcore fan of Conan and i love the game, i know there are many errors in the design but since there arent any other boardgames out there to 'defeat' age of Conan we will have to stick with it, Crom!
-
Martin Plourde
Canada
Sherbrooke
Quebec
-
I believe, from your review, that your bad experience with the game come from the amount of luck in deciding who control conan, and the value of adventure tokens said controlling player can get. However I believe that with more experience with the game, you can make careful planning that you must try to earn certain type of Adventure tokens, or prevent certain player to do so. You should be aware, at all time, of +/- how much adventure token any players take.
Also, any player should have a shot at controlling Conan a couple of times. I think there should be a bid for Conan after every adventure, wich means +/- 12 different bid for Conan, and it's highly surprising that the same player ALWAYS have the best combo to win the bid. Also, adventure tokens spent for gold or sorcery are discarded forever. You should approach the game with a 'I must win that big for Conan' mindset, and if you let the same guy with the bid over and over, you might have a problem. Again, during the game, if one opponent gain large amount of adventure tokens, you should try to earn as much of the same type as possible and try to crown Conan in the 3rd age, thus making is gain worthless. Very fine review and well written by the way! I do like the game though and wish I can play it more, soon  It may be best with 4, not sure about 3, but as a 2 player game it was a blast and played quickly.
-
-
Good review. Well-written and you explain why you don't like the game. I really like Age of Conan, though.
This is one of my favorite games to come out in the last few years. Luck plays a part, but there is strategy involved.
I've played half a dozen or so games, and rarely have I seen one player dominate control of Conan. When bidding on Conan, you play a card and a token. But, as you said, once you play the token it is gone (until you play your 0 token and get all tokens back, which can be done only once). The higher value cards provide better bonuses in battle, so it is often a hard choice on whether to hold onto the card or play it.
Sure, you can usually blow a high value card and a high value token and expect to win control of Conan, but then you are in trouble next turn. Conan's main use is to get those tokens, which are valuable, but players may also be tempted to move Conan towards a battle, thus foregoing those tokens.
And don't forget that players can steal tokens from the Conan player by using the Court Conan action. I've seen poor Conan's adventure tokens whittled away to nothing by other players.
A small thing, too, is that you can not trade in any adventure token for gold or sorcery. The token must have the appropriate icon. I've found that most people get gold by using their diplomats, not tokens.
Age of Conan excels are presenting you with tough choices at virtually every step of the game. Do I kill off a soldier to press an attack? Do I go for the last attack action even though I don't want it just to prevent my opponent from using it? Should I try to crown Conan? I think I have more monster tokens than that other player, but do I know that? Would I be better off bidding women because I know no one wants that artifact?
-
Martin Plourde
Canada
Sherbrooke
Quebec
-
That's how I see it too Eddy, I wish we could play together!
-
M. B.
Canada
Oshawa
Ontario
-
This review was well written but I disagree with it. Some points are valid and some mechanics seem well covered but it really depends on what you are looking for in a game session of this kind.
The review overall seems very flatly saying that Conan is mostly luck. That I disagree with. The game is actually quite balanced. (I do agree that 3player should be Turan, Aquilonia, Hyperborea though, but easy enough to modify: just play those instead.) Strategy in this game is about balance and timing of it and that is what you have to watch out for. Ya, there's luck too, but what's the point of playing a strategy game that did not have luck as well? You might as well be playing the same game over and over and over again with the exact same path to victory over and over and over again once you know how the game will play out. That gets stale in most games pretty fast. The luck factor adds to the story and amusement here.
If you like the challenge of playing a strategy war game but want something that can be taken a little lighter and more thematic, then this is it (if you like Conan too). You can go as light or as heavy as you want but it won't fry your brain in process and you will have fun if you like it that way or need a night of that.
It's easier to get players for this kind of game as well as a result. What's the point of playing wargames with people who have played them a million times, know all the keys to victory and how to use them to smash any new players, and know when they're coming up? There are games and for that kind of thing; this isn't that game! (I do like those kinds of games too.) It's the luck that changes things from stale to interesting at least here and you can use that to engage new players and give them a fighting chance as well so that they'll continue playing.
Also the game pieces, board, and cards are a pleasure to behold and add to the theme quite immensely. I love looking at them.
No problems with disagreeing about the review, but I simply believe that the reviewer is more of a deeper wargamer and is more particularly looking for games with absolutely definable outcomes. So in that case I can understand the harshness. However this game should not be overlooked as a very fun game to play in a night with friends and it is very worthwhile by the time you finish even if you don't win actually. Crom was not on your side; give it your all and try again another time. That's the story.
This was a surprisingly GREAT BUY for me and my gaming group and it fit in well. (We do like other styled heavy wargames as well with extremely little luck base--just on a side note but this game hit just the right balance for some nights and will get regular plays).
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
I agree with the arguments you have about the review, Misa, but I've to to question this one:
Triad1 wrote: No problems with disagreeing about the review, but I simply believe that the reviewer is more of a deeper wargamer and is more particularly looking for games with absolutely definable outcomes.
Demanding absolutely definable outcomes isn't a characteristic I associate with wargamers, most of whom understand that chaos and randomness are an inevitable part of the deal. Abstract gamers and eurogamers may have a problem with those elements, but wargamers generally do not.
-
M. B.
Canada
Oshawa
Ontario
-
Sphere wrote: I agree with the arguments you have about the review, Misa, but I've to to question this one: Triad1 wrote: No problems with disagreeing about the review, but I simply believe that the reviewer is more of a deeper wargamer and is more particularly looking for games with absolutely definable outcomes. Demanding absolutely definable outcomes isn't a characteristic I associate with wargamers, most of whom understand that chaos and randomness are an inevitable part of the deal. Abstract gamers and eurogamers may have a problem with those elements, but wargamers generally do not.
I see where you're coming from. I should have wrote: "....more definable outcomes." to be clearer overall. In the past post I was referring to specifics not the game as a whole in its entirety.
What I mean is that there are some wargamers who will complain that everything that they have done up to a certain point was planned and then ruined by luck (which is valid to a point). They complain that the game should have been more chess like and concrete as in: bishop takes pawn and not as in bishop maybe takes pawn if luck is on your side. If you like it in game-wise terms: tank blows up soldier on the game board if you are holding an X card, and not tank maybe blows up soldier on the game board if you are holding an X card and roll a six. There are many card driven war games out there that include cards which when played do what is written on them and that is the end of it--unless a certain card is played by the opponent. Hence more of an example of "absolute outcome" which I was referring to in my post.
In conjunction to this, I've also seen reviews of other war games complaining that the games are too similar in their layout to historical events. The games play out the same quite regularly thus detracting from the fun of the experience somewhat. This is fine if you want to relive history and it is to the gamer's taste--that is what those games are for and are fun in that sense. It makes sense that those games would be less luck based and skewed toward one strategy or another (I've got no problems with that).
So perhaps the reviewer falls more into liking war games that follow and contain more elements along those lines. (Maybe...like Axis & Allies or something like it: you know what you're getting each round, you know what coming down the line, and the strategy goals , go try to succeed as a result, etc).
-
Was George Orwell an Optimist?
United States
Corvallis
Oregon
-
Triad1 wrote: What I mean is that there are some wargamers who will complain that everything that they have done up to a certain point was planned and then ruined by luck (which is valid to a point). They complain that the game should have been more chess like and concrete as in: bishop takes pawn and not as in bishop maybe takes pawn if luck is on your side.
Those aren't the wargamers I've met over the years.
I think we're on different wavelengths here. No sweat.
-
Martin Plourde
Canada
Sherbrooke
Quebec
-
The moral of the story, is that we disagree with the reviewer when he say the game is mostly based on luck.
-
M. B.
Canada
Oshawa
Ontario
-
Martin518 wrote: The moral of the story, is that we disagree with the reviewer when he say the game is mostly based on luck.
I think that about sums it up.
-
Saminathan Masuru
United Kingdom
-
Triad1 wrote: Martin518 wrote: The moral of the story, is that we disagree with the reviewer when he say the game is mostly based on luck. I think that about sums it up.
I could not agree more. Honestly, I feel that it is highly inaccurate to say that this is a game based on luck. That is only the case if all players blindly place their highest available token and highest available strategy card on each bid, with no thought given to whether or not it is to one's advantage to do so.
When playing this game, we found that the bidding process was one of the most interesting and fun parts of this game. The choice of when to play your high bidding tokens, and which strategy cards to play them with is not always straightforward. Some Conan Adventures take him to parts of the board that are far away from the action, and it is not really worth using up your number six token and a strategy card with a 6 value to get him for that adventure. At times, it is worth bluffing, and pretending that you are going to play a high bid, then placing a low bid while your opponent uses up his high value tokens and cards.
The strategy cards have other uses, and using good cards up only on the bids suggests to me that the original poster has probably not figured out just how useful these cards can be in other contexts. A strategy card with a value of six can make all the difference when you are going up against that last province towards the end of the game, which will get you eight empire points in the final count.
Of course there is some luck involved, and at times you do get really lousy cards that you cannot play with, but this is rarely the case. I think that complaining that AoC is luck-based is like complaining that Poker is entirely based on luck, and not at all on skill. Yes, there is a bit of luck involved, but when you are staring across the table at your opponent with your hand of cards, bluffing, reading your opponent, and knowing which cards to drop and which to hold on to all make a huge amout of difference to the result of the game.
To sum up, yes, if all the players simply play their highest bid tokens and highest value strategy cards all the time, with no planning, no forethought about when best to play a high value token, and no real awareness of what else you might be able to achieve with your high-value strategy cards, then the game will degenerate into a luckfest. However, if you play this way against a player who craftily plans her bids, bluffs in order to get you to use up your high value tokens and cards and then takes half the Adventure Tokens using Court + Conan dice anyway, and uses her high value strategy cards in military contests against you, you will simply be smashed into the dust. I know because this is exactly what happened to me on my first play of the game, and my girlfriend beat me badly because she planned her moves and I just played blindly without planning or forethought. (I have since learned my lesson, and now our games are more interesting, with the bids involving a lot of bluffing, attempts to make the other person think you are going to bid low when you really want to win the bid, etc.)
-
Saminathan Masuru
United Kingdom
-
Action Phase wrote: Unfortunately, the game manual recommends that in a three player game the kingdoms of Aquilonia, Turan, and Stygia are played. This is terrible advice, in a three player game you want to play Aquilonia, Turan, and Hyperboria - just by looking at the board you can tell these three nations were meant to clash with one another.
I really have to disagree with this. I cannot see what the big problem would be with having Aquilonia, Turan and Stygia in a three-player game. Perhaps you faced some specific difficulty when trying this out, and if so, could be so kind as to point these out?
Thematically, it would appear best to have Stygia as the third power, because in the Conan stories, Stygia is an aggressive imperialist bully and it would only seem natural for the Stygians to be plotting to control their neighbours and actually launching invasions against neighbouring kingdoms.
-
|
|
