Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
23 Posts

Antike» Forums » General

Subject: I don't like the new rules!! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
BoB 3K
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The first time I played Antike, we got to the end, and there was practically no VPs left but Generals (Destroy Temples), and I thought, THAT'S STUPID!!!

Then I saw the new English rules where you can get an extra VP for getting all 8 advancements, which alleviates some of the need to get a General, and I thought, "THE GODS, THEY LISTEN!" (I often think in ALL CAPS).

But now that I've played the game more, I don't like the new rule. There's very little fighting the first half of the game, and we've decided we like that you have to do some fighting to win the game.

((On the other hand, it is hard sometimes to find a temple to sack, so I've wondered if maybe a smaller variant could be that you can get a General VP by destroying a temple or destorying 3 cities in one turn.))

Also, I'm not sure I get the trade in rules for having full advancement. If you've got all advancements, you're doing pretty good anyway. Do you really need more bonuses? Also, it takes a little of the strategy out of the end game. Sometimes you decide which temple to go after based on how it will affect the owners production abilities.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Werner Bär
Germany
Karlsruhe
Baden
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BoB3K wrote:
Also, I'm not sure I get the trade in rules for having full advancement. If you've got all advancements, you're doing pretty good anyway. Do you really need more bonuses?

You get more bonuses.
With the 1st edition rules, you could trade any goods at 1:1, once you had all advantages. They hae cut this back to 2:1 with the new rules, but added a victory point. I think with the old rules, having all advantages was worth more.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Maarten D. de Jong
Netherlands
Zaandam
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Yesyes. I recall from previous discussions that these rules were introduced to help newbies ease into the game as pros hardly ever let it come to that point. I think you can easily 'skip' them if you think they're not to your liking...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BoB 3K
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Werbaer wrote:
With the 1st edition rules, you could trade any goods at 1:1, once you had all advantages. They hae cut this back to 2:1 with the new rules, but added a victory point. I think with the old rules, having all advantages was worth more.


I had heard that before. I don't think I knew about it when we played. So, I guess I don't like the new OR old rules in this case . Anyone else?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul Elliott
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, you need some sort of trading rule for people that have finished all of the technologies. Otherwise, they have almost no way to use gold anymore. At very least, use the 2:1 trade rule without the bonus VP.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In my one game of Antike (6p), when the time came to go after the few final VP's, most people had nowhere near enough gold to max know-hows. I think the smallest amount needed to win in one shot was 18. Subsequently, that player's gold base was attacked in an effort to prevent this AND to sack temples. It didn't feel awkward at all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
BoB 3K
msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree with ekted that it wouldn't happen too often; but, I think Paul has hit the nail on the head as to why the rule is there.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is anyone else of the opinion that if you concentrate too much on Gold and, consequently, have a surplus after you advnace everything - well, that's the price you pay for overspecializing? Why is it that the Gold player gets the bonus while the player with all the Marble is stuck with a bunch of useless Marble after they've built their temples?

- Seth
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark Delano
United States
Cary
North Carolina
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
sedjtroll wrote:
Is anyone else of the opinion that if you concentrate too much on Gold and, consequently, have a surplus after you advnace everything - well, that's the price you pay for overspecializing? Why is it that the Gold player gets the bonus while the player with all the Marble is stuck with a bunch of useless Marble after they've built their temples?

- Seth


Because, theoretically, you can attack another player and build more temples. There's no such recourse with Gold.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Having played over a dozen games with the first edition rules and a couple games with the second edition rules, I find that the new rules do not improve the game in any fashion for experienced players and only exacerbate what some see as the endgame problem.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mrbass
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
These are my rules to make Antike exciting. First to sack 5 temples wins the game. No VPs or anything like that. Thus it actually forces you to fight. Also you when you sack a temple you receive 3 Iron as an incentive to plunder the temples and chop off statues arms and things of that sort.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mrbass wrote:
These are my rules to make Antike exciting. First to sack 5 temples wins the game.


This greatly reduces the extent to which Antike is a pure logistics game. If you like/want/need the conflict then this is a reasonable approach, but losing the heavy logistics concentration removes the most interesting aspect for most of us here. I particularly like the multiplayer dance in Antike around setting up the others to be less efficient while retaining my better efficiency.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mrbass
United States
Las Vegas
Nevada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm half serious and half joking. But I'm not saying lose technology advances or anything of that sort. Just instead of give more incentive to attack which Antike desparately needs. Perhaps a different rule I don't know. Anyway looking forward to Imperial as it looks like it's more up my alley.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
PAUL OCONNOR
United States
Encinitas
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What if no one elects to build temples?

mrbass wrote:
These are my rules to make Antike exciting. First to sack 5 temples wins the game. No VPs or anything like that. Thus it actually forces you to fight. Also you when you sack a temple you receive 3 Iron as an incentive to plunder the temples and chop off statues arms and things of that sort.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Pulles
Canada
Regina
Saskatchewan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
These are my rules to make Antike exciting. First to sack 5 temples wins the game.
Players would then just stop building temples and the game would drag on, and on, and on...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mrbass wrote:
I'm half serious and half joking. But I'm not saying lose technology advances or anything of that sort. Just instead of give more incentive to attack which Antike desparately needs. Perhaps a different rule I don't know. Anyway looking forward to Imperial as it looks like it's more up my alley.


Shrug. Suffice to say that I don't agree that the game desperately needs an additional incentive for players to attack each other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Flood
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But I'm not saying lose technology advances or anything of that sort. Just instead of give more incentive to attack which Antike desparately needs.


I don't understand people's "need" for more conflict in this game.

Are they treating all Civilization-style games the same, and not accepting the different rulesets that make each game unique? Why must a Civilization-style game have tons of war and conflict by default? Is that all our history has amounted to, and subsequently all our future holds to them?

Wars have certainly been a part of our history, but they have certainly not been the most important aspect of it. I would argue that peoples looking to *avoid* war have advanced more swiftly than those looking to conquer.

I think the army buildup of the first half of the game (from only one time playing, and contemplation of future games) is more exciting than the attacks that ensue.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko L
Finland
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
We have played around 10-15 games of Antike in our gaming group. As our group is very experienced, we have already found the key strategies to win the game, or should I say, the key strategy. Tech up!

If you're lucky to be the starting player, then it's all set up for you. Just take the market on your 3rd turn, boost your economics and enjoy the victory point. Then build a gold temple and grab all the other techs you can.

In our games all the technologies have been taken in no time. After that players race to build temples, more cities and sail the seas (tough luck if you're at the inland).

After this is done, most players need 1 or 2 points to win the game. So let's see who has the biggest army and who has the smallest. Put one or two temples down, and it's all over.

What's up with the game? Every game seems to follow the same formula. If you don't focus on technology in the early game, you're very much screwed. You need those ridiculously cheap points!

Are there any variations which make the game more balanced and varied? Like double the cost of buying the technology first?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rick Holzgrafe
United States
Happy Valley
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
badge
"the understandably frightening and chimeric semicolon" -- HiveGod
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cpsof95 wrote:
Every game seems to follow the same formula. If you don't focus on technology in the early game, you're very much screwed.


I'm not convinced that's the only way to go, though it's certainly a valid approach. In last night's six-player game, I won by building temples: first on a marble site to ramp up my temple-building ability, then elsewhere. I expanded very little at first, and I lagged behind nearly all other players in points for the first part of the game. But when I had six temples, my production capacity was huge. Armies and navies sprang out of the ground, and I won the game by destroying two temples in one turn.

In doing this, I narrowly beat out a technology player who had looked poised for the win up until that point. So I don't think the tech track is bad, but I don't think it's the only path either.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Flood
United States
San Francisco
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've noticed something much different than you in my latest games - early arming can lead to some devastatingly powerful nations. Early on, I was wondering about the power of early technologies - until someone started doing a military strategy and wiped me out quite easily. I had 4 tech points, 1 city point, 1 temple point - but how was I to get the last 3 I needed (4 player)? My nation was in shambles, and the lone military player easily won.

Since then, I've been practicing a few strategies. But they depend on what everyone else does entirely. The first person is actually in a far weaker position as a result of not knowing what everyone else is doing. If they choose temple or gold routes, while everyone else chooses arming, they're in for a hell of a time gaining territories if they stick to the strategy and don't arm for 5 turns or so.

One that I'm growing fond of, but which is certainly not optimal, is to go for temple early on, depending on a few factors. If I'm first, I'll choose the marble, see what everyone else is doing; if I'm 2nd and the person in front of me hasn't chosen arming, I'll go for the marble, if not, arming; 3rd or 4th, I see what the people in front of me have done - if they've all chosen arming, so will I, if even one has not chosen it, I'll choose Marble.

From marble, you have no real choice but to go for temple the next turn. If no one is arming, and you're not feeling like you have the chance to get some techs, spend your iron getting to the temple, build it on gold, get yourself some gold, and then a know-how (preferably market). Then go for iron and arming IMMEDIATELY (even if you're the first one for some reason), and spread your territory. Otherwise, spend a gold to reach the temple, build it on either Marble or Iron (depending how desperately you need to arm), and get to arming the next turn.

I was initially displeased with how non-dynamic I thought the game felt. I have a post somewhere expressing how I thought the first player had a tremendous advantage. That position has obviously changed. In your next game, give some arming a try - you'll be surprised how it affects the game if done properly. Remember, they might get the victory points early on, but if you give them no chance to get the ones needed to win, it doesn't matter. And that tech bonus they think they have? You can catch up for half the cost at any point.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Cote
United States
Maine
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find it comforting that, after all this time, people are still debating the best way to win in Antike.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Massimiliano Santuari
Italy
Trento
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
BoB3K wrote:
Then I saw the new English rules where you can get an extra VP for getting all 8 advancements, which alleviates some of the need to get a General, and I thought, "THE GODS, THEY LISTEN!" (I often think in ALL CAPS).


Thinking in ALL CAPS is COOL
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mikko L
Finland
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
I'm not sure how you play the game, but in our games the temples are very heavily defended in the late game. Players with all the techs may have 2 or 3 temples with a total defense strength of 10-15 as all the available units are stacked to guard the temples.

If you're supposed to destroy several such temples, you're going to need a massive army and use almost all your units to kill one temple. But when you do that, your defense is severely weakened and some other tech guy with one point to go for the victory, will destroy one of your temples.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.