Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
22 Posts

Kremlin» Forums » General

Subject: Help me figure out this game. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
And I don't mean rule-wise.

Played the game for the first time last night with four people, two times in a row (both games using the basic rules). In the ratings and comments here, people are creaming their jeans about this game. We just didn't see it. I can see there could be an interesting game here, but it is hidden under something. Help me figure out what it is.

In our first game, there were no waves in the first two years. For the entire game I had control of the KGB Head and purged off a few people. On turn 3, I had control of the Party Chief, KGB, and Defense Minister. My Party Chief was rather young (started as a 55, I think) and of course managed to wave three years in a row. Game over. Post-game analysis revealed that people had put a large amount of IP on "people" and others lower in the chain. I had put some lower as well, but there were a handful of young politicians higher up that I couldn't resist. It was also deemed that having all three positions of power is a very strong position. I don't recall who had the Defense Minister the first few rounds, but I think no one had grasped the "condemn" power of that position to kick out my locked-in KGB head.

We decided that another play might go better since we were now familiar with how the game could play out. This time around, the high ranking politicians are rather old (70+). I figure everyone is going to go for the KGB Head strong, so I avoid him and focus on the Foreign Minister and a bunch of low ranked people and candidates, hoping for a long game.

Early on, one player gets into the "triangle of power" and holds it firm for several rounds. A sick Party Chief is too weak to wave at least one of the times, so he only gets 1-2 waves in before the politicians in the positions of power die off. This particular player had all of his influenced people in the Politburo early on, so at around the halfway point of the game, he literally has nothing to do.

Another player then comes into power for a few turns, but my candidates are now coming to power at around turn 7 so she is done at that point. Like the first player, she no longer has interest in anyone on the board and is basically out of the game.

It is now turn 8 and I am in power, but obviously I cannot get three waves in two turns. The number of available people is running low so it is clear the game will end soon due to not being able to fill the vacant positions in the Politburo. In the end, the fourth player's people are pretty much the only ones left in the Politburo, so she gets one of her guys into the Party Chief position and wins immediately when we can't fill a vacant slot.

The game had us feeling like something was missing. At its heart, the game is blind bidding. If you happen to pick "the wrong guys" you can lose before the game even starts. Another problem is that if one player gets into the three positions of power, the game basically grinds to a halt for the other players while they play out several turns, watching to see if that chief can make the three waves.

One thing that clearly sucked was the "first person to claim influence wins ties" thing. There were many times several of us had the exact same influence assigned to the same person. It came down to who placed theirs first. It started to be so expected that players were just dumping their max influence on a person right away just to win any potential tie. For example, in my second game, three of us had our 9 assigned to the same guy. One person controlled it with their 9 for a while, then that politician went to siberia. He eventually came back, but then the second player immediately claimed him with a 9, locking the third player out again. It felt like a lot of the bluffing went up in smoke due to the desperate attempts to win ties.

I am familiar with the advanced rules, and I can see how the addition of intrigue cards and different tie-breaker rules would change the game quite a bit and allow people locked out of the power positions to still affect the game. However, the game already requires an immense amount of administration (one person talking everyone through the phases, "voting yes or no?", "sanatorium? no? ok, next. sanatorium?", etc.) and this could make an already extremely fiddly game unbearable.

Something that says a lot about the game is that the two players who were shut out early were complaining about the game taking "forever". I'm not sure if they were serious or not, but the game literally only took 1.5-2 hours, which is relatively short in my mind.

So there is my story. I am open to thoughts and suggestions on how to either lessen the administration overhead or just plain make the game fun.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H-B-G
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would never play the basic game, while the advanced game does maybe add a little admin into the game, we have never found it onerous and have never found a need to limit the overhead and the use of intrigue cards, minor influences breaking ties and also the ability to add influence to politicians at 3 points in the game go a long way towards limiting the chances of what you describe.

Even in the basic game I would have thought the chances of anyone holding and keeping the power triangle for 3 turns are not that great because even young politicians are subject to random health problems and if they start using their abilities they can in any case get old quickly.

Other than using the advanced rules, the only suggestion I have is more players, since to me the minimum number I would play with is 4 and the more the better. As far as I am concerned, the game is one of the most fun I ever play and the only thing I would change is the end game tie break awarding the game to the player in power after health in turn 11. We always award the game to most waves, with ties remaining ties.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Anthony Simons
United Kingdom
Royal Wootton Bassett
Wiltshire
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dcorban wrote:
Played the game for the first time last night with four people, two times in a row (both games using the basic rules). In the ratings and comments here, people are creaming their jeans about this game. We just didn't see it. I can see there could be an interesting game here, but it is hidden under something. Help me figure out what it is.


Trying to figure out what makes people rate this so highly is probably more fun than the actual game. I got rid of my copy after I decided there was just nothing there. Kremlin is very much dated in comparison to similar, modern games of influence and intrigue; I think very few high raters can objectively consider this as good as they seem to and it's mostly nostalgia. Kremlin is one of those games that appeals at first glance due to its black, comedic look at communism; beyond that there is little foundation to it.

In a nutshell, sell it to somebody who cares and get on with playing something better. There are plenty of games in a similar vein that work (King Me!, Princes of the Renaissance and Intrigue to name but three).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaveD wrote:
Other than using the advanced rules, the only suggestion I have is more players

The first thing I thought is that the game would benefit from more players. In the second game, there were something like 7 politicians that no one had placed influence on at all. With more players, I think there would be more controlled politicians.

Hopefully I can soon play this with the advanced rules and more players to give it its final test.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin B
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was one of the people bored during this session. In the first game it seemed like there was no way to stop the leader, although we definitely overlooked a few options and most likely could have stopped him. In that first game, all of my high influence numbers were surpassed by somebody else, even the 10, which Dan had as well, but played first. I realize that I could have kept my influence hidden and then hope to bring the guy back from Siberia with influence again, but we were still learning the ropes and it didn't really occur to me and may not have mattered. It was boring to have nothing to do since all my guys were one-upped by other people.

In the second game, I decided to not let that happen and put my influence on "unlikely" targets of other people's influence (gotta love blind choices). In this case they were older characters in the early game, i.e. 7-10 on characters already in positions of authority and lower numbers on random characters from the bottom. I used my influence at the beginning to control the first part of the game, garnering a wave and bringing all my other guys up from the general population. Of course, the old guys died and my newer guys were trumped by a few others, leading to the situation where I had nothing to do and no one to control. One guy might have made it out of Siberia with my leftover influence, but I had no one to bring him up.

So, it appears that you plan your game at the beginning, choosing which guys to put influence on, deciding at the start how you are going to do long-term. Then, through equally "strategic" choices of other players, your game can be totally nerfed and you may have very little to no control. Or you might get lucky and have full control of every character you chose at the beginning, while other people fight over different ones.

Why do I keep thinking about it and want to try it again?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read through a full game play-by-play given by Don Greenwood, the developer, in the General magazine, and even in his game he admitted one player was pretty much eliminated in turn 6. In their game, it ended in round 9 due to being unable to fill vacancies, just like our second game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin B
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I read that some people have been using an alternate win condition at the end, where the person with the most waves wins (when someone hasn't waved thrice). This might at least keep someone interested in the game, even though they are out of the game at the end.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
E Butler
United States
Hughesville
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It's a game best played with a group who can appreciate the subtle political nuances of Rocky and Bullwinkle, lived under the daily shadow of imminent nuclear annihilation, and have had a few beers.....and then a few more. At it's best it's Diplomacy with dark humor and a cold war twist.

There is really a very strategic and intense game in there, it just takes several plays to separate the subtle nuances from brute action.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Are you sure you are talking about the same game as us? Diplomacy after a few beers? I don't see it. At all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H-B-G
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BakeliteTM wrote:
In that first game, all my high influence numbers were surpassed by somebody else, even the 10, which Dan had as well, but played first.


In the advanced game in this situation, control of the politician is decided by other players with influence (if any) so getting there first does not guarantee control.

Also each player gets to add up to 2 influence after rounds 3,6, & 9. This is done in order starting with the player to the left of the current party chief (so it can be a peg back the leader thing). You can increase your influence on a single politician to 11 at which point you can't be opposed and everyone else's influence marker is removed from the card (but not erased from the plan), so when that politician goes to Siberia and returns, the other players still have all their full original plotted influence on him/her.

Quote:
Why do I keep thinking about it and want to try it again?


Because, despite your initial experience you recognise underlying greatness.

Quote:
I read that some people have been using an alternate win condition at the end, where the person with the most waves wins (when someone hasn't waved thrice). This might at least keep someone interested in the game, even though they are out of the game at the end.


This is certainly true but the main reason I don't like this end is that it can award a win to the only player who has never managed a wave at all, while others have waved twice.

moonglum01 wrote:
It's a game best played with a group who can appreciate the subtle political nuances of Rocky and Bullwinkle, lived under the daily shadow of imminent nuclear annihilation, and have had a few beers.....and then a few more.


This may be true for some, but not for me. I've never watched Rocky & Bullwinkle and was too young to recognises the daily shadow. Also Beer is not necessary.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Stein
United States
Westerville
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First some disclosure. For those who don't know, I GMed the Kremlin event at the WBC for 10+ years and since have won the event twice. If I made a list of games that helped get me into the hobby in 1993, Kremlin would be on the list. So maybe I'm a little biased.

I'm happy to see people still pull this game out to give it a whirl. But I realize it's not for everybody. If you're one of those people who think one die roll adds a hopeless amount of chaos into a game, then don't play Kremlin. Somebody mentioned that 4 might not be a good number of players and 5 or 6 would be better. I would agree, it sucks to have a bunch of Orphans (politicians that nobody has points on them). But there are some who think 4 is best because that means there's less of a chance that their 9 point guy is trumped by a 10 from somebody else. They want to control things, and I think that takes away some of the fun. Your tastes may differ.

The key to Kremlin is to know what to do when opportunites arrive perhaps due to a key card or die roll messes up somebody's plan. If you find yourself in the situation where your best guys are at the top, you have a choice:
(1) Play the stall game. Do little or nothing that would age anybody. Only remove threats to you power base, and try to milk out three waves.
(2) Purge away!!! If the number of people/candidates is running low, you should consider purging and putting on trial anybody you can get your hands on. Start with the weak candidates (>6 gets rid of them). Your goal is to kill off or send to Siberia enough to trigger the You Can't Fill the Politburo Conditions, before your guys on top die). Amongst the "expert players", few games go 10+ turns, many will end because the Politburo is barren.

So what to do if your Opponent has got control of the top two tiers? First remember that the Health Rolls can be the great equalizer. One or two low rolls on the right guys, and suddenly your opponent doesn't look as solid as before. Any cards that would help you in this phase should get played. Flu Epidemics and Get out of the Sanitroiums for example. A key First Purge card or Breaking Somebody to the People also help. And the other players should be pitching in here, especially if the Party Chief has two waves. Don't be afraid to work together!

With the above in mind, let your cards influence where you put influence points. (I did mention you really ought to be playing the Advanced version?) If you have cards like Miracle Cure or Bee Hormones, you should consider an early game. If you have cards that let you get people out of the Sanitorium, maybe you should put points on Nestor and ride him. If you have cards like Assasin or Send to the Sanitorium or Flu Epidemics, you should consider a late game.

So what to do if you're 7, 8, 9 and 10 are all dead? Well, I've won games with 4 points or less on a guy. When you get to Turns 8 or 9 your three pointer might be good. In a semi-famous game at the WBC I won with one point on Nestor on Turn 11. You want to stretch the game out and hope for the best.

Yes there are games where somebody will get three waves in three turns and you didn't do anything. Or every politician you have points on gets trumped by one point by somebody else. Or you tried to win early, but your guys crashed and burned. Well, have you never played a game of Goa and been repeatedly outbid by one dollar? Or find out you're one dollar short everytime you come up with a great purchase in Brass? Or rolled real low the last five turns of Kingsburg? Or tried an early win in some other game and failed? I don't see how Kremlin is different from any of those scenarios.

I'm not sure what to say about the comment that somebody has to talk the game through. I've done it often enough through the years so maybe it's second hand (and I've learned how to keep a game moving, which many consider a good thing). And I concede a table of five with little experience is going to be a lille slow. But to me you've blown off every game that doesn't have some sort of player turn order. Don't know what to tell you.

Hopefully that addresses some of the concerns. Again, Kremlin is not for everbody. In my book it's a shame few games have used a similar system. In the Shadow of the Emperor was closest to me, and I wasn't too thrilled with that. And topic doesn't help. A spoof on a Political System that collapsed 20 years ago? But yet there's usually one or two new players at the WBC every years who probably never saw the Berlin Wall. So it must have some attraction as a game.

Oops, one last thought. Somebody mentioned about ties on Politicians. At the WBC there's a a house rule that if a person puts points on a Politician, and somebody else ties him before an action takes place, then that tie is considered simultaneous. So it would be decided by a die roll unless a third player puts points on that candidate, then the 1/10ths of a vote tiebreaker rules kick in.

Examples: I declare 8 points on the KGB Head and call for a purge of the Sports Minister. Bob says stop and puts 8 points on the KGB Head. That would be simultaneous.

I declare 8 points on the KGB Head and call for a purge on the Sports Minister. Nobody says anything, I roll an 18 and he's off to Siberia. I then call for a purge on the Industry Minister. If Bob then puts 8 points on him, I would have control becuase an action occured before Bob declared.

(Sneaky move here) It's the Add Influence phase. Bob and I both have 8 points on the Party Chief, but I won the die roll and have control. During Bob's turn (who sits on my right) he adds 1 point to the Party Chief. When I add influence, if I add 1 point to the Party Chief, Bob would still have control becuase an action took place (the action being Bob adding influence) I would have to add two points to get control back.

Be warned some people don't like this rule. A big second reason why you have it at the WBC is becuase the GM doesn't want to have to go to another table and decide who got their points down first.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H-B-G
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Bordgamer wrote:
In a semi-famous game at the WBC I won with one point on Nestor on Turn 11.


I'd be interested in hearing the story of this, I've never seen Nestor last past turn 4 (I think), the idea that he could reach turn 11 without dying or reaching Age 96 is amazing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Stein
United States
Westerville
Ohio
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DaveD wrote:
Bordgamer wrote:
In a semi-famous game at the WBC I won with one point on Nestor on Turn 11.


I'd be interested in hearing the story of this, I've never seen Nestor last past turn 4 (I think), the idea that he could reach turn 11 without dying or reaching Age 96 is amazing.


I got dealt the two cards that let you get a Politican out of the Sanitorium for one phase. That screams "Early Game!!!". So I put 8 points on Nestor. When the game starts, Mark Mitchell puts a point on Nestor and puts him into the Sanitorium. OK by me. At the Parade phase it turns out Mark has the Cuban Missile Crisis card, so Nestor's out! Mark has 6 points, so I only need to bid 7 to get control. That's key.

So Nestor gets in and out the first 3 turns, but only gets two waves. He's not aging too fast because he's in the Sanitorium. Finally the rest of the table has had enough and Nestor gets sent to Siberia. But I still have 1 point on him. After another few turns, politicans are dying left and right and nobody's touching Nestor. Most of my guys are in the grave, maybe my one point is good????

So I get Nestor out of the Siberia. The other players unite and send him right back in. But I get control of the KGB Head and get him out to stay. This time he makes his way to the Politburo and on Turn 11 Nick Smith has to decide who the new Party Chief is: Nestor or Natasha? And everybody knows I have points on both. Nick flips a coin and the winner is Nestor, and my one point stands up!!cool
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
H-B-G
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for that, I thought after I asked the question that he must have been in Siberia at some point. That this sort of thing can happen is just one one more reason why I like this game so much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Martin B
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In some games, you know you are out of it, but you still have things to do. This is frustrating, but at least you can work toward some goal of bettering your position, even though you can't win. You can still keep yourself busy getting a few more meager points. I'm thinking in particular of a recent Imperial game I played.

In Kremlin, as mentioned, you can push for an early win, fail and subsequently realize you have absolutely nothing to do for the rest of the game. If you have no guys in power, you can't get your guys out of the bottom or Siberia. I realize the advanced rules address this, but they add more complexity to the game, in the form of rules and exceptions to the rules. I think if you play enough (like at WBC for over 10 years), this will go away and the game will flow more naturally once everyone is familiar. I personally have no problem with revolving turn order, see Imperial as another example. The complexity in moving the game along is the main issue. For each action, you have to announce and pause to make sure that anyone so inclined to add influence is aware of what is happening and has a chance to act. Even for the simple act of rescuing someone from Siberia, you have to go one by one down the chain of command (Does Nestor want to bring anyone up? No? Everyone agree? Ok, does Natasha want to bring some one up? No? OK. How about Boris?). I can't see this improving with more players.

I would be willing to give it a few more tries with the advanced rules and more players. There is something here, but the effort might be too great.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Daniel Corban
Canada
Newmarket
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, you simply cannot rely on the players paying enough attention to "their" politicians to keep the game moving without someone to "MC". Undoubtedly someone would get "skipped" and there would be a lot of backtracking or whining. Since there are decisions to be made literally every few seconds, someone has to take control and give it some order. I am not saying this is game breaking, but it would be nice to have some way of bringing order without having this aspect be so intensive.

When I read the rules and saw the part about rolling a die if the claimed influence is simultaneous, it puzzled me. The odds that two people would state their influence at the exact same moment seems rather low. One thing I was concerned about is when is it ok to claim influence. Is it fair that someone, during the replacements phase, can say "I am promoting this candidate and putting 10 influence on him"? Something of this nature happened in one of my games. I mean, this person has an unfair advantage since they know the candidate will become available and can claim him literally that instant. I like the interpretation that "simultaneous" means "until the next action".
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles A. Davis
United States
Greeneville
TN
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice explanation Peter. I think you covered everything pretty well.
To repeat the obvious and add a few thoughts.

1. Always use the Advanced rules. It takes longer to teach/play but there is much, much more game there.
2. Use the House rule on simultaneous influence. Remember the add influence phase is not simultaneous.
3. Get someone to MC the game. Keep it moving.
4. Appoint someone to be responsible for chit manipulation. Separate them as you are setting up.
5. For the Health phase, do this. One person calls out age and at work/taking cure of each politician. A second person rolls the die and calls out the number. A third person reads the chart. The 4th adjusts the chits. The whole thing can be done in less than a minute if the die roller and age person work as fast as they can. So it would sound like "67 at work, 15, nothing", "90 at the cure, 5, 1 sick", etc.

Purge people, put them under investigation, bribe them, make them sick, assassinate them, basically do everything in your power to manipulate the politicians.

Sometimes things will not go your way and you have nothing to do but I love the game anyway.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
how about when there is a tie...whoever declared the influence later wins the tie?

Also during an add influence phase, you may not add influence to a politician that already received influence that phase.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rubberchicken wrote:
how about when there is a tie...whoever declared the influence later wins the tie?

Also during an add influence phase, you may not add influence to a politician that already received influence that phase.


I go with whoever verbally declared the number first gets it. There is a method for breaking ties if there are more than 2 players fighting for it. The non-tied players may "donate" 1/10th of their current declared influence to the person they want to control it. So Vladimer has a 6,6,3,1 influence markers on him. The 3 and 1 players donate .3 and .1 respectively to which of the tied players they want to control. And that donation I believe is set and can't be changed unless more influence is added to the politician.

For your 2nd question I don't think there is a restriction to that. It's just that if you make a politician a 10+ then you've locked him down. No one else may beat you out, even if you technically are at an 11 and someone could get to 12.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
DiploGuy wrote:
rubberchicken wrote:
how about when there is a tie...whoever declared the influence later wins the tie?

Also during an add influence phase, you may not add influence to a politician that already received influence that phase.


I go with whoever verbally declared the number first gets it. There is a method for breaking ties if there are more than 2 players fighting for it. The non-tied players may "donate" 1/10th of their current declared influence to the person they want to control it. So Vladimer has a 6,6,3,1 influence markers on him. The 3 and 1 players donate .3 and .1 respectively to which of the tied players they want to control. And that donation I believe is set and can't be changed unless more influence is added to the politician.

For your 2nd question I don't think there is a restriction to that. It's just that if you make a politician a 10+ then you've locked him down. No one else may beat you out, even if you technically are at an 11 and someone could get to 12.


I was just wondering what would happen if you turned the normal rule upside down. If the more recently declared influence beat out older influence. For example: player A and B both have 10 influence on Patina. Both suspect the other of having 10 points on her. Whoever waits longest gets to lock her down. There is no longer a rush to take control.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mark J
United States
St. Paul
Minnesota
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rubberchicken wrote:
DiploGuy wrote:
rubberchicken wrote:
how about when there is a tie...whoever declared the influence later wins the tie?

Also during an add influence phase, you may not add influence to a politician that already received influence that phase.


I go with whoever verbally declared the number first gets it. There is a method for breaking ties if there are more than 2 players fighting for it. The non-tied players may "donate" 1/10th of their current declared influence to the person they want to control it. So Vladimer has a 6,6,3,1 influence markers on him. The 3 and 1 players donate .3 and .1 respectively to which of the tied players they want to control. And that donation I believe is set and can't be changed unless more influence is added to the politician.

For your 2nd question I don't think there is a restriction to that. It's just that if you make a politician a 10+ then you've locked him down. No one else may beat you out, even if you technically are at an 11 and someone could get to 12.


I was just wondering what would happen if you turned the normal rule upside down. If the more recently declared influence beat out older influence. For example: player A and B both have 10 influence on Patina. Both suspect the other of having 10 points on her. Whoever waits longest gets to lock her down. There is no longer a rush to take control.


ohh you were using "how about" as in a suggestion not as in another question to add.

Yeah there's merits to that style. And it's actually the tie-breaker for winning in the original rules. If both players match how much they assigned to the current party chief the winner is the one that is currently declaring the least.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michi Hostettler
Switzerland
CERN
Geneva
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DiploGuy wrote:
And it's actually the tie-breaker for winning in the original rules. If both players match how much they assigned to the current party chief the winner is the one that is currently declaring the least.

Just to add, since it was also mentioned before - in the original/FM rules, not being able to fill up vacant positions in the Politburo ends the game immediately in a draw - so nobody, in particular not the player influencing the higher tier politicians, actually wants this to trigger. So purge with care ...

These may look like subtile changes, but they do have a significant impact on the strategies. The original/FM rules are more like a hidden identity/intrigue game where even your PC controlled on 10 is not a safe bet, whereas the AH rules favor "power play" strategies.
1 
 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.