Recommend
44 
 Thumb up
 Hide
58 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

Struggle of Empires» Forums » Reviews

Subject: SoE is just another version of Risk... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Peter Chinkin
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After one play I know that I would not play this game again. I normally like to give a game a few tries but I could not cope with enduring this ordeal another time. This is, therefore, a bit of a review/session report combo. Ultimately this is just my opinion based upon a one off experience of SoE.

There are some really nice elements to the game which make it interesting and good.

The various aspects of the game: - To win you score victory points by having the most (or second/third most) influence in a region at the end of each of the three wars. There is a money management aspect to the game cleverly balanced by the acquisition of ‘unrest’ tokens. There are various tiles which can be purchased and used throughout the game for their bonuses and powers. The number of actions each player has is limited making you think carefully about what you do and when. The alliances add an interesting twist with the way turn order and ‘teams’ for each war are decided as the people you can attack or support are fixed for each of the three phases of the game. Working out who you want to be able to attack and who you want to be protected from are essential to doing well – as is deciding how much you can afford to pay to influence this. Finally there is a good slice of old fashioned luck with the dice roles in combat and certain movements. All these combine to make a game of great depth.

It sounds like a great game doesn’t it, so what’s so wrong with it?

Luck: - In Risk, most battles are fought with many dice rolls allowing the luck element a chance to average out a bit. In SoE there are relatively few rolls, so if you get unlucky in a few battles which you were odds on to win, your entire game can be over before it has begun – this happened to one poor player in today’s game.

Complication: - This game is heavy. You have to think carefully about every action and there is a lot of information to consider. Multiply this by two actions in each of five rounds in each of three wars for each of six players and you get a looooooooong game - 180 actions plus the turn order auctions and support negotiations etc. makes the purported 180 minute duration very optimistic.

Tile limitation: - The various tiles available are limited and some are very powerful. Even if you are meticulously thorough in planning your strategy, someone can take a tile which throws it off. If you are unable to take a certain tile because there are none left then you can be at an enormous disadvantage for the entire game. Some of the tiles are very limited (just one or two in the game) but offer a massive power at little cost. Failing to go either first or second in the opening round seems to make victory all but impossible.

Bash the leader: - In my one game of SoE, I established a commanding lead through well timed acquisition of influence in the opening war and expensive manipulation of the alliances coupled with consolidation in the second. However, this sparked a backlash in the third war that saw me attacked by every one of the players who could do so and complete removal of support from all of my ‘allies’. In the end the player who was ultimately attacked the least won the game. One of the players even effectively destroyed their own chances of being competitive by attacking me. This is not uncommon in games where the score is so clearly visible on the board, especially war games. However, king making (or the reverse) is not conducive to an enjoyable game in my opinion.

All in all it seems like it should be a good game but it just doesn’t work very well. I really wanted to enjoy it but it was painful and tedious without much excitement or action. The more it went on, the more it appeared to be just another version of Risk - an overly complicated and not very fun version at that! I would recommend Risk 2210 A.D. over it every time as it has a lot more action and excitement without so much unnecessary complication and tedium.
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Les Marshall
United States
Woodinville
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, by all means let's all just play risk. No, wait! Even better, let's dispense with the expense of a board and little plastic pieces and just start with a bunch of dice. Each time you get lowest roll, you lose those dice. There'd be lots of averaged die rolling results, low complication and a short game.thumbsup

But, all of you "strategy gamers" out there that still want "rules" and a board and "choices" and "diplomacy" you just go ahead and play Struggle of Empires. Be warned, it may take awhile. Your strategy might have to be adapted when someone takes your prize tiles. Your dice might even cause you some unexpected setbacks and totally ruin your gaming experience. I guess that's a RISK you'll have to take.yuk
34 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Helmer
Canada
Windsor
Ontario
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
oooohhh... buddy...guy...

maybe you should go into hiding for a while

We're all entitled top our opinions, but we serious gamers know just how good this game is and why we dont talk about Risk around grown-ups.
Give it another try, the reasons you disliked it are basically the shopping list for why we all love this game. I have a feeling this might be one of your gentler feedbacks to this post. No hard feelings though.
26 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Foster
United States
Eagle Bend
Minnesota
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mondoron wrote:
oooohhh... buddy...guy...

maybe you should go into hiding for a while

We're all entitled top our opinions, but we serious gamers know just how good this game is and why we dont talk about Risk around grown-ups.
Give it another try, the reasons you disliked it are basically the shopping list for why we all love this game. I have a feeling this might be one of your gentler feedbacks to this post. No hard feelings though.


Alright, I don't necessarily agree with the original poster here, but that and the previous comment are both just a bit out of line. He did not like the game, and that is how he reviewed it.
Perhaps it should have been a session report, but don't go around being gamer snobs.
Risk is one of my favorite games, I also love SoE, though I do not get to play it enough. Both games tend to have decidedly different audiences, but both are fine games.
A good friend of mine used to say, "there are no bad games, just bad game experiences." That holds true in this case.

Dan
37 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The similarities with risk end with the fact that it's a game about waging war and the results are dice-driven.

That's like saying power grid is just another version of puerto rico, all you do is manage resoureces...
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Lou Moratti
United States
Kalamazoo
Michigan
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Perhaps, but the poster says the game is complicated and heavy, then compares it to Risk! What's wrong with that picture? I agree with the 1st couple responses, or at least recommend trying it again....but then again I think this reviewer's preference is for lighter fare and he should stick with that and be happy.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Inno Van
United States
San Francisco/East Bay
California
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
More evidence that reviews of games without having played them at least three times are garbage.

I'm extremely disappointed this passed the review process. Can we revoke the reviewer's geek gold?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Aventura
Florida
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The dice in Struggle of Empires are not nearly as lucky as in Risk. Work out the probabilities for the dice in SoE, you might be surprised...
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
J C Lawrence
United States
Campbell
California
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
verandi wrote:
The dice in Struggle of Empires are not nearly as lucky as in Risk. Work out the probabilities for the dice in SoE, you might be surprised...


+1. It is a rather clever system even if I ddid sink three ships when I had the two bonus tiles.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bauer
United States
Gilbert
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Bazinga!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You answered your own questions in your post. The game has almost nothing in common with risk.

In general if you don't like a game I would say fine don't play it.
There are plenty of other game out there. From your post it sounds like you played the game correctly and I can offer some suggestions but it will not change the game from what it is.

I love this game and it is one for my favorites but I have only played it 6 times and am by no means an expert on the game. These are my opinions take them for what you will.

Luck - Going to war in this game is very risky and very necessary. Unless you are desperate you should not go to war with less than a +2 advantage. Even given this it can go against you. The games offset for this is the leader bashing. The weaker you are the less likely people are to attack you. The caveat to this is don't over extend yourself. If you have the easiest VP on the board then you should be torn apart. All things being equal people should always attack the leader.

Complication This is what the game is. The play time on the box (Eagle games version) is 3-4 hours. My first play with 7 players was 4.5 hours and after that it was easily less than 4 hours and I can play it close to 3 now. Sorry BGG underrates the time but the game is upfront about it and is clearly meant to be a long complex game.


Tile limitation:
- The tile layout could have been done better in that there are clearly round one tiles, round two tiles and if I have nothing better to do this turn tiles. If you did not realize this until it is too late you are correct you are going to be at a huge disadvantage. This also has a built in balancing mechanism. In the first round you are bidding mainly for fist choice of tiles and to get the first round pops/slavery. If you let them go too cheaply then you are giving someone an advantage As for first or second, I would consider Mercenaries, Train Natives and War office equally useful. Diplomatic Service, Pressgangs, Militia and Banking only slightly less useful.

Bash the leader - This is a bash the leader game and the winner should be the person who did that best, which sounds like what happened in your game. If you don't like bash the leader games you should not play this game. Your allies are not your friends but someone you are using for political expedience. You should expect them to abandon you when it suits them and do likewise.

Any game that allows people to directly attack each other can have a king maker problem as it becomes possible to have no chance of winning and still have to play and help or hinder other peoples chances of winning. SoE encourages you to keep the scores close by leader bashing if this fails I feel the player should do what ever maximizes your score but you can also pass if that is what you feel is best.

Other than having Dice based combat and leader bashing I don't see how it is anything like risk. It is not a game of world domination but of colonial reach. If you play this like risk you will lose. You are not trying to take over the world but snipe at powers it would be too dangerous to attack directly and divide the rest of the world in your favor.

I have always thought of it more like a complex richer (you can say overcomplicated but that is just a matter of whether you like the extra rules or don't) Diplomacy than Risk however neither analogy is very good as I think it is a very original game.

21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Agent J
United States
Coldwater
Michigan
flag msg tools
He's looking real sharp in his 1940's fedora. He's got nerves of steel, an iron will, and several other metal-themed attributes. His fur is water tight and he's always up for a fight.
badge
He's a semi-aquatic egg-laying mammal of action. He's a furry little flat-foot who'll never flinch from a fray. He's got more than just mad skills, he's got a beaver tail and a bill.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
0 - 6/36, 1/6, .166
1 - 10/36, 5/18 .277
2 - 8/36, 2/9 .222
3 - 6/36, 1/6 .166
4 - 4/36, 1/9 .111
5 - 2/36, 1/18 .055

Half the time you roll a 1 or a 2.

I love the idea of this system, I've never gotten to play with it though.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PaleHorse wrote:
the poster says the game is complicated and heavy, then compares it to Risk! What's wrong with that picture?

Presumably that's his problem with the game. He feels it has all the luck of Risk, but with a much greater complexity. From the review, I gather he feels it combines the worst of both worlds.
30 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Thijs Lauwbierkoffie
Netherlands
Amersfoort
Utrecht
flag msg tools
www.spellenclubapeldoorn.nl
badge
Kom spellen spelen bij de Spellenclub Apeldoorn!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Innovan wrote:
More evidence that reviews of games without having played them at least three times are garbage.

I'm extremely disappointed this passed the review process. Can we revoke the reviewer's geek gold?


Innovan: Reviews: 0

I dont know why you have the right to say this? It is his opinion and he is honest in telling that he only played the game one time and he explains well why he didnt like it. Maybe his research was not the best but an opinion after 1 play is also intresting, because for example I dont want to play a 1.5+ hour game that doesnt click the first time playing. With click I dont mean that you know the best strategy immediately, but that you have some sort of feeling of what to do or at least have the feeling why the game mechanisms are brilliant. Maybe it clicks for some people during the first game, but it didnt happen when he played it and he has the right to transfer that opinion into a review. I think this is a contribution to BGG and that is why I accepted it.
56 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Barton Campbell
United States
Jersey City
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
First, thanks for the review. We need more reviews of wargames or near wargames, for and against and I'm always happy to see a new one.

Second, you clearly do not like Struggle of Empires and I'm not trying to change your opinion but for people who have not played it I have the following comments to make regarding my experiences.

A) SoE is a fine simulation of 18th Century warfare and grand strategy. You're convincingly put in the position of an ancien regime king. You can go for colonies overseas like Great Britain did or fight in Europe like Prussia. Or do a combination of both like France did. All the while developing your country with the rudiments of the modern state. Risk is not a simulation of any war that I've heard of or, really, anything.

B) "LUCK" - Try to always attack with a +2 advantage in SoE. I've noticed a type of gamer (actually non-gamer) who sees dice and thinks that it becomes all luck after that. For example, they have 1 or 2 armies and attack an opponent with 4 or 5 armies and lose, then blame the dice. That's not bad luck, that's just a dumb attack.

C) "Tile limitation" - There are enough different tiles to work out different strategies in this game. If you're an absolute beginner you can do quite well with just one army training tile.

D) "Bash the leader" - If this happens to you then you know what France felt like during the 18th century. OK, you don't want to get caught by "bash the leader", then you've got to come up with a different strategy. Hang back with the second place pack and sprint for victory points during the last war.

E) "Complication" - I agree on this one. The game is slightly complicated and is too long for roping in non-gamers. But if the game breaks up after the first or second war, we just call the winner then. OK, I was planning to sprint out front during the third war but people had to go home and Mr. Greedy Belligerent, who was about to be attacked by everyone, ended up winning the game cause we only played two wars. Hey, though I wish we played the whole thing, I'm so happy to play a game it doesn't really bother me. Beggars can't be ungrateful. Honestly, this is really a light game for gamers but I've suckered more than a few non-gamers into playing this (BTW, who usually win for the reason below).

F) "In the end the player who was ultimately attacked the least won the game." - That's exactly what I love about this game. I'd say that is a pretty good game that can reward careful strategy and diplomacy. By not attacking wily nily, obviously this guy won by not creating enemies and just taking what he really needed. Good strategy, but not easy to implement. Probably this is one of the reasons my wife will play this game with my gamer friends. It's not all guns and bombs.

edit:spelling corrections
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bauer
United States
Gilbert
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Bazinga!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Innovan wrote:
More evidence that reviews of games without having played them at least three times are garbage.

I'm extremely disappointed this passed the review process. Can we revoke the reviewer's geek gold?


Why would anyone keep playing a game they don't like?

The sight is already lacking for negative reviews and he explained what he didn't like about it very well. Comparing it to risk I suspect was just for shock value and despite his harsh review he rated the game a 6.
21 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Schenck
United States
Dayton
Ohio
flag msg tools
GO BUCKS!
badge
Stop touching me!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have to agree with Mr Thijs.

I'll extend the point by saying that I value early-play reviews even more than experienced-play reviews. I'm the "game buyer" of my game group, and I've come to the realization that games are made-or-broken with my group based on the initial couple of plays. If a game takes 10 plays to appreciate, it's not going to fly with my group, so it's a waste of my money.

I appreciate "deeper" games, but I also appreciate the value of intitial-play reviews -- especially when the reviewer explicitly states that his opinions are based on limited plays, as this reviewer did.
43 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
john mcnamara
United States
grand rapids
MI
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, we get into subjective areas when we try to decide when to write a review in our relationship with a game. I think the depth of a game has a lot to do with it. I played, of all things, Monopoly Deal Card Game with my kids today and reluctantly had a great time.....over and over again. i loved the dam thing! I can write a review of this light fun game......i fully understand it, i have dealt with these mechanics before, i know how my preferences relate to it, i know how my kids reacted to it, and by God i will go write a review for a Monopoly Card Game right now!! Well, let me ramble on a bit more:

But, for someone to play a Martin Wallace game and compares it to RISK...well, i feel a little ill when such things happen. Where is the respect? This guy took his no-thank-you bite of a rather holy and big beast and didn't like it....innocent enough. But before he came to proclaim anything, he should read other reviews, comments, forums.........decide who your audience is. What is your intended purpose for your article and your intended audience? Someone who has never played Struggle of Empires and comes to this page to figure out if it is a beautiful game should not have to read that it has any relationship to risk! simple.

If this happens, then the only option is to counter this review in an amazon.com like way........to bombard the page with a hundred fluffy glowing reports until this RISK reference is but a grain of black sand in a beach of beatiful tan women sand grains. And we don't want to water down BGG. Do we?ninja

We must maintain the integrity of BGG somehow. And, nothing against the poster of this article at all (he clearly hasn't been exposed to enough crazy good mechanics to sense nuances and flavors beyond those that relate to a few games in his past experience), but the sad thing is we must hope the first time readers of this article read down further, to that exciting confrontational exchange, where we arrange letters on a page and muster forces, where we stick up for something we aren't sure how to express, where we are seeming to be defending and seeming to be mean and overly-defensive and mainly just being big dorks............and though uncomfortable, we have to be proud of such things.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Bauer
United States
Gilbert
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Bazinga!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There are far more people that will try it because it is like risk than will avoid it because they don't like risk.

Risk was the top game search on BGG last year
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Young
Canada
Victoria
BC
flag msg tools
Old Ways Are Best!
badge
Check Six!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
But the fact still remains that the comparison is inappropriate...

Risk is a proven classic - simple, elegant (in its own way), and well known. It has stood the test of time, and we can denigrate it all we like but it has outsold just about every other game on the Geek except maybe Monopoly, Backgammon, Chess and Checkers. It has spawned a family of clones (LotR Risk, Risk: 2010, Risk: Godstorm) as well as having enjoyed continual reprintings in its 50 year history. It was the gateway game for most of us.

Having said that however, one has to recognize that Risk is game of territorial conquest (not influence) with only one type of unit (rather than several), that it features player elimination (a very obsolete feature), and exhibits considerable downtime in the late going as the few remaining players duke it out with ever increasingly huge numbers of armies (that can only be eliminated two at a time in combat); and, finally, with an equivalent numbers of players, Risk will take a lot longer to play. Although I consider Risk: 2210 to be the most acceptable version of the franchise, as it mitigates many of the features I've listed earlier, it still bears no resemblance to Struggle of Empires.

I also disagree with the characterization of SoE as a pure "whack the leader" game. The alliance auction mechanic adds a clever twist that makes it harder to pull a leader down than it would be in many other multi-player strategy games. In a six player game, it can never be five-on-one, and while your allies aren't necessarily going to go out of their way to help you, they are going to be attacking some of your enemies because that's all they can do (or they are not playing to better their own fortunes).

With the alliance mechanic, the "seeding" of the board with indigenous forces, colonists and "slaves," the choices as to where to attempt to gain influence, and the various tile advantages available, SoE constantly presents you with far more to think about than "who do I attack next?"

Risk is a gateway game - Struggle of Empires is the tropical paradise on the other side of the gate...



7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Chinkin
United Kingdom
Norwich
Norfolk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
PaleHorse wrote:
Perhaps, but the poster says the game is complicated and heavy, then compares it to Risk! What's wrong with that picture? I agree with the 1st couple responses, or at least recommend trying it again....but then again I think this reviewer's preference is for lighter fare and he should stick with that and be happy.


No. I like some heavier games such as Le Havre and Caylus although I do generally like shorter games like Dominion, Race for the Galaxy and Glory to Rome as there is less time to see it out once it becomes clear that things are going badly.

sbauer9 wrote:
Luck - Going to war in this game is very risky and very necessary. Unless you are desperate you should not go to war with less than a +2 advantage. Even given this it can go against you.


The unlucky player in our game lost with +2 several times as well as with +3 and even drew with +4. This combined to make it impossible for him to be competitive in the game.

The dice system is unique and is nicely weighted. However, I think this game would be better without it. Some kind of Diplomacy style superior force always wins but maybe with some casualties would make this game better in my opinion.

cbs42 wrote:
PaleHorse wrote:
the poster says the game is complicated and heavy, then compares it to Risk! What's wrong with that picture?

Presumably that's his problem with the game. He feels it has all the luck of Risk, but with a much greater complexity. From the review, I gather he feels it combines the worst of both worlds.


Pretty much hit the nail on the head there. The game is clearly innovative and interesting with lots of really nice elements. However, the way the heavy balancing aspects are so intrinsically tied in with crucial points of luck make this game unrewarding for me.

How frustrating to put a lot of thought into working out how much unrest everyone else has and limiting your own whilst maximising income to manipulate the alliance auctions…only to fail to win by gaining a single extra unrest token from supporting an ally and them rolling a 7?

sbauer9 wrote:
Comparing it to risk I suspect was just for shock value and despite his harsh review he rated the game a 6.


The Risk comparison was essentially down to a feeling that came over me when playing. It just felt like a version of Risk. Putting it in the subject line of my post was admittedly a little inflammatory. I was just a bit wound up after playing the game.

Bubslug wrote:
But the fact still remains that the comparison is inappropriate...


Ok, you’re right. SoE is very different from Risk. However, the combat and luck aspects are similar enough to justify my comparison.

Bubslug wrote:
I also disagree with the characterization of SoE as a pure "whack the leader" game. The alliance auction mechanic adds a clever twist that makes it harder to pull a leader down than it would be in many other multi-player strategy games. In a six player game, it can never be five-on-one, and while your allies aren't necessarily going to go out of their way to help you, they are going to be attacking some of your enemies because that's all they can do (or they are not playing to better their own fortunes).


Unfortunately, a lot of players will bash the leader even when it is not in their own self interests. Some people call it vindictive play but I think that people feel a sense of duty or honour if they selflessly open the game up for others at their own expense. I would prefer the victory points to be secret to at least limit the likelihood of this.

Bubslug wrote:
With the alliance mechanic, the "seeding" of the board with indigenous forces, colonists and "slaves," the choices as to where to attempt to gain influence, and the various tile advantages available, SoE constantly presents you with far more to think about than "who do I attack next?"


There clearly is a lot to think about in this game – that would be why it took six hours to play. I simply don’t like combining these thinking elements with luck based combat and movement. Four ships were lost in our game. Statistically this is highly unlikely but it had a massive impact on those players. They spent a lot of time planning their strategies only to have them undone by bad luck.

Bubslug wrote:
Risk is a gateway game - Struggle of Empires is the tropical paradise on the other side of the gate...


I agree that Risk is limited and does not have anywhere near the depth or interest that SoE has, but at least you know where you are with Risk. Attack, roll, fortify, defend… you may get lucky or unlucky but typically the player who gets attacked the least will win.

I’m not saying that I prefer Risk to SoE (although I do prefer Risk 2210 A.D.), I just didn’t like SoE the one time I played it for the reasons I have stated.

Thanks for the healthy debate .
22 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neil Parker
United Kingdom
London (west)
flag msg tools
badge
Tat Tvam Asi
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In a nutshell this is nothing like risk once you get past the fact that dice are used in a game involving war.

This is a club favourite. Yes it can be a long game and its a game that can be taxing especially to a new player, which is why its not frequently played, but the combat odds do work out and since war costs cash, with the limited numbers of actions available, you have to think carefully about when and where to attack.

Perhaps more importantly for us is the diplomacy. The alliance auction is superb and leading players with cash to spend can pay, if necessary, to be allied with their rivals or those most likely to attack them - its a game where there may be more incentive to ally with your enemies than your friends.

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
alan beaumont
United Kingdom
LONDON
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Risk a backlash
Peter Rulebook wrote:
After one play I know that I would not play this game again.....Failing to go either first or second in the opening round seems to make victory all but impossible.....I established a commanding lead through well timed acquisition of influence in the opening war .... this sparked a backlash in the third war that saw me attacked by every one of the players who could do so ....the player who was ultimately attacked the least won the game.

Was your commanding lead down to going 1st or 2nd? How else to explain it, yet still you failed?
The ultimate winner not part of the revengful pack? Seems to me you met a superior diplomat, who recognised that there is more subtlety to the game than first greets the eye.
Incidently, if people are attacking you for no good reason, it is time to check your table image, did you come over as arrogant?
Economies
You really shouldn't have made the Risk crack. In Risk winning battles generates the win directly and seizes resources from opponents in a zero sum fashion. In SoE winning battles mostly generates potential VPs. It has a very marginal effect on resources unless you have already established the appropriate companies and in the short term will actually weaken you as even a successful no casualty attack effectively costs a point of unrest. You have now noticed this. Sure you won't do better next time?
Combat
Vital attacks at +3 or above. Got a terrible attack roll, with a fantastic defence roll? You did remember to buy a Reserves tile didn't you? You didn't? Doh!
Playing time
6 hours with 6 newbies seems about right. Now knock off a couple of hours with the same players. Veterans can get it done in a tad under 3 hours, then you can get back to RftG, where no nasty people can gang up on you.
I think you had a bad day at the office. If you weren't so upset at the way you lost you would have been less harsh, but I would still hone those interpersonal skills. For the record the same thing has happened to me, but it is still a great game.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Bankler
United States
San Antonio
Texas
flag msg tools
badge
"Keep Summer Safe!"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Let me just start off by saying that I personally think it's fine to write a review after a single play (or less), as long as the reviewer states that clearly. Peter clearly laid out his positions (even if I don't agree with all of them) and so any personal attacks are way out of line.

Now, some comments.

Peter Rulebook wrote:

There are some really nice elements to the game which make it interesting and good.

I agree that there are good and bad aspects of this game. I happen to think the good outweighs the bad, but I haven't gotten this to the table in 2 years, so obviously I'm not pushing it hard (or my group doesn't agree).

Peter Rulebook wrote:

It sounds like a great game doesn’t it, so what’s so wrong with it?

Luck: - In Risk, most battles are fought with many dice rolls allowing the luck element a chance to average out a bit. In SoE there are relatively few rolls, so if you get unlucky in a few battles which you were odds on to win, your entire game can be over before it has begun – this happened to one poor player in today’s game.

True enough. However, in Risk you can "win" after losing 6-8 units beyond what you would be expected to. That happens fairly often, and is the equivalent of a +2 battle losing (or drawing). SoE also has tiles that provide additional +1s (a huge item) or rerolls (ditto) to mitigate. But if you constantly roll crappy, yes you lose. If you roll moderately poorly but play better you'll win.

Quote:

Complication:
Tile limitation:


Probably the greatest criticism of the game (from my PoV) is that options decrease, not increase. On your first turn, Every Tile is available for purchase, and you don't have much of an idea on how to value them. Compare that with Ursuppe (say) -- On your first turn you can buy a few special powers, and the number increases over the game (especially with the expansion).

This, in my mind, is the most difficult aspect of the game for first time players.


Peter Rulebook wrote:

Bash the leader: One of the players even effectively destroyed their own chances of being competitive by attacking me.


To me, that just says SoE is not for your group.

One interesting aspect is that once players have a lead in an area (or are ahead of you, usually) they have no incentive to hit you (unless you are just oodles ahead). So the leader will often be dropped to 2nd or 3rd in many areas,

Also, the score isn't totally on the board, unless your group also plays with open unrest (or can track it), as well as constantly tabulating the 3rd epoch scores in their heads. I do often see groups bash the leader way too much (without taking these things into consideration) but that happens in lots of games, like Age of Renaissance, until players gain experience.

SoE falls short of greatness; it's reasonably good (but flawed). Many groups don't like it (for reasons you mentioned). I think the flaws aren't as bad as they initially appear.

I probably should have just said "See my review", but there you have it.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Aaron Silverman
United States
Halfway between Castro and Mickey Mouse
Florida (FL)
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This is a fairly well-written review that's spoiled by a title that can charitably be called ludicrous. Personally, I'd suggest that the OP change it. Say, "Too Long, Complex, and Luck-Dependent?"

(I disagree with that, but it's not an unreasonable response to the game for other groups.)
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Schaeffer
United States
Unspecified
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Reading this thread has made me want to play this again. It's been a good couple of years since it's hit my group's table.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
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.