Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Crown of Roses» Forums » General

Subject: For Sale. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
John Cullen

New York
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I really wanted to like this game, but I just haven't been able to do that. It's way to complicated for me. We've spent two thirds to three quarters of the last three games we've played consulting the rules and frequently with uncertain results. Richard III is, for me, a much better game.

Let me say the following in favor to Crown; the map. It is very functional. I like it a lot. It is not--in my opinion--as aesthetically appealing as Richard III, but is is very--even more so--functional. Even though I don't like tracks and charts on my maps.

The blocks; I really like the distinction between the three different color die. This gives many of the blocks very distinct "personalities". This is a really good added idea for the future of block games. I will note, however, that, for these old eyes, the color schema of red, blue and green is difficult. It's hard for me to distinguish between the blue and the green. Red, WHITE and blue/green/or even black, would have been better. I know, they have the pips printed on them. Very small pips. Let me repeat; these old eyes, those small blocks.

The cards; in quality and quantity, absolutely great. You've got two options with almost every card and more cards in the draw pile than you are ever likely to draw (at least in a two player game). Would have been better with three or four options for every card in my opinion, as in Strike of the Eagle, but as is, very good. I'll leave it at that.

[Almost. Let me just add this. A separate set of two player rules. I have been frustrated reading and trying to understand the rules only to realize that the rule applies to multiple player games when I am playing a two player game. Maybe that's just me. But a set of two player games only rules might be helpful.]

All this being said, the game is still too complicated for me. So I think I am going to be selling it. $50.00 plus actual shipping costs. Any interested parties please contact me.

[Also, as a criticism, I very much dislike the monochrome blocks. I understand that it was an attempt to reduce both the cost of producing four separate sets of blocks and of providing a box of an adequate size to store four separate sets of blocks. I reject this rational, however. Provide the blocks and the box and charge us accordingly. This being said, when I was actually hoping that I would come to like this game, I decided to make my own set of red, white and blue blocks and so ordered three extra set of stickers. These stickers will be included if anyone wishes to purchase the game.]

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Larkin
United States
Novato
California
flag msg tools
badge
Twinkies... YUM!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If you're looking to sell your game, thats fine, but I think you should use the BGG marketplace, that's what it's there for not the forums.

CoR is actually a pretty terrible 2 player game. I played my first two player game a week ago and it was miserable. As a four player game however it's really good.

I do agree that the game is somewhat complicated, but not overly so. I find a game like Paths of Glory to be very overwhelming.

I'm not certain why you would want colored blocks? This is a game that relies heavily on fog of war and by coloring the blocks you're only giving more information about them to your opponents. It would have been nice if some sort of marker was included to mark face down blocks as which player owns them. Some have purchased colored wooden blocks for this, others have borrowed them from other games like Eclipse. We've found just using extra IP counters works just fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kiefte
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Three-player games are pretty good too. I'm torn which is better: three-player or four-player.

However, I agree that two-player is not good at all. It gets out of control very quickly and is not fun for the losing side.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Smith
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
mkiefte wrote:
Three-player games are pretty good too. I'm torn which is better: three-player or four-player.

However, I agree that two-player is not good at all. It gets out of control very quickly and is not fun for the losing side.


I'm hoping to get this to the tables soon as 2 player. I wonder if anyone has thought of a compensating mechanic to stop the runaway issue that seems to be coming up, assuming one is needed.

While I have not played the game I do not think it is anything to do with the King, he just accelerates it. Most games have concepts such as supply or diminishing returns. Any game where the more you get the easier it is to get more will collapse without any compensating mechanics, which most games have to some extent, even if its a matter of having more places you can be attacked.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kiefte
Canada
Dartmouth
Nova Scotia
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In a two player game, once one side has an edge, it accelerates very quickly. That means that one side gets more and more IPs, more votes, and more nobles. At some point fairly early on, one side will have all the offices (including the king) and most of the nobles. Surprisingly, it's still difficult to win at that point--heirs are impossible to kill before they're declared and you must become king 5 times. The earliest you can physically win is turn 6 (I think the last noble is turn 5?). However, in a two-player game, it's effectively all over long before that and you're just ticking down the clock -- we've never gotten to that point.

The game goes downhill very rapidly once one side completely runs out of IPs (likely because of "Affairs of State"). That's pretty much the death knell in a two-player game as far as I can see. Although you can do your best to prevent it, Affairs of State two turns in a row is devastating to one side or both.

The only thing that could fix it is some sort of random noble realignment mechanic such that a random noble switches sides for no particular reason. The more imbalanced the current situation, the more likely it will hurt the winning side.

The only thing I would have liked to fix in this game is "Affairs of State". It's pretty much the focal point of the game as far as I can tell. There is no other card in the deck that is so influential. The alternatives I can think of are:

* End the turn now but still execute the influence phase.
* End the turn now, but have absolutely no influence phase or parliament whatsoever (offices stay as is and no nobles acquired).

However, ending the turn, skipping influence phase, and going through the parliament phase is deadly and becomes a major focus of strategy. I can live without such a change, but I'm curious about the motivation for the current card.

I should add, that it balances out in a three- or four-player game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Larkin
United States
Novato
California
flag msg tools
badge
Twinkies... YUM!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Halfinger wrote:
mkiefte wrote:
Three-player games are pretty good too. I'm torn which is better: three-player or four-player.

However, I agree that two-player is not good at all. It gets out of control very quickly and is not fun for the losing side.


I'm hoping to get this to the tables soon as 2 player. I wonder if anyone has thought of a compensating mechanic to stop the runaway issue that seems to be coming up, assuming one is needed.

While I have not played the game I do not think it is anything to do with the King, he just accelerates it. Most games have concepts such as supply or diminishing returns. Any game where the more you get the easier it is to get more will collapse without any compensating mechanics, which most games have to some extent, even if its a matter of having more places you can be attacked.


Even if you find a way to solve the runaway player issue, an auction mechanic with two players is just boring. During our 2 player game we never once both put IP's on the same noble, there were plenty to go around. Bidding on the offices was a bit different but you can't abstain you have to always at least pretend to vote on an office which at best uses up one of your 0 IP markers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Cullen

New York
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Cupcakus wrote:
If you're looking to sell your game, thats fine, but I think you should use the BGG marketplace, that's what it's there for not the forums.


Thanks. I was doing this rather quickly. I knew there was another way. I will get this on the marketplace soon.

Cupcakus wrote:
I'm not certain why you would want colored blocks? This is a game that relies heavily on fog of war and by coloring the blocks you're only giving more information about them to your opponents. It would have been nice if some sort of marker was included to mark face down blocks as which player owns them. Some have purchased colored wooden blocks for this, others have borrowed them from other games like Eclipse. We've found just using extra IP counters works just fine.


Not exactly. Having a(n almost) complete set of blocks in different colors for each faction doesn't give away anymore information than marking you blocks in some other way such as with markers or little wooden blocks. It just lets you see more clearly where your blocks are. Think of Colombia Games. Richard III for example. Two sets of blocks, two different colors, two different players. Still fog of war. I would say that the single color blocks actually cause a confusion of war. My opponent at least once grabbed my blocks that were close to his blocks--even though they were facing the opposite direction--because he was confused by them being the same color. Is that going to happen all that often? Probably not. Still, I prefer to have different color blocks for each player.

Otherwise, yes to all the other comments. In a two player game it seems that one player gets kicked all to snot very quickly but not to death and then has to play a rather hopeless next few turns just to loose. At least that's the way it seems to be working out for us.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Stahl

Maryland
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
It's a little complicated, but try adding a 3rd player to 2 player games with the losing player controlling the 3rd player. I've also noted that simply removing the Affairs of State cards from 2 player games helps to reign in the "I can just spend you under the table" kind of attitude that can take place quickly.

The game seems to play well enough for the shorter scenarios as they're designed for only 2 players, but can still become a bit seedy if the side behind on IP (usually Lancaster) is unable to seize the noble initiative in the first turn, because since it only requires 2 consecutive turns as king to win, this becomes quite easy for York as they start with the initiative (more cards) and have more votes and influence; usually a killing combination.

I'm still acclimating to the game rules, so I don't want to fiddle with them too much just yet.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Cullen

New York
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
akarios wrote:
It's a little complicated, but try adding a 3rd player to 2 player games with the losing player controlling the 3rd player. I've also noted that simply removing the Affairs of State cards from 2 player games helps to reign in the "I can just spend you under the table" kind of attitude that can take place quickly.

The game seems to play well enough for the shorter scenarios as they're designed for only 2 players, but can still become a bit seedy if the side behind on IP (usually Lancaster) is unable to seize the noble initiative in the first turn, because since it only requires 2 consecutive turns as king to win, this becomes quite easy for York as they start with the initiative (more cards) and have more votes and influence; usually a killing combination.

I'm still acclimating to the game rules, so I don't want to fiddle with them too much just yet.


Yeah, we don't want to fiddle with them too much either. Some times you have to, cuz your not sure what to do. Only to find out later that you did it wrong. I don't mind a learning curve. It just seems to me that what we got here is more of a learning cliff. And I don't think that climbing up that cliff and jumping off the other side is worth it. It seems that it's going to be too complicated to play for my tastes.

We've only played the short scenario, Tangled Branches, 3.2. Last time I played Lancaster. I was actually doing pretty good, I thought. I had eliminated three of his nobles and forced him to loose one of his office blocks and only lost one of my own nobles in the process. March was reduced to retainer and sitting alone except for the garrison in a plagued London by the last impulse of the first turn. Unfortunately, I couldn't get to him. I also had all of his Loyal Shires occupied except for one and he only had one of mine occupied. But after the Operation Phase everything went down hill except victory points, I was two or three ahead of him there. He wound up with all the Offices except one though. And of course, he retained the King. He was still significantly ahead of me in Popular Support and drawing 9 cards to my 5 and I had used up a number of my house cards etc... I think I had done well, but in the end well just didn't seem to be good enough.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Stahl

Maryland
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Been considering replaying "Tangled Branches" using the Neville rule, which forces the York player (which starts out with March as the senior heir) to choose losing 1 popular support each turn, or lose influence equal to the turn number for each Warwick block controlled. (and he starts with 2 of them for a total -6 influence for the first turn, -8 the second, etc.) This choice is dependent on control of the Rivers noble. Both can be significant losses.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Cullen

New York
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
akarios wrote:
Been considering replaying "Tangled Branches" using the Neville rule, which forces the York player (which starts out with March as the senior heir) to choose losing 1 popular support each turn, or lose influence equal to the turn number for each Warwick block controlled. (and he starts with 2 of them for a total -6 influence for the first turn, -8 the second, etc.) This choice is dependent on control of the Rivers noble. Both can be significant losses.


Yes. Most definitely. Those would be a significant losses. I didn't notice that rule. I'll have to go back and check it out. That would seem to level things up a bit.

Edit;

Aha, after reading the rule--PB 1.2, Woodville Rule--it is a bit less significant that I thought. Still a good rule to add for balance--thank you for mentioning it--but I do have some questions.

First, in our game at least, no one had bid on either of the Warick's (if the rule was in play, I'm sure it would have been different). That would have meant that both would have been sidelined and thus could not have voted for King, right? In that case Lancaster would have won the vote. What would have happened then? Henry would still be King, right? And March would still control the card and block, right? But would York move it's marker on the "Turns as King" track to One? The general rules say, "Yes". All's you have to do is control the elected King. [24.2.3 last paragraph.] The specific scenario rules seem to say, "No". You must win the election. [PB 3.2.3 political victory.] I don't know. What do you think?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff Stahl

Maryland
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
York holds Henry, he doesn't control him. For game purposes, control means being able to use on map. That's why we have the undeclared sections for nobles which aren't controlled, but aren't available to the other side either. As I understand the rules, undeclareds don't count for votes.

The rules DO say however that Henry in "in-play" (presumably as a Lancastrian senior heir) if king. He just can't be used on the board nor can any of his office powers be used. Nevertheless, this would count as a turn at king for the Lancastrian player.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen A. Cuyler
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jeff is correct, Henry is a Lancastrian King, even if held by the Yorkists (which happened several times historically). March must be voted king (usurping Henry VI) to get the turn as his.

-SAC
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Cullen

New York
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, as I thought, if March is alive, even if Lancaster wins the vote for King, York still gets the card and block for King. Correct?

However, you haven't answered my second question. In such a circumstance, Lancaster wins the vote for King and York--having March--retains both card and block, does York move it's marker forward on the "Turns as King" track?
 
 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.