From: Jeff Thompson Subject: Age of Renaissance Discussion (long, oops) Howdy consimers, Markus has made an excellent point in his reply to my post about Dune and AoR. In the process he has reminded me to make my comments more accurate. So now I will give my interpretation of AoR and why I feel its conflict resolution is rewarding. This discussion will assume that you understand the fundamentals of AoR. If not, you may still be able to grab the general idea and maybe become curious enough to give AoR a try. There are three aspects of AoR conflict resolution. First, the sooner you go in the turn, the easier it is to win a conflict. Second, to go first in the turn, you must have purchased the fewest Tokens. And finally, there does not seem to be any defensive posturing. These aspects are only the mechanism to randomize events within a larger framework of a game that consists of many interweaving phases. The turn sequence in AoR is such that you must make many decisions about future events. At the end of a turn, each player secretly purchases Tokens. The number of Tokens purchased decides the turn order for the next turn. Fewest Tokens purchased goes first and so on down the list. Quite a few things will happen before you actually use these tokens to expand. The most important is the play of cards. Here the turn order can change quite drastically. There are also certain Advances that can alter the order of play relative to the number of Tokens a player has during the Expansion phase. All the while, a player must keep in mind the simple fact that the sooner he goes in the turn, the easier it is to win a conflict. However, going last has its advantages as well, mainly the obvious one that nobody will be able to react to your expansion. Here are a few examples from play. When I know I am going to purchase Ocean Navigation, I always bid 5 Tokens, (unless I feel that I may lose some due to Holy Indulgence or something like that). The reason being that others will also be purchasing Ocean Navigation once they see I have done so, and if they go first, they will grab the far east. When playing a Military Advantage card, go for broke. This will be the one turn that you have a slight edge in the last spot, plan accordingly. Near the end of the game, if the Black Death has not been played and could hurt you, never bid a minimum number of Tokens. (I lost a game this way.) The defensive restrictions are quite annoying I agree. There are the Satellite provinces, but they don't deter too many people unless you can get at least two to point to a province. The best defense is to grab the provinces with the high market numbers early. You need Exploration to do this. Valuable commodities with low Market numbers are volatile markets indeed. You have to make the decision during the game to play with these commodities or not. If you have a Military Advantage card, this may be the way to go, since you can take a chance and go last to gobble them up on the turn before you play your commodity cards. A strategy must be developed early. Grabbing these volatile markets early, reaping the benefit, then allowing them to be taken from you as you grab other commodities that other players may find undesirable can make a steady income while getting an early lead, (personally, I don't like an early lead in this game.) Other examples abound. When you have a leader card you don't want to share, (Chris Columbus is a great example), you want to go first. If you have a lot of leaders you do want to share, you want to go last so you can collect the patronage claims before you purchase your Advances. There is more to going first and last than having a better shot at conflict resolution. Do you want to collect a commodity for sure next turn? Well, you better go first or the Plague could get you, Civil War, the Crusades, and others can ruin a turn if you didn't plan ahead for problems. One of my favorite tactics is to have absolutely no money, go first, play a few commodities that will make you a few dollars, then watch in amazement when that jerk next to you plays Alchemists Gold and you hand over only $20 to the bank. (This works if you have a grand monopoly of something. Few tokens all on one commodity type making a card play worth $100 or more.) Of course since you are going first, you won't grab many markets, but that's for next turn after you have some new Advances to try out. As our group has played this game 3 times, each game has matured. It is a difficult game that lasts 5 hours. You can play flawlessly for 4.5 hours, make one misstep and find yourself in last place. It is a game that is fun if you are not a bad loser, (I think I have become a better loser because of this game.) The strategies vary quite a bit. I have not yet taken any game serious enough to concentrate for 5 hours, but now that I understand how the game operates, I believe my next game will be an all out offensive. A few last notes on game play. If you find that your group is constantly battling each other for provinces as early as the 2nd Epoch, you may be a little too aggressive. Grab those choice markets early. What's wrong with Stone? Sure you only make $10 on the commodity card play, but every Control Marker you have on the board means consistent cash flow. In our last game there was not a conflict resolution until all the provinces were covered, (except for the few petty Satellite jumping points). When expanding through conflict, don't be selfish take the leader's Control Markers off the board even if it means picking up some wool in the process. Notice what other players say about the apparent winner. Do they focus on number of Control Markers on the Board or the Number of Advances? Do they look at the monopolies or not? Whatever the other players don't look at, do. In summary, (whew, that turned out long), I believe that the conflict resolution in AoR is not simply about grabbing territory. It is one of many things combined that makes the player realize a plan. Whether the sticky detail in your plan is turn order, number of expansion tokens, cards yet to be played, income, other players perceptions, Advances most likely to be purchased, etc., the decisions you make when you choose the number of tokens is very important. AoR is not a military simulation. The conflict resolution does not claim any accuracy or simulation to a military event. It does not even simulate advertising campaigns or market trends. It is simply a way to randomize a single event in a chain of completely related events in a game that will boggle the mind. AoR is a board game much like poker. It includes great amounts of expansion, strategy, diplomacy, treachery and deception. Thank you for reading this. I am looking forward to all responses. Jeff Thompson Bulls fan. Is it the playoffs yet? From: Aforandy Subject: Re: Age of Renaissance Discussion (long, oops) >There are three aspects of AoR conflict resolution. First, the sooner >you go in the turn, the easier it is to win a conflict. Second, to go >first in the turn, you must have purchased the fewest Tokens. And >finally, there does not seem to be any defensive posturing. These >aspects are only the mechanism to randomize events within a larger >framework of a game that consists of many interweaving phases. ++ well i entirely disagree with the last statement since there are at least three ways in which you can force an attacker to increase the number of takens required. This can prevent an attack by one who is more likely to succeed. A big attack which fails twice can be a disaster. >The turn sequence in AoR is such that you must make many decisions about >future events. At the end of a turn, each player secretly purchases >Tokens. The number of Tokens purchased decides the turn order for the >next turn. Fewest Tokens purchased goes first and so on down the list. >Quite a few things will happen before you actually use these tokens to >expand. The most important is the play of cards. Here the turn order >can change quite drastically. There are also certain Advances that can >alter the order of play relative to the number of Tokens a player has >during the Expansion phase. All the while, a player must keep in mind >the simple fact that the sooner he goes in the turn, the easier it is to >win a conflict. However, going last has its advantages as well, mainly >the obvious one that nobody will be able to react to your expansion. ++ again this is confusing. In fact the order of play of cards is the same as the turn order and is very important. The order in which a player plays his own cards can be important. Civil War changes the turn order at the start of the expansion phase. Renaissance can change the turn order at any time but is hardly ever used due to its cost, which usually relegates it to the end of a few three-Epoch games >Here are a few examples from play. When I know I am going to purchase >Ocean Navigation, I always bid 5 Tokens, (unless I feel that I may lose >some due to Holy Indulgence or something like that). The reason being >that others will also be purchasing Ocean Navigation once they see I >have done so, and if they go first, they will grab the far east. When >playing a Military Advantage card, go for broke. This will be the one >turn that you have a slight edge in the last spot, plan accordingly. >Near the end of the game, if the Black Death has not been played and >could hurt you, never bid a minimum number of Tokens. (I lost a game >this way.) ++In our games it was rare that two players would attain Ocean Navigation at the same time but so what? There are three Far Eastern provinces and only one of these can be occupied in the turn that Advance is bought. Indeed the player going second might be able to stuff the previous Ocean Navigator with Cathedral especially in a six player game where the income gained would help offset the token cost. You get quite a big advantage going fifth in a five-player but I think this will be changed in errata. We find few people pay to hold onto Black Death for even one turn, but recovery is usually very rapid and often ther is no clearly advantageous place to use it. >The defensive restrictions are quite annoying I agree. There are the >Satellite provinces, but they don't deter too many people unless you can >get at least two to point to a province. The best defense is to grab >the provinces with the high market numbers early. You need Exploration >to do this. Valuable commodities with low Market numbers are volatile >markets indeed. You have to make the decision during the game to play >with these commodities or not. If you have a Military Advantage card, >gobble them up on the turn before you play your commodity cards. A >strategy must be developed early. Grabbing these volatile markets >early, reaping the benefit, then allowing them to be taken from you as >you grab other commodities that other players may find undesirable can >make a steady income while getting an early lead, (personally, I don't >like an early lead in this game.)>> The satellites can greatly increase the cost of failure and are often taken as preparation for the provincial attempt, especially if you have a Military Advantage which allows a satellite attack for one token. Buying exploration early can leave you well stuffed by Holy Indulgence. Combine this with a Papal Decree and a financial inability to exploit leaders you can end up three turns behind, trailing irretrievably. Spending a lot of money on tokens early in the game is unlikely to reap much reward. eg. putting these tokens into high market number areas early on is a good way of maximising the chance of Something Bad happening to them, like a rebellion, pirates and so on. >Other examples abound. When you have a leader card you don't want to >share, (Chris Columbus is a great example), you want to go first. If >you have a lot of leaders you do want to share, you want to go last so >you can collect the patronage claims before you purchase your Advances. ++everyone collects their protection money before Advances, and i doubt too many will be using Columbus on the same turn unless another Leader witht he same credit is extant. OTOH Walter the Penniless can get a unanimous vote. It would be nice if there was some consistency with regard to Marco Polo, so that the cards that increase their credits do so in a similar manner. >There is more to going first and last than having a better shot at >conflict resolution. Do you want to collect a commodity for sure next >turn? Well, you better go first or the Plague could get you, Civil >War, the Crusades, and others can ruin a turn if you didn't plan ahead >for problems. One of my favorite tactics is to have absolutely no >money, go first, play a few commodities that will make you a few >dollars, then watch in amazement when that jerk next to you plays >Alchemists Gold and you hand over only $20 to the bank. (This works if >you have a grand monopoly of something. Few tokens all on one commodity >type making a card play worth $100 or more.) Of course since you are >going first, you won't grab many markets, but that's for next turn after >you have some new Advances to try out. Going first can can preserve a useful Shortage. But having no money and going first seem mutually exclusive. 20 is a lot to lose to Alchemists Gold, [especially in the first epoch] since it means that you didn't spend 40 on tokens -- it is of course unaffected by money made by commodity cards played. OTOH if you had no [written] cash this means you spent everything on tokens which means that alchemists gold wouldn' affect you [and you'd be unlikely to go first]. The only thing that can reduce current cash _below_ written cash/the Alchemists penalty is Civil war and money spent on patronage protection. >As our group has played this game 3 times, each game has matured. It is >a difficult game that lasts 5 hours. You can play flawlessly for 4.5 >hours, make one misstep and find yourself in last place. It is a game >that is fun if you are not a bad loser, (I think I have become a better >loser because of this game.) The strategies vary quite a bit. I have >not yet taken any game serious enough to concentrate for 5 hours, but >now that I understand how the game operates, I believe my next game will >be an all out offensive. when they start turning up for three Epoch six-player games in sportswear you know its time to stop. After many hours there are usually two leaders and catching them is the big problem with the game -- its unlikely. The misery track tends to harden this difficulty. Being a very bad loser is one way to sway the impressionable holder of a bad event, who may have no chance of winning himself and therefore be immune to naked threats of retaliation. i find the main strategies are worked out after a certain numnber of plays and thereafter the game loses some appeal. eg. laws of matter and enlightenment are always purchased together using credit for the other two Sciences and inst. research. The additional combination of at least 55 MR and a halving of MR costs means they pay for themselves so long as you have at least two tiers and 110 to spend. The rich get richer and win thereby; and the poor lose, with no chance of recovering in time to pass them. New World is another advance that has this effect. Its noticeable that the clever boys often have a clear lead by the end of turn two. >A few last notes on game play. If you find that your group is >constantly battling each other for provinces as early as the 2nd Epoch, >you may be a little too aggressive. read 1st Epoch, old ladies they are not. >Grab those choice markets early. >What's wrong with Stone? Sure you only make $10 on the commodity card >play, but every Control Marker you have on the board means consistent >cash flow. the large number of tokens required are [hopefully] better invested elsewhere. >In our last game there was not a conflict resolution until >all the provinces were covered, (except for the few petty Satellite >jumping points). this sounds odd. Commodity card effects and majority bonus would usually preclude this. > When expanding through conflict, don't be selfish take >the leader's Control Markers off the board even if it means picking up >some wool in the process. Notice what other players say about the >apparent winner. Do they focus on number of Control Markers on the >Board or the Number of Advances? Do they look at the monopolies or not? >Whatever the other players don't look at, do. Its usually Area V and VI that people look at and play Black Death on. Only a few areas can be attacked anyway, the board positions can be remarkably stable. In summary, (whew, that turned out long), I believe that the conflict resolution in AoR is not simply about grabbing territory. It is one of many things combined that makes the player realize a plan. Whether the sticky detail in your plan is turn order, number of expansion tokens, cards yet to be played, income, other players perceptions, Advances most likely to be purchased, etc., the decisions you make when you choose the number of tokens is very important. AoR is not a military simulation. The conflict resolution does not claim any accuracy or simulation to a military event. It does not even simulate advertising campaigns or market trends. It is simply a way to randomize a single event in a chain of completely related events in a game that will boggle the mind. AoR is a board game much like poker. It includes great amounts of expansion, strategy, diplomacy, treachery and deception. the turn when you spend lots of money on tokens is usually fairly obvious and it may be worth keeping Military Advantages a little while if they are not drawn on such a turn. And of course War is prosecuted with Military Advantage and Nationalism against those with **neither** :-). Tokens come out when there is nothing to spend money on that turn, and they can return a profit in games with more players where provinces are worth more in income. Andy