Misha Nosiara - Oct 28, 2004 7:54 am (#497 Total: 503) Picked up my copy at Essen Yes, 7 Ages is now in my hands. Read through the rules (liked the designers notes and tips for play especially, oh, and the examples scattered everywhere). On the production side it reminds me of games of yesteryear - lots of glossy cards, glossy counters and glossy map. Personally, it loses a little versus Revolution or Struggle of Empires on the asthetic front. Those two just beg you to start playing, especially Revolution (the map is a work of art that has to be seen to be believed). Gameplay looks very interesting - I detect hints of History of the World - but not overly so. I love originality in games and I think ADG have definitely scored well on that front. Can't wait to actually play the game! Harry Rowland - Oct 28, 2004 6:23 pm (#498 Total: 503) 7 Ages design philosophy Gidday Misha, thanks for your kind words. Only played HotW once a long time ago and wasn't overly impressed due to the cookie cutter nature of the empires (use once, then discard) whereas one of the keys to our games (EIA and WiF) is to have a role playing aspect to each empire so that players can identify over time with some empires as opposed to others. A closer analogy is Britannia, an inspired game that has many of the same features as 7 Ages (multiple empires per player, different objectives per empire, different empires coming in at different times and so on). As to the game mechanics, can't think of any game that overlays an action based system on a multi-player game but is a bit of a classical German based game (if more detailed) in this regard where the game is a 2D matrix, (i.e. you do things in one dimension but win on another). In 7 Ages this happens on two levels, one that the game ends when the leading empire moves through the last age but the winner is that with the most glory (even with the dumbest empires). On a more fundamental level is the action based (rather than player based) nature of the game. This means that you need to choose an action for each empire long before you know whether that action will be relevant when your empire actually carries out its turn. For example, picking a manouver action only to find you have little to manouver when its that empire's go, or choose a civilise action when you find you desperately need to move. Altho these technically might be considered mistakes, part of the fun of the game is to try to think ahead with every single empire with only limited info on what your opponents/partners are choosing this turn. What you quickly learn is that the most limited resource in the game is actions, and you really notice every wasted action as your empires struggle to survive and thrive. Another key is to choose complementary empires, i.e. those that can provide mutual support but with differing objectives for glory. After all there is no point having your own empires blocking your thrust for victory. Of course like everything this can be a trade off as a lack of supporting empires means that none of your empires achieve their objectives. Sometimes it is even better to keep good empires in your hand to stop others from getting them while not stopping your own empires. At Eurowifcon, one player had the Spanish and French on the map, but kept the Germans in his hand still allowing him to control all of Western Europe (taking out the English and the Venetians) without any fear of the Germans launching a blitzkrieg in his rear. Hope you enjoy the game and I look forward to your comments after play. Regards Harry