From: "Jens Hoppe, Post Danmark" Subject: Age of Rennaisance - does it suck? [long] Hi all, [Whine mode on!] I finally had a chance to try AoR this weekend, and again yesterday. My impression based on those two games: It really stinks! For the record, both games were 4-player games (ie. no Hamburg or London). Why don't I like it? One reason could be the people I played with: One player I hadn't seen before, for some reason seemed intent on attacking me at every oppurtunity and offloading every bad calamity on me, even though another player (his pal) was clearly in the lead. Talk about fun... Slightly more valid reasons are: 1. Disappointment that the game isn't "ACIV2". The rules mechanisms used in AoR are very un-elegant compared to ACIV. Take the TDR rolls used to resolve combat for example. All IMHO. There are nice rules too: I particularily like the multi-level ship advances. 2. The components are not very well done: There are lots of CIV-like civ advances, but no civ cards. Keeping track of your own and your opponents' advances on the log sheets provided is a drag. You also get the smallest counters I have ever seen from AH; rectangular counters with an area about two thirds of a standard 1/2" counter! The map is *very* colorful, and for me at least quite confusing to look at. You get standard AH cash "dollars", but you also have to keep record of your cash on the log sheet. 3. For a multiplayer game it has a serious flaw: It's very difficult for someone who's trailing in points to get back in the race: The game completely lacks the game balancing effects seen in ACIV, where players who are behind are given lots of breaks (for instance; the player with least tokens moves last, most tokens in stock automatically becomes beneficiary in a civil war, etc.). If one player is ahead of another, the difference becomes more and more pronounced. For a game that takes this long, players should either be able to work their way back in the race, or it must be possible to gang up on the leader. 4. Speaking of ganging up; this is not easy. The combat system is totally weird: Not only does your combat ability depend on the order of movement in that turn (moving first -> attacks are easy, last -> they're hopeless), you can't even choose how much power to put into the attack: For any given area, if you want to attack it, you have to commit a specific number of tokens.If you lose, they all die. For instance: 1 token defending a "5" area must be attacked by exactly 6 units (+/- modifications for supporting satellite states, advances, combat enhancers, etc.). If the attacker loses; all 6 tokens die. You can try again with 6 more, of course. Yeah, right... On the whole, combat favors the defender. This is necessary, because from the middle of the game or so, everyone can reach more or less every area on the board. Making combat more favorable to the attacker would make area-grabbing even more chaotic than it is. However, the combat system being as it is, it's difficult to gang up on the leader by conventional attacks. In CIV you could do a trade embargo, but AoR doesn't give that option. 5. The ability of every player to reach every area on the board makes the game very chaotic: With the people I played with it wasn't possible to make any deals at all: Combat being as defensive as it is, every other player tried to grab a couple of enemy areas per turn, the logic being that it was a long shot, and the others would do the same on their turn. With a bit of luck, you'd end up with a couple of new areas... This attacking whatever-you-can on your own turn was hopelessly mindless; no enemies, no allies, no borders, just grab whatever possible... 6. The event (?, history/magic/whatever) cards are hopelessly unbalanced. A first or second turn crusade is sooo strong; I don't know what the designer was thinking. In epoch 2 Black Death is a killer (:-) ). Also, getting good commodity cards is very important. In the last game I got one or two commodities I could use - and that's it for the whole lousy 3 epoch game. Apart from that I got lots of timber and wool (didn't have either), that lousy "mysticism abounds" card (I got it all 3 times I think!), a couple of leaders giving credits to advances I had already acquired, one combat enhancer, ... and that's it more or less. 7. Your role in the game is not clear-cut: The rules call the game economic (tokens represent economic interest, "cities" economic dominance, combat is called "economic competition", etc...), and try to disguise everything in this economic context. Still, event cards such as "armor", "stirrups", "gunpowder" gives you a combat (sorry, "competition") advantage, black death reduces cities to single tokens, war makes the loser cede cities to the winner, and so on... It seems the designer couldn't make up his mind as to whether the game should be economic or political/military, and ended up doing both as one big mix. Very confusing... Bottom line: I was sooo disappointed. I really want to like this game (when I have recovered from my shock from yesterday, I might even give it *one* more chance), but I have a feeling I never will like it... Pity. [Whine mode off] [Flame protective mode on] Different opinions appreciated, Jens "Stone merchant of Venice" Hoppe From: Charles Davis Subject: Re: Age of Rennaisance - does it suck? [long] For the record i think this is a great game ( not that Jens doesnt have some valid points) > For the record, both games were 4-player games (ie. no Hamburg or > London). > > Why don't I like it? One reason could be the people I played with: One > player I hadn't seen before, for some reason seemed intent on attacking > me at every oppurtunity and offloading every bad calamity on me, even > though another player (his pal) was clearly in the lead. Talk about > fun... > Slightly more valid reasons are: > The Good Buddy kind of player ( i doubt gilligan would ever stab the skipper in diplomacy). AOR works well when the players know what they are doing, and it does take a couple of plays for this to become apparent to the players. > 1. Disappointment that the game isn't "ACIV2". The rules mechanisms > used in AoR are very un-elegant compared to ACIV. Take the TDR > rolls used to resolve combat for example. All IMHO. There are nice > rules too: I particularily like the multi-level ship advances. > The silly combat is easy but could have been done another way, but you do rapidly get used to it. > 2. The components are not very well done: There are lots of CIV-like > civ advances, but no civ cards. Keeping track of your own and your > opponents' advances on the log sheets provided is a drag. You also > get the smallest counters I have ever seen from AH; rectangular > counters with an area about two thirds of a standard 1/2" counter! Forget the silly counters to keep track of who has how much of what commodity, dumping them solves alot of problems with mess on the map board. It would have been nicer with Civ advance cards, sitting visible out infront of every player, i personally just ask who has what and keep track of my own. If you dont trust someone, well thats a different problem. > The > map is *very* colorful, and for me at least quite confusing to look > at. You > get standard AH cash "dollars", but you also have to keep record of > your cash on the log sheet. you keep track of your cash for various game related reasons, the real problem is that the rules could be clearer on why and how you keep track of cash, again the record sheet could have been designed better. > > 3. For a multiplayer game it has a serious flaw: It's very difficult for > someone > who's trailing in points to get back in the race: The game > completely lacks > the game balancing effects seen in ACIV, where players who are > behind > are given lots of breaks (for instance; the player with least tokens > moves > last, most tokens in stock automatically becomes beneficiary in a > civil > war, etc.). If one player is ahead of another, the difference > becomes more > and more pronounced. For a game that takes this long, players should > either be able to work their way back in the race, or it must be > possible to > gang up on the leader. Thats not true at all, it is very easy to gang up on a leader, then again i dont think ganging up on the leader works well in Civ either except to make the guy in 2nd win occasionally. The length of the game is variable from about 2 to 5 hours depending upon how many epochs you play. and that is a great strength over Civ this game is playable in a normal sitting. > > 4. Speaking of ganging up; this is not easy. The combat system is > totally > weird: Not only does your combat ability depend on the order of > movement > in that turn (moving first -> attacks are easy, last -> they're > hopeless), you > can't even choose how much power to put into the attack: For any > given > area, if you want to attack it, you have to commit a specific number > of tokens. > If you lose, they all die. For instance: 1 token defending a "5" > area must be > attacked by exactly 6 units (+/- modifications for supporting > satellite states, > advances, combat enhancers, etc.). If the attacker loses; all 6 > tokens die. > You can try again with 6 more, of course. Yeah, right... > If you are attacking you probably spent for the armies or have cards that boost your combat. > On the whole, combat favors the defender. This is necessary, because > from > the middle of the game or so, everyone can reach more or less every > area > on the board. Making combat more favorable to the attacker would > make area-grabbing even more chaotic than it is. However, the combat > system being as it is, it's difficult to gang up on the leader by > conventional > attacks. In CIV you could do a trade embargo, but AoR doesn't give > that > option. No you take away his high value centers, if he just grabbed a bunch of silk take them away from him so that when he plays the silk card next turn he doesnt make as much. > > 5. The ability of every player to reach every area on the board makes > the > game very chaotic: With the people I played with it wasn't possible > to > make any deals at all: Combat being as defensive as it is, every > other > player tried to grab a couple of enemy areas per turn, the logic > being > that it was a long shot, and the others would do the same on their > turn. > With a bit of luck, you'd end up with a couple of new areas... This > attacking whatever-you-can on your own turn was hopelessly mindless; > no enemies, no allies, no borders, just grab whatever possible... I have never seen mindless attacks, if anything especially later in the game its only the leader that sees this kind of attacks intended to cripple his ability to cash in. I think this is more of an example of the people you play with than the game system. How do they play diplomacy? There is plenty of realms for diplomacy in this game, and control of the types of resources you want is more important than where the resource is. ( except in your home region where you can generally get the advance that gives you a bonus in combat and thus be in good stead to only allow people in . > > 6. The event (?, history/magic/whatever) cards are hopelessly > unbalanced. > A first or second turn crusade is sooo strong; I don't know what the > designer Well its a balance an early crusade for a med power ( barcelona, Genoa, Venice may very well be a game ender, but for one of the northern powers its evens up the early game dramatically). The real imbalance is between the northern and southern powers but i have seen England win a couple of times, Hamburg has to be the weakest position. > was thinking. In epoch 2 Black Death is a killer (:-) ). Also, > getting good > commodity cards is very important. In the last game I got one or two > commodities I could use - and that's it for the whole lousy 3 epoch > game. > Apart from that I got lots of timber and wool (didn't have either), > that > lousy "mysticism abounds" card (I got it all 3 times I think!), a > couple of > leaders giving credits to advances I had already acquired, one > combat > enhancer, ... and that's it more or less. Well the leaders can be money makers put them out, and go for the patronage bucks. you did play them and drop 5 bucks or so on each one? then your opponents will pay you if they are smart inorder to cash in on the cheaper advances. After awhile the advances start to steam roller in as the bigger ones get more and more potential credits toward them. learning how to use the advances and the credits from them is a big part of the game. actual domination is important only because it gives you the cash. > > 7. Your role in the game is not clear-cut: The rules call the game > economic > (tokens represent economic interest, "cities" economic dominance, > combat is called "economic competition", etc...), and try to > disguise > everything in this economic context. Still, event cards such as > "armor", > "stirrups", "gunpowder" gives you a combat (sorry, "competition") > advantage, black death reduces cities to single tokens, war makes > the loser cede cities to the winner, and so on... It seems the > designer > couldn't make up his mind as to whether the game should be economic > or political/military, and ended up doing both as one big mix. Very > confusing... > Actually its only confusing if you think about it to much, its a game much like History of the world and CIV( and civ is just a game) are just games. its an excellent game with plenty of thinking involved, ssome chances to screw your neighbors. some points where you can play cards like WAR that might put you way ahead in the city count so you rake in even more bucks but might also screw you big time. It lacks the trading of Civ but for me at least that gets kind of tiresome about half way through a 10 hours advanced civ game,. been there done that kind of thing. The diplomacy maybe could be increased by allowing cards to perhaps be traded? but it works really well without that( i do hope the developers at AH tried that during playtesting). The worse aspects of the game are a lousy rule book, the little counters to keep track of commodities( dumb ), and a record sheet that could be better organized. but once you play with people who know the game its a real joy that ends far better than HOTW where the last turn usually sucks( not always though), or civ when the last turn is at 4 in the morning or later and the winner or at least the 2 leaders has been aparent from around 1 or 2, so the other 7 players( another problem with civ its really most fun with a full number of players). Look to high value commodities, negotiate with your neighbors. and study the advances and the game starts to come to gether. chuck From: "Paul O'Connor" Subject: Age of Renaissance Thanks for the Age of Renaissance discussion, guys. I'm trying to make my mind up about this game, and the dialogue has helped isolated some of the good and not-so-good points of this design. My own opinions: 1) I bought the game expecting it to be a direct sequel to Civilization, which is one of my all-time favorite games. On first examination it looked more like History of the World (one of my all-time least favorite games ... it's plenty of fun, I just don't like it very much) than with Civ, which was of course disappointing. I put it on the shelf, and didn't look at it again until the guys in my Civ group got on my case to give it a try. By that point my expectations were so low that I was able to put my preconceptions aside and approach the game on its own terms. 2) My initial read of the rules was not encouraging. I hit the rules five or six times, but couldn't get a handle on whether I'd like the game or hate it. This is indeed one of the poorest rulebooks I've ever read. The organization is poor, the layout is confusing, and the rules are unclear in many critical areas. But that's OK -- we're wargamers, we can figure anything out. 3) When the time came to actually _play_ the game, I was pleasantly surprised, because I'd pretty much decided by that point that I wouldn't like the game. Things I admired about the game: -- It had a greater depth of play than I expected. From the rules I expected an advanced version of Settlers of Catan (a game I like, by the way), where you slap your cities on the map, and wait for the commodities to pay off. There's more to it than that ... the way the token play, card play, advance purchases, and inter-player diplomacy combine make for a more intriguing brew than I anticipated. I can't tell yet how long it will take for the game to get stale, but I will definitely play it at least one more time. -- The game was far nastier than I expected. One of the weaknesses of Civilization is that a military policy is almost always doomed to cause as much damage to the aggressor as the target. Advanced Civ addresses this to a certain extent, but in the long run the players are all developing a common empire model, and if they want to win, it makes more sense to get along, trade shrewdly, and whack the leader when you can. In AoR, combat is far more important ... taking a city from your neighbor doesn't equate to a mere trade card, it costs him cash in terms of lost income, and gives you an outpost from which you can aggressively expand in future moves. Unlike Civ, where all your occupied territories grow population, and it can be hard to get your soldiers to the "front", in AoR you can slap a fist-full of tokens on the border and go on a deep campaign into enemy territory (particularly when you have the higher shipping advances). I like conflict in multi-player games, and our group was banging on each other in the very first move, something I've rarely seen in Civ. Some of the event cards are truly rotten, too (I nailed the leader with Alchemy, and he smacked me with Pirates and War in direct reply ... which hurt like hell, but gave the game a raw edge Civ is lacking). -- The combat system is funky, but it at least tries to offset what would otherwise be the advantage of moving last. Basically, the sooner you move in the turn, the better your chance of winning a combat. However, the player with the fewest tokens moves first, so if you go last, you may lose a few more battles, but you'll have more bodies to spread around. I can't tell yet if it works or not, but I applaud the effort. -- The advances allow the players to strike off in radically different directions, at least at first. Unlike Adv. Civ, where it will take several rounds to build yourself into a dominant position in, say, Religions, in AoR it's pretty easy to buy yourself favors from the Pope and start imposing yourself on the other guys early in the game, who may very well have concentrated on different but equally valid areas for their first advances. I have no doubt that the end game will see everyone with roughly similar powers, but the early game, at least, gives players some room to move in selecting what strategy they will pursue. -- The game plays a _lot_ faster than Civ, although I think you have to play with all three decks to get the full flavor of the game. Even the full version is do-able in six hours (or so it appears ... we won't try a full game until next month). 4) My gripes: -- The counters all seem to be either shades of brown or blue, with extremely complex symbols that just don't read well against an extremely bright board. I found it difficult to tell at a glance which tokens were mine and which belonged to my neighbor. For our next game, I'm seriously considering replacing them with home-made circular tokens in genuine contrasting colors like yellow, red, green, and blue. AH really blew it with the tokens. -- I miss the trading from Civ. The game could do with a bit more interaction, and what's more natural for a game about energetic Renaissance mercantile houses than a trading round? -- The little counters to keep track of the commodities are kind of difficult to handle ... would like to have seen a large track separate from the board to handle this stuff (like the AST in Civ). -- The lack of cards for the advances is disappointing, although the pads that are provided are easy to use. -- The rules are incomplete, particularly as regards some of the card effects. Nothing fatal, but expect to spend your first couple games hammering out "house rules" to cover the gaps. -- I don't much like the art direction. The cards are mish-mash of fantasy-type art (Armor), reprinted AH art (Pirates), and reasonable work (War). The vomiting gargoyle on the backs of the cards is an ugly, muddy mess. See comments above for my opinion of the counters and how they read on a map that is too garish for my tastes. Overall ... a marginal thumbs-up from me, particularly if you can find it at a discount or buy it used. One of our guys thought it was better than Civ (mostly because it's shorter), and while I wouldn't go nearly that far, I am looking forward to playing a full, six-player game some time next month. I do think a lot of your enjoyment of this game hinges on setting aside any expectations of playing Advanced Civ II. Taken on it's own, this game might be a dark horse for my group's affections. I'll know more after we play next month, and will post my impressions here (if anyone is interested). -- Paul O'Connor paul@oddworld.com From: "Michael A. Daniels" Subject: [Fwd: Age Of Rottengamesfrom AH] In response to Jens Hoppe's request for other opinions of Age of Renaissance, I dusted off an earlier note I posted regarding this "Quacker." One sentence is now O.B.E. (regarding halting the shipments of the game). I submit that the remainder of my comments are still valid. V/r Dr. Morbius of the Krell X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Message-ID: <328ED03C.64A@ix.netcom.com> Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 00:43:40 -0800 From: "Michael A. Daniels" X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E-NC250 (Win95; U; 16bit) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Conflict simulation Games CC: Drmotk Subject: Age Of Rottengamesfrom AH References: <1.5.4.32.19961118002819.00681860@pop.mindspring.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Age Of Rennaissance is the perfect game for the "Clinton Era!" They claim it is the sequel to Advanced Civilization...IT ISN'T! They said it was a finished product...IT ISN'T! After playing Age Of Renaissance, one of my friends (John Gaffney) said: "Avalon Hill didn't release this game, it escaped!" They started with Advanced Civilization (one of the best multi-player wargames ever developed). Then they ABANDONED the mechanics that made Civilization/Advanced Civilization a great game. BEFORE YOU BUY THIS GAME, BE WARNED that unlike the series of 18xx games, this DUCK is NOT like Civilization/Advanced Civilization. The two (2) factors that made Civilization/Advanced Civilization a great game were: The simple mechanics (you didn't have to explain the game to a newbie, you just started to play the game...) and the intense player inter-reaction (the trading sessions and calamity victim selections). Age of Renaissance has neither. There is NO requirement for player inter-reaction. While one player executes his turn, the other players can talk or wander away from the table...They aren't needed! I suppose they thought the brightly colored board was beautiful. If you are high on drugs, I suppose it would appear beautiful. I think is is "cluttered" and "distracting." The Civilization Advance Cards are gone...Replaced with "tick marks" on a player card (which will have to be photocopied after a few games) that is too "busy" and confusing to be useful...They should have consulted a "forms design expert." The Trade Cards are gone...There is NO trading! There is a confusing and hard to read chart on the game map (not well defined in the (almost non-existant) rule book) that uses "odd size" cardboard counters. IF they had thought the concept out, they would have omitted both the chart and the ridiculous "odd size" cardboard counters. After they "threw out" the Trade Cards that made Civilization great, they "threw in" a MAGIC THE CARD GAME action deck...I can only suspect that either they thought they would attract all the "magic players" or they believe that they can sell new "Collectable Card Decks" to a(n incomprehensibly stupid) group of people with full wallets (and no common sense). They provided a packet of "Avalon Hill Dollars: (guess they had leftovers from 1830 that they finally found a use for), YET they also included a "cash status log" on the player sheets...OBVIOUSLY they didn't fully think this concept out either! You don't need CASH and the CASH STATUS LOG. Why include both? One player simply maintained his cash log (refusing to even handle the money). The second player simply managed his cash and ignored the cash log. The remaining players calculated their (ending) cash using the cash log and then HANDED THEIR ENTIRE CASH STACK to the Banker and asked for the CORRECT CASH TOTAL TO BE RETURNED...Needless to say, this QUACKS!...[Hope I'm not being too obscure with the "if it quacks like a duck,..." comment] As for the counters: Some of the player counter symbols are so similar that you can't tell them apart with indifferent lighting! They abandoned the Civilization like simplicity for five (5) different sized counters for each player. BAD MOVE!...Not only aare the extra counter sizes unneeded, but to add INSULT to INJURY (extra cost for unneeded components), they DIDN'T INCLUDE any storage trays (I had to cannibalize one of my old SPI trays). Each player has a (single) ship counter which is used for a marker on a chart on the map. THEY DIDN'T THINK THIS ONE OUT EITHER! Since it is only a SINGLE marker on a Chart, why not just use one of the tokens??? They use "odd size" counters for the commodity chart on the game map. Why not use the normal tokens (the spaces on the chart are big enough) and OMIT the UNNEEDED "odd size" counters??? Ditto for the "misery" and "turn" counters. The combat [competition?] die rolling is Bizarre! The only thing that makes sense is that while "smoking a joint without inhaling" someone suggested "Dah why don't we use these really cool colored dice." Unfortunately, being in full control of their faculties, they were able to discern that 1 + 1 = 3. I won't even bother commenting on the (woefully inadequate) manual. It "quacks" of a Microprose effort! By the way, Avalon Hill stopped shipping the game because the MAGIC CARD action decks are INCOMPLETE! This game is NOT a typical "Avalon Hill effort." It is more like a Microprose "Beta Test game" sold to the (unsuspecting) public. V/r (An appalled) Dr. Morbius of the Krell From: Mark Boone Subject: Re: Age of Rennaisance - does it suck? [not] First, let me say that I like this game and don't have any major dissapointments about it. There's plenty of room for improvement (vague rules, etc.), but this game is far from "sucks". Probably the biggest thing that needs to be said from the start is: it ain't "Advanced Civ 2"! If you are a big Civ fan, then don't buy this game expecting it to be another Civ game. It seems that most of the people that thumb their nose at this game fall into this category. Expecting one thing and getting another. BTW, size of the game: 22x34 mapb, 6 sets of tokens (75 markers each), 6 player mats, 64 History/Event cards, pad of Advance Logs, play money, 3 dice. Anyways... > 1. Disappointment that the game isn't "ACIV2". The rules mechanisms Noted. But its not meant to be ACIV2. Also, favorite strategies used in Civ may not work well or be 'available' in AoR. > 2. The components are not very well done: There are lots of CIV-like Civ cards would have been a nice plus, but I can get by without 'em. BTW, I don't think the Civ/ACiv components are very stunning either. > 3. For a multiplayer game it has a serious flaw: It's very difficult > for someone Disagree. As with any game, I think this comes with experience in playing the game. AoR has a lot of strategies in it. And there are plenty of ways to bring down the leader. Just don't expect big turn-arounds in a single turn. AoR requires more 'monitoring' of opponents and their strategies to try an deduce their objectives. > 4. Speaking of ganging up; this is not easy. The combat system > is totally weird: Not only does your combat ability depend on the Generally, combat will run in two modes: A) a few critical attacks using a low turn order, or B) massive horde attacks usually going last and using a military advantage card. You have to plan accordingly when buying tokens. Turn order is important but not "all determining", even going last you still have a base 41.67% chance of winning combat. But if you're going to go last you might as well load up on the tokens. Personally, I enjoy this 'jockying for position'. Whereby no plan is garunteed and someone else might beat you to the punch. > 5. The ability of every player to reach every area on the board > makes the game very chaotic: With the people I played with it Technically, you probably mean any 'coastal' area. Land locked areas in Europe will only be reachable by adjacent areas. > With a bit of luck, you'd end up with a couple of new areas... This > attacking whatever-you-can on your own turn was hopelessly mindless; Which is a big mistake, you should only be attacking commodity areas of interest to you or trying to deny a majority to an opponent. > commodity cards is very important. In the last game I got one or two I'd say their the most important, what the whole game is built around. > commodities I could use - and that's it for the whole lousy 3 epoch Maximizing the number of cards you draw is important since you're more likely to get higher paying commodity cards. > I have recovered from my shock from yesterday, I might even give it > *one* more chance), but I have a feeling I never will like it... Pity. Too bad, 'cause you'll be missing out on a good game. Just my $0.02 worth. Mark. ---------------- From: Doug Adams Subject: Age of Renn. - that review :) T Bowden asked me to weed out what was wrong with the review of AoR - here we go. They claim it is the sequel to Advanced Civilization...IT ISN'T! | |__ They never claimed this. I knew what I was buying - a game based on the AdCiv system - but with HotW overtones too. They said it was a finished product...IT ISN'T! | |__ It is !! A typical latter AH release - damned near watertight. After playing Age Of Renaissance, one of my friends (John Gaffney) said: "Avalon Hill didn't release this game, it escaped!" | |__ no comment. They started with Advanced Civilization (one of the best multi-player wargames ever developed). Then they ABANDONED the mechanics that made Civilization/Advanced Civilization a great game. BEFORE YOU BUY THIS GAME, BE WARNED that unlike the series of 18xx games, this DUCK is NOT like Civilization/Advanced Civilization. | |__ If you mean the trading then you're right, but in doing so they made a game you can finish inside 4 hours. The two (2) factors that made Civilization/Advanced Civilization a great game were: The simple mechanics (you didn't have to explain the game to a newbie, you just started to play the game...) and the intense player inter-reaction (the trading sessions and calamity victim selections). Age of Renaissance has neither. | |__ Just incorrect - no tense player interaction ? Come on...the subtle card play creates incredible tension. Have a look at the PLAGUE card, you just tremble reading it :) There is NO requirement for player inter-reaction. While one player executes his turn, the other players can talk or wander away from the table...They aren't needed! | |__ Not 100% true as the turns are very snappy and alot of the play is simultaneous. You're not yawning in boredom while someone is playing their tokens. I suppose they thought the brightly colored board was beautiful. If you are high on drugs, I suppose it would appear beautiful. I think is is "cluttered" and "distracting." | |__ This is just a matter of taste. They have several commodities each with it's own colour key - so thus the board. The Civilization Advance Cards are gone...Replaced with "tick marks" on a player card (which will have to be photocopied after a few games) that is too "busy" and confusing to be useful...They should have consulted a "forms design expert." | |__ I found the record sheets to be pretty good. The Trade Cards are gone...There is NO trading! There is a confusing and hard to read chart on the game map (not well defined in the (almost non-existant) rule book) that uses "odd size" cardboard counters. IF they had thought the concept out, they would have omitted both the chart and the ridiculous "odd size" cardboard counters. | |__ This is about the only thing I agree with - that little table down in the corner of the mapboard is way too fiddly. Better idea is to create a set of province cards or something and just pass them around as you take them. Just tally your SPICES or whatever when necessary. After they "threw out" the Trade Cards that made Civilization great, they "threw in" a MAGIC THE CARD GAME action deck...I can only suspect that either they thought they would attract all the "magic players" or they believe that they can sell new "Collectable Card Decks" to a(n incomprehensibly stupid) group of people with full wallets (and no common sense). | |__ By talking about MAGIC you're implying CCG's which is just rubbish. You have one deck .... it was at this point the reviewer started to rave. They provided a packet of "Avalon Hill Dollars: (guess they had leftovers from 1830 that they finally found a use for), YET they also included a "cash status log" on the player sheets...OBVIOUSLY they didn't fully think this concept out either! You don't need CASH and the CASH STATUS LOG. Why include both? One player simply maintained his cash log (refusing to even handle the money). The second player simply managed his cash and ignored the cash log. The remaining players calculated their (ending) cash using the cash log and then HANDED THEIR ENTIRE CASH STACK to the Banker and asked for the CORRECT CASH TOTAL TO BE RETURNED...Needless to say, this QUACKS!...[Hope I'm not being too obscure with the "if it quacks like a duck,..." comment] | |__ Avalon Hill dollars - 1830 ? I can think of NEW WORLD, AIR BARON, MERCHANT OF VENUS and GANGSTERS just sitting here that also used the old dollars. Why include both log and cash ? Go back and read the rules again. It's necessary. By not holding cash and using the log your were playing incorrectly. As for the counters: Some of the player counter symbols are so similar that you can't tell them apart with indifferent lighting! They abandoned the Civilization like simplicity for five (5) different sized counters for each player. BAD MOVE!...Not only aare the extra counter sizes unneeded, but to add INSULT to INJURY (extra cost for unneeded components), they DIDN'T INCLUDE any storage trays (I had to cannibalize one of my old SPI trays). Each player has a (single) ship counter which is used for a marker on a chart on the map. THEY DIDN'T THINK THIS ONE OUT EITHER! Since it is only a SINGLE marker on a Chart, why not just use one of the tokens??? They use "odd size" counters for the commodity chart on the game map. Why not use the normal tokens (the spaces on the chart are big enough) and OMIT the UNNEEDED "odd size" counters??? Ditto for the "misery" and "turn" counters. | |__ Good point re the similarity of colours used. Using 5 different counters sizes is getting really petty. You will grant that they do need a square and round shape counter. A ship counter logically should be a different shape so you can find it. Tiny marker counters and small Misery counters complete the set. Each shape = different game function. Get it ? Counter trays - boy, haven't bought too many games lately with counter trays. Go down to the newsagent and buy a roll of baggies for a buck. The combat [competition?] die rolling is Bizarre! The only thing that makes sense is that while "smoking a joint without inhaling" someone suggested "Dah why don't we use these really cool colored dice." Unfortunately, being in full control of their faculties, they were able to discern that 1 + 1 = 3. | |__ Not sure what the 1 + 1 = 3 means. Maybe a glitch in the rules. Market competition (aka combat) is an elegant mechanic where the earlier in the turn you go, the better your chances of winning (but you have less pieces with which to battle). Very confusing stuff. Bizarre almost. What's the symbol for a sarcastic smiley ? I won't even bother commenting on the (woefully inadequate) manual. It "quacks" of a Microprose effort! | |__ Buzzz - wrong again. A complete game, rules that are quite dry but when you read them you're on the way. The sample game gives you a push start too. By the way, Avalon Hill stopped shipping the game because the MAGIC CARD action decks are INCOMPLETE! | |__ So ? A deck assembly error. It happens. They replace bad decks. This game is NOT a typical "Avalon Hill effort." It is more like a Microprose "Beta Test game" sold to the (unsuspecting) public. | |__ It is a typical AH effort - a complete game, a good game, a fun game. I normally let reviews pass but this was so biased and wrong that I had to speak out. It seems the reviewer wanted AdCiv in the box, and was really pissed it wasn't there. Thus all the negative stuff. I also have a strong sense of deja vous - haven't we done all this already ? Cheers Doug -- Doug Adams ,-_|\ Phone: (03) 9669 4328 Communications Software / Oz \ Fax : (03) 9669 4128 Bureau Of Meteorology \_,-._/ Email: D.Adams@BoM.GOV.AU Melbourne, Australia v ---------------------------------------------------------------