Do you think this game would be a bit better if fighting was not so
expensive to do? May be I'm slightly biased because I lean towards
the war games, but it did seem quite difficult to do without
suffering alot damage. Josep got away with it because his first
attack was the final move of the game.

Andrew

--- In lbgc@..., "Neil Parker" <welfarerights@h...>
wrote:
>
>
> I have to say i thoroughly enjoyed this game and its a good example
of a reasonably simple game that needs actual play to appreciate
certains nuances. The game started with all players mirroring moves,
Dave and George started a bit of a border dispute and whilst Josep
and Andrew bared teeth building up their navies, i having negiotated
a peace with George built my economy and knowhow. As the game
progressed we all started getting more aggressive, Andrew felt the
squeeze of the Persian (me) / Phoenician? vice and Dave and George
were taking chunks off each other.
>
> In the end as all players realised that you needed to up a gear and
smash temples and grab technologies whilst stocks last the game
entered its climax. I was on course for a blitzkrieg victory but just
lacked that final few troops needed, Josep who could easily have been
caught out then had the edge in terms of getting recruits marching
and seized (stole;)) a well planned victory.
>
> Sure if this and that had happened things would have been
different. I could have delayed my push to see if Josep and Andrew
started a war, but either of them could have taken the chance to get
aggressive so i stole the march.
>
> One of the interesting aspects of this game is that whilst there
are a variety of ways to score victory points early to allow for a
variety of strategies, the middle to end game soon becomes a race to
score the ever dwindling set of victory points available. I've only
playedthis once, but i played other civvy type games and including a
5 player game of Vinci i enjoyed, this arguably has ben the most
enjoyable and balanced.
>
> I'll play this again.
>