352Re: In praise of Perikles
- Dec 14, 2007Oh, and I forgot to mention that it runs at 2-3 hours. A perfect
medium-length for our club. It has a finite ending. It runs for 3
turns or wars, and then you count up VP's, rather than conquer-a-
whole-map. And it's cleverly slightly less prone to Tall Poppy
Syndrome than most multi-player military games are. The rules are
fairly simple, the depth and possible strategies large and not
Another huge plus for it is that there is virtually no boring down-
time while the other players take their turns. You are always
intimately affected by what each player does on his turn, so you stay
interested, actively suggesting he might do X rather than Y, in
return for which ...
It worked brilliantly with 4 players; it would be interesting to try
it with 5 players.
--- In lbgc@..., "Founder." <bobroscow@...> wrote:
> Neil picked up a copy of Perikles for £9.99 from TKMaxx, yep that
> clothing store with branches in Uxbridge, Ealing, Hammersmith (King
> Street) etc. Yep, £9.99 for a typically £39.99 game! Mind you, my
> Ealing branch has been out-of-stock of it for 3 visits - no wonder!
> So we tried it out on 2 Dec. Great. It then got the rare accolade
> of being played two-sessions-in-a-row, on 9 Dec, and played
> excellently again, IMHO.
> We love the game! (see the poll). It is designed by a Martin
> Wallace, a Brit in the north - who apparently designed another
> favourite, Railroad Tycoon. Hey we must try his others. George is
> going to bring one called Liberte.
> Perikles is, IMHO, a brilliant mix of politics, diplomacy and
> warfare, with very neat interaction and trade-off between the three.
> Everywhere I looked, there was an innovative (to me, at least)
> mechanism which worked superbly - the asymmetric cities, rather
> all similar; the nominating tiles (get in early or wait till
> the dagger tiles (which is what makes the nomination tiles a
> choice); the alpha and beta; the fact that clever nominations can
> exclude the most powerful from being a candidate, and yet leave him
> strong influence for next turn; use and exploit a city, it will
> probably be someone else's next turn; statues, such that, later,
> there are some cities you WOULD like to inflict a defeat on, and
> you wouldn't; the VP balance between battles, statues and influence
> left at the end (perfect); the filling-in of nominations, always a
> case of who has higher priorities where; the option to trade future
> influence for troops now (if you have a city with troops to spare);
> the brilliant combat mechanism, with few modifiers to remember, and
> yet tactically challenging; the two rounds for a battle, with the
> first giving you a head-start on the second; the race to become
> primary attacker (or defender), so that you stand to win or lose
> VP's at stake when battle is resolved.
> Plus the tension of defending ALL your battles, or
> others in to be prime defender, and/or negotiating others in to be
> allies for no direct gain, but indirect, or a diplomatic quid pro
> quo; the effect of battle-arrangements on the influence you leave
> yourself next turn; the effect of battle-outcomes on the value of
> statues; and on the military strength of a city for next turn; and
> the limit to 10 cards showing to pick from, such that you can't do
> whatever you want in any city, you have to choose the best
> available ... with half an eye on what that would leave the next
> guys, eg something with a dagger or nomination on it ... but that's
> in a city I'm not trying to wrest control of ... I could go on ...
> It's a great game, a great mix of politics, diplomacy, resources
> battles, without too much in the way of modifiers, accountancy or
> arcane rules.
> I recommend it. And this gives me an idea ... see a later post if
> don't get interrupted.
- << Previous post in topic