From: dunstan@ic.net (J.D. House) Subject: Age Of Renaissance Critique Over the holiday break my friends and I have played two games of Age of Ren (one 6 player and one 4 player) and each and every one of us are deeply disapointed by this game. Civilization is one of our all time favorites and we play it regularly (in person as well as many, many email games) and I was very much looking forward to a "sequal", but after our experiences I don't know if I'll ever bother playing AOR again, which annoys me because I spent so much money on it. First off, I really dislike the system of income being almost completely dependent on the sheer number of "cities" you control. Sure, you gain extra cash if a commodity card happens to get played, but that's more of a bonus than anything else. I dislike this system of income because it means that anyone left behind in expansion after the first three turns has absolutely no chance to catch up. In both games we played there were one or two players who were quickly cut off from expanding eastward and the other players became so powerful so quickly that those left behind just sat there in a bored stupor for the last 5-6 hours of the game. This problem is exacerbated by the most powerful players reciving even more income from the commodity cards. Avalon Hill could have overcome this problem by making the cards more advantageous to weaker nations, but the cards are neither advantageous to anyone but the powerful, nor are they very interesting. The commodity cards benefit no one but the rich, plain and simple. Even if London corners the market in Wool and then is lucky enough for a wool card to be played, big deal. Wool provides so little income that this rare bonus is not much of a help at all. Of the event cards, the only one that is the slightest bit disasterous to anyone is War, and that has an even chance to be harmful to both the player playing it and the one receiving it. Every one of the other event cards is a mere annoyance at best, especially to a strong, rich empire who can recover from it without batting an eye. Again, these cards hurt only weaker players who have a hard time recovering from any setback. And then the Leader cards. These cards are just boring. They don't do anything but give you credits to purchase advances and certainly don't help weaker players come back from behind. I do like the misery index, however. I think that this could have been a good way to strike a balance between those who start off the game in strong position and those who don't. However, this again inhances the power of the strong and decreases that of the weak. It is too easy for a rich player, to purchase multiple tiers of advances and lesson his/her misery and it is difficult (if not impossible) for a player who cannot afford an entire tier to lesson his/hers. If it were possible for weaker players to somehow force powerful players to gain misery, that might help, but that is not the case. Lest you think I'm just griping because I didn't do well in either game, I came in second in the 6 player game but I did very poorly in the 4 player game. In this way I got to see the game from both perspectives and when it comes down to it, I didn't have fun either time. Winning or losing was all the same... boring. Doing well didn't seem like an accomplishment because I started off strong and it wasn't difficult to destroy those who didn't, and losing was just miserable because the game provided absolutely no strategy to make a comeback after the third turn. At that point it was obvious that there was nothing I could do... not one damn thing even to hope for to help me improve my standing. Advanced Civilization is a brilliant, fun, and constantly entertaining game but Age of Renaissance is just plain boring and not much fun at all. I think I would have been much happier if Avalon Hill would have just made another expansion set to Adv. Civ., allowing players to move ahead further in time. At least that might have cost less than the $55 I spent on AOR. -J.D. House dunstan@ic.net From: rikoshae@u.washington.edu (B Mansfield) Subject: Re: Age Of Renaissance Critique dunstan@ic.net (J.D. House) writes: >First off, I really dislike the system of income being almost completely >dependent on the sheer number of "cities" you control. Sure, you gain extra >cash if a commodity card happens to get played, but that's more of a bonus >than anything else. I dislike this system of income because it means that >anyone left behind in expansion after the first three turns has absolutely no >chance to catch up. In both games we played there were one or two players who >were quickly cut off from expanding eastward and the other players became so >powerful so quickly that those left behind just sat there in a bored stupor >for the last 5-6 hours of the game. This problem is exacerbated by the most >powerful players reciving even more income from the commodity cards. This isn't as much of a problem as you make it out to be, mostly because the per turn income from dominated markets isn't really all that much money, compared to other income sourses. In the beginning of the game, a difference of one or two "cities" (ie. dominated markets) between the strongest and weakest player should not have such a dramatic impact on the game. In the four games I've played it seems to be more important where the cities go rather than how many you lay down; Paris, for example, can grab many with caravan in the early game, but several of these are stone- essentially worthless in the long run. On the other hand, when Venice, say, goes east immediatly, and buys boats rather than 10 extra tokens in the early run, it sacrifices extra cities for more profitable locations. In the end it does balance out. The one area of income that hasn't been mentioned is Interest & Profit which, in the games I've played, has had the biggest impact on who comes out on top at the end. Simply put, in the mid game if you have I&P, and make sure you hold some cash every turn, you will do much better than those who have more cities but not I&P. And don't belittle the commodities either; the player who dominate markets willy-nilly, in order to get the most cities out there, will eventlually fall to the player that places his cities strategically and plans for the long haul. It might seem like a far shot to bet on drawing one of the few "spice" cards, for instance, but in my experience there's a good chance of getting a big pay off if you invest in 2 or 3 commodities; the odds of one coming to you are better than average (depending on the bumber of players, of course). >The commodity cards benefit no one but the rich, plain and simple. Even if >London corners the market in Wool and then is lucky enough for a wool card to >be played, big deal. Wool provides so little income that this rare bonus is >not much of a help at all. This simply is not true. What if London had cornered the market on spice? Big pay-off. Again, it's where you place your cities that's important. >Advanced Civilization is a brilliant, fun, and constantly entertaining game >but Age of Renaissance is just plain boring and not much fun at all. I think >I would have been much happier if Avalon Hill would have just made another >expansion set to Adv. Civ., allowing players to move ahead further in time. >At least that might have cost less than the $55 I spent on AOR. This big problem I have with AoR is that every game is essentially the same; which is also the reason I don't play Ad. Civ anymore. While Civ might have been rather straightforward, AoR just gets boring to play simply because the course of action in each game is the same: aquire advances. The order you aquire them in each game is essentially the same, and there really isn't any reason to do anything differently since there's generally one way to play if you want to win (ie. you could spice things up by makig it your duty to control all of the stone, but let's see you win with that position). The only difference between one game and the next is who controls Crete; but it really doesn't make any difference. This game is, to my mind, only worth one or two playings. -- Bruce Mansfield "Drop the lightsaber, farm boy." -BF rikoshae@u.washington.edu From: Clinton Eaker Subject: Re: Age Of Renaissance Critique Date: Fri, 03 Jan 1997 10:03:48 -0500 J.D. House wrote: > First off, I really dislike the system of income being almost completely > dependent on the sheer number of "cities" you control. Sure, you gain extra > cash if a commodity card happens to get played, but that's more of a bonus > than anything else. I dislike this system of income because it means that > anyone left behind in expansion after the first three turns has absolutely no > chance to catch up. In both games we played there were one or two players who > were quickly cut off from expanding eastward and the other players became so > powerful so quickly that those left behind just sat there in a bored stupor > for the last 5-6 hours of the game. This problem is exacerbated by the most > powerful players reciving even more income from the commodity cards. How is this different from Adv. Civ? The number of trade cards you get is dependent on how many cities you have. It seems to me that trade cards in AdvCiv are the same as cash in AoR. I think you should give the game another chance, but if your mind is made up, how much would you take for your copy? > Avalon Hills could have overcome this problem by making the cards more > advantageous to weaker nations, but the cards are neither advantageous to > anyone but the powerful, nor are they very interesting. > > The commodity cards benefit no one but the rich, plain and simple. Even if > London corners the market in Wool and then is lucky enough for a wool card to > be played, big deal. Wool provides so little income that this rare bonus is > not much of a help at all. > > Of the event cards, the only one that is the slightest bit disasterous to > anyone is War, and that has an even chance to be harmful to both the player > playing it and the one receiving it. Every one of the other event cards is a > mere annoyance at best, especially to a strong, rich empire who can recover > from it without batting an eye. Again, these cards hurt only weaker players > who have a hard time recovering from any setback. > > And then the Leader cards. These cards are just boring. They don't do > anything but give you credits to purchase advances and certainly don't help > weaker players come back from behind. Now that you understand the consequences of getting behind in the number of cities you have, or getting blocked from eastern expansion, why don't you give the game one more try? Yes, it is hard to recover when you get behind in expansion. Don't let that happen. Every player starts with enough cash to get a ship upgrade and 30 tokens on their first turn. As for getting cut off, try negotiating with other players like Paris and Barcelona for 'jumping-off' spots in Southern Spain or Northern Africa. > I do like the misery index, however. I like it too, but it can be very frustrating. > Advanced Civilization is a brilliant, fun, and constantly entertaining game > but Age of Renaissance is just plain boring and not much fun at all. I think > I would have been much happier if Avalon Hill would have just made another > expansion set to Adv. Civ., allowing players to move ahead further in time. > At least that might have cost less than the $55 I spent on AOR. It seems that everyone that plays AoR either really enjoys it, or is thoroughly disappointed. The common thread I've found among those that are disappointed is that most seem to be expecting a sequal to AdvCiv. AoR is *not* a sequal to AdvCiv. Try again without comparing it to AdvCiv, but if you've made up your mind, then I'm serious about the offer to buy your copy. Clint