From: Roberto Chiavini <mumaye@libero.it>
Subject: One review

Fall of Constantinople (Minden Games)

I normally liked very much the games published by Gary Greber in his
magnificent DTP magazine Panzershreck. This Fall of Constantinople is an
unfortunate exception, as I think that this game really sucks. 

Apart from the usual very poor graphics (the glossy colored counters of
this game adds, if possible, a step to the worse for these games), that
is normally more than compensate by exceptionally good design (I think
that Gary is one of the more creative designers of small solitaire games
in the field, full of really peculiar and innovative ideas to resolve
simple problems, adding chrome where needed), this time you get a
solitaire recreation of the last days of Constantinople, a difficult
situation to recreate for the tabletop wargamers (as Berg has learned
with his not very well received design for S&T Siege of Constantinople),
even if you choose to make the game playable solitaire. All the system
stands in the placement rules, as the player, as the Ottomans, must
choose how to place his units in a total of 5 squares (at least 5 in the
Invasion square (i.e., the only square on the map where you may use your
units to try to invade Constantinople from the sea) and in a single
square no more than the double of the units you have put in the next
highest numbered square (it sounds complicated but it is not: if you
put, say, 12 units in one square, in the next highest one you have to
put at least 6, in the third 3 and so on). Well, as you have 4 different
types of units and two of this are to be put in a single square (and in
one occasion you are forced to put all 17 European Ottomans in the same
square), you are normally forced to divide your units almost equally
among the front, and in my trial game I put no less than 9 units in a
single square. After that you have to put a cannon in one of this square
and your leader, Mohammed II. 

The real problem stands in how the system force you to place the defense
of the city: almost all the Italian and Venetian units are useless, as
they are used to defend the city from the sea. The other two types of
defensive units are Greek and Genoeses and they must cover the 4 squares
of the wall, where the player has put the most of his army: the problem
is that in 2 of this squares the defense get only 1 unit. As the player
wins occupying at any one time a single wall square, I win during the
first turn and, having understood correctly the rules (a fact of which
I'm not totally sure), I'll win each other possible games in the same
way. 

What can I say about the rest of the rules: well, they are simple, with
a lot of chrome added in the optional rules, but you need to roll dozens
of dice to obtain almost nothing (as each single square of the defenses
cannot get more than 3 casualties in a single turn – more than enough to
take 2 squares in a single turn, anyway). This is siege warfare, and so
it should be dull, repetitive, boring. So this couldn't be negative
after all. But, or you change the placement rules, or you're to be taken
by a very bad surprise. 

I rate the game 3 in a 1-10 scale, and I'm really sorry for this
negative review