From: kwan@cs.cornell.edu (Alan Kwan)
Subject: HotW revisited (was: Rumor of the Demise of Avalon Hill)

In article <ptlDMHGzL.FI2@netcom.com> ptl@netcom.com (Tom Lehmann) writes:
>
>I own one of the 500? original Ragnor Brothers copy of HOTW (with tea-cloth
>map).  There is also a (later) Gibson's version of HOTW as well.
>
>There are two major changes, plus some minor ones between the AH version
>and the original one.
>
> * In AH game, the first player to pick an epoch card is the player with lowest
>past total empire strength, not VPs, with greatest VPs serving to break ties.
>
>This change has a very large effect on the game; i.e. doing well with the same
>resources as other players doesn't penalize you.  On the other hand, it does
>make the Romans definitely less attractive (opinion is split on whether this
>is a "good thing") and reduces catch-up a bit.

I'll voice my opinion here (probably I have mentioned it before, in one
form or another; excuse me):

There are two ways a player can "do well" given some resources:
he can get banked VPs, or he can build positions on the board which
continues to yield him VP in future turns.

The AH rules penalize the latter, relative to the original rules.
My assumption is that the AH people
didn't realize that they do (and even Tom didn't mention this factor
in his post too, so I think this factor is not trivially obvious to
everybody).  Introducing rules without fully realizing their effects on
the game may sometimes break it.

For example, if Romans goes all out grapping for VPs, he'll probably get
wiped out in a turn or two.  OTOH, there are quite a few positions 
in Europe that Romans can build a good defensive position, that
will yield him more VPs than going all out in the long run,
/barring Event cards/.  Which leads us to the next item.
(What I attempted to say is, it's not just the change in turn sequence,
but also the way in which Romans have to be played /on the board/ as
an indirect consequence of the rules changes, that is making it less
attractive.)

> * AH took the original random event chits and turned them into cards
>organized into sets and dealt out to players who then, within limits, decide
>when to play what cards.
>
>Some people think this is a great improvement; others feel that it simply
>gives player the "illusion" of control and slows the game down.  Shrug.

One hidden effect is that the effect of certain events become much
more powerful, simply because the player can choose which turn to
play them.  For example, if a "Treachery" event is given to a
certain player on a certain turn, he may or may not be able to
make good use of it.  On the contrary, if the "Treachery" is given
to him at the beginning of the game (as in the AH version), he can
choose which turn to play it to its greatest effect.  From another
point of view, the same event (Treachery) poses a much larger threat
to on-board defensive positions than it used to.  And, (I don't
know about this) didn't AH duplicated those events?  And the
AH Disasters directly affect defensive positions, in addition to
the Monuments.

Many of the changes that AH made to HotW has a good primary reason,
ones which I agree with (except for the Disasters).  However,
it seems to me that they failed to notice the secondary effects of
those rules changes.  Unfortunately, /all/ of the secondary effects
contribute against building defensive positions on the board!
If they have noticed the secondary effects and made appropriate
further changes to alleviate them, then the changes would have been
good.  However, as-is, IMO I do not consider that AH has done an
/improvement/ to the game.  (Please note that this is personal opinion.)

-- 
"Live Life with Heart."

Alan Kwan     kwan@cs.cornell.edu