From: "Einhorn, Brandon" Subject: Britannia AH - review Alan, I would like to add this short review about AH's Britannia. ************************************************************************ **** Britannia - AH While I like the game and its simplicity I feel it has a major problem. Because the players have exact knowledge of the future, they can make all sorts of gamey and unrealistic deals. The Romans can make a deal with the Welsh, dont attack me and in X hundred years when the Saxons arrive I will bear the brunt of their attack and protect you. Or the Romans can try to make a deal with the Brigantes "let me subjugate you and I will leave you the areas that are worth a lot to you, and in 7 turns (400 years) when Im gone, ill abandon the north so you get a lot of VPs". This is ridiculous as a simulation, and it takes several playings to know the game (not the tactics either, just how it unfolds). Thus the players might need to play a few times to understand how many points the Normans are likely to get, or what damage the Vikings do, etc. The alliances are quite gamey and build around getting around the system and gaining VPs. Imagine the Gauls saying to Caesar "If you leave us alone" we will protect you from the Huns in 500 years. We will both get more VPs!". I think the game would be better and actually much more realistic if the raiders/invaders were more random in size and location and time. It ruins my enjoyment KNOWING that the Vikings are coming in 800 years, thus I should not attack tribe X because I will need their help. If there were less certainty one would play for each tribe, as opposed to playing an arbitrary side composed of a number of arbitrary and unrelated tribes. The game is fun to play, and many people will enjoy its simplicity, and the period covered. Even with the problems I mentioned its worth trying. Brandon Einhorn beinhorn@nomurany.com