From: Aforandy@aol.com Subject: Re: Joan of Arc >Anyone played this one from a French company (imported by COA, I >believe)? A couple of friends at CABS have it and several really like >it. I've played it three times, and have decided that though it is a >very nice game, it just simply isn't my cup of tea. Maybe it has >something to do with the fact that twice I walked into the CABS meetins >wanting to play my latest acquition (like For the People last night) and >could not find anybody and instead got talked into JoA. probably a bit too simple to hold the attention of list readers -- consomme for of consimers? And the Black Prince card shows him in gilded armour! The map locations are just cities and towns linked by road and organised by province. Combat is best described as Condottiere simplified to the extent of having only one round between the two combatants, so it isn't the same thing at all really. Each turn players vote for war [ = lots of fighting] or peace [ = not quite so much fighting]. It is an attacker's game, which prompts all players to protect possessions with the little resin towers and walls supplied. Thus the guerilla nature of the war is portrayed insomuch as you are attacked at a disadvantage during all your opponents' turns. Each faction may generate a leader who gives major benefits in combat but these are lost if the leader is committed to battle and loses, so they tend to be saved for offensive action on your own turn. As usual with Tilsit games the medium-size box is packed with various colourful components including cards, counters and resin fortifications. The translation of the map is acheived by blanking out the original French and supplying same-size countersheet overlays for the boxes and tracks in English. Perhaps an element of diplomacy is expected in games like this, but given the difficulty of winning a battle defensively, it seems easy to reduce a player by ganging up on him. OTOH miracles happen, usually after play of the relevant card. I think many will like it. The components are very nice and taking these into consideration the game is inexpensive, perhaps a surprise for a French product, though those Deslires games were similarly high quality/low cost [in francs anyway]. The bibliography comprises French histories only, which makes a change. Original French version called "Montjoie". Other Tilsit games are Courtisans of Versailles, a high-quality reprint of Aristo, and Africa 1880. Andy From: Steven Bucey Subject: Re: Joan of Arc Aforandy@aol.com wrote: > It is an attacker's game, > which prompts all players to protect possessions with the little resin > towers and walls supplied. Thus the guerilla nature of the war is portrayed > insomuch as you are attacked at a disadvantage during all your opponents' > turns. I'm undecided about that. In the game I won (or nearly won, we had to quit a couple of turns early) I had built a few castles, but usually I consider it more important to be able to buy cards. Six "$" buys you three cards, where as same buys you one castle, of which you can only buy one per turn anyway while you can buy up many cards (up to a total of 12 in hand). With the cards, I might get an ambasidor (which could lead to more cards or even my Hero), a Wrath of God, traitors, engineers, or other other useful things. > Each faction may generate a leader who gives major benefits in combat but > these are lost if the leader is committed to battle and loses, so they tend to > be > saved for offensive action on your own turn. They are actually very hard to get, which componds the problem. You need to draw an ambasidor card, then *when your turn comes to play* you play it and roll, and if the result is 8-10 or something like that you get your hero. This means that if your turn order is near the end (random each turn, near the end is usually good if you are losing, bad if you are winning), you can't use your hero to defend yourself. You only get your hero *that* turn anyway (afterwhich you must discard it until you get an ambasidor and a lucky roll). > Perhaps an element of diplomacy is expected in games like this, but > given the difficulty of winning a battle defensively, it seems easy > to reduce a player by ganging up on him. OTOH miracles happen, > usually after play of the relevant card. I think that there is considerable room for diplomacy here, but maybe the approach is different than usual. Usually, nobody has a clear lead in *strength* (but there is the usual "Phase III, everybody whines that they are not in first place"). A few good card draws and turn order placement the next turn can change a lot. So, you have to combine the carrot and stick and form alliances anew each time the situation changes. for instance, in our last game Ken played two plunder cards the first turn on the French player, incuring his everlasting wraith. That is, until I played a plunder card on him also. Given that I was Navarre and out of reach for some time, I blithly told him it didn't matter. By the time we were in contact, he was gleeful for my help in distracting a fourth, while we both argued with the sixth player over the possible destruction of a fifth player. Like I said, an interesting game, but it is just missing something for me. -- Visit the Columbus Area Boardgaming Society Web Site at: http://web.jadeinc.com/spqr The Future is certain, only the Past changes. --Polish Proverb