Antike, Caylus, Lost Valley, Parthenon
December 1st, 2005A couple of weeks ago, I went to Crawley to visit Michael and his friends for a day’s gaming. I had as good a time as ever, although I took an even bigger thrashing than usual. It has been so busy at work and home that this is the first time I have had the energy to write it up.
Antike
This one was on a loser for me from the start. Classical Greece is a powerful theme, but it has been done to death in eurogames. As usual, I totally agree with Rick Heli’s review
Empire-building game for up to six that wants to recreate the classic Civilization as a two-hour affair—you know, for those who don’t want to marry a game, but just have a quick fling. Time-wise the folk at Eggert-Spiele have done it, but oh what was lost on the road to this particular Damascus.
Civilization in two hours is the alchemist’s gold of modern gaming, I don’t believe it can be done while satisfying everyone. Antike is not a bad game at all; it just lacks the spark of fun that keeps me in gaming.
3/10 (remember that my average rating is around 5.5)
Caylus
I enjoyed this. I disagree that it’s The One, but I liked it a lot. My main problem with Caylus is the length – it took us three and a half hours not including the rules explanation. How can it say 2 hours at the Geek? This was too long for me. By the halfway mark, I was well out of it and that gets very dispiriting after 90 minutes. The more I play these games, the more I am convinced that multiplayer games should be two to three hours duration at most. Two player games can go on longer, as it is easier to stop when it is obvious who will win.
7/10 but will probably climb.
Lost Valley
I was a little disappointed in this, but I still think it has something going for it. It is short, simple, easy-going, good-looking and very well themed. What I did not like was how the game encourages people to wait around and parasite from other people’s work. I am sure that it could change with more playing, but I eventually got tired of waiting to shake off another player who was waiting around for me to build a mine and I just went ahead and did it. He got more out of it than me and got the win.
6/10 but I am unsure.
Parthenon: Rise of the Aegean
It was strange to play two Classical Greece themed games in one session. Whereas Antike feels a little like the building and fighting part of Mare Nostrum (I have never played Civilisation), Parthenon plays like the trading phase of Mare Nostrum.
Unfortunately this also outstayed its welcome a little. It took three hours, and should have been two and a quarter.
It certainly is an attractive game. The cards are beautiful. Did the same artist as the Mayfair version of Settlers of Catan paint them?
6/10
December 1st, 2005 at 20:40
I had a similar feeling about Caylus; I couldn’t really put my finger on what I really didn’t like about it, but reading your post reminded me how long I had to wait for the inevitable defeat. All I could manage in that (long and painful) time was to snatch myself from last place to just above last place.
I am also glad to see I’m not the only one apprehensive about Antike (not played it yet though); I’ve got too many of those already and none get played because of what they are. I’ll settle for Vinci or Tyros for now (do they count?), and the other stuff will have to come out on a weekend session.
December 2nd, 2005 at 10:05
Oh man, I can’t believe how wrong you can be… First of all, Antike: any game that has this much depth and plays lightning-fast is good in my books. Brilliant, brilliant game, a potential 10/10 for me. I don’t see it as a Civ game; The Civ Game is Sid Meier’s Civilization on computer, period. I see it as a quick, action-paced game of empire building. Fun, fun, fun. It has done several things right, particularly the fact that nobody can steal your victory points once you have them.
Caylus – yes, too long, but not that much. We played a five-player game with four newbies in just a bit over two hours (excluding rules, and that didn’t take too long either). Right now 9/10, might bump up to 10/10 but not likely. I’ve done well in every game, so maybe that’s why I like it so much?
Lost Valley, what a great theme, plays fast, too. Definitely one of the best games for having a good time with a strong theme. The parasite thing, well, I’ve played mostly two-player where it’s less of a problem, but I don’t really mind. 9/10 for me right now, the lack of different strategies to pursue will probably drop it to 8/10 at some point.
Parthenon, well I’m not too keen on that. Haven’t tried it, though. And yes, it’s Stephen Graham Walsh art.
December 2nd, 2005 at 15:05
That’s pretty vehement Mikko! Thinking about it a bit more, I think my problem might be how this game is themed. I was expecting a Civilization-type (Tresham) game, but instead got something much blander.
As I said, I would like to try Lost Valley again. I did enjoy it quite a bit, but it was annoying being followed around.
Parthenon is really quite good. Definitely worth trying someone else’s copy at any rate. Thanks for the art info. The cards are probably the most beautiful I have ever seen in a game.
December 2nd, 2005 at 21:27
(I confess: I had to look vehement up – Google’s define: operator is golden, and well, maybe I sounded fierce, but that’s just rhetoric.)
Yeah, I understand. You see the Civ comparison all the time, so perhaps the theme gives wrong expectations? Especially as the game is quite abstract… I like the way JC Lawrence describes it as a game of logistics. But you know, when you see the ancient nations and the map of Mediterranean… that’s what you get, the Civ vibe.
I’ve found most of SGW:s art a bit bland, but that’s probably an issue with printing, not of art…
December 2nd, 2005 at 22:22
Wasn’t JC agreeing with you?
Antike’s theme certainly inspires an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance (try Google Define on that!).
Somone else mentioned Vinci. I would say Antike is comparible as they are both games that are a little too clever for their own good. I might grown to appreciate Antike more and even accept it, but I will never love it.
December 5th, 2005 at 13:28
Re: Caylus. The comment that sums it up for me is (unsurprisingly) from Mike Siggins, who like you has rated it a 7 on the Geek: “Not a bad game, but I fear Captain Excitable has been working his wicked ways with some voters.”
December 5th, 2005 at 14:25
That’s spot on!
December 7th, 2005 at 22:27
For me – someone who does not know Civilization (the boardgame) – Antike was fun. There is no luck element in combat and I don’t believe combat will bring you too far anyway. It’s more about collecting the personalities. The mediterranean / antique theme is also nicely done. I am not so sure about the longevity of the game (especially for €38) but I don’t see why not. Would you recommend Civilization over Antike, then, i.e. should I also try Civ or is Antike enough? I guess CIv is not a cheap buy either, right…
December 8th, 2005 at 09:41
I should have pointed out before that I have never actually finished playing Civilization, but I have started and understand most of what is going on with it.
Like I said, I just found Antike very bland. Maybe I should try it again sometime, but I doubt it’ll excite me.
I think it depends if you think you can find people who are willing to play a 4+ hour game with you. If so, go for it.
December 13th, 2005 at 16:46
Thanks for making it down. Good to see you again. I’ll try and sort something out for Feb next year. My views on the games
Antike – I enjoy this quite a lot. But. My initial view that it is not possible to win by a ‘military’ strategy remains. It’s just too expensive and while you’re spending valuable resources to build up enough troops to make a few small gains other players are using them to get the all important personalites. Any game of this nature should allow this approach so I think this is a flaw. I’ll play a few more times but it won’t have any long term potential. Final rating will probably be 6/7.
Caylus – Unlike Antike, this will have staying power. The first game was a little long but I think the time will come down after repeated playings. Personally, I think that it can be a sign of a good game if it is difficult to win if you are doing badly by the midway point. With players of equally ability this situation wouldn’t happen to often. Rating 8 but may rise.
Lost Valley – I was hugely disappointed with this and just didn’t enjoy it. Too much piggybacking and too much luck. Probably won’t get played again. Rating 4.
Parthenon – Definately a game where you need to know what can happen. I’ve greatly enjoyed both games I’ve played but am a little concerned about the luck element – not the obvious one regarding the hazard cards (I can accept this as there are ways to mitigate against them) but the chance of you finding a uniquely advantageous surplus card on the very first turn (as Paul did) makes it very difficult to compete. And the implementation with all those large cards is poor – there are better ways to achieve the same things. Initial rating is 8 but may fall.