[Board/Tactical Game]: San Marco, reviewed by ShannonA (4/3)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10138.phtml

Shannon Appelcline's Summary:

A majority-based area-control game with a unique action selection method: \"you split, I choose\". Oh, and it's set in Venice. Theoretically.

Go to the full review for more information.

Post originally by Steffan O'Sullivan at 2004-02-25 17:24:13
Converted from Phorums BB System

Shannon, from your discussion of splitting and choosing it sounds as if you play four-player. I frankly will never play this game four-player again - the three times I tried it was more than enough.

However, we've played well over fifty times three-player, and find it to be one of the best three-player games ever made. Splitting into three piles instead of two removes some of the problems you see in the deciding/choosing dichotomy.

If you haven't tried three-player, you should - it's a superb game that way! I think it's frankly broken as a four-player game, though.

Post originally by Shannon Appelcline at 2004-02-25 18:11:40
Converted from Phorums BB System

Steffan,

I actually read over your site, and a few others, which said they thought the game worked great for three and didn't for four.

I did only play it at four players, but we did have times when there were only three players left in the round, which allows for the same dynamics. I don't really agree that the three-player rounds were in any way superior to the four.

I'm curious why you think it's better.

I've heard some say it's a downtime issue, but I didn't see any problem with the downtime related to four players playing as opposed to three.

I also can't see how three players change the somewhat false strategy implied by the split-and-choose method.

But, like I said, you're also not the only one who I've seen make the statement.

Shannon

Post originally by Henry Vogel at 2004-02-26 13:35:55
Converted from Phorums BB System

But that's just my opinion. I can't fault your review as you did an excellent job covering the game. I just happen to like the game better than you do. Overall, another great review!

Henry

Post originally by Steffan O'Sullivan at 2004-02-27 14:59:11
Converted from Phorums BB System

[Sorry for the late reply - both ill and busy, a bad combo ...]

It has nothing to do with downtime, as you surmised.

There are two factors, really:

1) Bad splits can really kill the four-player game. I have seen, in my limited four-player games, where one of the pairs got all low limit cards and lots of rich cards: scoring and traitors and San Marco. In the same turn, the other pair of players got all high limit cards and lousy cards. Immediately you have an unfair situation you can do nothing about.

2) Splitting the cards for three people is superior for a couple of reasons. You have more cards to work with, so are likelier to have a more interesting assortment. You can come up with some very fun ways to split cards: no limit cards at all in one pile, for example, while the other two piles are fairly balanced in limits. With three people, you have to account for more in any given split - it's more of a challenge to provide yourself with something you'll enjoy when it comes time for you to take the leftover pile. I like that challenge!

You really should try it three-player before judging how it might play based on a couple of end-of-round three-player situations. World of difference. It's really a very fine game - we honestly do play it so frequently I easily have more than fifty games under my belt.