[Board/Tactical Game]: Through the Ages, reviewed by ShannonA (3/5)

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/13/13711.phtml

Shannon Appelcline's Summary:

A dense and rewarding Civilization-style game that excels in resource management and is one of the best games of the year.

Go to the full review for more information.

[Pig with Pen]

Thank you for the review.

Sounds like a great game. Since it comes without a map I wonder how you determine that hostilities are to expected and who would be the target? I imagine a military build-up is noticable, but can I at least guess who is going to be the target?

[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by Pig with Pen

Thank you for the review.

Sounds like a great game. Since it comes without a map I wonder how you determine that hostilities are to expected and who would be the target? I imagine a military build-up is noticable, but can I at least guess who is going to be the target?

When you play an aggression or war card, you declare the target.

Figuring out who might be a target is pretty easy: it's the player who is lagging their own military strength. This could be due to focusing on other areas, due to choosing a non-military leader like Hammurabi (who improves your Civil actions at the cost of Military actions), or due to recently spending military forces to colonize a new land.

[cfarrell]

The one additional comment I'd make is to try to stick to 3 players. There can be a lot of downtime in this game as there isn't any trading or anything to give you something to do when it's not your turn, and sometimes those turns can take a while. Personally, I've found the 3-player version of the game to be generally acceptable while the 4-player version can be grindingly slow at times, especially if you play the full, 3-age game.

I think Shannon's review is good, although I had a different take.

[ShannonA]

I've played the game 2-, 3-, and 4-player. I think they all worked fine and were enjoyable. 3 would indeed be my preference, but it's not one of those games that just doesn't work with 4.

[capnzapp]

Just the fact it's a game best played with 3 players is in itself a strong draw. We already have a number of these games best played with 7 players...

[Pig with Pen]

Originally Posted by ShannonA

When you play an aggression or war card, you declare the target.

Figuring out who might be a target is pretty easy: it's the player who is lagging their own military strength. This could be due to focusing on other areas, due to choosing a non-military leader like Hammurabi (who improves your Civil actions at the cost of Military actions), or due to recently spending military forces to colonize a new land.

I see, thank you. It's more about resource management than stockpiling troops along a border.

[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by Pig with Pen

I see, thank you. It's more about resource management than stockpiling troops along a border.

Yes.

You can get entirely hosed if you spend too little resources on military, but contrariwise being the front-runner isn't a winning strategy.

I consider it a simpler Prisoner's Dilemma: when any player starts expending effort on military, everyone has to, but generally everyone would prefer to spend their resources on things that actually advance their civilization. Which is pretty much how military works in the real world too.

[oni no won]

I just think FRED should reevaluate its pricing. The components are worth no where near what FRED is asking for. There have been arguments that you are not just paying for the components but also the effort put forth in designing the game. In my mind that still doesn't justify the pricing practice of FRED.

I for one will pass over FRED's products especially since there are many other great boardgame/card game that are much more reasonably priced.

[ShannonA]

Originally Posted by oni no won

I just think FRED should reevaluate its pricing. The components are worth no where near what FRED is asking for. There have been arguments that you are not just paying for the components but also the effort put forth in designing the game. In my mind that still doesn't justify the pricing practice of FRED.

I for one will pass over FRED's products especially since there are many other great boardgame/card game that are much more reasonably priced.

I haven't found FRED's pricing to be particularly out of line with the rest of the industry. Everyone's been forced to raise their prices over the last two years, FRED just got their quicker, because they were a newcomer to the industry, and thus they didn't have an old price line that they were trying to hold.