Details are here:

http://arsenalgameroom.com/smf/index.php?board=2.0

To be played at the Arsenal Game Room on Virginia Ave, starts 7pm Friday.

I will take photos

Well, the game was rather a bust. Only 3 players turned up and none of us was that familliar with the expansion version. We did play tho. Both of the new to the game players had read the rules, and I had biefed over them having played the original extensively in the past.

We decisided on a 9 player game were we each played 3 civs. This was tenable Friday night, and we played into the first Bronze age square where we had our first cities.

Saturday we were expecting some additional players so we could give up some of the civs that we were playing. That didn't happen. We continued to play by ourselves.

One of the players didn't like to trade much, so he would make a couple trades and then stop. This was difficult since he controlled 1/3 of the cards.

Some observations - we forgot to remove the partial trade cards from the deck until later. They were a problem. To reduce the playable area we took a marker and drew a line (arbitrary) across the map and only played the areas that the stacking number was in. We did mess up a bit by not using the correct civs for a western 9 player game. Nubia was in play, and Babylon and Hatti were not.

I never want to play Iberia again, that section of the map is messed up!

Some un-resolved questions came up with the 2.09 rules - When trading calamities in the original game those calamities took effect on the civ they were first traded to. We could not find any clarification to that effect so the calamities kept getting traded - sometimes the person that drew them ended up with them again. Sometimes we couldn't remember who drew the card either, which is necessary to know for some of them. There were some problems with the Euro-phrasing of some of the rules also. The Civil War entry mentioned 'at most 7 squares' and the way 'at most' was used in the sentance was unclear what it actually meant. I think that section should be re-worded. No mention of deep sea zones was mentioned in it either. Also the use of 'Having' in the number of players section early in the rules was a bit ackward. The city in flames calamity says destroyed where it should say reduced - that would make a lot more sense. We also felt that there were a LOT of calamities in the game, perhaps this could be changed by increasing the number of trade cards (not new types - just more of the existing types) or eliminating one of each of the minor calamities. The Civil War usually knocks who ever draws it out of having a chance to win the game. The only Nubia (34 points on the board) and Hellas drew it. No effect on Nubia, and Hellas only lost 2 citys and a few people. so No big deal there. There are also new calamities like regression that could also be as devistating as Civil War to a game leader, and its possible to win with out making it to the end of the AST now, but we called it off after reaching the middle of the late bronze age - Declaring Minoa and Assyria tied winners. I felt Minoa would win in the end tho.

OK, here are some photo's of the game:

good to see. bet you aren't on any picture?

Nope, I'm the photographer, not the subject. I spent some extra time and effort to double side print and laminate 18 sets of Advancement quick reference sheets. This allowed the use of permanent markers to be used on them, which can be cleaned off with alcohol on a paper towel. Lot of effort for little use.

Anyone going to GenCon and want to play this game? I could make it available.

I was hoping to get some answers on the rules issues I posted above. I guess I need to review the 2.10 rules andmake corrections. I found the setup and At start section hard to find and not organized well. No mention of where the AST markers should be placed either. They start on the arrow/triangle to the right of the Civ name, not real clear in the rules on that.

Looking at the A.S.T. track I understand, and looking at the map I agree too. I think Iberia is too low on the A.S.T. sequence.
I know that exterience too, from another game. I think this is caused by the fact that the most calamities are added in the smaller stacks, of the level 6-9 cards. For me calamities are not automatically disasters, but it frustrates the trading game. But on a small map (each Civ can hold only 6 cities on the map) they keep the game in balance.

Based on my experiences playing the game (and past games) I wrote an article that you can read with some winning strategies:

http://www.ahgeneral.org/gameparts/Minoan_Strategy.pdf

Hi Craig, I've read it.

It shows you're a good player thinking things out before doing.

I can go with you until turn 4/5 and I agree on your colonization-strategy, but that goes for all players ofcourse.

What just is a thing is that you think out other players' movement too and ofcourse that's just impossible. Say Hellas would build a city in Sparta first instead of in the inland things are different from turn 5 and on.

What I always like is playing with both experienced players and beginners, because you might be prepared for pro's but end up in different situations with beginners. sometimes making a hard time for yourself at certain situations because you just would expect them to do something else.

Beyong turn 4 your speculations might be the right ones at your given situation but it's not to say these sitatuation will regularly occur.

Nevertheless its good to think about movement this way, because its gets you higher in ranking for any nation played.


About 'volcanic Eruption or Earthquake'
You say: leave one token at Thera for calamitie casualties. I think you interpret this calamity falsely. Only when you have a city on thera the volcano erupts. When you don't have one on a volcano, there is no volcanic eruption and a earthquake strikes instead. destroying another one of your cities. PLacing a token on Thera will not stop this.

About trading
You say 'don't trade 5 cards for 4 cards'. In our games we hardly trade more than 3 cards a time, just because you cannot tell the truth beyond the 3rd card, so almost no-one will accept a 4th card.



for the rest: good work!

Apparently you guys re-wrote the rules on the Volcanic Eruption thing. The original game didn't require the destruction of a city.

I think that when the Volcano erupts - All cities in adjacent areas should be lost too. The original game stipulated that if you didn't have a volcano you lost a city to earthquake, and you could have other players lose an adjacent city too - even across water.

Its easy to predict the moves of other players when Minoa moves last, there is only 1 turn when that is not the case. I put that into the article I thought.

I especially like the Colonization thing on the 1 stacking areas when you have Agriculture, very effective.

I'm ready to review the 10.x rules, where are the latest - on the FTP server?

Well I haven't re-written anything in the rules (except some formulation on the civ-cards) I'm just reading the rules.



I own the original Avalon Hill Advanced Civilization game including the rulebook. (let's not compare our game to base Civilization, cause we've been playing advanced style) And the rulebook says the same.

I Quote: "If the primary victim has no cities in an area touched by a volcano, one of his cities is destroyed by an earthquake."

Ofcourse you can take up your own houserules or start a discussion here to change rules about Volc.Erupt. resolution.