Re: the strategic balance between Ports and Province strategies, I have just one word: "group-think". If an entire group -- of strong players, I have no doubt -- all go the Port strategy, then the game will take longer: typically, 8-10 rounds, as Port players generally have to spend most of their resources on their first 2 turns building more ports and not buying developments. Since Port players will typically end the full game on 7 developments, which can be built only 1/turn, then if you spend two turns not building a development, the earliest a game can end is turn 9. A long game favors Port players over Province players, as it gives them time to rev up their economic engines, save a bunch of wealth, and then spend it to good effect. Province players do well when the game ends earlier. For example, I played a full 3P game Tuesday night where I went with Provinces vs 2 Port players. I ended the game on both Developments (7) and Tribute (51) in 7 turns with 104 points, compared to 74 and 59 for my opponents. I built a development every turn, which created pressure on my opponents. Now, I had an almost perfect game; not only did I play well, but the dice went my way, too. Scoring over 100 points in 7 turns (without the Mediterranean expansion) is hard. The solo game target is 100 in 8 turns and you can see from threads on BGG, players struggle to reach this. 28 of my points came from building Empire on my final turn, which is tough without an economy. If I had, instead, only been able to build Religion (a much more common result if the Province player pushes Developments), then I would have scored only 84 points (still a winning score in this instance, but a lot closer). Why isn't Tom's group finding this? Because they jumped straight to the full game without ever trying the short game. The short game exists to give players a chance to explore the new military strategies, where they tend to dominate when you need only 30 tribute to end the game. Once you've found them, then you can apply this knowledge to the full game, where they are a lot trickier to pull off as the first 30 Tribute comes a lot easier than the last 20 Tribute (to hit the 50 Tribute target for game end in the full game). The full game is designed to end in 7-9 turns. At 7 turns, a Province player is more likely to win (but a Port player can sometimes succeed). At 9 turns, a Port player is more likely to win (but a Province player can sometimes squeak out a victory). At 8 turns, it is anyone's game. Further, balanced strategies (switching from Ports into Provinces or vice versa) come alive. In Tom's group, where everyone does Ports and the games typically last 9-10 turns, of course Ports do better. They'll continue to do better until an experienced Province player wipes the floor with them with a dominating 7 turn win. Then, I'm sure, players will adapt and change their tune. I'm glad that the game is robust enough to still be fun despite groupthink, but I think there's an even better game to be discovered once you get past it.
Played a lot of this game. And I have to say Ports really seemed better for the first games. But If everyone else goes port and you will go Province. You will be able to win the game before others even start the game
thanks for criticising and talking about the mechanics in detail. That's the most important aspect to me when buying a strategy game - whether is solvable or not, and whether it broken/balanced or not.
It does remind me of those wooden peg board games I played over my grandmother's so it actually brings me back to a happy time. I think if you want cards or other pieces get through the ages then, the portability is nice with a few friends on our coffee and games night at the coffee shop. Seems like a solid civ building experience but the heavy port strategy may be a default strategy for all long games it seems. Maybe there will be a way to balance this eventually regardless of what the designers say of the balanced nature of it.
I found this review a bit more of a standout review because of the great analysis of the game's potential flaw (dominant strategy). It is good to hear opinions and how a game might work with different types of gamers but an objective analysis without spoiling too many strategies is great for this type of game.
Roll through the ages the bronze age is my favorite dice game. It's super-quick and has hidden depth that appears the more you play it. One of the best fillers i've purchased. Roll through the ages the iron age is the more meaty version of the two. There is a lot more to it than the original. The extra depth comes at a cost however... it's litterally twice as long as the original to play.
Tried playing this recently. Never played the original or roll through bronze. Needless to say it was very complicated and my group wasn't really in the headspace for it. I errantly thought oh dice game, that means simple mechanics. But apparently not. Not a bad game just too complicated for the night we tried it. Will try again though.
uughh... this game may play simple IF you know ALL rules.... so is the manual CRYSTAL CLEAR in all aspects? I'm thinking Bronze Age.. I vaguely recall playing it on my iPad years ago. This Iron Age game looks like more complex, which is OK (more options is cool)... BUT... my concern is the time is takes to play it and if the manual clearly explains all the stuff going on in this game. I guess I like more simple, fast-playing complexity. And of course games with crystal clear instructions. I actually had to email the designer of Favor Of The PHaroah a half dozen times because of the terrible/inadequate descriptions of the tiles in that game. Ridiculous.
It's disappointing that they've taken such a great design and complicated it with a bunch of extra nonsense. The Bronze Age is great and really all I'm looking for in a game like this. Also, the box is twice the size of the original...for what?
Nice quality of components but gameplay is confusing and the design does not introduce me to any particular theme. Actually it feels like playing on a Cribbage Board. Skip.
Re: the strategic balance between Ports and Province strategies, I have just one word: "group-think".
If an entire group -- of strong players, I have no doubt -- all go the Port strategy, then the game will take longer: typically, 8-10 rounds, as Port players generally have to spend most of their resources on their first 2 turns building more ports and not buying developments.
Since Port players will typically end the full game on 7 developments, which can be built only 1/turn, then if you spend two turns not building a development, the earliest a game can end is turn 9.
A long game favors Port players over Province players, as it gives them time to rev up their economic engines, save a bunch of wealth, and then spend it to good effect.
Province players do well when the game ends earlier. For example, I played a full 3P game Tuesday night where I went with Provinces vs 2 Port players. I ended the game on both Developments (7) and Tribute (51) in 7 turns with 104 points, compared to 74 and 59 for my opponents. I built a development every turn, which created pressure on my opponents.
Now, I had an almost perfect game; not only did I play well, but the dice went my way, too. Scoring over 100 points in 7 turns (without the Mediterranean expansion) is hard. The solo game target is 100 in 8 turns and you can see from threads on BGG, players struggle to reach this.
28 of my points came from building Empire on my final turn, which is tough without an economy. If I had, instead, only been able to build Religion (a much more common result if the Province player pushes Developments), then I would have scored only 84 points (still a winning score in this instance, but a lot closer).
Why isn't Tom's group finding this? Because they jumped straight to the full game without ever trying the short game. The short game exists to give players a chance to explore the new military strategies, where they tend to dominate when you need only 30 tribute to end the game.
Once you've found them, then you can apply this knowledge to the full game, where they are a lot trickier to pull off as the first 30 Tribute comes a lot easier than the last 20 Tribute (to hit the 50 Tribute target for game end in the full game).
The full game is designed to end in 7-9 turns. At 7 turns, a Province player is more likely to win (but a Port player can sometimes succeed). At 9 turns, a Port player is more likely to win (but a Province player can sometimes squeak out a victory). At 8 turns, it is anyone's game. Further, balanced strategies (switching from Ports into Provinces or vice versa) come alive.
In Tom's group, where everyone does Ports and the games typically last 9-10 turns, of course Ports do better. They'll continue to do better until an experienced Province player wipes the floor with them with a dominating 7 turn win. Then, I'm sure, players will adapt and change their tune. I'm glad that the game is robust enough to still be fun despite groupthink, but I think there's an even better game to be discovered once you get past it.
+tom lehmann Thanks for this! I was wondering if Ports needed to be rebalanced, but from your description I don't think so.
Played a lot of this game. And I have to say Ports really seemed better for the first games. But If everyone else goes port and you will go Province. You will be able to win the game before others even start the game
thanks for criticising and talking about the mechanics in detail. That's the most important aspect to me when buying a strategy game - whether is solvable or not, and whether it broken/balanced or not.
It does remind me of those wooden peg board games I played over my grandmother's so it actually brings me back to a happy time. I think if you want cards or other pieces get through the ages then, the portability is nice with a few friends on our coffee and games night at the coffee shop. Seems like a solid civ building experience but the heavy port strategy may be a default strategy for all long games it seems. Maybe there will be a way to balance this eventually regardless of what the designers say of the balanced nature of it.
I found this review a bit more of a standout review because of the great analysis of the game's potential flaw (dominant strategy). It is good to hear opinions and how a game might work with different types of gamers but an objective analysis without spoiling too many strategies is great for this type of game.
A dominant strategy potentially breaking the game is something you need to know before buying a game...
Roll through the ages the bronze age is my favorite dice game. It's super-quick and has hidden depth that appears the more you play it. One of the best fillers i've purchased.
Roll through the ages the iron age is the more meaty version of the two. There is a lot more to it than the original. The extra depth comes at a cost however... it's litterally twice as long as the original to play.
That is my concern, The bronze age is lean and clean. Perfect to bring somewhere.
If you're getting either Bronze Age or Silver Age for both non-gamers and casual gamers. Which would you suggest getting?
Original bronze age is the simplest.
Tried playing this recently. Never played the original or roll through bronze. Needless to say it was very complicated and my group wasn't really in the headspace for it. I errantly thought oh dice game, that means simple mechanics. But apparently not. Not a bad game just too complicated for the night we tried it. Will try again though.
Certainly not a flashy game, I would really like if it had art besides the cover box.
I thought this was for Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization....How come you guys dont have a review for that game?????
Great video.
Great review
uughh... this game may play simple IF you know ALL rules.... so is the manual CRYSTAL CLEAR in all aspects? I'm thinking Bronze Age.. I vaguely recall playing it on my iPad years ago. This Iron Age game looks like more complex, which is OK (more options is cool)... BUT... my concern is the time is takes to play it and if the manual clearly explains all the stuff going on in this game. I guess I like more simple, fast-playing complexity. And of course games with crystal clear instructions. I actually had to email the designer of Favor Of The PHaroah a half dozen times because of the terrible/inadequate descriptions of the tiles in that game. Ridiculous.
It's disappointing that they've taken such a great design and complicated it with a bunch of extra nonsense. The Bronze Age is great and really all I'm looking for in a game like this. Also, the box is twice the size of the original...for what?
Nice quality of components but gameplay is confusing and the design does not introduce me to any particular theme. Actually it feels like playing on a Cribbage Board. Skip.
I can't imagine bringing this out to a group for fun. Seems more like a job than a game.