![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shannon_aThe fourth Alea game was Princes of Florence, which in my opinion marked a big change in the line's direction. Each of the previous games in the series had some degree of randomness in it; although Taj Mahal started trending toward more complexity (or, at least, more difficulty), it was really Princes of Florence which offered up the first "no-luck" game in the series, with considerably depth of play allowing for very strategic play, a trend that I think culminated in Puerto Rico.
Mind you, there is some luck in Princes of Florence, since you draw several different cards from decks, but there's a large effort made to downplay the luck, via you getting to select between five cards at any time. There's still randomness, but it's a considerably smaller issue when compared to the amount of strategy you can use.
Before I go further, let me summarize the game: you're acting as a patron for the arts, collecting various sorts of people who will produce "works" for you; however, you have to provide your clients with the best conditions possible so that they produce the best works, and that means purchasing the buildings, landscapes, freedoms, and other things that they want.
The game is played out over seven rounds, during which the minimum requirements for the production of a work slowly increase. Each round you'll get to win one auction (which can get you one of six things you need to produce works) and then you'll get to take two actions (which allow you to get other things you need to produce works--and produce the works themselves). At the end of the game, points are based largely on the quantity and quality of works you produced, with some bonuses for buildings, extra landscapes, extra builders, and possibly for cards that you purchased.
I think the greatest strength of the game is its two-part auction/action structure. Or, to not use the slang of the game: auction/building. Though games like Ra and Taj Mahal are great, there's a certain sameness to them; I think Alea made a smart move in having this, their third auction game, be something more. Beyond that, I think that using auctions to bootstrap further building and expansion can make for a pretty intriguing game.
The other thing that I really enjoy about Princes is how "tight" it is. Some other players say that they don't feel the pressure, but I always do. With just 21 total things you can do, and with the need to spend 5 or 6 of those creating works, every single move is important. I think Princes broke a lot of ground in creating a game this dense. Though you can see it in many more recent games, such as Alea's In the Year of the Dragon (or others like Agricola), I suspect it wasn't seen as much at the time.
One of the other players in today's game surprised me by saying that he liked Princes because it was such a good introductory game: he's several times seen players not familiar with EuroGames do very well with it. Though I find Princes to be a really tough game, I can see where he's coming from. With limited options and limited turns new players can simply move through the game, especially with the formulas on each client's card showing what you should be doing. The simplicity of the auctions, where no jump-bidding possible, also really supports this simplicity.
For me personally, the biggest downside of Princes is its mathiness. Constant counting and recounting never thrills me in a game, and there's a lot of here. I'll accept it's a matter of personal preference.
Other players said that they find the geographical placement of the buildings to be another weakness, and I'd generally agree. It requires a level of look-ahead if you want to play well and that's beyond the complexity of much of the rest of the game; it especially hurts Prince's possibility as a game for new players. I think that game designers often underestimate the amount of work that this type of spatial design takes, with Cleopatra and the Society of Architects being another example of a game with a spatial/geographical element that's much denser than the rest of the play.
Overall, Princes is a very well-regarded Alea game, which I think is largely just. About half of our gaming group thought it was the best of the first four. I personally fall into the latter camp, as I feel that Taj Mahal coheres more:
If I was rating my personal like rather than Prince's quality as a game, it'd go even lower; I've owned it much longer than either Taj Mahal or Ra, but as you can see I've played it less.
Princes of Florence is still in print from Rio Grande in the Alea edition. There's a more recent foreign edition by QWG which has the advantage of including a couple of variant rules, including "The Princess and the Muse" auction and a way to set up a shared board. The downside is that it's got artwork by Mike Doyle, which tends to look nice and damage the usability of the game (though a quick glance of BGG pictures suggests the only real problem with the usability of the QWG version is the internationalization that was done).
Mind you, there is some luck in Princes of Florence, since you draw several different cards from decks, but there's a large effort made to downplay the luck, via you getting to select between five cards at any time. There's still randomness, but it's a considerably smaller issue when compared to the amount of strategy you can use.
Before I go further, let me summarize the game: you're acting as a patron for the arts, collecting various sorts of people who will produce "works" for you; however, you have to provide your clients with the best conditions possible so that they produce the best works, and that means purchasing the buildings, landscapes, freedoms, and other things that they want.
The game is played out over seven rounds, during which the minimum requirements for the production of a work slowly increase. Each round you'll get to win one auction (which can get you one of six things you need to produce works) and then you'll get to take two actions (which allow you to get other things you need to produce works--and produce the works themselves). At the end of the game, points are based largely on the quantity and quality of works you produced, with some bonuses for buildings, extra landscapes, extra builders, and possibly for cards that you purchased.
I think the greatest strength of the game is its two-part auction/action structure. Or, to not use the slang of the game: auction/building. Though games like Ra and Taj Mahal are great, there's a certain sameness to them; I think Alea made a smart move in having this, their third auction game, be something more. Beyond that, I think that using auctions to bootstrap further building and expansion can make for a pretty intriguing game.
The other thing that I really enjoy about Princes is how "tight" it is. Some other players say that they don't feel the pressure, but I always do. With just 21 total things you can do, and with the need to spend 5 or 6 of those creating works, every single move is important. I think Princes broke a lot of ground in creating a game this dense. Though you can see it in many more recent games, such as Alea's In the Year of the Dragon (or others like Agricola), I suspect it wasn't seen as much at the time.
One of the other players in today's game surprised me by saying that he liked Princes because it was such a good introductory game: he's several times seen players not familiar with EuroGames do very well with it. Though I find Princes to be a really tough game, I can see where he's coming from. With limited options and limited turns new players can simply move through the game, especially with the formulas on each client's card showing what you should be doing. The simplicity of the auctions, where no jump-bidding possible, also really supports this simplicity.
For me personally, the biggest downside of Princes is its mathiness. Constant counting and recounting never thrills me in a game, and there's a lot of here. I'll accept it's a matter of personal preference.
Other players said that they find the geographical placement of the buildings to be another weakness, and I'd generally agree. It requires a level of look-ahead if you want to play well and that's beyond the complexity of much of the rest of the game; it especially hurts Prince's possibility as a game for new players. I think that game designers often underestimate the amount of work that this type of spatial design takes, with Cleopatra and the Society of Architects being another example of a game with a spatial/geographical element that's much denser than the rest of the play.
Overall, Princes is a very well-regarded Alea game, which I think is largely just. About half of our gaming group thought it was the best of the first four. I personally fall into the latter camp, as I feel that Taj Mahal coheres more:
- Taj Mahal (Plays: 7)
- Princes of Florence (Plays: 4+) [ Read my Review ]
- Ra (Plays: 15) [ Read my Review ]
- Chinatown (Plays: 1)
If I was rating my personal like rather than Prince's quality as a game, it'd go even lower; I've owned it much longer than either Taj Mahal or Ra, but as you can see I've played it less.
Princes of Florence is still in print from Rio Grande in the Alea edition. There's a more recent foreign edition by QWG which has the advantage of including a couple of variant rules, including "The Princess and the Muse" auction and a way to set up a shared board. The downside is that it's got artwork by Mike Doyle, which tends to look nice and damage the usability of the game (though a quick glance of BGG pictures suggests the only real problem with the usability of the QWG version is the internationalization that was done).