 |
Home | Game | Rules | Theme | Strategy | FAQ |  |
|
Version History
The complete rules are available in the PDF file to the right. In the following sections, I will describe how they came to be. 
Implemented Rules 2nd EditionFirst single action turn
The rule that the first action space also lets the players take that action solved both those problems. Also, it didn't remove the first-mover advantage mitigation, since players later in turn may still take advantage of empty (cheaper) action spaces.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The 1st edition offered the players several actions already in the first turn. However, many testers were confused by two aspects
of this rule.
(Lack of) first-mover advantage mitigation
While the | Action | Turn 1 | Turn 2 | Turn 3 | Turn 4 | Turn 5 | Turn 6 | Avg |
| Tax (2 talents) | (Mobilize) | (Attack) | 2 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 1.33 |
| Produce (1 talent+1 resource) | 1 | 2 | 4 (2 res used) | 5 | 6 | 8 (2 res used) | 1.33 |
| Import (1 colony) | (1 res) | (2 res) | (3 res) | (4 res) | (5 res) | 5 | 0.83 |
| Import (2 colonies) | (Colonize) | (2 res) | (4 res) | (6 res) | (8 res) | 8 | 1.33 |
| Import (3 colonies) | (Colonize) | (Colonize) | (3 res) | (6 res) | (9 res) | 9 | 1.5 |
It shows that liquid assets (talents) gives a steady average of 1.33 while non-liquid assets (resources) can pay off more if you can delay selling them. The safer and quicker return of the former must also be weighed against the higher risk of losing the city-state to Persia. Of course, the figures will be affected by current action costs, number of city-states acquired by the players etc. but adapting the strategy to those conditions is part of the game.
Political levels
The purpose of two political levels for the players (Hellas and Persian) is twofold.
First, it allows them to compete for attack strength along two dimensions. With only one
dimension, one player would always have advantage over the others. Second, it serves as a
double-edged sword. The Hellas political level gives advantages against Persian citizens while the
Persian political level gives advantages against Greek citizens. Which should you choose? It
depends on your strategy!
How about the Hellas/Persian political levels then? Apart from the thematic purpose, they also add a
disruptive element if the balance switches too much in either direction. Too much peace is likely
to increase the military level and trigger a war with Greek victory while too much war is likely to
decrease the political level and trigger a war with Persian victory. Both cases calls for smaller armies,
the first to bring down the citizens to a level where the players dare fighting without losing too many
citizens, and the second to bring down the citizens to a level where the players cannot fight.
In both cases, the decreased
military level (due to removed citizens) is compensated by the increased political level, bringing
one of the two levels to a positive value and preventing a new war from erupting immediately.
Victory conditions
A good victory condition is something that is fulfilled by playing well, not something that is a
mean in itself. A condition like depleting your talents first or build as many buildings as possible
would only encourage specific actions on behalf of others. Instead, the victory condition should
encourage what the game is about: develop an economy (talents) that increases your power (citizens). Talents and buildings are good
stepping stones but they all serve to bring more talents and eventually citizens to the board.
Thus, the game ends when all a player's citizens has come into play.
But should citizens into play also count for victory? That would aggravate the take that effect by punishing targeted players twice; first by losing productive citizens and then by losing victory points. But by letting lost citizens also count for victory, the game would suddenly turn the take mechanic into a two-edged sword, similar to how it works in games like Hansa Teutonica. Thus, a balanced approached with victory points for both achievements and citizens (whether on the board or lost) turned out to reward a balanced strategy the best.
Why not an elimination game then? Partly because I prefer avoiding elimination games and partly because the game is so balanced that elimination victories would be hard to achieve.
Rules (Video)
Politeia has been licensed so rule videos can no longer be offered.
Rules (PDF)
Politeia has been licensed so rule files can no longer be offered.
... and Rejected Rules (2nd Edition)
Late turn order mitigation
With a game that ends instantly,
... and Rejected Rules (1st Edition)
Addition of secret strength
The current battle rules are predictable - you know if you will win or lose. One option would be to allow the players to secretly spend talents to increase their strength. This was rejected partly because I wanted a predictable game and partly because it was against the fundamental game economy: acquire talents to acquire citizens.
Greco-Persian War as an action
Initally, the Greco-Persian war was triggered by a player action. The idea was that a player could choose it if he or she would be relatively better off from it. However, since this action also had a cost, it was rarely chosen so the war got another trigger instead.
Multiple actions
The idea of being able to drop more than 1 action marker on the same action for multiple (but gradually more expensive actions) sounded intriguing. However, it created a "chicken race" where a player clearing an attractive action was likely to see it full again when in turn again. No more than 1 action marker on the same action opened for more tactical action play.
Building take-over
One of the first rules simulated "building on top of others' achievements" by allowing one player's building being taken over by another player and turned into a monument. However, the kingmaker risk was deemed too high and the building action changed to a simple race.