Palatinus (daVinci and Mayfair Games, 2005 - Alessandro Zucchini) is a small area control game using the theme of the seven hills of Rome. It plays quickly and is one of only two games (Light Speed being the other one) in which scoring the game actually takes longer than playing the game (or sometimes, at least). The founding of Rome is an interesting theme to me, and I looked forward to playing this light, quick game.
While Palatinus is certainly quick (compared to other area control games), it is by no means light. It's fairly confusing, until one plays through it once, and has some difficult choices. It's almost more of a puzzle than a game, and there is a certain amount of luck in it that can throw of the best laid plans of any player. I would play Palatinus again, but only with a small select group of people - those who enjoy puzzles with a twist. It's too dry and confusing for most people.
Seven territories (seven hexes joined together) are placed in a hexagonal formation - with player's taking turn placing them on the board. Each territory has one "hill" as its middle hex. Players place a "6" counter on the center hill, and then randomly place either a "3", "4", or "5" counter on each other hill. Each player takes a screen and places behind it all the pieces of their color (the number of pieces differentiate depending on the number of players.) Players have merchants (with one dot on them), farmers (with two dots), and soldiers (with three dots). Many pieces are double-sided, but some farmers and merchants have a picture of a wolf on their other side. One player is chosen to go first, and then play proceeds in a clockwise order around the table.
On a player's turn, they must place one of their pieces on any empty space on the board. If the piece has a wolf on it, they must place it with the wolf side up. There are no other restrictions upon placement, except that soldiers must not be placed during the last three turns. Once all the pieces are placed, the game ends, and scoring begins. (quick, huh?)
Scoring takes place in two phases. First, each hill is checked for the effect of the soldiers. All the wolf pieces are flipped over; and starting with the first hill (they are marked from "A" to "G"), the players look at the adjacent pieces to each soldier (up to five maximum). If the soldier is adjacent to the same number of merchant pieces as farmer pieces, then the soldier is removed from the board. If the soldier is adjacent to a different number of merchants and farmers, then the player who is the owner of the soldier removes the larger group, placing the tiles in front of themselves. If more than one soldier has claim to the same piece and will remove it from the board, then one player takes the piece, and the other takes a one point token instead.
Once all soldiers have been dealt with, each hill is checked to see who has the most influence there. Players use cubes on their player shields (which lays down to form a scoring path) to keep track of their influence per hill. Each merchant gives a player influence equal to the total number of dots on the pieces adjacent to them (i.e. adjacent soldiers give three influence points, etc.) Each farmer gives influence for each adjacent field and spring. For each unoccupied adjacent space, they give two points, and for each adjacent "spring" space (whether unoccupied or not), they give an additional two points. Soldiers give no influence points. The player with the greatest total influence takes the token on the hill and places it in front of them. If there is a tile, each player involved in the tie takes a "2" scoring chip instead.
Players then total their scores. They add together all the scoring chips they have accumulated, plus one point for each person their soldier captured. The player with the highest score is the winner!
Some comments on the game…
1.) Components: The shields are small, thin, but are functional and work well enough for the game. I did like how they helped players keep track of how many influence points they got - usually an unnecessary step - but the double use was interesting. The territory tiles and counters are all of a good mix, and I especially enjoyed the counter colors, which are light colored, but yet not "girly" looking. One very clever touch - and I almost didn't notice - was how each color (red, purple, yellow, green, and blue) has a different border around the counter. The red has a black circle, the purple a white hexagon, the blue a black hexagon, the green a white circle, and the yellow a black octagon. This, and the fact that the pictures are different, helps differentiate between the colors. Everything fits easily into a small, sturdy white box that is perhaps twice the size needed.
2.) Rules: The rulebook is only four pages long and does a fairly good job, using some examples and color illustrations. I understood the basic gameplay in a vague sort of way. What I couldn't tell from the rulebook was how the game actually worked in action. Our first game was simply one in which we threw counters on the board as fast as we could, and then scored. After we had done final scoring, we suddenly realized how the game worked. I suspect that most people will have the same problem; they'll have to play a game pretty much in the dark and not understand what's going on until after it's over. If you are looking for a game to teach people easily, Palatinus is not the one for you.
3.) Wolves: Several of the pieces have wolves on their backsides, used to disguise what the piece is underneath. But really, that adds a level of uncertainty to the game that I'm not sure works with the rest of it. Once players understand the game, they take great care to place their pieces in the spots that will give them the best advantage. But the wolf pieces just add a huge random element to that. Why spend a lot of time putting pieces down, when you have no idea what the other player puts there? Yes, it's a fifty-fifty chance, but it's a bit of a pain and messes up strategies. Every player that I've introduced the game to has disliked the randomness. We've played without it, and it seems to work okay.
4.) Brain burner: The game really causes people to think about where they put their pieces. The game essentially becomes a mathematical equation, and players can spend quite a bit of time trying to figure out exactly where is the best position for each person. The soldiers and wolves add a lot of chaos to the situation, but the game still can become an excellent candidate for "analysis paralysis". Honestly, if you don't take a while to put your pieces, you WILL lose to someone who does. Putting down pieces randomly will only hurt a player.
5.) Fun Factor: I know that the wolf pieces are supposed to balance the fact that the game automatically lends itself to mathematical analysis, but it just doesn't work. Well, the game works, actually, but it's just not a lot of fun for me. I don't want to spend a while thinking hard about where to place pieces, and then have it all messed up by some random placement. When I win the game, I get satisfaction out of having better placement than the other players; but if the game wasn't fun, I don't get much enjoyment.
6.) Farmers, Merchants, and Soldiers: Farmers can be MUCH more powerful than merchants - especially as it's a good bet many of the soldiers (the merchant's best friend) are removed from the board. I suppose that the design is supposed to present a bit of a "rock-scissors-paper" element, but the different pieces just don't balance out. You place a soldier and hope that the pieces surrounding it will not be even; you place a merchant and hope that the surrounding people aren't killed by soldiers. But you can place a farmer (not by a soldier) and be confident that it will score you some points, especially if you place it in a spring-laden area.
I'm certainly not a big fan of the game, although I can see that it will have attraction for those who want numerically puzzling games. There's a lot of intrigue in how the different pieces affect each other - to the point that the game stops becoming a social affair and rather one in which player's intently stare at the board. It's very difficult to ascertain who wins the game until the end, and the results can be quite unsatisfying if you thought you might have a lead. Palatinus has some interesting ideas in it, but the whole package falls just a tad short of "fun".
Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.tomvasel.com
