[Brian,
Thursday January 27, 2005 at 4:08pm]
Maharaja
If I ponder a game while commuting, that's a good sign. If I'm still thinking about it after a few plays, that's great. I like variety, so most games get played a few times then dismissed. Maharaja's cycle: intriguing, worrying, dismissed. Despite great acclaim and glowing reviews (and a nice pedigree); this boat sails without me.
The goal: Build seven palaces; but palaces take money. The Maharaja moves around the map and pays the architects based on their work displayed in the visited city. Work includes palaces, houses, or simply being there to personally bend the ear of the esteemed leader. I won't bother with the full rules (they are online). [One of the nice aspects of the last few years is that reviews can dispense with detailed discussions of the mechanics]. The flaws of this game come from an unlikely source: the action wheel.
With the action wheel, each player picks an action, for a simultaneous decision. Maharaja expands this: each player picks two actions. This simple change squares the available options from nine to eighty-one per player. [Even if each player only has five reasonable actions that number leaps to twenty five combinations]. Once all players dial in their actions, the first player reveals his choices and takes his turn.
The turn involves taking the actions (in any order), interspersed with moving around. Moving is important for two reasons: it costs money (paid to other players) and some actions (like Palace Building) occur at the current location. A player chooses the order of actions and movement during his turn, so analyze, make rough plans (the selection) then analyze again during your actual turn.For example, "Building Houses" doesn't specify where they are built: in villages (to allow the player to move between cities and earn money from other players moves) or in the current city (to impress the Maharaja). So the balance between pre-planning and moving during a turn works well (and reminds me of Game of Thrones).
Going early provides many benefits: palaces built in central locations please the Maharaja, so they score more when money gets handed out. Mechanically, going first means perfect planning. I dial in my result and know exactly what I'm going to do. There is a balancing factor: player order is determined by roles (numbered 1, 2, etc) and each role also has a special power. Going first confers no extra benefit; going later get more powerful. One of the actions a player can choose: claim another role. (If I take it from another player, they immediately take one of the unused roles).
The later roles provide discounts and benefits; but usually only for a specific action. For example, "The Artisan" (role #6) reduces Palace cost from 12 to 9. So the artisan usually picks the "Build a palace" action. But another player, low on money, may take that role away before the Artisan's turn. That player paid a price to (perhaps inadvertantly) hurt the artisan, so malice alone can't explain it. Nevertheless, players in later positions are at a planning disadvantage.
Turn order plays a part in many games, often following an orderly progression. Here any player can adjust their turn order (usually bumping an opponent out). This costs one (of two) actions each turn and may not last even until the next turn. Someone else may reverse your choice.
The conflict: going early allows better planning; going later allows you to lock in going early next turn. Going last lets you possibly reverse someone else. Of course, just because you start the turn going last, you may wind up going in the middle (if someone takes your role. Remember, the later roles have nice powers). This results in a great big game of King of the Hill, each player jumping around in turn order! First game: fascinating. But then frustrating.
Consider Fist of Dragonstones. Many people (myself included) dislike blind bidding games where losing bids pay. Maharaja combines Fist of Dragonstones style, albeit in a novel form, with fiddly board play that requires and rewards forward planning. Despite my initial enthusiasm, I quickly cooled on Tikal / Java / Mexica.
Take an interesting simultaneous decision (action choice) mechanic and, based on board position, each player chooses from a variety of plans. But only the first player's plan happens. Everyone else must react to the changes that occur between when they choose and when they act. The problem isn't complexity; Maharaja is no more complex than Puerto Rico. However, in Puerto Rico, you make your decision when you act. You have almost complete information about what the game state will be. Here, you must plan based on a position that can wildly change before you get to implement your plan. Adding insult to injury, if you select an action you can't (or won't) take, every other player gets bonus money (As if the lose of an action wasn't enough! Maharaja has about ten turns, actions are in short supply).
Worse yet, the money mechanism contains positive feedback. Building Palaces provide money, which can be used to buy more palaces. And building first in the Maharaja's current city helps to place highly (The first palace scores three points instead of one). More money lets the leader build palaces without needing as many "Gain two gold" actions.
So, each of my three games saw the following: the first player gets a solid setup on turn one, as do some of the other players. Perhaps one player decided to just go to the Maharaja's second city. But a later player played the "redirect the maharaja" to adjust the city order. These type of plays (if not this particular one) occur constantly. The player who built in the second city won't earn money for another few turns. He's out.
Ideally, these type of setbacks balance out. With Maharaja's positive feedback, they don't. And playing well does not guarantee you won't be knocked out early. Unless you go first (or sometimes, last) you can't guarantee what will happen. You pick your actions without full information, and players who act after you may reverse your decisions.
I'm not particularly bitter about Maharaja. I've won, I've contended, and I've lost. But in each case, one (or more) players had no hope in the last half (or more) of the game. Sometimes through miscalculation, other times by an unfortunate choice that might have worked, under different circumstances.
Overall, Maharaja tries to combine the quirky chaos of a blind bidding auction game with a detailed forward planning board game, then makes things worse with a rich-get-richer income scheme. Each of Maharaja's parts innovates; but the parts all pull in different directions for an unsatisfying result. I like simultaneous decisions, but without being sure about the state of the game when they will be implemented, planning occassionally feels like a sick joke. I'd consider playing again, but only with an auction for starting role selection (a variant suggested in the rules). Perhaps that one rule would balance the game, and it would certainly help. Even then, I suspect that the mixture of mechanisms would still leave me cold.
| Author | Wolfgang Kramer & Michael Kiesling |
| Players | 2-5 |
| Company | Rio Grande Games (Phalanx) |
| Time | 90-120 minutes |
| Cost | $35 |
Buy it from Funagain!
Update:
Chris Farrell made some good points in his comment, and I responded. Take a look.
Update: Given the points made by Chris, and that I'm in the minority, Mikko's posting made me pause. I consider Maharaja flawed; but it's not garbage. I rate it (on BGG) a '5'. Not good, not in the class of games I want to play again, but I won't gnaw my arm off to avoid it. [Technically, by BGG standards, I should rate it a '4' I suppose, but it's an interesting try. Just new enough to not be derivative. I like the roles combining with turn order.] I just don't think the game comes together. I may still play Maharaja again (Chris's comments make me wonder if there wasn't some groupthink coloring my views). Who knows? My views may change ...
Firstly, while going first on the first turn is an advantage in the game I agree (probably the first-turn bidding for roles should have been standard), late turn-order folks are not always at a planning disadvantage. They can build knowing exactly how much they need to be competitive, or if they should build somewhere else. They can fiddle the scoring order knowing exactly what it's going to mean and without others being able to take advantage of it. And they can swap roles with more certainty; the guy who allows palaces to score double, for example, only helps if you control it at the end of the turn, and only late-going players can be reasonably assured of this.
In general, the advantages of getting the center spot are significant, so going first almost always has some upside unless you're broke (shades of El Grande ...). But going last isn't without advantages.
I also find the "compound interest" argument somewhat unconvincing, just because palaces are so expensive. Usually, you can do a lot better cash-wise by dropping in a house or two to scoop up a 3rd or 4th place cheaply, and by managing the bonuses of the higher-numbered roles. When you build a palace, you generally trade of revenue efficiency for VPs, as it should be, with the wrinkle of the central palaces - but one player is unlikely to get significantly more central palaces than anyone else, and they can easily be undone anyway by the "outer palace = 2" role.
Late turn folks are at a planning disadvantage during the action selection portion of the game. They are at an informational advantage during the execution portion of the game. This does allow them to know exactly how much they have to do ... but they had to pick the right actions to take advantage of that knowledge. Given that they'll lose the tiebreak (unless they spent an action to switch roles), this information is of limited use. Also, note that if you are scheduled to go last at the beginning of the turn, you may still wind up go in the middle (if someone decides to take your role for your special action). Then you lose the operational advantage of going last. [This is a minor effect, to be sure].
True. One advantage of going last is that you may generate income from villages before your turn. If you rely on that and are wrong, you lose an action and give everyone money. Some risks are necessary to win.
Let me expand a bit: palaces are a fixed cost for winning. They will be expensive no matter when you buy them. Getting a palace that generates revenue (say $6 or so above what you would have gotten) helps get the next palace. The house that lets you get income cheaply has effeciency, but you are no closer to winning. Additionally, the first player can often (by using the Palace + House action with a move split in between) drop a house to save on moving costs and create revenue. [I did not explicitly touch on that in my review]. Those who go earlier get the option to build houses that generate revenue from players' movement (as opposed to through Maharaja payouts), which counts for more (as it transfers money from an opponent to you, instead of from the bank to you). Dumping houses into a city pays out, but houses on paths pay out steadily (not as much), decrease your costs, and ensure that your path cannot be cut (usually a minor concern). Given the choice, I'd prefer to place houses on high volume paths early on, instead of in a city. However, I've seen the "Build a large number of houses and then move them from city to city" strategy. Good income, but it costs actions. Someone who frequently has 'The Builder' can use this well, but it requires matching your actions to your role, which is dicey (the builder is role #5).
Also, you can only build one palace per action. Even if the revenue situation balanced out, the player with more palaces on the board is more flexible later on and may be able to threaten a win (via double build) a turn before a player one palace behind can possibly win. He can delay if an unforunate board situation arises.
Finally, a city (especially the first city or two) can pay out twice in a game, and the central palace stands tall again. [Any houses would pay out again,too]. Getting the central palace in the 1st &2nd palace is unlikely, but the 1st and 3rd seems possible. [Players can't afford to skip both of the first two cities, so the winner of the 1st city jumps to the third, conceding the 2nd]. Only one player can have the "Outer Palace == 2" (Sadhus) role, so a central palace usually means a cheap 2nd or 3rd at worst. Those who want to compete are limited to: a) grabbing (and keeping) the Sadhus b) dumping a large number of houses in the city. [Even with the Sadhus, you are still one behind the central palace, assuming you both have your architects local. That means one house in the city, and hope that someone takes away the leader's role, which seems likely.]
Compound interest isn't dramatic in Maharaja. Certainly, not when compared to St. Petersburg (or some such). Nor is compound interest inherently wrong in a game. It just feels out of place when combined with the other mechanisms of the game and leads (I believe) to play issues.
I understand the comments; judging from online reviews and ratings I'm in the minority thinks that the game is flawed (as compared to simply not being a game that I like). I'm not positive the flaws ruin the game completely, but I don't find myself inclined to play again.
The thing is, you know what actions are going to be a good idea when going first, and which are better when going last, so I'm not sure if it can really be called a planning deficit; I think of it more as a control deficit. If you're going first you overwhelmingly want to build palaces, or a palace and a house. If you're going last, you usually want houses, the role switcher, and the scoring order switcher.
But that's still a generalization. The late-order player can take the Palaces action, it just means something different than it does to the earlier player. The early player is going to grab a central palace. The later player wants to opportunisticly snag the last spot in a contested area, or get a palace that can leverage a scoring order change, or just isn't picky where it is but likes the special power he or she has. It's not that they aren't planning, it's just they have different things that can be accomplished.
Last thing, I think getting the VPs on the table is good, but my games have been won as often by a late-game rush as by a getting lots of central palaces by being very aggressive early. Your ability to build palaces is usually restricted by money, not actions, since you can build 2 per turn. So the advantage of just getting VP on the table early is nice but not that significant, especially since dominant early regions are likley to be bypassed in later scoring.
All the late game rushes I've seen have been by the early leaders. Last week a group played Maharaja (I played something else). The game seemed to take longer than our games, I believe they went the full ten turns. None of my games made it past turn 7 or 8.
I've only played three games, it may very well be that nobody figured out how to play the later positions correctly at the time.