Pax Porfiriana Discussion and Strategy

Motivated by Uba pointing out that those mass threads were making F:AT more insular and impossible to get into, I'm probably going to go ahead and create threads about games I'm playing and thinking about and talk about them there. Hopefully we can get the kind of quality of discussion we get in those big threads into the little ones.

Anyway, I've been playing Pax Porfiriana with Dr. Mabuse and Notsure VASSAL, we go through games at a relatively fast past. Previous thread:

fortressat.com/forum/30-pbem-a-pbforum/1...rfiriana-vassal-pbem

My enthusiasm for the game is increasing---and I think it's because such a small, relatively rules light, game can have such diverse paths to victory. In particular, the 4 paths to victory *feel* different, one can tell if they are playing for a rebel, loyalty, outrage, etc victory in the way they must approach the game. I can imagine players will gravitate to a win style, but they will never be able to count on being able to win a certain way because of the randomness of the tableau draw. Here are a couple examples to illustrate:

If you're playing for a loyalty victory, you're basically playing a building game, in some ways feeling like a traditional euro game like Agricola where you build up your area. Most loyalty points come from buildings and units that are big, prestigious and powerful. They rake in a lot of income. Loyalty troops are generally incredibly expensive to send anywhere but on cards with rails---you won't be sending the Mexican navy to extort or protect a low value ranch in bumblefuck nowhere, it's too expensive. This means if you're trying to win with loyalty, you'll be building banks, economic buildings and developed mines. Your space will probably be full of units and buildings. On top of that, you'll be trying to keep the game state at peace (green)---which means not only are you making a lot of money but everyone at the table is making a maximum amount of money.

Contrast that with the rebellion win condition. In particular, how you'll be playing and what your game will look like if you do attempt to win with revolution. Most of the red revolution point cards aren't on buildings, and only some on troops. In fact, revolution points are often gained by getting "take that" cards played on you, or playing them on yourself or others. Therefore, if you expect to win with revolution type cards, you're only going to have a minimum of cards on the table---they're constantly going to be getting ripped off the table, you'll be getting your properties and troops filled with unrest, and taking other people's stuff off the table with occupations and revolutionary take that cards (e.g. destroying another player's plantation with a take that card gets YOU a revolution point). Moreover, the troops that are red revolution troops are weak and can easily be killed by the government, but are suited to extorting and occupying back woods areas that are incredibly expensive for the "law and order" factions (white, blue and esp. green) to get to. Hopefully your goal is to generate income from ranches and plantations (unaffected by the economic state of the world). Basically, they're the ultimate harass faction.

Now put this all together with multiple players. What it means is that games can be a fascinating dynamic mix of players pursuing doable goals, depending on the set of cards coming out in the tableau. So one player at the table is trying to build the table up---she's playing expensive buildings and trying to keep the game in a "peace" game state where everyone makes good money (but she makes the most!). Simultaneously, another player might be going for a revolution win state. That player has incentives to basically tear the table apart and have very little on the table himself except banked revolution points. They also want to piss the other players off enough to get revolution "take that" cards played on them. In contrast to the loyalty player, this player not only wants to keep the table in a "revolution" game state that yields little income, but may even want to throw the game economy into a depression that shuts down economy and mine buildings (0 income) AND makes you pay an income for every card on the table. They don't have much on the table, so they don't pay but it could punish a high income loyalty approach. Add another player or two and project from there---it's fascinating.

I may be mis-remembering because I haven't played in a few weeks. Don't most "take that" cards, orange or black, deal Outrage to the victim?

(For those not familiar, the game has four types of VP's: Loyalty, Revolution, Outrage, and Command)

I'm not disputing your take on the game at all which I fully agree with. It's very deep and you must roll with the punches as far as the cards coming out in the offer are concerned.

I think the most critical thing in the game, over and above the choice of victory path, is timing. Playing the right card at the wrong time can scuttle all your hard work. And having a clear grasp on when to trigger the topple card (this causes a victory check) is crucial to victory.

This is truly an excellent game that has gained popularity the last few months on here and BGG. Very glad I discovered it.

One of my favorite aspects of the game is that certain cards (such as the Orange/Black take that cards or the military cards) give your opponent victory points. But, a huge part of the win conditions are that you need more VP than at least 2 other players, so giving VP to a player can be very important to keep someone else from winning. This is just very cool and adds a layer of strategy to the game not seen in many other designs.

By the way, this game can be overly burdensome to teach, despite being very simple at heart. The easiest way I've found to teach the game in person is to do the following:

-Explain the different types of VP and a couple examples of how someone may acquire them
-Explain the character cards and how they can be flipped
-Explain topples
-Build the deck and deal out the starting market
-Explain the cards that are available only, if no Black cards are shown or no Troops, don't worry about them yet

By waiting to explain cards until they appear, it makes it much easier for people to digest.

Repoman: Yes, so you end up playing them on yourself as much as you can if you're going revolution or outrage... it's sort of the danger of letting low value land slip near the free pick up column.

The saving grace of the victory system is that even though it requires you to have a mental sense of how many points everyone has in the categories, there aren't a huge number of categories and you don't have a lot to count. Most wins in 3 player are like 5-4 or 4-3, which isn't a lot of counting.

But this is the same problem that Calandale talks about in his opinions on Dominant Species, except to a much lower degree. Someone posted it before and even though he's a crazy weirdo in this video, he hits on this problem nicely:

Yeah the majority of the Outrage points (good for US Intervention topples) come from the black and orange cards.

Timing, luck and cash are really key. I love the state of flux that occurs in the game. Each play feels like you're hedging your bets on gaining the upper hand either by having the right combo of cards out or by slowing someone's progress. Either can leave you vulnerable or strengthen your position just by a timely card arriving in the market or a player taking an action that could ruin you.

Another strategy is trying to get other players to do some dirty work that could slow their own progress in an attempt to do likewise to another player.

Nobody does that, you're just paranoid!

repoman, many of the black and orange are Outrage, but a significant chunk are Revolution.

Black and Orange are the biggest way by far to accumulate Outrage, there are very few other Outrage points out there. Partners are a significant source of Revolution points as well.

I'm also really into this game right now, the shifting strategy and reacting to the board makes no two games quite play the same. The epic depression game that Joel, Doc and I played is utterly unlike either the sneaky all-partners Revolution game or a build-big make money fast Pax dominated game.

Really fun, and the deck construction with about half left out makes the game just about the right level of familiar and unpredictable.

For FTF, I found that using colored tokens to track the Prestige/VP points each player has makes it easier to figure what's going on . This avoids staring at the cards trying to pick out the admittedly cluttered art.

It's a interesting dance, in that if you focus on just one or two of Outrage, Revolution, Command or Loyalty you leave an easy path for victory for someone to swoop in with one of the others. Also it's good to push for an early topple and try to get your opponents to flip Hacendado and lose income.

Thanks Paul for setting up a game for us and for teaching me some Vassal. Really enjoying the game so far. If y'all start another I am definitely interested.

Msample wrote: For FTF, I found that using colored tokens to track the Prestige/VP points each player has makes it easier to figure what's going on . This avoids staring at the cards trying to pick out the admittedly cluttered art.

That's smart.

The board I had printed off a BGG file has a vp track for just that purpose. Docs got one too

I've won all bar one or two games i've played of this, more by luck than judgement though. I tend to go loyalty because you can build money with it. Also you can paid by Diaz even in a depression for loyalty points if i remember correctly, and there are a couple of partners that can earn you cash for loyalty.

I sometimes have a swing at command/marshall law. Command is mostly cheapass troops from memory.

If i am not doing well in the economic realm i have on occasions tried to force a recession.

Do you guys tracking VP openly (via cubes or tracks or whatever) actually find it enhancing your game?

It seems like it would, but it also seems like you are less likely to be able to swoop in with a victory out of nowhere. While common sense says Phil Eklund didn't intend for VP to be hidden or obscured on the table, perhaps that is a crucial element of the game. Those A-ha moments where you come out of nowhere and take a topple are quite satisfying.

Only having played VASSAL, where info is open insofar as you have time to look without anyone noticing, I think it would enhance a ftf game immensely.

Gary Sax wrote: Only having played VASSAL, where info is open insofar as you have time to look without anyone noticing, I think it would enhance a ftf game immensely.

I wouldn't want to be the poor sucker keeping that board up to date through things like Unrest plays coming and going.

I honestly don't count too much even in Vassal. I can usually see when something's getting unbalanced, it's only when things shift wildly (like someone adds two Command troops or Revolution points in a turn).

I'll certainly take a count when a topple comes up, but if we're not actively squabbling over one I'm mostly concerned with my own goals.

charlest wrote: Do you guys tracking VP openly (via cubes or tracks or whatever) actually find it enhancing your game?

It seems like it would, but it also seems like you are less likely to be able to swoop in with a victory out of nowhere. While common sense says Phil Eklund didn't intend for VP to be hidden or obscured on the table, perhaps that is a crucial element of the game. Those A-ha moments where you come out of nowhere and take a topple are quite satisfying.

I find its less likely to telegraph your intentions if you can tell at a glance what everyone else has. And newbies appreciate it as well. The graphics can be tought to pick out across a table.