Wednesday 29 June 2011

Wallace strikes gold in London

The final meeting of this season’s Games Night regulars has been put back until tomorrow, but Sam and I met up with a view to do a bit of writing, but we were unable to resist the pull of a new Martin Wallace game in the games cupboard.

After Yorkshire and Cornwall, Wallace turned his geographically-based historical eye to London. This game begins after the Great Fire and ends just as the first Underground stations are being built, and it's up to each player to exploit this fruitful period to their advantage. Anyone with any knowledge of the history of London will enjoy seeing the likes of Christopher Wren, hospitals, monuments and the invention of sewers being played out before their eyes.


After a quick run through the rules, we began in a feisty, experimental mood as Sam took a loan and built early while I quickly built up a large amount of cash. The game is finely balanced. Players have the option of playing plenty of cards at the same time, but risk gaining poverty squares for playing too many cards. But you can reduce that risk by building in boroughs. But that gives you more cards, which means more poverty points... Definitely a game which runs the risk of analysis paralysis.

But we both really enjoyed it. There was definitely a pleasure in watching technology progress and famous buildings being built. Or not, as the case may be. I chided Sam for not building Nelson’s Column, but on the other hand he did build Buckingham Palace. For my part, I mostly bought land on the south side of the Thames and, true to history, I built the Crystal Palace and didn’t have the underground.

It was also very difficult to tell who was winning. In the end, Sam squeezed past 79 points to 76. Definitely one to revisit, and I’m sure this will soon become a games night favourite. Whatever will Wallace’s next historical odyssey be? A game based on the suffragette movement, perhaps?

(The illustration I chose, by the way, is a new street lay out for Charing Cross proposed in 1920. I thought it would fit in nicely with the overall theme of imaginary Londons being created with each game.)

4 comments:

  1. It's a great game. And really hard to tell - with two players at least - who's winning. As I confessed to Andrew I had the erroneous impression I'd pulled off a convincing victory, only to be biting my nails when we counted up scores.

    ReplyDelete
  2. We got so immersed we forgot about the chocolate cake, Andrew.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And that is the sign of a good game.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's written on the side of the box, actually.

    ReplyDelete