The best abstract strategy games are those with simple rules but
complex enough strategies to last for hundreds of games. Some of the
greatest games are those which seem simple at first glance but reveal
themselves to be games of great depth. At the same time, a designer
seeking to reproduce this great depth can overcompensate by creating a
clunky interface - a game that is almost too obtuse to be enjoyed.
That was my initial impression when first reading the rules for
Plateau (Magnolia Games, 1990 - Jim Albea). Plateau comes with a
complicated looking rulebook, a simple small game board, and confusing
game play.
And sadly, that confusion is going to chase away enough new players
that most won't find the depth of the game. I won't argue or deny
that Plateau has hundreds of different, interesting strategies; it's
the process of getting there that drives me nuts. The components are
merely okay, the game play feels boring, and I don't want to have to
play dozens of games to "get it". There is likely an audience that
will find Plateau interesting - fans of Go, perhaps - but most folks
won't make it through an entire game.
Each player starts with seven different types of pieces, each with a
different combination of sides and point value.
- Mute (4 pieces) - Blank on both sides; one point
- Blue (2 pieces) - Blue on both sides; four points
- Red (2 pieces) - Red on both sides; five points
- Blue Mask (1 piece) - Blue on one side, blank on the other; eight
points
- Red Mask (1 piece) - Red on one side, blank on the other; ten points
- Ace (1 piece) - Red on one side, blue on the other; fifteen points
- Twister (1 piece) - Orange on one side, blank on the other; twenty-
one points
Players take their pieces, which have a main color of black or white,
and will use a four by four grid to play the game. Black places a two
piece stack on one of the perimeter squares, and white places a two
piece stack on a different perimeter square. Black then takes the
first turn, and play alternates for the rest of the game.
On a player's turn, they have three actions. First, they may place a
new piece onto the board anywhere they like (except inside an enemy
stack or on top of a stack that has an enemy piece on the top). Or,
they can instead move one of the stacks on the board. When moving a
stack, the player may flip the top piece before moving. This is
im****tant, because a stack moves as the color shown on top.
- Red stacks move in a straight line in any direction - up to one
space for each piece in the stack.
- Blue stacks are the same, except they move diagonally.
- Blank stacks can move diagonally or orthogonally.
- Orange stacks move two squares in one direction, then one space at
ninety degrees. (Knight in chess)
- All pieces can "jump" when moving and may drop pieces from the
bottom of the stack onto the top of stacks on the spaces moved over.
Dropping pieces on top of enemy stacks is an im****tant part of the
game, but blank pieces may not do this. Players can "capture"
opponents' pieces if they land on them in the final destination of the
stack and if the stack has as many pieces as the pieces being
captured. The captured pieces are removed from the board and placed
in a player's "captured" area.
The third thing a player may do is exchange captured pieces with
their opponent. They offer pieces to the other player, who offers
pieces in return. An exchange MUST happen if the point values are
similar. Either way, the game continues until one player has
captured six or more pieces or has a stack of six of their own pieces
on the board. There are quite a few more variations to the rules, but
I can't really explain them without diagrams.
Some comments on the game...
1.) Components: What is it with abstract games and video cassette
boxes? This is the fifth one I've received, but it does stay together
better than the other games in my growing video-case-game-collection.
The board is a simple bland grid, and the pieces are thick, white and
black discs with red, blue, and orange plastic washers that must be
pressed down into them, where they will likely never come out. I do
think that the pieces are a good size, with raised ridges for easy
stacking. How to keep the pieces hidden from your opponent is another
matter. One can stand the box/case upright, although this is annoying
and unsteady - screens from another game that feature hidden
information are probably the best choice. I did find myself
constantly looking at the bottom of pieces to see what they were,
whether they were on the board or in the pile of pieces I hadn't
played yet. This was fairly annoying, since it's critical that a
player know what each of their own pieces is at all times.
2.) Rules: The game comes with two rules booklets, a simple "get
started now" guide, and then a complete sixteen page rulebook.
Normally I would be pleased about having so much information on a
game; but even with various sketches and examples, I still had to play
through some rounds, because I was completely befuddled - even after
going through an entire game. The rulebook defines pieces and talks
about the different types of movement - it just didn't come together
for me at all during the course of my first couple games. After that,
I started to slowly understand it; but even though the rules may seem
simple, they are remarkably difficult to comprehend.
3.) Simplicity: I prefer abstract games that have an inherent, simple
goal - whether it be to get five pieces in a row, or to capture all
the opponent's pieces, etc. When a game starts to include capturing,
prisoner exchanges, stacking, and various types of movement on a small
board, the confusion starts to build; and the game loses any kind of
simple charm that it might otherwise have. The idea of a two-sided
piece, each side moving differently, is a clever one on paper; but the
reality of this game is that it just becomes a confusing mess.
4.) Strategy: I would be a cretin if I acted as if the game wasn't
strategic; there is certainly plenty involved, with the rulebook
itself giving several pages to explain what a player should do. But
when playing, even after going over the strategic hints (get pieces in
play, guard the power pieces, watch out for tall units, etc.), I still
found myself struggling to get any sort of tactical plan into action.
I did understand the bluffing element, and that's probably the one
thing I enjoyed about the game - wondering if the blank piece just
played on the board actually has a color on the other side. But I'm
completely befuddled on what strategy to follow after these basic
thoughts.
5.) Fun Factor: Perhaps I'm not patient or smart enough to enjoy this
game. I've seen others laud its praises, explaining that "once you
know the game, it's a blast!" But I've played the game several times
with various opponents - also giving the computer version a shot - and
while I think I grasp the rules, I just don't see the fun in the vague
strategies. My guess is that there are some folks out there who will
enjoy a somewhat obtuse, abstract strategy game, but that most folks
will be disappointed on their initial playing.
So, my recommendation is to pick up Plateau if you are a collector of
abstract games and want something tough and possibly rewarding after
many multiple plays. For ordinary folks, though, I can't see giving
this game much of a chance. It's merely a mediocre presentation, and
the bluffing/hiding/odd movement choices that the game presents come
together in an intricate way that I'm not sure will be appealing to
many people. It certainly wasn't for me.
Tom Vasel
"Real men play board games"
www.thedicetower.com
|
