Friday, September 02, 2022

What's Old Is New

If you're deep into the board game hobby, there's a handful of prolific and talented designers you may well know by name. Many people love Stefan Feld, Reiner Knizia, Michael Kiesling, Jamey Stegmaier, and others -- and can rattle off the titles of half a dozen of their games in a single breath. One name I don't hear very often, though (at least, among U.S. gamers) is Leo Colovini.

According to BoardGameGeek, Leo Colovini has literally 100 credits. (It could well be more by the time you read this.) Improbably, not a single one is ranked in the top 1000 games on the site -- which probably starts to explain why he's less well-known. Among his highest-rated games, however, are things like Cartagena (and its sequel), Carolus Magnus, and Clans.

To me, there's a clear throughline in those games: each has a deceptively simple rules set leading to compelling strategic decisions. I have yet to encounter a Leo Colovini game that takes more than 5 minutes to explain. Four players can then complete the game in under an hour. In my experience, designing a game like that -- and having it be intriguing to play -- is not easy. So seeing Leo Colovini's name on a game box immediately rouses my interest.

That's a long preamble, perhaps, but should explain why I took an interest in the new game Old London Bridge. I picked up a copy last month at GenCon, and while there was no rush for fear of it selling out, I was nonetheless as excited to be getting it as I was several other games that were the talk of the show.

Colovini shares credit on this game with another designer, Gabriele Bubola. Together, the two have created another game that meets all the criteria I mentioned above. It can be explained in 5 minutes or less (to experienced gamers, at least) and plays in under an hour. Most importantly, after playing a few turns, you realize that there are surprising nuances lurking within the system. It's a lighter game that doesn't feel like a lark.

Old London Bridge is played over 12 rounds. In each round, every player will draft one of six kinds of buildings to place in the next slot along a bridge in front of them. Buildings are numbered from 60 to 1, and must always be played in decreasing order... unless you play one of the numberless "parks," which reset the count for your placement next round. The simultaneous bid for draft order can be huge in getting the building you need.

But also at stake is the building you want. Different types of buildings trigger different actions when you place them -- and the strength of those actions depends on another symbol found on buildings: one of four different "shield" types divided among all building types. The more you draft of a particular shield, the stronger a building action can be... but the worse off you'll be if you're ever forced to trigger a building action using a different shield type. There might be a clear "best building" for you to draft this round... but if its number doesn't follow in decreasing order for your bridge, you'll have to remove and replace a prior building you placed (ultimately leaving an empty space on your bridge, which triggers its own scoring consequences at the end of the game).

Because Old London Bridge plays so fast, I've already had multiple opportunities to play it. While I can't say it's become an instant favorite in my collection, I would say that on a chart plotting "enjoyment" against "run time," the game would rate very highly. There is at least one big caveat to that: the game purports to be for 2-4 players, but I would actually discourage anyone from buying it as a 2-player game only. Much of what really makes the game work is the competition for a limited number of building options each round, and the 2-player game (despite a small rules "patch") really doesn't succeed in generating this tension. 3 players is quite fun, though, and 4 players best of all.

I'd give Old London Bridge a B+. And given the ease in getting it to the table, I suspect I'll soon get more plays in to tell me how that judgment holds or changes. If you're the sort of gamer who doesn't need each new addition to your collection to be the longest, or most convoluted, or most brain-burning, or most "loaded with unique components" game you own, it might be up your alley.

No comments: