Even more troubling is the way warfare is handled; it's very difficult to mount any kind of military campaign that will provide a good return on investment and in several games I've played there wasn't a single battle, let alone a more costly and potentially devastating war. I can't help but wonder if the ships were a larger part in an earlier design or if each nation might have originally featured a special power or unit like in the PC game. It just feels like the game has been over-developed and reduced to something much smaller than the epic scope it seems to suggest.

What's worse, because the game doesn't allow for much player interaction other than the occasional territorial dispute or the oh-so-thrilling action of placing your Colonist on a spot someone else was thinking about, it comes across as very dry, methodical, and programmed. There's almost no luck aside from the random draw of exploration tiles (which can lead to some nasty surprises if you don't mount a big enough expedition) and the lack of die rolls in combat makes everything feel very deterministic. Additionally, it's the kind of game that I believe in the long run will reveal that certain strategies are just more successful in the end. I've been able to win most of the games I've played by almost completely ignoring settling the New World and focusing on collecting sets of trade goods, trade ships, and the right bonus buildings to capitalize on my abstract mercantile empire.

Despite my relative disappointments, I respect what Mr. Drover was trying to do with it, although I think he may have cut it much to close to the quick in terms of reducing the bells and whistles in favor of simplicity. The lingering ghosts of what may have been a bigger and more exciting game seem to foreclose on a real sense of fun. It's not a drag to play by any means, but I found myself thinking "Wow, this just isn't very exciting" throughout my last couple of games. I can't help but imagine what could have been done with a fuller design that wasn't committed to paring everything away to accommodate the interests and value judgments of gamers who eschew dice, luck, long playtimes, and heavy player interaction.

This is sadly missing from the boardgame design.

Interestingly, I find myself thinking that I would actually recommend AGE OF EMPIRES III over many of the European games it references through its gameplay because it's simply more engaging, maybe just a little less infuriatingly mechanical and slightly more specific in terms of attempting to present a historical setting. I do think it is a reasonable game for new players since it is easy to pick up, play, and even teach to friends and family and the small amount of extra detail does make it more immediate.

I believe most fledgling board gamers are more likely to be impressed by a title that offers an opportunity to manage an entire nation's exploration and conquest of the New World than one that finds them building municipal buildings to impress a fictional king. It's just tremendously disappointing that the experience winds up feeling more like balancing the Imperial budget than taking a seat as an armchair Cortes or Columbus.

Questions or comments for Michael? Send them along to gameshark.feedback@yahoo.com .

Previous Cracked LCDs:

Version 1.0
Version 1.1

Version 1.2
Version 1.3

Version 1.4
Version 1.5