This was one of my Berlin group’s favorite games when I first joined them several years ago.  In fact, it had the distinction of being one of the only games I was able to play there more than once!

For me, it’s not only History of the World in two hours, but also “Risk with a brain”

This is a favorite for me as well.  I have to agree with the comparison with History of the World.  I view them as mostly interchangeable, with the exception of playing time.

A reprint of Vinci is definitely overdue.

I respectfully disagree.  Vinci is a game that I’d be happy to never play again…

D

It is also a favorite for me though it is definitely has potential for AP.  The games I played really did evoke an epic feel despite the relatively simple mechanics.

Many have discussed the end-game problem with this game, and some have suggested ways of handling it.

Kevin Whitmore refers to the end-game as being like Whac-a-Mole, as players bash the leaders to try to prevent them from getting over the 100 mark.

Suggested variants include using hidden VPs (maybe using a stash of poker chips) or using a variable game ending condition.  Mark Johnson, as I recall, talks about the latter in his “all-about” Vinci BoardgamesToGo podcast, which is well worth a listen for fans of the game.

As opposed to all other games, where you let the leaders win?

Wouldn’t you naturally attack a player ahead of you, not necessarily the leader, to improve your scoring differential?

Greg, not necessarily.... especially not if not attacking the leader means that you lose.  I might be tempted to prolong the game if I felt that I still had a chance to pull out a victory at some point.

Which is what makes Vinci not-so-good in my book

dale

I wasn’t questioning attacking the leader.  I was questioning why trailing players wouldn’t attack players ahead of them.  The only reasons I see for not attacking are 1) there are better scoring opportunities or 2) you want to hasten the endgame. 

A game where ganging up on the leaders seems much worse is Mare Nostrum, where other players stall their own development to attack.  At least in Vinci you’re still working towards the endgame by expanding.

I would agree that there’s not much point in attacking a front runner if it’s not going to do you any good. Let the folks who are still in the game do the dirty work. (Unless one of the fron runners knocked you out of the game. Then BANZAI!!)

And yes there are some games where you can fall behind and not catch up. I tend to avoid those games.

But if you fall behind in Vinci, it’s usually your fault. IMO.

I’ve already commented in Shannon’s post about my disagreement over Vinci’s characterization as a “bash the leader” game, so I won’t repeat myself.  I will therefore merely say that I think Vinci is an excellent game and probably my favorite game of conquest (and thankfully NOTHING like History of the World).  One interesting thing about it is that it plays very differently with different numbers of players.  With 3 or 4, there’s lots of room to expand and civs tend to stick around longer.  With 5 and particularly 6, players switch civs very quickly, or often pull all their units out and “reinvade”.  For me, 4 is the sweet spot and 6 is my least favorite, but I admit the six-player game has a certain brutal fascination to it.  The game also plays quicker with fewer players.

Greg asks why you wouldn’t naturally attack the player ahead of you, rather than the leader.  These are the kinds of questions that each group has to answer for themselves and doing so can minimize the chances for bad feelings in games.  In our group, we play for the win, not position, so attacking the leader (or leaders) is almost always considered good form, while attacking the trailing players is frowned upon (unless, of course, that’s your best chance of making points).  But different groups feel differently about this.  Hopefully, most of the players in a group will have a similar philosophy about this, so that the “hey, why are you attacking ME?” question pops up less often.

Really I was asking why you wouldn’t always take the best scoring opportunity available regardless of who it involved attacking.  I apologize for not expressing myself more clearly.  Clearly if you’re behind you want to improve your scoring differential with the player(s) in front of you.

I absolutely love Vinci and will happily play it, but the last 10 minutes always disappoint badly. When it’s not a bash-the-leader-fest it becomes an exercise in kingmaking.

We’ve tried hidden scoring—the result was that people who were perceived to be in the lead (but in fact were not) were attacked instead of the actual leader, who went on to win handily.

We tried the variable ending, but it ends up making the winner random. When you know you have, say, roughly two turns left, you can make a decision about whether to start a new civ or stick with what you’ve got, but if you have no real idea of how many turns you have left, you have no ability to optimize your play.

I really wish I had a clever ending for a game I love so much.

I actually played it 2 days ago for the first time in 2 years. It was the closest game I’ve ever played. After 2:10 I won with 122, 2nd and 3rd got 121 and the last player got 120!
It’s a nice and interesting game, but I agree that the king-making problem is a bit too high towards the end, but it’s still a very joyful game.
/Carl