80.00€
Out of stock
Username or email address *
Password *
Remember me Log in
Lost your password?
Email address *
Subscribe to our newsletter
Your personal data will be used to support your experience throughout this website, to manage access to your account, and for other purposes described in our privacy policy.
Register
Accessibility Tools
Anomen
Components are top quality and the feel of this game is different from anything I've tried so far. Not a game for everyone but I love it! Update: way better at 3 players than 2 players!
adamscott
I find the design and theme intriguing, but after one play this is solidly in the want to like more than I actually like category. Could go up with more plays.
Arah
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]Micro Review:[/b] Pax Pamir is a 'political intrigue' hybrid euro-wargame about Afghan tribes that seek to play 'The Great Game' to their advantage. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Players: :meeple::meeple::meeple: to :meeple::meeple::meeple::meeple: [i]Competitive Heavy Area Control[/i] Interesting decisions but restrictive. [c]Theme: [/c]:star::star::star::star::nostar: [c]Skill: [/c]:star::star::star::star::nostar: [c]Replay: [/c]:star::star::star::star::nostar: [c]Fun: [/c]:star::star::star::star::nostar: [c]Sim: [/c]:star::star::star::star::star: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b]Why I love it?[/b] -Gorgeous components. -Fun game to play. -Very interactive: decisions have ramifications that impact others directly or indirectly, with a nearly closed economy. -Thematic: the player feels the need to ride the waves of political (cards/cylinders) and military (blocks) change. -Elegant game with simple rules (the multiplayer rules) and interesting decisions. [b]Why it may not be for you?[/b] -Badly photoshopped art in cards. -Looks like an area control wargame, but plays more like a political simulation in which there happen to be military units which can seldomly be used for combat. -Restricted actions: while there is little movement, you are limited to where you put your pieces, which in turn limits the scope of battles/betrays and taxes/bribes. The market allows you or does not allow you to make a specific play. -Build action is underpowered. -Best when all players are similarly strong and understanding of the implication of their moves. Bad players will be left behind and may ruin the game as they can serve plays in a silver platter. -In some games, a player can hoard coins. While a valid strategy in some cases, it slows down the game and makes other players have way less options. -The game can be reduced to: "have the most influence or cylinders than other players". [b]Player Scaling:[/b] Best at 3p. Player count specific disadvantages: -(1p) Bot has lots of rules and, for some, needs extra unofficial rules to be more of a challenge. -(1-2p) Shifting alliances impacting players is lost. -(1-3p) Combat is less common. -(3-5p) Kingmaking: no mechanisms to counter this, as it is in Root. This one goes above with 'Kingpaving': bad moves by any player can give another a big advantage. Cards feel predetermined in the market. -(4-5p) Little control over the market. Reduced strategic play as the market and game state fluctuate more wildly between turns. If a player is too strong but it is away from you in sitting order then you can't attack their cards with spies easily. [b]Alternatives:[/b] -At 2-3p, it is like Ankh: both very deterministic area control games and euro-wargame hybrids. You can math out moves, especially towards the endgame. Both are more strategic at lower player counts and then become more tactical instead as player count increases. -The Expanse Board Game. -COIN games, like Fire in the Lake, with their semi-randomized victory checks.