Musings On... Maharaja (#2)

Tom: Maharaja is one of the few games that I wanted to play again immediately after my first playing, which is especially unusual for a game of its depth and complexity. Often, I'm turned away from games that have no luck, as this gem by Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling, but the game intrigued me. Maharaja is essentially a game of area control - something I'm fond of, but adds simultaneous selection, beautiful pieces, and gut-wrenching decisions to the mix. I'm especially fond of telling newcomers to the game that for once, we are about to play a game where the final goal is NOT to get the most victory points. Aside from El Grande, this is probably my favorite Kramer game to date.

Jeremy: Oh boy! Them's fightin' words! Maharaja is one of the few games that I really wanted to play...until I actually got to play it, at which point I immediately realized this was not going to be a game I was going to like much at all. The Kramer & Kiesling partnership has been a good one, but this is one game I find nearly completely unnecessary. I admit to not being the biggest fan of influence (aka "area control") games, but for me Maharaja is an unhappy melding of mechanics, borrowing from the likes of El Grande and Java, but not having the theme and cool mechanics (actions, tower) of the former, nor the immense and intense tactics of the latter. Why do Maharaja when you have done both "types" of games better previously?

(Tom stands up and stares threateningly at Jeremy)

Tom: Just because games have similar mechanics, doesn't mean that they are similar in style and feel. El Grande has some similarities (area control) and Java a few, minute things that are the same - but the whole, overall game played differently. Just admit, Jeremy, that you just can't win the game!. One thing Maharaja has that El Grande and Java can't even touch are the different roles each player can choose from, altering their strategy and that of the other players. I enjoyed the game, because on each turn I felt like I had so much I wanted to do - but could only pick a couple actions. Then I would wonder what actions my opponents had picked, and get even more intense with my selection of the actions. That, my friend, is what makes the game excellent.

Jeremy: Excellence, or lack thereof, is in the eye of the beholder. Before continuing, I must say that I do not disagree with anyone who claims the game is clever -- it is, and that exceedingly -- but it has it's problems. I feel this game to be too abstract and "wooly". The abstractness is apparent even from a quick glance at the board which
has a fairly symmetrical and rather uninspired presentation and layout. Though the wooden houses and cardboard tiles are nice, the palaces are completely lacking (glass beads?), and the board makes no place for houses in the city, leading to houses just kind of being piled up all over the place. And whether I am building houses or palaces or choosing roles, I never feel engaged with the theme of the game. I feel like the game requires cleverness and naught else -- no soul, no connecting theme. In this respect, it feels, to me, like an old Knizia game -- and by "old Knizia game" I mean nothing good: Well balanced, exceedingly clever...and dry as a bone.

Tom: Bah! If people (all two of them) read my reviews, they know that I'm a sucker for a good theme, which is why Duel of Ages is my favorite game. But an excellent game does not necessarily need a theme, like Tigris and Euphrates. Shame on you, Jeremy, for calling the "old Knizia" nothing good, as he has produced many classics. I won't deny that Maharaja is themeless and can feel dry to those who MUST HAVE theme, but the game is superb enough to look beyond that. Would little wooden palaces have been nice? -sure! But this is one of the few games that transcends theme (like Tigris, Java, El Grande, etc.), and it's worth playing on the merits of its mechanics alone.

Jeremy: That's what YOU think! *LOL* That's all well and good for you to say that, because it is true for you. But I MUST HAVE theme! I am hardly alone in preferring games have some connection to their theme, and so I speak loud and proud for us theme-frieks out there. So, Tom, I admitted the game was clever, and you admitted the game lacks theme. To return to my "Java + El Grande - theme = clever, but mediocre themeless gaming experience" thought, I simply don't see anything in Maharaja that merits serious attention. It is elegant and well designed; true, it is clever, but I simply can't find anything about it that makes it stand out from its progenitors: it smells like El Grande, it moves like Java. You say you like it because it has no luck, but fact of the matter is that this game does have a lot of potential chaos by way of player decisions. Is that a bad thing? Nope -- I like that kind of challenge -- but I mention it only to point out it's not really a classic "no luck" type of abstract game. It is "wooly": so many possible things can happen, what with the movement abilities, and the advisor switching, and the roles changing hands, etc. Again, not a bad thing, but not something I appreciate as much in a game so devoid of meaningful theme. (Note to self: keep entries shorter...)

Tom: (Note to self: bring duct tape next time). I agree that the game is "wooly" (to use your slightly irrelevant term) rather than "no luck". It's for that purpose that I enjoy it, as I'm not a huge fan of games that are entirely devoid of luck (such as Chess or the Gipf
series). Another reason I enjoy it is for the simple reason that the game does not depend on victory points, as the majority of Eurogames do. I found this refreshing, and my gaming group all immediately had a higher opinion of it. Usually, when I introduce a new game, I state: “the object of this game is...", and the entire group choruses "to get the most points." Maharaja is a pleasant exception to that rule - and simple to understand.

Jeremy: *LOL* Tom, how is "wooly" irrelevant if you agree with me? =) As for your point to the unusual win condition, I guess it takes more than changing the goal for me to get excited about a game. I did like the idea of palaces being the win condition, but it still doesn't ring my proverbial bell. For me this game comes back to one thing we can't argue about: neither I, nor anyone I played with, was impressed with the game. (And, yes, I did win several games of it!) I literally had to bribe my gamers with their favorite game to be played afterward for them to agree to play Maharaja! I also had Java with me this summer (a game I compared Maharaja to above), and it was Java that drew a very favorable response, despite its longer play time -- and this with more casual gamers!

Tom: Well, I've had the absolute opposite experience. Almost everyone I've played the game with has loved it, with a few who only marginally enjoyed it. It's one of the top two strategic games of 2004 (with the other being Goa), and is a superb game - one that has a lot of "aoffter-game" talk. I'm a very thematic person - and while I usually require a game to have a full-blown game to enjoy it, Maharaja is the exception to the rule - with opportunities to explore different strategies and tactics. Great components, simplistic rules (for a heavy game), and tremendous components make for an excellent game. I give Maharaja a "9" out of ten, although I would only play it with "gaming" groups, as it is certainly not a light game.

Jeremy: Maharaja is something of a conundrum to me. It is a very elegant and clean design, but the aesthetic and lack of theme really hurt the game. The real kicker is that the game never seems to really "wow" me. Too brainy to be non-gamery; too unpredictable to be gamery; too much planning to be completely unpredictable! There are other
games just as clever that have a better mesh of mechanics and theme, even this year, 2004, I would pick Power Grid as a much better gamer game. Throw in the fact that out of 10 'guinea pigs' only one ever wanted to play Maharaja again, and I just can't get enthused about it.

Tom's Rating: 9 out of 10
Jeremy's Rating: 5 out of 10


Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 200 reviews which can be found at www.boardgamegeek.com, and plays games solely to have fun.

Jeremy Avery writes reviews for www.funagain.com, and is the designer of www.geocities.com/yahugaming - a web page devoted to helping people learn more about 'German' games.

Back to the Musings... directory.