Pax Pamir: Second Edition Review

Year Published: 2019

Players: 1-5

Playing Time: 45-120 Minutes

If you were to assign a score to people or factions in history, how would you do it? As in, how do you choose winners and losers?

We all die, so a zero-sum condition seems illogical. Would you assign victory points for individual wealth? Geographic, military and/or political influence? Quality of life? Would these points be permanent, or would you allow them to be stripped away as empires, businesses or trends rise and fall?

Is this too broad a question to answer? Then perhaps we need to bind it within time to a specific timeframe. King of the hill at a predetermined point is the champion, perhaps, even if we know, off-camera, that that victory is as ephemeral as any other in the annals of history.

This is a thought experiment without a definite answer. But it’s worth thinking about in the context of games that pose historical questions. What does victory look like? To what extent is a victory permanent? Is it possible to win in one way, but lose in others? In life, certainly. But in a game, this question becomes more problematic.

I’d personally love to see a campaign game someday that is ultimately unwinnable. The final rounds become a fatalistic war of attrition, the only victories being in how long you can stave off the inevitable. Dour, perhaps, but fascinating as a study in resiliency, if properly executed.

Until then, though, we have most board games, which feel compelled to reward someone as the definite victor.

I don’t ask this question idly. Pax Pamir, 2nd Edition (PP2e) changed its victory conditions from one edition to another – and from earlier games in its Pax lineage – and it’s the single biggest difference between them. Not the only difference, of course. But the one with the most downstream effects. Let’s work our way back to this point via gameplay.

Pax Pamir Second Edition – The Basics of Gameplay

Many Pax games play out similarly on the surface. A market of cards is available for purchase and playable into personal tableaus. These cards affect one of numerous sub-systems in the game that are common to all players, each of whom is maneuvering for victory through a variety of schemes and stratagems.

Additionally, personal tableaus aren’t actually personal, and can be manipulated or removed by the right counter-measures.

The settings are broadly historical (except when they’re not), the gameplay is tense and interactive, and rarely will someone win without having to be an absolute bastard to others at the table. Here it’s “The Great Game” of Afghani leaders in the 19th century attempting to collect power and influence after the fall of the previous empire. To do so, you’ll need to align with foreign empires hoping to exert their influence in the area, via gains both tangible and intangible in a proxy war.

Its Board Game Geek categorization or marketing copy might not label it as a full wargame, but it has many such tendencies.

The Fiddle Formula

It’s my kind of game, with the notable exception of the density of the rules and mechanics of the game. The best Pax games are intricately woven tapestries that tie intimately to the thematic whole. But simulationist touches combined with the number of subsystems in play means that there’s a formidable learning curve and occasional cruft to sift through before you find the good stuff.

This is a common trait of both Pax games and games from designer Cole Wehrle. I have bounced violently off of some of his other designs because they felt too convoluted and procedural to engage deeply with the more visceral thematic elements. So it’s with some relief that I can say that PP2e is the first of his designs I’ve played where I don’t feel as though there’s that barrier between me and the immediacy of my Afghan campaign. And crucially, there’s no opaque barrier between me and the other players around the table.

In the crunchiest of Wehrle’s design, I feel like an accessory to the proceedings, not a driver of it. Here, though, I’m in the driver’s seat. The simulationist fiddle is still present, but it’s in the margins. The whole of the thing plays smoothly and intuitively.

The Dance of Empires

You only have two actions on your turn, and somewhat punitive limits on hand size and tableau size. But everything is negotiable.

Add the right cards to your tableau and the card limits increase. Manipulate the region’s conditions shrewdly through card plays and you can tease your possible actions on a turn significantly higher than two.

However. Everything is also exploitable. Ah, yes, you have a lock on a particular region, but the key to that region is a political leader in your tableau. A leader who can be assassinated.

Or your silent network of spies that slowly but surely dwindles as you earn the attention of one too many opponents after an early lead.

The card market is a fickle dance partner, but also one that will always have something of value for you. But also for everyone else. Your best play may even be to purchase a card simply to ensure it’s not used against you.

Where this will gain or lose some followers is in a couple key facts:

• Long-term planning is relative, because you won’t be keeping many of the cards you purchase and play for more than a portion of the game. Engine-building this is not.
• This makes the environment both tactical and cutthroat. The latter descriptor cannot be overstated. Pax games are rough to newcomers, and cruelty is baked into the premise. I happen to adore these elements, even when I’m at the receiving end of them. But many others won’t.

Adjust your interest accordingly.

The Enemy of My Enemy is…Well, It Depends

Driving the scoring are up to four dominance checks, which look for a couple different conditions. But each is related to how well you’re doing with your chosen empire. Do the British have a monopoly on infrastructure and armies? Better be loyal to them heading into the next check. Or if no faction is dominant, it’s your personal loyalty to them that matters, in the form of your network of gifts and spies.

You can swap loyalties, and will sometimes want to. But it generally comes with a cost of some of your existing influence. Minimizing the need to pivot is important, just as pivoting at the right time can be.

Where this gets hairier is that there are only three factions, but up to five possible players. I’ve seen games where all three players in a 3P game were aligned with the same faction for much of the game. This reframes victory entirely, and focuses it on certain actions and cards.

The good news is that in creating shared faction incentives, the odd truces you’ll have with some opponents are delicious and nuanced. You might leave a juicy card for them to buy that will also help you slightly, while simultaneously removing one of their spies via a betrayal. Uneasy alliances abound, which is a rich environment for play.

At its worst, though, it puts some people in weird situations where their only possible actions seem counterintuitive and only barely helpful. Three out of three players all aligned with the Russians is not as exciting a game as one where each player has a different horse in the race. But if two are entrenched with the Russians and the third can’t compete militarily with them, there’s little choice.

Proponents of the game will say that there are always ways to pivot cleverly, but I think it’s uncontroversial to say there are points at which actions are more or less prescribed by the game state and/or card market. This isn’t bad necessarily; it just behooves us to recognize this.

Keeping Score In Unwinnable Battles

Which brings us around to scoring. Pax Pamir 2nd edition changes its scoring structure from its first edition, and also from earlier Pax games. I’m familiar with various in the line, but I’m most familiar with Pax Porfiriana, which provides a useful comparison to highlight Pamir’s strengths and possible weaknesses. Porfiriana has a very zero-sum win state. It’s all or nothing for each of its four victory checks (or “Topples” in the game’s parlance).

By contrast in scoring, PP2e features four dominance checks, and victory points are awarded based on a couple possible parameters. Either a faction (say, Russia) is dominant, and VPs are awarded based on loyalty to Russia. Or no one is particularly dominant, so VPs shift to being based on your personal network of informants and lackeys. After a faction-dominance check, much of the board state will wipe.

Is this change superficial? Hardly. For one, it sets up a series of mini contests, wherein you will sometimes ignore an entire Check, instead setting yourself up for success in later checks. It’s not uncommon to do this, reloading for a longer-term push while conceding some points in the short-term. Contrast this with Porfiriana, where if you ignore the game state outside your tableau before a Topple, it’s likely you are handing the victory to an opponent.

Similarly, the board wipes sometimes make things feel like a series of unconnected mini-games, whereas a singular campaign for victory in Porfiriana creates a different narrative arc.

There is historical reasoning behind this change. It aims to simulate the ephemeral presence of these factions in the region. Getting what they need, then departing, and leaving a vacuum of power in their wake. It’s sobering and interesting from this perspective.

But is it more fun? I don’t mean to reduce history to a plaything. But Pax Pamir is an object for play as much as it’s a statement on history. This side must be addressed.

The answer isn’t a simple yes or no, of course.

One delightful aspect of this new scoring system is the creation of shared incentives. Porfiriana and others are too zero-sum for this. You’re never truly interested in someone else furthering their own ends. Here, though, you might be, particularly when you realize that there are only three factions to align with but the game holds up to five players! This opens the door for all sorts of offbeat stratagems.

The potential downsides include the fact that the victory point crawl sometimes reduces the fever pitch of drama and tension I feel throughout sessions of Porfiriana. The fact that the final dominance check doubles the possible victory points is, I assume, a necessity of game design (otherwise many players would be out of contention too early for comfort). But it also robs some of the tension from earlier checks. Yes, you can have an early end if you develop enough of a lead, triggering endgame instantly. But this will rarely happen, particularly among experienced players.

This same design decision can lead to thrilling climaxes near game’s end, but occasionally lackluster midgames. “Who cares about check #3?” you might ask. “I knew no one was going to end the game instantly, and I’m planning for the 4th and final check.” This is not an ideal situation for maintaining engagement.

It also relates back to my first question about where you stop keeping score in history. Why is this fourth dominance check more important? Yes, it’s the last in our game, but history continues past it, as we know. Why is that point worth more than all the effort I put into the first three checks? It’s here that the historical angle begins to give way to the practical considerations of gameplay.

I like the change of pace Pamir provides relative to Porfiriana, truly. But it also feels more arbitrary to me at times. I also can’t help but occasionally miss the more visceral and cutthroat moments of Porfiriana, where you aren’t just hindering an opponent’s campaign with punitive actions, you’re murdering it in a darkened back alley.

My conclusion is that the scoring change is thematic, thoughtful, inviting of interestingly shared incentives, which are all magnificent. But it also lacks the most visceral gut-punches that a binary win state produces. I’ve been buffeted by the winds of fate in PP2e, but never had the wind truly knocked out of me.

Which makes it a personal preference. I’ll happily concede that Pamir’s system will rub fewer people the wrong way, so it’s certainly the more accessible and broadly appealing system (also owing to its superior legibility compared to earlier Pax games). For me, it’s an impressive achievement, thematically, historically and through gameplay. But it’s not quite my favorite among its peers.

Pax Pamir 2e – Conclusions

History…what a mess! And it really kind of is here. Switch allegiances to further your own ends, backstab supposed allies to remain on top, and maneuver through shifting political climates to wield the most influence.

In other words, broadly accurate to much of history in general.

The game is also quite fun, and streamlined enough that it avoids the problems I sometimes have with rules-dense systems. Cole Wehrle’s games are invariably interesting, but many are buried beneath too much procedural and mechanical clutter for me to enjoy them.

Not so here. Mostly, at least. I won’t call it an easy teach, but neither is it as intimidating as something like Porfiriana (or the even more dense Pax Renaissance). Therefore, it’s one I can feel more confident in bringing to the table with those who haven’t played before. That counts for a lot, and it makes Pax Pamir 2e an important entry in a game lineage that has many hardcore fans but few easy points of access to grok and appreciate its depths.