Saint Petersburg

(upbeat music) - Welcome to Replayable, where we go into depth on our favorite tabletop games that keep us coming back again and again. I'm the start player Todd, and today I'm joined by Greg and Paul, for our 24th episode, we will revisit a game of the year from two decades ago, St. Petersburg. It was designed by Bern Brunhofer with artwork by Doris Mathaus. It was released by Hansem Glück in 2004. A second edition was released in 2014. Are you two ready to go paint some onion domes?

(speaks in foreign language) I mean, let's play nice. (laughing) Wow, I'm ready. St. Petersburg is a card game with four distinct phases, the worker phase, the building phase, the aristocrat or noble phase, and then the upgrade phase. At most, only eight cards are displayed, so leaving one spot open at the end of a phase means only one card of the next phase will be revealed. Players have to carefully manage their money and their opportunities to win.

The game ends at the end of a round when at least one deck is exhausted. Let's talk about that for a second. It's hard to believe that this game is 20 years old. And we keep playing it. (laughing) Yeah, it's been around the whole time I've been playing Euro games. It's amazing. Yeah, I look back and I found I first played it in 2009. Ah, okay. Yeah, it's probably around when I first played it.

I remember I traded for this game towards the end of 2005, so I started playing it then and I had played it a couple of times online. Back then, we were playing on Brett Spielwald, and they had a really good implementation of it digitally, and I was really excited to get a physical copy. And were you able to play a single player on BSW? Oh, dude. I played single player Saint Pete so much. (laughing) I like reinstalled BSW across multiple systems just to go back and play solo Saint Pete's again.

I really enjoyed that puzzle. Did you ever try it solo? No, I have not. I've never played it solo either. It's a completely different game, obviously, and it comes down to controlling the rate at which cards are revealed. Of course, you're trying to get out the workers as quickly as possible and then save your buildings before they drop off at the end of the next round where they're all on the bottom row. And this is all because you want the game to last

as long as possible in one player, right? That is true. You want as many turns, and most importantly, you want to have a turn going through the building phase in particular because that's where all your points are largely being scored. But what do you guys remember about the game? What did you first like about Saint Petersburg? Greg, why don't you get us started?

For me, I don't want to say it's the simplicity of it 'cause I know it didn't feel simple the first time I played, but maybe the elegance of it. You just go through these phases and each time you have very limited actions of what you can do, it's just buy something or don't. And seeing how despite its simplicity, it's got a lot of depth to it. I remember being surprised at how those decisions snowball into the game changing in completely different directions.

And that was, it was kind of an eye opening that you didn't need like a complex game to make a complex outcome. Right, I'd agree with that. Paul, how about you? For me, it was the nuance. You know, I think my first couple of games are like, why does that guy have so many more workers than me? Right.

And eventually I realized, oh, during the upgrade phase of the previous turn, you have to see who's gonna be the chair and then count how many cards are gonna come out so that based on your seating order, the right number, modular, your chair number come out so you can get the same number of workers as everybody else, at least in the early game. Right. And once I realized that you had to do that, I was in. I loved it. Yeah, no, that's exactly what I was talking about, Paul.

And nuance is a much better word than I came up with. It's also trying to keep track of the spending ability each of the other players have, right? And not overspending, especially at the end of that aristocrat phase because you will get money from your nobles, if you have any. In the first round, you'll be lucky to get a paltry sum back.

But if you spend any money in the upgrade phase, it's like you just spent your bankroll to buy new workers, which means someone else may get your worker that you carefully marshaled at spots that it would be available to you, but now you don't have the money to buy it. I agree with you. What I was reflecting on there is that, I think I've solved this game three or four times and of course now I know that it's not that simple.

But, you know, I mean, kind of like what Paul was saying, the first time, first solution is, you know, realizing, oh, you've got to make sure you can buy more workers every round so you can increase your income. Then it's, oh no, it's all about the buildings. You've got to get buildings early 'cause that's how you make tons of points before the end. And then it's the nobles. Each time I was proven wrong by somebody going a different direction and completely destroying me.

So it's one of the great things about the game is there is no one solution. It really is about paying attention to what other people are doing, right? - So you're saying that there's no concrete strategy that you can follow in this one? - I think you have to watch what other people are doing and make sure that you're not letting them exploit any single strategy. - Right? - While trying to do so yourself. (laughing) - Paul, what do you think?

- My experience, there's really two major strategies, aristocrats or buildings. And I think aristocrats are more forgiving and they tend to win more often because the building strategy, you're gonna be poor. You're gonna have a lot less money than everybody else. And because of that, you're gonna be trying to make the game short. Whereas if you're going aristocrats, you're getting more money and you wanna collect even more aristocrats.

If you can get that eighth or ninth aristocrat, that's amazing. And so you want the game to last a long time. - Okay, that's kind of blowing my mind that you might have different strategies with different speeds to them. Do you think that that's true? It's buildings versus aristocrats across all player accounts. - Oh, I'm gonna say I don't know enough (laughing) to answer that question. (laughing) - Yeah, I think it's easier to do in a three player game, to do an aristocrat game.

But then again, I also feel like it's easier to do a good building game. - I just, yeah, I don't know that there's a single answer to that. - I think the builder strategy is easiest and four player because you get the fewest number of turns already. - Right. - That's true. I mean, this harkens back to a simpler time, right? The idea of scaling, that's right. The idea of scaling per player is really is whether you deal four, six or eight workers to begin with. And that's it.

You don't change the number of cards in the decks or anything like that. - Not like nowadays. (laughing) - Right, you're new fangled, set up configurations. (laughing) - The last episode was about Cascadia. And there you're taking out 20, 40 card, 20, 30 cards, something like that based on player count, just so that you can make sure that everybody gets exactly 20 turns, right? That's how that game is. But it's a lot more involved to set it up than St. Pete's was 20 years ago. - Yeah, 100%.

- Just to harken back to single player, I mentioned that in that game, the idea was to have as many turns through the buildings as possible. So you wanted it to be long, but you were also focusing on all the buildings 'cause eventually you would get max points for aristocrats, right? There's one player. No one's competing with you for them. And for the longest time, I felt like that was the scale. Like it started out at one player, obviously strong buildings. Two players buildings were strong.

Three players was a nice balance. And four players I felt tipped in favor of aristocrats because not everybody is going to get the full compliment of 10. And one aristocrat can make the difference. Whereas at two players, chances are you're both gonna get max score out of those orange cards. - Mm-hmm. Yeah, two players are very different game than four. - Yeah. Like Paul said, the game is shorter at four players. You play fewer rounds.

And so I always feel like you have less time to make up the points on buildings. Like you can't catch up. - That's true. I feel like in a three player game, even if you're behind in the aristocrats game, if you've gotten your good scoring building out there early enough, they're the ones playing catch up. - Right. - I don't know. That's how I find four player to be. You pull out into the early lead and you just have to end the game before everybody else catches up.

- Yeah. - You get that theater or academy out there and... (laughing) Yeah, I mean, in our online game, I seriously considered going for a turn two academy. I can't believe that thing's gonna fall off the board either, but no one's buying it. - I've been suckered into that too many times, grabbing it right. - I don't wanna see it go away. And then it's sitting and being a dead weight in my hand. - Oh yeah, you don't put it in your hand.

(laughing) Which I think brings up another really fun part of the game. And that's the brinksmanship of leaving a discounted card on the table. - Yes. - I'm seeing who's gonna spend the money for it first. - If anyone. - Right. I mean, sometimes I'm like, I really want that card. Do I put it in my hand? Or do I let it become discounted? Hoping nobody else takes it. - Right. - Yeah. I find that, for me at least, that mostly applies to the inexpensive buildings.

Like the, can't remember names right now, but I have won the game on inexpensive buildings. So like, I always take it to market and customs house. - Yeah, market and customs house, exactly. Those are the two. If you can get a good set of those going, it's like you're basically getting free points and it just keeps getting bigger every round. - Yeah, if you play every market, I mean, you're getting a point for every ruble you spend. - Yeah. - Right.

And by the end, they only cost you one because you're getting discounts from the other ones you've already played. - Exactly. - But that's when, you know, you can't leave it in the discount row because somebody'll snatch it up for four just to keep it from you. But like you said, there's a brinksmanship to it. In this last online game that we've been playing, a bunch of markets came out in the first round and kind of blew that strategy out of the water 'cause everybody has one.

- Well, we all have them in our hands for the most part. - That's right. (all laughing) - It's true. - What did they draw on the wrist to crack? - Yes. - We wanted that opportunity, which is another interesting part of the game because seating order is really important, right? You want the first selection. You want to be seating first so you have the best selection of what's going to be revealed. But there was a turn there where I think I went first or Greg went first.

He and I both went and our best play was to pass because anything we took was going to give Dave the first aristocrat view. And then we would need to take an additional card to make room for our own opportunities if we wanted one. So it was like, nope, just past the Dave, let him be the first one to take a card, even though Greg was sitting first and I was second or vice versa, whichever way it ran.

- That's one of the things that really appeals to me about this game is that we did that because we were so focused on increasing our money income. And that's because it was the beginning of the game. But when it comes to be the end of the game, your focus completely shifts to victory point income, right?

And so this is one of those games and I don't feel like there's a lot of them anymore, but it very simply and completely gives us the essence of identifying the point in time when you wanna switch from generating income of money to generating income of points, right? - Yeah, I don't know. This one I never felt like had that turnover like some games do. This one always feels like it's more of, you buy those income cards, you're not, and you start making income.

I think it's more an issue of, I think you had it right. The first time you were talking about aristocrats versus buildings, there's not like a turnover point where you're going, okay, I'm gonna stop buying workers. I mean, at some point you maybe say, okay, it's not where the game's gonna end in one round. That worker's not gonna, I'm not gonna even gonna make the money I spend on them. That makes sense, but otherwise, I don't know. It doesn't, it's never felt like there's a switch that I make.

It seems to me that it's more of, where do I invest my money? Am I gonna invest it in buildings? And am I ready to start making some big investments in buildings to try to get some big points to try to catch up? Or am I gonna just keep trying to control the aristocrats so that I get a big differential there? I don't know. - Right, I agree with Paul in the aspect that there comes a time where it feels like you are set on money. Like you're gonna be able to buy just about anything that you want.

In fact, if you're lucky enough to have one or both of the pubs, you start thinking, when can I start shedding money and turning them into points at a better exchange rate than at the end of the game? - Fair enough. - You're no longer worried about being able to pay for stuff, and then it does become a, how do I acquire more points? So I think it does happen, but it doesn't happen at the same time.

And I agree with what you were saying, Greg, then you started thinking about how do I control the next most likely phase, whether that's how do I get more access to a wider array of nobles for myself so I can pick up a unique one or have first crack at the upgrades so that I can find a unique noble in there or perhaps a high value building upgrade. - You guys are making me reevaluate how I view the game, and I... (laughing) Yeah, I guess I see it differently.

I mean, to me, every turn, I think, okay, I'm gonna have this much money to spend. - Yeah. - Do I wanna spend it on making more money because I think the game is gonna last several more turns, or do I wanna focus on spending it to get points because I think the game is gonna end soon? That's my mindset when I'm playing, just like, okay, I can see that. - Okay. - And I guess, I just view that not as a binary decision.

For me, it's something that as time goes on, you're going to have more money to spend and you're going to be spending more of it on getting points. - Right. - And so it's just kind of something that shifts over time for me based on what becomes available. - You're saying it's a gradual change. - A change, for me, it is, and it's almost... - It's not a gear change, it's just a very gradual thing.

- And it's a tactical decision based on what comes out and how many cards I see coming out, that kind of thing. - So speaking of stuff that you can see, this game was originally printed with, I thought, really good looking paper money. And we have since, you know, when we play, we often play with iron clays 'cause we use them whenever we possibly can, but money is supposed to be hidden. What are your thoughts about that?

Should money be hidden or should it be public because it is theoretically trackable? - It's trackable. This is the age old hidden trackable information. - It totally is. And this game is like the poster's round for it. - Absolutely, it is. - By the way, I know how much money each of you have in our online game 'cause I'm tracking it in my notes. - You see?

- I don't know, I mean, I have always kind of, I don't know, maybe I'm just handicapping myself then 'cause I've always kind of had the mindset of, like, I don't wanna sit there and try to figure it out. I don't, you know, I'll honor the rules, the design of the game. It's because the money is designed that it has a side that doesn't show you what the value is. It's, you know, it's not monopoly money. - This is true. - You're not gonna guilt me into erasing my notes.

- No, I'm not trying to, you know, but, you know, it'll just give me that much more pride when I beat you. - There you go, I like it. - I honestly, even when I'm playing face to face with the original components, I track how much money everybody has for the first two turns and then I don't care anymore. - Right, yeah. - And I think that's when it matters most, is those first couple of turns, is he gonna have enough money to buy that first round mistress? - Mistress of ceremonies.

(laughing) - Dave came up one ruble short. (laughing) But I wasn't tracking that, so I wouldn't know that. - I knew that was gonna happen. (laughing) - Yeah, so the situation in the armor of the recent game was Dave was first in aristocrats and I was second.

And so when it came time for me to take a building, I had to think, do I want to put a building in my hand so that a second aristocrat comes out, which almost certainly means that Greg and Todd are gonna take buildings so that four aristocrats come out. - I'm not gonna deny myself an aristocrat if you've opened the door. - Exactly, or do I want to just not take an aristocrat so that only one is turned over.

And the reason for this thought process is that a turn one mistress of ceremonies is really overpowered in this game. Getting six income a turn for only 18 plus three points a turn right out of the gate on the first turn almost guarantees you victory. - Right, and this is the original version of the game with this mistress. - Yeah, so I mean, that's my story.

What happened was I counted Dave's money and I realized he could not afford the mistress so I took the building and a whole bunch of aristocrats came out and one was the mistress. - Right. - Which Dave ended up putting in his hand. - Yes. - Which then caused subsequent problems when he started trying to figure out how he was gonna get it out even in the second round. - Right. (laughing) - Trying to have his cake and eat it too, yeah. - Exactly.

- It's weird because some people house rule this because they realize how broken it is to get a mistress on turn one. But you can mitigate that by making sure only one aristocrat comes out turn one. - Right, there are ways the game offers. And in our case, so you made the informed decision and turned out to be correct. We had also lucked into something and it had to do with the way those starting tokens came out.

Dave didn't have enough money because he went last in the worker phase or the craftsman phase. - Very true. - His two workers were max cost, right? He had to pick up a ship builder and the Zaraan carpenter for a total of 15 of his starting 25. - For a trader, but I think he made 14, but still. - Okay, yeah, that's minus eight from 25, so. - Well, and it doesn't always come out that way. Sometimes everybody gets too cheap workers, so.

- Yeah, well, and that's what I'm saying is we kind of stumbled into a situation where there was no way Dave was gonna be able to afford a first round mistress and it was almost by accident, but it also felt supremely balanced for this instance of the game. - It did, felt like a nice offset. - Yeah, it's been a lot of fun. When things like this happen during a game in St. Petersburg, that's what really draws me and it makes me want to play more. - So let's talk about the artwork.

So there have been two editions and the first one. - Oh, do we have to? - Yeah, the first edition has been, you either love it or you hate it, right? It's either quirky and lovable or it's juvenile and almost reprehensible. What are your thoughts on the artwork? - Well, so the original edition is in the style of Russian folk art, and one thing I'm very used to it, but I also think it's good, especially the box cover. And then the second edition, it's in kind of a Renaissance style, I think.

- Yes. - Which I don't really associate with Russia. It's more of just a time period, not a geographical location or a culture. - Yes, I agree with that. So you're saying that you like the artwork of the original edition a little bit better because it more closely associates with imperialist era Russia. - I do also, I used to be a fan of Renaissance art and went to museums to look at it. And unfortunately, the second edition, in my opinion, is not good Renaissance art.

Okay, you know, the thing that I prefer the first edition and I admit, I openly admit, there's a lot of nostalgia there as well because it's what I played online. It's the copy I had, I grew accustomed to it. I just prefer it all together. - Yeah, I was surprised when I found out that this game was printed in 2004 because I don't wanna pick on the game too much 'cause it's like, it's a beloved game. I like the game and at this point, the art is the art and I wouldn't want it any other way.

I don't need it any other way, it works in it. But to me, it looks like designer drawn art, not like artist. (laughs) - Right, drawn art. So it definitely gives it its own unique flavor. - Got it, okay. - I love the artwork, you know, as part of the game and I'll just leave it at that. - Okay, one other thing I wanted to talk about Paul, you said that if you were going with the building strategy and you wanted the game to be short before people had a chance to spin up their aristocrat bonuses.

So the game ending condition was the first time that I ever recall having separate decks and any one of them getting exhausted would trigger the end of the game and I thought that was fascinating. What are your thoughts about that game ending criteria? - It reminds me of classic two player strategy games where the game end is controlled by the players. In two player games, it's because you beat somebody else but in a multiplayer game, it's a lot harder to do.

So yeah, I'm not really, I can't recall any other games before that, that let the players decide when the game was over. - Well, I do have one or two, but we'll talk about those in a bit. - Okay. - Yeah, I think there are other games that prior to this let the games, but not in the same way. I think this one is kind of like, it's a ticking clock and you decide how fast it ticks and... - Right.

- And there's four timers and you don't know which one's gonna be the one that's never gonna be upgrades but... (both laughing) There are three... - Three timers. - Three timers.

(both laughing) But you know, you don't know at the start of the game, you don't know which one's gonna be the one that sets the game off and it's always kind of ironic to me that it's not necessarily the one that you want the most that sets it off because like if people are going really heavy into buying aristocrats and upgrades because you know, upgrades 'cause they wanna upgrade their buildings and aristocrats, that's what makes all of a sudden, you know, a huge swath

of craftsmen come out when nobody cares about them anymore. So it's kind of always been weird is it's not just the deck that you buy heavy into doesn't necessarily mean that that one's gonna be the timer that runs out first. - It's weird thing, right. - That's what I was gonna say.

The trick of the builder strategy and the trick to end of the game quickly is to not take any cards because you basically leave all these unwanted cards in the row, they get discounted, they're still in the row and then at the end of the upgrade phase, all discounted cards are gone and so we see a whole bunch of craftsmen. So you buy all the craftsmen, you let super expensive buildings come out and just sit there until they get wiped off.

- Yeah, so the craftsman deck is usually the first one to go because you're trying to employ this trick of using the automatic clearing of discounted cards. - Right, so without let's move on to the prompts, wait in complexity on board game geek scale of one to five, how would you rate the complexity of St. Petersburg? Greg, why don't you get us started? - I have this out of two. I mean, the decisions are so simple. Do you buy a card or do you put a card in your hand or not?

It's a straightforward income, straightforward points. Even though there's a lot of depth to it, it's not a complex game. - Right, I would agree with that. Paul, how about you? - The same too. I think the designer did a wonderful job in removing complexity. - And I also had it as a two, so we're unanimous on this one. I used to think it was a complex game when I was first learning it, but now it's a two in my book and I don't know if that's just proficiency alone.

- I think it's kind of the epitome of elegance and design in that sense, where it's like it's a really simple things you're doing every turn, but the complexity is through the player interactions and then the situations on the board that are set up based on decisions that have been made. And so it develops into a unique solution every time. - Right, totally agree. All right, so strategy, how much opportunity do you think there is for a strategy in long-term planning?

Same scale, one to five, Paul? - I think it's a three. Like I said, I think there's a couple overarching strategies, but the game is mostly tactical, right? You actually had it down as a two for largely that same reason, right? The hardest thing is keeping track of your income and how you're going to spend it throughout that round, but then it's largely, what's the card selection that comes out? You can mitigate it by controlling the spots, but it's still luck.

You might get the exact card you're looking for at the right time. What did you have, Greg? You can be the tiebreaker. - I got it at a three, so. - All right, there's enough planning ahead where you're trying to manipulate that card row and trying to figure out, you know, how to deal with the cards that you've put in your hand and things like that, and whether or not you even should put a card in your hand that there's some strategic depth there in long-term planning.

Then after you've made those decisions, then there's just a lot of tactical decisions to bring it to fruition. - Okay, then luck. How much do you think luck plays a factor? Same scale, one to five. - I went back and forth a lot on this. - Yeah. - So I just ended up as three. (all laughing) - I mean, you know, we've all seen those games where like we've already talked about it with the mistress. Somebody gets that mistress turn one and can afford it. It's like, okay, do we wanna finish?

Do we wanna play this out? Or do we wanna just start over it? You know, and there have been certainly times where I've been in the other situation where it's like, I've been just wanting a unique aristocrat to come out on my turn. And then, you know, four authors come out, like, okay, well, I guess I'm getting an author, you know? - Right, or another Phil Collins. (all laughing) - Nice. - So luck is definitely a factor.

And, you know, so I put it at a three, it's pretty strong, but I don't know that I wanna go to four or five just 'cause you make your own luck in how you set up those opportunities right now. - I agree, I had it down as a three for the same reason. You control how much opportunity for luck there will be by paying attention to the player order and how many cards are going to come out. I had it down as a three as well. The theme, how much do we think the theme has been integrated with this game?

(all laughing) - You couldn't even give a straight face. - I totally couldn't. (all laughing) I don't know, maybe it's the nostalgia, but I graciously give this a two. (all laughing) I had the exact same thing. - I think you have to be a fan of Russian folk art to give it a two. I don't feel like I'm connected at all to the theme when I'm playing this game. Except through the artwork, which I only like because it's part of this game. So it doesn't evoke anything of Russian SARS.

And I don't even know that I'm sure what we're supposed to be in this game or what we're doing. So. (all laughing) - It doesn't matter. Is that a one from you then, Greg? - That's a one from me, yeah. - Got it. Okay, so favorite player count. What is the game best played at? - Oh, is it? - Is it? Oh yeah. (all laughing) Well, then what's the answer, Greg? - Four. - Yeah, I would agree with that. (all laughing) I mean, it's still play a three. - It's a four-player game.

- Yeah, you get four pieces of wood to determine who's going first in each of the four phases. - Oh yeah. - And if you play with any other number, that's gonna be imbalanced. - Excuse it. Especially if somebody gets like first in both workers and aristocrats. - At the beginning of the game, yeah, that's crazy. - Yes. And in fact, that will be a recurring theme in some of the later questions coming up. (all laughing) So I agree for that exact reason.

With four people playing, the game's gonna move along, the game's gonna be shorter, and you get a good even distribution of those starting tokens. So then what's your least favorite player count? Keeping in mind now, first edition, the options are two to four. I think the second edition is one to five. So I will accept anything along those ranges. - You know, I honestly, I tried, but I could not remember my five player plays with the expansion.

So I just picked two player because that's what I have the least amount of experience with. - Okay. - No other reason. - I don't think I've ever played it at two player. I'm actually curious now what it would be like. I mean, 'cause then both people get two tokens. I don't know. I would say three because I've played three enough to know that it's sub-par to four. But I've never played it at two. So I can't, I don't wanna say two.

So I've played it from one to five and I will say that three is my least favorite and it has to do again to those tokens. - Yeah. - 'Cause even though they get rotated, one person is going to get two and even in a two player game, each person gets two. So that's fair. - Yeah. - But three ends up creating someone that is going to get a little ex-gulge. - An imbalance, right?

- And if that magic combo happens, if you manage to draw the chair and the noble so that you're going first in the worker face and the aristocrat phase, that could be unfortunate for everybody else. - Right. - Fortunate for you though. (laughs) So how about the actual playing time? So boxes can lie. This box says 45 to 60 minutes in the first edition. And then I thought this was funny. In the second edition, it just flat out says 60 minutes.

- I don't have good data, but my feeling is that the game is almost always done in less than an hour. - Yeah, right here. I don't ever track play times. So I always depend on you guys for that data, but I know when I first started playing it, it would play it for an hour and a half, probably, 'cause we were trying to figure the game out, but at this point, when we play it, yeah, it's under an hour. - Yeah. I've got some recorded plays with playing time going back not 20 years, but more than 10.

And I find that it usually runs anywhere from 50 to 60 minutes. So that's pretty close, right? Maybe 65 if it was a particularly long game. So I would say that the box estimate is actually spot on and the second edition's deciding just to say 60, also defendable. - Nice. - So first edition or second edition, which one is the best? (laughing) - I adore the artwork as we discussed in the team. (laughing) So I'm going with first edition.

- I haven't really taken much of a look at the other edition enough to know that it's not an improvement over the first edition, so I'm happy with the first edition. - Yeah. I also vastly prefer the first edition. Yeah, the art was quirky, but it also had a lot of character that I have grown to love. - One thing I will say in Defense of the Artwork is the iconography is more than serviceable. It is clear, it is plain, it is easy to use, and-- - It was ahead of its time.

- Yeah, from a graphic design point of view, I think the great name is great. And so, yeah, the first edition does a great job of it, and I don't know how you could improve it on that level. - Right. Well, and also there weren't until the expansion at least, there weren't special powers. So there wasn't a lot of extra information that needed to be included on the cards. - Right. I mean, you had the observatory and the pub, but even those, it's just a couple.

- Fair. - Yeah, but I think that leads into our next question, doesn't it? (laughs) - Isn't it nice how that works out? Yes, so there were several expansions for the second edition, and I am not familiar with them. - Ditto. - I know the first edition expansion and have a copy. It's called Banquet and the New Society. So there were two separate expansions that basically got bundled into one. One offered some special powers and some extra cards. That was the Banquet.

And then there was the New Society that added some extra cards, made the game a little longer, but also introduced some rebalanced cards. So let's talk about those. - Yeah, I've played it many times. - Yeah, I definitely played that a few times back in the day. - So they completely nerfed the mistress. (laughs) - Right? - And they also made the observatory more expensive.

And a few other changes that I didn't really feel were important, but I think they were all necessary for a longer duration game. - Right, and they also added the extra token for a fifth player, didn't they? - I think it's a shield. - Yeah, I was thinking it was a shield or a circle, but yeah. - Okay, it looks like it's a circle. - Oh, I was wrong. - Do you prefer to play with or without the expansion? Let's just stick to the New Society and the rebalanced cards.

I prefer playing without it, mostly because I love that the game takes less than an hour. And the expansion makes it take longer. Got it. - Yeah, I didn't feel like adding the extra cards or the extra player really added much to the game. I mean, it changed the game. It made it feel a little bit fresh at the time, but ultimately it was forgettable. Like, I have to go and research to find out what it did. You know what, just there, we couldn't even remember what the fifth player power was.

- Right. - So it's just not necessary. I guess if you were regularly playing with a group of five, it would make sense, but other than that. But there's so many better games to play at five that St. Petersburg's a great game at four, a great one hour filler at four. - I also prefer to play without the expansion. I know that there can be some crazy chaotic results if someone does get that first round mistress of ceremonies. And if that happens, that's fine. The game doesn't take that long.

I think that's part of its charm. But again, it's what I grew accustomed to. - Yeah, on the most recognizable comparison. What's the highest ranking game that is most like this one? - I'm choosing dominion. To me, there's a lot of similarities between not only, you know, just what you're doing each round, 'cause each round you're trying to add cards to your deck or tableau to increase your income abilities, to increase your ability to buy point generation cards.

Right, you know, and so there's a lot of similarities in kind of the theme and spirit of the game. Obviously the mechanisms for how it actually works from turn to turn are very different and that's great. But to me, there's a similar feel there of what you're trying to accomplish throughout the game. - Yeah, absolutely. - Agreed. - Paul, what did you have?

- I can't really think of a similar game to St. Petersburg, but I focused on the economy building, card play and transition from money to points. And I'd like to choose one of Todd's favorite games, San Juan. I feel like they do have a lot of similarity in how everybody's kind of doing the same phase at the same time and in the beginning, people are focusing on building up an economy and then by the end, they're chasing points. - Absolutely. Also released in 2004, by the way.

- Nice. - And the reason I know that is because the two of you managed to pick my first choice dominion and my backups and one, so congratulations, you win. (laughing) - I am sorry. - No, no, no, it's fantastic. - No, that's great. I mean, there's definitely something there that these games have a very similar-- - Connective tissue. - Connective tissue, that's, thank you. - The threads, the threads, yeah.

But yeah, I mean, the difference being, I think both of the games mentioned do have that big flip from, okay, I've been doing economy and now I'm switching over and I really need to start generating points. - Yeah, and the other part about dominion is that you have multiple decks of cards out there. - Yep. - And when two of them are exhausted, the game's over, right? - Yep, the decks are the timer, true, true.

- True. - So that was the other thing about dominion, especially that stood out to me and reminded me of St. Petersburg. - And San Juan has a similar in-game condition of getting to 10 cards in your tableau, right? - 12, but yes. - 12, sorry, thank you. So less recognizable comparison. What's another game that reminds you of St. Petersburg? Although for me, this was hard to find one that might be obscure. So I'm gonna be very relaxed in taking this one. - Yeah, I had a hell of a time too.

So I am gonna go with one of my favorites that is only slightly related and that is Phoenicia. It's an auction game. - Okay. - But it has the same arc of chasing economy first. And then points last. And I highly recommend people try it. It's actually a simplified version of Outpost. - So what I remember about that one, and I just double checked, that's another Thomas Lehman game. And he was involved in the expansion for St. Petersburg. - I did not realize that, thank you.

- Awesome. How about you, Greg? What is a less recognizable comparison that you have? - Well, you know, I thought I was choosing something outside the. .. (laughs) But apparently I didn't realize how highly ranked this game was 'cause I forgot to check. I chose, it's a wonderful world. - Okay. - It is highly ranked. Yeah, I looked at that. (laughs) It is very highly ranked. I didn't realize how highly ranked. It's new to me. So to me, it's like, oh, this is a new game.

But I chose that because it has to me to draft, but it to me has that similar feel of like, you have to decide early on how you're investing the income you currently have to generate more income for the next round and whether you're going to... Anyway, it just feels like it had to me, it feels similar somehow in that you have to carefully invest your income this turn to generate more income the next turn and snowball into, you know, hopefully having the highest points at the end.

- Right, awesome. I have yet to try that one. I picked a game that reminded me of players controlling the end of the game, specifically by exhausting a deck. I went with a classic two player game. The first time I ran into this mechanism and that would be Lost Cities.

And I remember playing this with my wife over and over again and we would take the cards and count up the bottom five and twist them 90 degrees and then the next five 90 degrees just so we had some semblance of a countdown timer to know when the game was coming close to ending.

And then you have that wonderful race of, okay, can I discard a card and prolong the game long enough to finish building out the expeditions that I have cards for before the other person just keep snapping them up and ends the game. And I just love that player controlled end of the game design choice. - Yeah. - So house rules, how would you tweak St. Petersburg? Do either of you have some thoughts here? - Well, we kind of touched on it earlier.

A lot of people choose to shuffle Mistress back in if she comes out on turn one. - Oh, okay, yeah. - I don't think I would play that way but it is definitely an option, all right? - Yeah, I'd like to see that mitigated a different way which is something else we've discussed already which is maybe look at the order of those tokens.

I think there might be like an optimal arrangement of those or at least maybe a suboptimal one to avoid but that would be the only thing I would maybe tweak is especially in like a two or three player game. You wanna make sure that you're not giving a player an undue advantage 'cause they have a better combo of tokens in the first round. - Mm-hmm, yeah. - I know I haven't shared my notes with you and yet you managed to hit it note for note. So well done, that's what I had too is that.

- We're all about just taking away your, your talking points. - Yeah, this is fantastic. - My agency. (both laughing) - My agency. - You're the host. - Yeah, yeah. I had the same thing, like there may be an optimized way to assign those starting tokens based on player count but other than that, I like the game as it is. And Paul I agree, I wouldn't be reshuffling the mistress back into the deck. Hopefully we had found a way around that.

So if this game is being played at game night, then what do you wanna play afterwards? What's the best double feature game to go along with it? Greg, why don't you start? - Don't have an answer for this one at the moment. (both laughing) I will start with Paul. Let me think for a second. - All right, Paul, why don't you start? - I wanna play something meaty and preferably one of the games we've talked about which are work replacement deck building games. - So just any one of them?

GWT, Dune Imperium or Lost Friends of Ardak, yeah. I'd be happy with any of those. And I think we've done that often where we play those games, maybe two of them, and then we're like, okay, we got 45 minutes. Oh, let's play St. Petersburg. - Right, because that's honestly where it has stayed in the rotation is at the end of an evening. And we have some time left that we're willing to spend and so we'll just grab it off the shelf and give it a play. - And that's how I think of it, yeah.

- Yeah, that's kind of how I feel about it. I don't know that this is a starter ever. I think this is a, you know, you have an hour left and you still wanna play something. This is a reliable filler for the end of the night. I don't, for me at least, I don't think this comes out before the end of the night. - Right, it's not the main event. - Right, and then, you know, it can come out after any game, you know, it doesn't matter. So it's long you've got four people and an hour to spend.

- Okay, it's a good filler for that. - I like those answers. I tried to stay on the Russian theme and so I would want to maybe play Russian railroads, or maybe even a little lighter and go with Red Cathedral, which we haven't played as a group, but I'm looking forward to that night when we do. - Yeah, I haven't tried that one yet. I'm looking forward to it. - All right, what feature of the game still stands out to you? So what has aged the best in the last 20 years?

(laughing) This game's got some age. - It does. - I already talked about this. St. Petersburg is the game I think about when I relate games that have focus on money in the beginning, focus on points at the end. And so I think that is the part of the game that has aged the best for me. - Excellent, it's a good one, Greg. - For me, this is really about the meta at the table.

You know, I mean, I mentioned this game feels really simple and there's not complex decisions, but what makes this game good is that when you're playing with people who you've played with before, or even if you haven't, but experienced players, that the game levels up with the players. So it's like, you know, you start seeing behavior that you wouldn't see a first time through.

And it's the first game for me that really had that quality of like, yeah, it's simple, but once everybody knows, you start avoiding the obvious tactics and you start going for deeper and deeper tactics. And so for me, that's what's aged really well, is that it still has that. It's still, you know, we can sit down, you know, four of us in our game group can play this and have a really good game.

Because it's simple enough that you still remember those strategies, but it's got depth enough that you have to watch out for what other people do. I don't know if I'd really, I don't really know if I specified a specific thing. I guess for me, it's the control of the card row and managing, you know, what cards come out at any given time is specifically what I was thinking about while I was saying that.

- Right, but also the meta around how a particular group is going to manage that, and that could change from group to group. - It probably does. I also had the game ending condition being controlled by the players and then we have four decks here and we can try to control the game and by exhausting any one of them. And I think that's just fantastic. I'd love to see that done elsewhere. What feature of the game now disappoints? What hasn't aged as well, besides the art? (laughing) - Burnt.

- Okay, now you took away my art and my art. (laughing) - Yeah, you know, it's, we kind of mentioned this before. - For me, it's the hidden track of all information. - True, true. (laughing) - So should, I mean, should your house rule and just play it with open knowledge? I mean, I prefer playing with poker chips like we talked about, so yeah, that's just open, yeah. - Yeah, I don't know.

I still feel like for me, the nostalgia of it and that's where I get hit by like, oh, I'll just play it like it's intended to play, you know? - Okay. - I don't feel like it has aged poorly in almost any aspect. I think it shows its age, but in the sense that it's a classic design, but I don't think it, it may be on the hidden track.

Well, the fact that it has that aspect to it, that I don't think games would have today, it maybe there's a better way, but I don't know if open money is the only way. - Right, yeah, the only criteria or nitpick I have and it really is a nitpick, is just that random assignment of starting tokens. And even that is completely bearable. So I really enjoy the game as it is. - Yeah. - The game replaced a previous one for you.

- You know, for me, this was early enough in my gaming renaissance that it doesn't. It came in and it made its own spot and it didn't really replace anything, but it has held a spot there for a long time. You know, it's dwindled in quantity of plays, but I'm kind of answering the next question too. But yeah, I mean, this is just kind of a game on its own. It'll feel like it replaced anything or has been for that matter.

- All right, Paul. It's interesting when I go back in the time machine of my recorded plays, it kind of looks like it replaced Notre Dame by Stefan Feld, but I cannot remember why. And I don't see the connection. So I'm just gonna say it didn't really replace anything. I'll go with the same answers, Greg. - Right. So I mentioned that I traded for this game back in 2005 and back then I traded a copy of Chinatown for St. Petersburg and also web of power. So I got a two for one.

But it wasn't because I didn't like Chinatown. It was because I had decided I was gonna corner the market on Aliyah copies of that game, which were hard to come by. And so I was getting good trades for that particular game. This didn't replace anything. I was really excited to get it. And I agree with you, Greg. It was early enough in my discovery of games from Europe and Germany that I was thrilled to be playing it. It gets me replaced anything. It replaced playing World of Warcraft.

- Replaced video games, yeah. - Right. So has this game since been replaced? And if so, by what? I'll just go ahead and say it hasn't for me. When as we mentioned, it still makes it to the table often as a filler at the end of the night. - Yeah, I would say there was a time that this got replaced by Dominion. But since then I play this more than Dominion, so. - Yeah, you know, it has been replaced, but then it's re-replaced, it's replacement.

And I feel like I've gone through that with Dominion, with Race for the Galaxy, with Role for the Galaxy. And all of those, I don't really play anymore, but I still play St. Petersburg. - Yeah, there's something just classic about it that it just keeps finding its way back to the table. Even though at one point or another, it got replaced, I think as like a main course, but it found its own place as the great filler that is easy to pull out, easy to play, easy to clean up, you know, I mean.

- Yeah, absolutely. - That I think kind of makes it better than the things that at some point or another had replaced it. It's just a longer lasting design. - Yeah, it keeps coming back. All right, soundtrack. What music would you like to listen to while playing St. Petersburg? - Greg? - Oh, in the back of my head, this whole time has been the theme to Tetris. (both laughing) - That was my joke answer, Greg.

- Well, no, it literally has been in the back of my head the whole time we've been having this conversation. (both laughing) - I was originally gonna bring out, you know, something like from Anastasia, like my Petersburg, but now I just now that I've got Tetris in the back of my head, that's all I can think of. - Wow, okay, how about you, Paul? - Yeah, I don't know. And so in my ignorance, my answer is the same as Greg's.

- Yeah. - Okay. (both laughing) And I can't get my brain to even get over there and think of what that sounds like. I'm gonna have to look that up in a little bit because I'm focused on pictures at an exhibition by Madison Zursky. It's a great composition. And it's also one that I've performed rating on BGG scale of one to 10 now. How would you rate St. Petersburg today, 20 years later?

- Yeah, you know, when I looked at BGG in my rating, I was kind of surprised because I haven't rated it as an eight, but then I just sat and thought about it and I'm like, "Yeah, that's really how I feel. " (both laughing) You know, it's high. That's a high rating for me. - It is. - But I really like the game. - Greg? - Yeah, I'm kind of in a similar boat. I probably would rate it, I don't think I have it rated, but I would probably rate it as a seven, bordering on higher.

But yeah, I mean, there were probably times that I would've knocked this down to a five or six just because we played it a lot. But like I said, it just keeps creeping its way back up and it's just such an e-a familiar and comfortable game to play. - Yeah, absolutely. - I'm on the other end from you guys. I actually rated this one a nine, what, 18, 19 years ago? And it's still a nine.

Now, a lot of that has to do with my enjoyment of it as a single player game, but I love it at all player accounts. Like I said, I've reinstalled Bridge Spielwelt and somehow managed to remember my login so many times that I can play this game. So it's definitely worth a nine. And it brings me to the last question, is it replayable and how soon would you want to revisit it? I will go ahead and say for me, it's absolutely replayable and time permitting. It's not a long game. I play it anytime.

What did you guys have? - Yeah, the same answer of any 100%. - Absolutely, it's replayable. I will say, I don't know that I'm ever excited to play it, but I'm always happy to play it. - Interesting. Okay. And like, aren't we ready for a reprint? I mean, it was 10 years between the original and the second edition. And now it's been another 10 years. Someone's got to be ready to make an announcement. - Yeah, you know, this definitely deserves a reprint. It's a classic.

It's just so, it's a kind of game that I feel like should be in anybody's library, just as a something to fill some time and have an enjoyable game. There's nothing wrong with the game. And it's fun to play. - All right. So with that, we have finally exhausted the Craftsman deck. For our next episode, we'll be talking about aristocrats who never listened to Animotion. Thanks you guys both for being available today. This was a lot of fun to revisit this old favorite.

- Yeah, thanks for scheduling this. It was a lot of fun. - And that wraps up a full year for replayable. We've learned a lot of the last 12 months and 24 episodes, and we're always looking to improve our game. For example, we moved our hosting provider to better manage our content. We recently launched a page on Facebook where you can find us at facebook.com/replayablefm. We added disgust to our website to foster conversations with you there.

I recently posted an article about our platforms, our finances, and our goals for this year. If you've ever wondered what it takes to get a podcast up and running, our blog posts can offer some insights from someone who just went through it. Lastly, we'd like to thank all of you for choosing to spend your time with us. And we look forward to talking about more of your favorite games that keep us coming back again and again. Thank you for listening to replayable.

Support for our podcast comes from listeners like you. You can find us online at replayable. fm, on Twitter as replayablefm, and on Instagram as replayablefm. You can also join our team at patreon.com/replayable. Thank you for your support. We welcome your feedback, which is the only way that we are going to get better. You can get in touch with us via email at feedback@replayable.fm. And if you're interested in sponsoring us, then please contact us at sponsors@replayable.fm.

(upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music) (upbeat music)