Marco Polo II: In the Service of the Khan

Sequels in board gaming are tricky. The original Voyages of Marco Polo earned a devoted following through its dice placement system and wildly asymmetric character powers. Marco Polo II: In the Service of the Khan had to honor that foundation while justifying its existence as a separate game. Designers Simone Luciani and Daniele Tascini mostly succeeded, creating a game that feels like a polished evolution rather than a simple expansion.

The community reaction splits into predictable camps. Players who wanted more of the original got it and are happy. Players who wanted something fundamentally different are less enthusiastic. And a smaller group argues that Marco Polo II is the better game in almost every respect, making the original unnecessary. All three positions have merit, which speaks to the quality of both designs.

Guilds, Routes, and Refined Dice Play

The dice placement system carries over from the original and remains the mechanical heart. Each round, you roll your dice and place them on action spaces, with higher values generally giving better results. Want resources? Place a die. Want to travel? Place a die. Want to fulfill a contract? Die. The simplicity of this input, combined with the complexity of how dice values interact with different spaces, creates a decision space that’s easy to learn and difficult to master.

The guild system is Marco Polo II’s most significant addition. Cities on the map now contain guild halls that offer ongoing bonuses when you establish a presence there. These bonuses range from extra resources each round to modified action capabilities, and they create a layer of engine building that the original lacked. Choosing which guilds to pursue, and in what order, adds a strategic dimension that makes route planning more interesting.

Route building feels more purposeful than in the original. The map of central and eastern Asia offers multiple viable paths, and the placement of guild halls along different routes means your travel decisions have cascading strategic consequences. Taking the northern route gives access to different guilds than the southern route, and those guild bonuses shape your engine for the rest of the game. This connection between geography and strategy makes the travel feel meaningful rather than obligatory.

Character asymmetry returns, and the powers are better balanced this time around. In the original, certain characters were noticeably stronger than others, creating an uneven starting position. Marco Polo II’s characters are more carefully tuned, offering different strategic profiles without as many clear power gaps. Each character still fundamentally changes how you approach the game, which remains one of the design’s greatest strengths.

Contract fulfillment continues to provide direction and scoring. Contracts require specific resources and offer varying point values, and the race to claim the most lucrative contracts adds a competitive edge to the resource gathering. The contract variety is good enough that different games push you toward different resource priorities, preventing a single strategy from dominating.

The Weight of Iteration

The “more of the same” criticism is valid. If you’ve played the original extensively, Marco Polo II will feel familiar in ways that might be disappointing. The core loop of rolling dice, placing them on actions, traveling, and fulfilling contracts is fundamentally unchanged. The guilds add depth, but they don’t change the game’s identity. For players expecting a reinvention, this is an evolution.

The complexity increase over the original is noticeable. Guild bonuses, new action spaces, and additional strategic layers mean there’s more to teach and more to process each turn. The original already sat at the heavier end of medium-weight, and Marco Polo II pushes firmly into heavy territory. Groups that appreciated the original’s relative accessibility may find the sequel demands more than they bargained for.

Setup time is significant. The map, guild tiles, character sheets, dice, resources, and contracts all need arranging, and the variable setup means some configuration is required each game. It’s not unreasonable for a game of this weight, but it adds fifteen to twenty minutes before you start playing.

At two players, the map competition diminishes. The guild race loses tension when only two people are traveling, and some paths go entirely uncontested. The game functions at two, but it’s clearly designed for three or four, where the competition for routes, guilds, and action spaces creates the pressure that makes the decisions matter.

The Evolution Question

Whether Marco Polo II justifies owning both games or replaces the original depends on what you valued about The Voyages. If the asymmetric characters were the draw, both games offer distinct character sets worth experiencing. If the dice placement was the draw, Marco Polo II does it at least as well with more strategic options layered on top. If the original’s relative simplicity was the draw, the sequel might be more than you want. For most groups, Marco Polo II is the version to own if you’re only going to own one, but the original remains a perfectly valid choice for those who prefer the leaner design.

Should You Travel with Marco Polo II?

Marco Polo II is for groups who enjoy dice placement euros with strong asymmetry and route-building elements. If your table likes games where each player’s experience is meaningfully different from the start, where map-based competition adds spatial reasoning to resource management, and where the strategic depth sustains dozens of plays, this game earns its shelf space. Three to four players is essential.

Skip it if you already own the original and feel satisfied with it, if you prefer lighter euros, or if dice-based action selection feels too random for your taste. The dice mitigation in Marco Polo II is extensive, but the randomness is still present, and some groups will always prefer deterministic action selection.

The Verdict on Marco Polo II

Marco Polo II is a confident refinement of an already strong design. The guild system adds meaningful strategic depth to the route-building core, the character balance is improved, and the map offers more interesting decisions than its predecessor. It doesn’t reinvent the formula, and for some players that restraint will feel like a missed opportunity. But taken on its own terms, Marco Polo II is one of the best dice placement games in the hobby, offering the kind of replayability and strategic variety that keeps it on the table long after the initial plays.