This is a review of War! Age of Imperialism.

This game has gotten a lot of bad press, and overall some of it is unearned. There are some distinct gaps in the rules, some things which are counterintuitive, and some items which one just has to use common sense or try to figure out the intent of the designer. The game is far from broken, if you play it how we played it, and can be quite fun.

One of the big mysteries however is why they decided to have the word WAR! in big letters on the front. It seems somewhat like a 4x game, or a game that simulates more of a civ type game. This means there can be quite a bit of war in it, but there are many other facets involved which can be just as important, such as creating buildings, exploration, and expansion. It's not a war game in the same sense as [GAMEID=30876] is a War game, or Axis and Allies, and definately World in Flames is a Wargame. However, I think this game reflects a lot of what influenced the Designer in some of his other games (such as Attack, and the CotE remake) as well as some of what may have influenced him heavily (Conquest of the Empire: Original Version).

As I heavily enjoy Conquest of the Empire-The original Version from the Gamemaster Lineup-I could see some strong influences from one game to this one. It's interesting, and to tell the truth I think this is a stronger game than some of the later games that came after it.

In summary it rates as follows.

Components - 10
Rules Presentation - 4
Gameplay - 5
Personal Tilt - 6
Reuseability - 7
Useability-4

Final Score - 6

Components - Undoubtably one of the best things about this game are the components. Eagle Games was pretty well known for having outstanding components. This game is no let down with over 800 pieces of plastic. They look a lot like the pieces from Napoleon in Europe...still, with cannons which have wheels that actually turn, cavalry that mount onto their horses, and nice plastic to spread over a huge three piece board, this game pretty much is it as far as components go. Even the cardboard is nice thick markers, and makes sense as to why they are used. This is a great game for warpieces, and in and of itself a great thing to have. If you want to use 1800's era game pieces with another game and can find this game, this has enough to serve as replacements even if you don't want to play War! Age of Imperialism (though you should try it, it's a pretty great game). The components are awesome!

It scores a 10.

Rules Presentation - This book comes with three sets of rules. They are the basic, the standard, and the advanced rules. The basic rules are nice enough to play, but have some portions which contradict each other (for example, one section says that nations with no buildings produce no Production Points, but then another section states that they get 5 Production Points each turn). The book is rife with these types of contradictions, which makes one have to make leaps of logic to figure out what the game designer actually intended.

This occurs because I believe that they copied and pasted the rules. The rules are the same in both the Standard and Basic layout, down to the exact wording and mistakes in grammar. I think they copied the text from the standard and advanced games, and then forgot to change things occasionally as they added to or took away in thier editing of the rules book. Hence it leaves one up to figure which item actually makes the most sense (for example, in the above Basic rules, I figured that you actually get 5 PP in the Basic rules because the standard rules have 0 PP with areas with no buildings as do the advanced rules).

In addition are items which seem broken and one has to houserule, or deem what may not be explicitly disallowed by rules, or what may have been a game makers intent (for example, with explorers, once they explore an area, it reveals a tribal strength. Can Explorers go there again? What happens if you have 10 Explorers go to an area, do they all get an exploration roll-explained below- or does only one get a roll?), or even what makes sense as far as gameplay goes.

They try to set out examples in the rules, and this works for combat, but they miss several other areas where questions easily pop up.

The rules are hence below average, and unnecessarily make a complex game even harder to understand and run.

It scores a 4.

Gameplay - This can be a fun game, though one will have to play it simply for the experience, instead of a dead and dried desire to win. If played for the experience, it actually can be a blast. If played just to win, eventually after a few plays, you will come away bitter and full of hatred.

There were a few areas where we made leaps of logic. The first dealt with explorers, and I'll explain that when we get to that section.

The game basically goes in that one moves, then moves again, and then produces.

Each player can move their troops at the beginning of the turn. Every other player then moves theirs and battles are resolved.

Then each player gets to move again.

This is actually a nice mechanic to allow those who made foolish moves to pay for it as people take up their revenge. For example, if you have a bunch of soldiers, and you leave one behind as you take out one nation, it could be that someone else may come in behind you and try to take you out on there next turn. You then may be also able to move in a return to try to retake an area that you just lost.

It's an interesting dynamic which I think works well.

There are three types of battles, from the Basic Version to the Advanced Version.

In the basic version each side chooses one soldier. Each soldier get's a bonus (Infantry = 0, Cavalry = +1...etc.), as well as Forts giving a defensive bonus. They then roll a pair of dice (2 six siders) and add the bonus. The person with the higher score wins, the person with the lower score loses that piece. It continues until one loses the battle.

In the standard version it works very differently, using combined arms. Instead of each piece having a modifier, all pieces are used for combined arms, and you get a +1 for each different piece in the army (so infantry alone or cavalry alone give you no bonus, an infantry + cavalry or something else gives you a +2, Infantry + Cavalry and a Leader or another combination gives a +3 and so forth). You then roll the pair of dice again, and who ever has the highest number wins.

I particularly despise the standard type of combat, as it rather diminishes the overall feel of unique units. It's not whether you make lots of infantry because they are cheap and easy, but instead you have to add that cavalry for that added bonus.

It's from this style that his other games got their combat styles. It is readily apparant in his remake of Conquest of the Empire, and CotE2, as well as ATTACK! in their combats where you use special dice that don't emphasize the uniqueness of a unit, but instead just the combined force of arms.

It makes units a little cheaper in my opinion. It only stresses one factor which can make combat a little less interesting. It's a weak combat system, and one which I think should have been used in the basic game (it's even easier to understand then the one they use in the Basic combat system of the game).

The advanced rules however, make up for it. It combines BOTH methods. When you attack, you determine which of your units is attacking your enemy. You then roll and add the modifiers as in the Basic version of the game (with each unit giving bonuses). However, you also use combined forces of arms, which add to the amount which you add modifiers as well, like in the standard game. The loser of the roll loses the unit involved, and then chooses which of their units they will use in order to attack an enemy unit of their choice. This is a far more interesting combat system, and what we always use. It's far more unique and adds both the interesting individual unit decisions, as well as noting the need for combined force of arms.

I find it unfortunate that this was not the combat version they carried over into his other games such as Attack! and ESPECIALLY Conquest of the Empire. I think this is a far superior system to what he chose to implement with the special dice in the other games. It adds more flavor, and more feeling that you are making an important decision in deciding what units to get, rather than just getting units that fill up that combined arms requirement.

One can see how Conquest of the Empire-the Original had some influence on this combat system, with the choosing of units and rolling up. However it has enough of his own touch to make it completely his own, and uniquely different as well.

The biggest problem that many would see is that it still is VERY chancy. A Cavalry piece only gets a +1 to hit over an infantry, by itself, which means with a 2d6 roll, that can be quite a small impact. Even with Artillery which gives a bigger bonus, that can be felt. Combat is very much up to the luck of the dice.

This is found throughout the game.

However, to make it even better, they specify that you can use the rules found in Napoleon in Europe (or the American Civil War, but I haven't read or played those rules of the ACW game). This also makes combat interesting, and in some ways even better. In these, you use them, you line up your figures and the Defenders roll first, and then the attackers. In some ways this is similar to what they did later with the ATTACK! rules (but ATTACK! also has their generic combined arms dice), but a FAR superior system. The players line up their forces putting pieces in a front row or in a back row. Only pieces in the front row (with a special rule for Artillery if you put it in the back) can fire. In it Infantry roll 1 die, Cavalry 3 die, Leaders 3 die, and Artillery 4 die. Each die that rolls a 6 or better hits. If you put Artillery in the back row, they can still fire, but only roll 2 dice. Only pieces in the front row can be lost. If one uses this system, it adds even more uniqueness to the game, but in some ways does lose that sense of combined arms to a degree since you lose the modifications to a die roll. On the other hand, it makes each piece have an impact equal to what it costs.

Anyways, enough on combat. Combat is actually only a SMALL part of the game at first, and only takes center stage near the end.

One aspect that I've only seen in older games like Conquest of the Empire the Original Version was that of empty territories. In CotE (Gamemaster version) you had empty territories that you could go explore (well not so much explore as conquer and declare your own) and put your marker on.

This is copied with a more complex version in War! Age of Imperialism. You can get Explorers whom you send out. Each player only gets so many territories at the beginning of the game (a very few territories, leaving a LOT more left unoccupied by the players). The rest of the territories have natives on them which range in strength from 4 to 12 (or if you fight them, a force between 4 units and 19 units inclusive of 12 infantry, 6 Cavalry, and 1 Artillery). When Explorers discover an area, they can try to diplomatically convert the natives to be on your side. To do so, they must roll over the strength (which shows how many infantry they get, which is a number 4 to 12) of the natives. If they roll equal or greater, everything is dandy and the natives join you...you put one plastic native figure there, and you explorer lives to journey another day. If you fail...your explorer dies (and you can imagine in so many ways, maybe they just scalp him, or maybe they cook him in a boiling pot and have him for dinner, or maybe sacrifice him on broken idols...who knows). In addition, if you want bonuses, if you have a leader travel with the explorer, you get a +1 bonus to your roll.

Now, here's where I must go into greater detail on exploration. We played it slightly different then just straight out with one explorer. We found it was far more useful to send multiple explorers to a spot. The rules are vague in that light. Can you even send half a dozen explorers to one area at a time? We ruled that you can, and this is how we play. Whether one counts it as a house rule, or not, it makes more sense. In addition, we played that you can continue to send explorers to the same area to continue to try to diplomatically convince the natives, even after the first one failed. We ruled this because it didn't seem to makes sense that the designer would create a game where you would have an army of 19 on your doorstep which would be a greater force than what your enemies may have...and just put it there for a doorstop. With the random placement of native forces (it's a random placement of forces at the beginning of the game) this can really hose a player unless there was some other intent. We didn't see it as being forbidden, so we allowed explorers to continue to try...and in force.

One justification is that in the advanced game you must westernize those that you diplomatically convince. You do this because the tribe can still be diplomatically swayed with funds. Another player can play to have a tribe you've convinced turn to the warpath. (We also play that once this is done, diplomacy really is done in that area except for war, but that's also how we played it). Hence we decided until diplomacy was completed, that explorers can still visit tribes, and can also visit in force. We also ruled that there was no limit of how many leaders could travel with explorers (which isn't really worth is since explorers cost 10 PP, and Leaders 40, so if you get enough to really make a BIG difference, it could take a while).

This is also a prime example of how the game can be really biased, and some might even consider it broken unless they have some sort of adaptation to the rules like we do.

If you convince a tribe to join you, either by diplomacy, or by force, each region has a resource that may or may not help you (normally not). You then can develop the region during your Production phase.

The production phase comes after the movement phase, and in it you can buy buildings. We play with the Advanced rules for buildings, though typically they are very similar to that of the Standard method. However, we still have Production points counted as per the standard method.

Each building costs 30 Production points. If you have an engineer there, they can lower the cost to 20 Production Points. Each territory can only have One Building (unless a School or Fort). Each Building has special abilities or powers.

Creating a City allows a region to give 10 Production points. In addition all units with the exception of Infantry and Ships must be built in a City (Infantry can be built anywhere).

A Port allows a region to give 10 Production points. It also is the only region in which a ship can be built in the adjoining sea areas. (In the advanced version it has a unique formula to give production points)

A Factory allows a region to give 15 Production Points.

A Train does not take up a movement point for your forces to travel through. It also gives 4 Production Points for each region next to it that contains one of your buildings.

In addition you can build a School or Fort. Schools allow you to produce Engineers and Artillery from your Cities.

Forts give all units in that area a +1 in battle. This is yet another item that in some ways is similar to the Original Conquest of the Empire.

In fact, when thinking on the city building aspect, it resembles a more complex version (in CotE you would build cities, and you could create them into fortified cities or Forts, or Walled Cities by paying some more which gave you a bonus modifier in combat) then what was found in Conquest of the Empire.

The game itself moves at a crawl at first. Due to being surrounded by natives, and the difficulties at converting them (a typical score may be 7,8, or 9, and since you don't have many explorers at first, this can create a slow crawl to advance) you don't expand that quickly. We found it's better to develop the internal infrastructure of your nation with creating buildings (just like some computer games eh?) so that you can up your production and increase the numbers and types of units you can make before trying to expand. Then it comes to slow expansion as you spend a LOT of your resources being diplomatic or fighting the natives. Finally it comes down to the actual WAR! with your opponents. However that will come late in game normally after you've gone quite a ways in defeating or converting the natives around you.

In this the game is more slow paced (especially at first), and can take awhile (remember, you want at least TWO territories with buildings right from the start, probably three without an engineer, so you can actually get PP to build more units, or at least buildings) to even get out of your original areas. If you are wanting quick action, this is NOT the game for you. If you like a slower expansionist type game, this could interest you.

Overall, the gameplay isn't bad. There are many options, but due to some of the phrasing of the rules, unless you are willing to work with them and decide how you are going to interpret them as a group (and you will NEED to decide as a group or you WILL have arguments about whether what you did was legal or not) you will have problems. The game is very playable, but there is one other weakness that pops up.

I mentioned before you want to play this game for the experience, not to win. The reason is the exploration phase. Some players will get lucky and roll over tribes. Some players will get lucky and have tribes that have really weak strengths next to them.

Others will get very unlucky and roll very low, or have very strong tribes which they can't really get through next to them. This will basically stale them in their tracks, whilst the others get stronger. This normally is enough to make certain players so weak and behind at the beginning that they never catch up...and they WILL lose normally. This normally leaves about half the players or less who are able to stand a chance of winning the game, the others having to play diplomat to ally themselves with someone in hopes that one of these great powers fails and the other is so weakened as to leave them a chance, or at least let them the ability to last to the end of the game.

This is why I stated, if you play only to win, and not experience it, you will leave the game bitter and hard.

The game can be played to elimination, or be won by holding territory. We play by the Victory point method, which gives one 10 points per territory held, 50 points per region held, 5 points per building built, and 1 point per unit.

I find it a fun game, my wife finds it even more fun. However, due to some quirks of the game, with how it runs with the fun vs. winning element, the rules, and other items...I can only rate it around a 5. It runs well when you can get it all figured out, but even if it's the best running game because of what a group needs to handle in order to even run the game, the best it will score is average. I give it the benefit of the doubt, and let it do its best score.

It gets a 5.

Personal Tilt - Despite my comments concerning some of the combat systems, overall I like games designed by Glen Drover. One of my favorite games, Age of Empires III has some elements similar to this game, as well as other games of his. I like many of the aspects that he comes up with that are outside of combat, and feel as if those are some of his strengths.

In addition I completely love Conquest of the Empire (Gamemaster version). My wife LOVES Conquest of the Empire. When doing my research it seemed as if this game could have some aspects that were similar, and that resolved it. When I got the game and played it, I noted that there were some big similarities.

So, combine similarities with CotE, made by Glenn Drover, and how could I go wrong! I was right, this is a fun game. My wife really likes it. She likes the build aspect of CotE, but dislikes how many times I go straight for the jugular. This game greatly slows that aspect down with it's exploration mechanics. I think she likes this game much more than I do.

It's not the best game designed out there by this designer, but it is a good game. In comparison to AoE III, or CotE 2, I'd probably rate this game on the high average end. I enjoy it and that's probably the most important thing.

It scores a 6.

Replayability - This game has a LOT of randomness to it. So much so that it can be almost impossible to predict small skirmishes or explorations. Only in large masses which far outnumber the other can you be reasonably sure of what will occur. The placement of resources and natives can greatly change how a game will play out each time (it can also greatly hose players each time too). Hence, it's above average in replayability.

It scores a 7.

Useability - Now this is a harder area on this game. Due to the quirkiness of the rules, you'll have to play it with a group that is willing to work with you AND the rules. In addition, you'll have to play with a bunch of people that will be more willing to just enjoy the game rather than try to win it, because if you play with a group who are all about winning invariably someone will feel as if the game is unfair as it hoses them, and gripe, moan, and every other bad feeling under the sun. It can be hard to find exactly when to play this. I play it two player fine with my wife, and easily with an easy going brother in law. I wouldn't fain bring it out with some of the people I play with. Hence it has lower than average useability, and is harder to use as a game on a game night.

It scores a 4.

Overall, this game has some highs, some lows, and some average stats. It really shines in the area of components. It doesn't do so well in areas such are Rules presentation and how easily it can be to bring to a game night. These rather counter each other, and bring the game to a nice average score.

It's final score is a 6.

I like the game, and enjoy it. I think it may have been better to call it something other than WAR! in it's title, as there's so much more going on (then again, this also from people who called the game Age of Empires III but the boardgame really is nothing like the PC game) then simply WAR. I really enjoy the similarities between Conquest of the Empire and this game, whether that really is the inspiration for some of the mechanics or not. I think this game reflects some of the thinking of the designer, and one can see how these similar ideas work again in other works of his such as ATTACK!, the remake of Conquest of the Empire, Conquest of the Empire 2, and of course a favorite of mine, Age of Empires III. I think you can get a very rewarding game out of this, and think that some have given it a harsher idea than need be.

I really get a kick out of lining up the cannons in a back row with a line of infantry in front, and cavalry off to the side, but I suppose that's the little boy in me still loving the army men of old. Lovely game, and if you can get the chance to play it, and can just play for the experience, I would say just do it!

(For reference, link to explanation of my game ratings http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2426690#2426690 )