Game: Warriors of God

Thread: Re: What is the counter mix limits on Gunners?

Xelvonar — 2008-12-02T17:01:06+00:00

mmolus wrote:
Counter mix should include four (4) gunners. All gunners on the duplicate sheet should be removed (thus 8 total becomes 4). This is per the insert: "Please remove 4 gunners, 2 Welsh archers, ...."

Yeah, I knew I was supposed to remove some, but I lost the insert and got confused by the misprinted 4 Mercs on the reference sheet.

Thanks for the info!

-Bill

Thread: Re: What is the counter mix limits on Gunners?

Bubslug — 2008-12-02T05:39:05+00:00

Correct - 4 Gunners.

Thread: Re: What is the counter mix limits on Gunners?

mmolus — 2008-12-01T23:59:53+00:00

Counter mix should include four (4) gunners. All gunners on the duplicate sheet should be removed (thus 8 total becomes 4). This is per the insert: "Please remove 4 gunners, 2 Welsh archers, ...."

Thread: What is the counter mix limits on Gunners?

Xelvonar — 2008-12-01T23:05:22+00:00

I've gleaned from the rules and the various posts here that the countermix limits on Mercs, Longbowmen, and Knights are 2 per area, but I don't know what the countermix limit on gunners is? Anyone know?

Thanks

-Bill

Thread: Re: Warriors of God at BGG Con 2008!

newuser — 2008-12-01T19:36:32+00:00

... this game is much more about the narrative that is told than who wins--at least for me. I hope this session report bears out the story to be told... it does take some imagination, but that is why we play games, hopefully. If it’s just moving bits around a board, the point is kind of lost, right?

Perfectly distilling why I love this game. Well said!

Enjoyed the report, and hope you both enjoyed the game.

Thread: Re: Warriors of God at BGG Con 2008!

Varus — 2008-11-30T01:31:45+00:00

I definitely want to play this game again, and I'm kicking myself for not buying a copy at the con. (My online sources are out of copies.) I see a couple of my errors:

Not taking the lord in Flanders instead of the one in Brittany on the first turn. Your control of Flanders lasted throughout the game, and it's one of the few 3 point spaces. Once you took Aquitaine that only left me England itself as a 3 point space. I also erred in not building gunners so I would have better odds in sieges against Flanders, Ile-de-France, etc. English longbowmen were powerful on the battlefield, but your castles stopped me cold in both of those locations. It doesn't hurt the French cause that the French get frequent leaders in French provinces (duh!) which allows you to take control of them automatically.

Chris, you are an excellent opponent and an honorable gamer, and I really enjoyed every game we played greatly. I think it really says something about your attitude that during Here I Stand, when there was a rules question which one way (which everyone was pretty much willing to allow) would have benefitted you, you told us that we should be sure and look it up and do it right rather than setting the precedent. That's class!

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-27T16:17:24+00:00

wilk wrote:
Guys,

thanks a lot for all your valuable advice and suggestions - this was exactly what I was looking for. The funny thing is that I actually tried some, if not most of the techniques you are talking about (e.g. considering the military uselesness of the poor mad Charles VI, I figured out that he was best used for persuading ) but clearly I lacked consistency, consequence and a general plan. On the whole, I now see that one needs a thoroughly different mindset in order to play the French effectively. Well, I guess there remains much to discover for me in Warriors of God.

Everything Ian said is right, I think.

No matter what side you play, it's important to go for area control. Just as another poster said, I won my last game as the French even though the English player kicked my butt all over the map. I could take the losses in because I had HUGE troop deployments every turn and the English didn't contest the high-value areas too much: Flanders, Aquitaine, Ile-de-France. I think the English have to punch their way into Aquitaine and hold the north of France in order to win. If the English only hold England, Scotland, Wales, Brittany, and Normandy, they will lose, guaranteed. The probably need either or both of Ile-de-France and Aquitaine, as well.

Thanks for the post! I like to discuss strategy on the games I like to play.

Chris

Thread: Re: Phase 4, control : not clear at all

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-27T16:11:41+00:00

simonluca wrote:
Hello still me....(we need living rules....)

Where I read (pag.10)...... "You need only check contested areas that contain one or more leaders".....

I add: ....OF THE SAME SIDE !!! (I hope....)

If not.....I am playing another game.....

Just in case is not.....who goes first in the control attempt ? the initiave-player ?

many tks

ciao

simon

In Phase 3, you determined battle, removed casualties and moved retreating/disgraced leaders, so there will only be leaders of the same side in any given area. It's unnecessary for the rules to state that.

"Contested areas" means any area on the map that is not a neutral area. All you're doing is seeing who controls what areas and if no one controls an area where you have a leader (or more than one leader, hence the language in the rules), then you get to make a roll for control.

The order is not provided in the rules, probably because it does matter what order you go in. I my games, we simply go over the map top to bottom and when we get to an area that would change, we do what's necessary (either remove an enemy's control marker or roll to place our own marker).

Hope that helps.

Chris

Thread: Warriors of God at BGG Con 2008!

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-26T21:52:44+00:00

Warriors of God BGG Con 2008
Game Played November 20, 2008

]]>

Disclaimer: The pictures in this article are not professional-quality, and probably not even BGG article quality. They were taken during the game, and it helps to break up an otherwise text-only article. My apologies for that.

This game was played at BGG Con 2008 and was one of three games I decided to do a session report on.

The other two are The Napoleonic Wars, here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/2860014

and Napoleon’s Triumph, here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/358405

My opponent in this game was Andy Linman (Varus), who I played several games against at the Con, despite never having met him before face-to-face. The Wargame Geeklist helped to set up opponents for this, and many other cool games. Andy and I had a mutual “dance card” that included The Napoleonic Wars, Paths of Glory, Here I Stand, and this game.

For those of you seeking more BGG Con Write-Ups, Andy has also done a session report on our Here I Stand game at the con, here, an excellent write-up: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/358108

INTRODUCTION

If you’ve never played the chaos-management game that is Warriors of God, you deserve to give yourself a go at it. I sat on the fence for about a month, after reading review after review complaining (or praising) the unpredictable elements of the game. There are at least two great reviews on this game page, but in the end my reluctance was not warranted. The rules are simple, and if you are playing against an opponent that knows the rules, you can probably play the Hundred Years War scenario in about 3 or 4 hours. It took Andy and I much longer than that, since I had only read the rules, and I had to teach. Andy had been re-learning the rules for Paths of Glory and Here I Stand, so he didn’t have time to prepare for this game, which I fully understand.

Just as a sample, here’s a picture of the map, which based on quality alone is a map that deserves to be played upon. Just look at it:

]]>

We randomly chose sides.

English ... Andy Linman (Varus)
French ... Me (cmontgo2)

As a final note about this game before starting my session report, I would like to point out two things about this game. The first is that if you are an armchair historian on this period of Anglo-French history or if you are an English major and have read any of Shakespeare’s histories (Richard II, Henry IV, Henry V, Pt. 1, etc.), you will love the characters in this game, including Hotspur, Richard II, Charles VI, and a host of fun characters, including Jean de’Arc and Robin Hood. The list goes on, and it makes the game come alive in your mind. The second thing I’d like to point out is that this game is much more about the narrative that is told than who wins--at least for me. I hope this session report bears out the story to be told... it does take some imagination, but that is why we play games, hopefully. If it’s just moving bits around a board, the point is kind of lost, right?

Here is the setup for the Hundred Years War Scenario. In particular, I won initiative, and Andy selected Charles de Bois in Brittany, giving me Jacob von Arteverde in Flanders:

]]>

TURN 1: 1337-1340

This turn was spent essentially maneuvering to attempt to control some more territory. The French moved to Champagne and failed to convert it. The French hung on to Ile-de-France and Flanders, but failed to convert Normandy. The English kept Brittany and England, but failed to get Aquitaine.

TURN 2: 1341-1350

The next decade of the War resulted in an English victory at Orleanais and the death of the English King, Edward III (so early!). Normandy was conquered by England. The French, with Charles the VI, captured Burgundy. Richard II crowned king of England.

TURN 3: 1351-1360

The 1350's brought the capture and subjugation of Normandy, the conquest of Scotland, and the capture of Brittany, all for the glory of England. France held onto Flanders and Burgundy, and also persuaded Lexumbourg to join the French cause. The French attempted to drive the English out of Normandy, but failed.

TURN 4: 1361-1370

The French continued the slow, progressive conversion of the southern lands to French control, while holding the English at bay at the Battle of Anjou (a minor French victory with no nobles captured). Jean de Grailley seized Aquitane for the French crown. England solidified its hold on Normandy by adding several more battalions. Louis d’Anjou went off galivanting instead of securing his province for the French king.

The next several turns is where the narrative of the game gets very interesting. I have, of course, imbellished to give meaning to the in-game events, but it seems perfectly clear to me.

TURN 5: 1371-1380

The 70s were a bell-weather decade for the French, which probably resulted in the swing battle and territory gains that would eventually decide the Hundred Years War (though no one knew it at the time). The French, though having tried to convert Champagne to link-up Flanders, Ile-de-France and Burgundy, still found the Champagnese recalcitrant. The English occupied, but did not capture Champagne. A huge battle was fought, later to be known as the Battle of Anjou, in which Bertrand du Guesclin led the French to victory against Henry of Grosmont.

The French King Philippe the VI died at the age of 67 and Charles VI is crowned king of France; incidentally, Charles VI lived for a very long time for a weak king (he is a 1 Bravery, 1 Battle, 3-star leader!).

The French, probably through the news of their victory at Anjou, have a series nobles pledge fealty to them, adding the duchies of Bourbonnais, Berry, and Anjou to the French cause. In addition, it was during this year that the English lost four leaders: two to general illness, one thrown from his horse, and another who died in transport to the continent.

TURN 6: 1381-1390

King Richard II of England invaded Flanders, but Roger Mortimer offered seige, which Richard II failed to break. Richard and his band retired to Normandy.

TURN 7: 1391-1400

Richard II, having failed to successfully siege Flanders, launched a siege against King Charles in Ile-de-France in 1393, but after several years of siege, the English proved unable to break the French resolve. Charles VI, knowing he is a weak king, does not give battle despite Richard’s taunts and protests.

Harry Percy (“Hotspur”) sat in Scotland, and seeing the direction the war was going, threw in his lot with the French and foolishly invaded lower England only to be handed a crushing defeat at York. He was captured, converted to the English cause, and swore fealty to the English crown in exchange for his life. Hotspur swore an oath to bring down “those French dogs, and their lairmaster, Charles VI.”

At the end of Turn 7, after all new leaders are added and we are getting ready to begin Turn 8, you can see that Henry Percy (Hotspur) is now sitting in Scotland with his English side flipped up, shortly before his fortuitous foray into Northern France:

]]>

TURN 8: 1401-1410

This is England’s high-watermark as the dark years of the French-dominated 1370s ebbed and England’s tide rose. Harry Hotspur, who had just a few years ago been France’s ally, laid siege to Ile-de-France. As with Richard’s siege a decade ago, Charles refused to give battle, and Hotspur gained the walls.

The palance at Ile-de-France was sacked and Charles VI was captured and transported to the Tower of London. Hotspur gained a full pardon from Richard II and spent the next year recouping his losses, but was unable to subjugate the angry French population of Ile-de-France (failed control roll). Charles the VII, simmering in Burgundy, refused to take the French crown so long as his father remained alive, and vowed vengeance against Harry Percy.

TURN 9: 1411-1420

Harry Percy, now in his forties and fresh off his victory at Ile-de-France, invaded Champagne at the van of the English army and met Charles VII on the field of Champagne. The French had a resounding victory as Hotspur, though he cut down scores of Frenchmen, ended as a vanquished foe. He escaped from the field in disgrace.

Here is a pic right before the Battle of Champagne:

]]>

Thomas Mowbray, Hotspur’s right-hand, died in the battle covering Henry Percy’s retreat.

Whispers of a saint filtered into Champagne of a young woman named Jean de Arc, who came under the banner of God to vanquish the English from Ile-de-France (Jean de Arc entered at the end of this turn).

TURN 10: 1421-30

Jean d’Arc entered Anjou, but was defeated and routed by Wan de la Pole. De la Pole claimed that “God is on England’s side, look how easily we dispatch the pretender Jean de Arc!” Philippe II threw Aquitaine into anarchy by removing French control, but Henry IV, seeing that nothing could be gained from further decades of war, sued for peace from France. As part of the peace proposal, England is granted control of Brittany and Normandy, but the French are granted possession of all other provinces (Andy conceded during this turn).

END OF GAME

The final score: France 29

The final province control was:

England Province Total: 9
England (3)
Scotland (2)
Wales (1)
Normandy (2)
Anjou (1)

France Province Total: 15
Ile-de-France (3)
Flanders (3)
Aquitaine (3)
Burgundy (3)
Luxembourg (1)
Orleanais (1)
Berry (1)

Uncontrolled Province Total: 8
Champagne (2)
Provence (2)
Picardy (1)
Languedoc(1)
Limousine (1)
Poitou (1)
Auvergne (1)

THOUGHTS

This game was definitely a learning game for both Andy and me. I think Andy and I learned that the game is really about area control. If you control enough provinces, it doesn’t matter how many battles you lose, or how many leaders die. The vast majority of the victory points in the game come from provincial control. Because of that, even in years where the French took horrible losses, had more than four leaders die, and even had their king captured, the fact that they controlled 12+ victory points of provinces every turn to England’s 7+, meant that they were going to win, eventually. France added between 1 and 5 VPs each turn until the lead was pretty much insurmountable by Turn 10.

The leader death was not a huge problem, since you receive so many of them. Granted, France and England could not hang onto all their troops from turn to turn, and there was one turn in which France lost 22 leaderless units. I loved it. I kept thinking of it as the end of a campaign season, and guess what? Everyone goes home, or gives up, or just quits and settles down where they are. It had a nice feel to it. A bit of “realistic chaos” that seemed fine to me, for a game. The point of the game, as I said, seemed to be much less about units and victories in battle as it is about gaining control over and holding territory.

I think Andy’s last best chance for victory lay in Turn 8, and had he defeated and/or captured Charles the VII, he would have been able to possibly reverse the tie and eek out an English victory by converting provinces as he came of those victories.

England was also hampered by some very bad luck, including two turns in a row of being unable to convert Ile-de-France to English control even though they only needed a 3 or less (which would have definitely reversed the VP standings, giving a six-point swing to England, 3 from France and 3 to England). England regularly defeated France on the battlefield, but in the end, could not capitalize on those victories by converting more territory to England’s cause.

Turn 5 was probably the decisive battle, in which the defeat of the English at Champagne allowed the French to consolidate the southern provinces without English interference over the next couple turns and also allowed them to freely raise and deploy units throughout their territory.

All-in-all, I enjoyed the game thoroughly, but next time, Andy and I will have to play at a faster clip. We took our time, took lots of breaks, and stopped to talk about wargaming and other stuff... it was a leisurely game.

Andy, as with all the games we played, was a great opponent and I suspect on a rematch, he’d probably put the smack down. Let’s do it again next year, Andy.

See you then.

Chris Montgomery

Edit: Corrected Link for Other Session Reports

Image

cmontgo2 — 2008-11-26T20:43:52+00:00

Board Position After Turn 7 of the Hundred Years War

Image

wilk — 2008-11-26T18:36:19+00:00

Jeanne (Jehanne) d'Arc, a.k.a La Pucelle, which means "The Maid"

Image

wilk — 2008-11-26T18:33:04+00:00

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Sagrilarus — 2008-11-08T13:55:47+00:00

    The map quality is actually better than most games published in the genre. I had been hoping for a mounted board, but when the game arrived and I opened it I had to admit that mounting it likely would have detracted from the overall appearance.

    More than a few purchasing this already have plexi for titles with much thinner, more damageable playing fields.

             Sag.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

cally777 — 2008-11-08T05:49:16+00:00

As someone who had played only half a game (albeit one lasting 8 hrs, which perhaps was due to us not reading completely through the somewhat ill-written rules before beginning) I'm not in the best position to judge the merits of WofG (or whatever you want to call it).

Still some of the comments above resonated with me. There does seem to be a deliberate emphasis on confusion and randomness. The generally high rolls needed to score hits in battle, the fact you mostly don't have a good chance to control an area unless you're from it, and the constant death of leaders all add to this impression.

For example in our first game my opponent had several leaders die immediately (on rolls of '1'), balanced by my complete failure to take control of any areas, even with the best chance (50 percent) of doing so. Then later in a key battle, four rolls of '6' in one turn must have skewed the result, although in the end it turned on a knife edge.

I suppose it comes down to whether you find all this entertaining; reflecting the historical period is certainly a bonus but shouldn't detract from the game. Normally I'm not the sort of person that likes my carefully constructed strategy to be ruined by very bad luck, and this game certainly sets fair to do that.

Nonetheless I did have some fun, and the above mentioned battle was very exciting, even if we later found out we'd made a mistake with the rules. (Appointing decent battle commanders who should both have been outranked by incompetents). So perhaps there is something indefinably appealing about it.

One thing we both agreed, however, was that there was a lack of clarity in some of the rules, and that its unacceptable that a game this price comes with an extremely flimsy, easily damaged piece of "parchment" for a game map. Almost as farcical was the manufacturers "apology" for including extra pieces in the game, which they then sternly advised us not to use, even when the rules appeared to contradict this by suggesting there should be four mercenaries in each neutral area instead of two.

Further play is perhaps needed before issuing a final verdict.

Thread: Re: Exiting Leaders from an Area - clarification

cally777 — 2008-11-08T04:22:32+00:00

Mr Starkweather is the game designer, though his descent began here on Earth.

I was aware of that fact and was of course speaking metaphorically. I guess if Jesus had come back during the period covered by the game he'd have the same old trouble convincing his followers that he hadn't said anything about setting light to people. Mr Starkweather however does not have the excuse of being away for 2000 years and his rules being rewritten and translated. He perhaps should have got them clear the first time round.

I look forward to his Second Coming with interest.

Thread: Re: Exiting Leaders from an Area - clarification

Sagrilarus — 2008-11-08T04:08:24+00:00

cally777 wrote:

I still don't accept your arguments, Mr Starkweather and for my part will keep playing it that way even if the game designer him/herself descends from heaven to tell me. Put it in the rules then, mate!

Mr Starkweather is the game designer, though his descent began here on Earth.

Sag.

Thread: Re: Exiting Leaders from an Area - clarification

cally777 — 2008-11-08T03:58:13+00:00

resin wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:

2. There is a "flypaper" rule that states you need to leave behind a number of leaders greater than or equal to the number of enemy leaders in the original territory.

Sorry to be dense, but I want to make sure I understand, because I'm playing this weekend, and to me when I read the rules, I am not at all confused: in a single impulse, you can move up to three leaders (depending on the border) from one single area to another. You are not moving them one at a time; they are all moving as part of the same impulse. Therefore, it wouldn't occur to me that you would have to leave one behind due to the flypaper rule. Until I come here, that is, and see that I'm (more or less) alone in reading it that way.

You are definitely not alone, because my friend and I both interpreted it that way, and it never occurred to us that it could be read differently. Surely the whole point of moving more than one leader is that they all move together rather than separately, thus negating the "flypaper" rule?

I still don't accept your arguments, Mr Starkweather and for my part will keep playing it that way even if the game designer him/herself descends from heaven to tell me. Put it in the rules then, mate!

Incidently we both agreed that some of these rules were the most badly written we had encountered in terms of clarity. And we weren't too happy to be paying £30 for a parchment-like game map (sorry to be off topic there but feel our pain!)

Nevertheless we've enjoyed the game thus far, if playing it for 8 hours straight is any indication.

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

wilk — 2008-11-04T20:14:26+00:00

Guys,

thanks a lot for all your valuable advice and suggestions - this was exactly what I was looking for. The funny thing is that I actually tried some, if not most of the techniques you are talking about (e.g. considering the military uselesness of the poor mad Charles VI, I figured out that he was best used for persuading ) but clearly I lacked consistency, consequence and a general plan. On the whole, I now see that one needs a thoroughly different mindset in order to play the French effectively. Well, I guess there remains much to discover for me in Warriors of God.

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

wifwendell — 2008-11-03T13:46:42+00:00

I just played the 100 Years War game tonight as the English. I lost one battle.

And I was auto-defeated on turn 9 when the French hit 30 VP. My French opponent did a good job of converting territory in southern France while holding the line in the north of France and harassing me in Scotland.

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

Dan R. — 2008-11-02T19:26:48+00:00

More important than Burgundy at the start of play is Champagne. This is the key to building a French position, I think. It connects all your territories and allows you to deploy troops between Paris and Flanders. Before Champagne, France is not even a country... once they get it, though, they can compete.

France generally gets higher ranked leaders than England. This means that you're going to be able to carry more troops and that you should be converting more provinces to your control.

Use those fat stacks of men to attack and pin longbow-heavy leaders before they can attack you in your territories. If, as is often the case, he has stronger leadership than you, retreat after the first round. At least you prevent him from encroaching.

Always try to use newly arriving leaders to take control of their home territories. France has the opportunity to do this more often than England. For example, early in the game, they get the leader for Luxemberg. There is a great temptation to put him on the front line since he can command 6 troops. But if you can hold him back in Luxemberg, it will get you 1 VP + 1 troop per turn for the rest of the game. Same things goes for those pipsqueek nobles that start to arrive in the south: always leave them in their home territories so they can automatically place a control marker.

Most important of all: do your best to roll low for area control, and initiative on the turns that important variable leaders become available. This skill can be hard for new players to develop. It sometimes takes years of practice.

Also, snag Scottish variable leaders early on to prevent England from using them to take control of Scotland. Actually placing Scottish leaders in Scotland is risky since they usually get defeated... but taking them to deny them to England might prevent him from getting that Scottish VP for a few turns. Once England gets a control marker in there it's probably best not to mess with him... unless he's stretched thin due to leader death.

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

citizen k — 2008-11-02T14:57:05+00:00

You're missing the fact that the game is won or lost through the control of regions.

It has very little to do with battles, regardless of bowmen - at best a battle results in the death or capture of an enemy leader. If your opponent has sense and knows when to retreat - battles net little if any victory points.

Consider that Sieges and Battles do not win regions - only persuasion does. In fact, an uncontrolled region is a hollow victory if your leaders die there and lose all their troops to the wind.

As noted the French have interior lines, behind which are a sea of uncontrolled regions. To win, the French should have 2 or 3 star leaders wandering the countryside converting uncontrolled regions to the French cause. Weak royalty are especially useful at this, they fair poorly in battle but are very persuasive. Getting them away from battles also keeps them from overriding your really good leaders.

Burgundy is a major catch, get it as soon as possible, connect it to Ile de France with another region, and keep it garrisoned with a decent leader to quell any English usurpers. It gives you knights, three recruits a turn, and if need be siege gunners.

Use the flypaper rule to confine the English in Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, and any other toehold they manage to make in on the continent don't worry if you lose battles to do so. Remember the English pigs don't get to advance after combat, so next turn you flypaper them again. Learn how to lose battles and when to retreat. Use Scotland and Wales to give the English problems on their own island, to threaten their base. And persuade, persuade , persuade your way to victory.

An added bonus - every region you win to the banner adds recruits to your army - allowing you to absorb more punishment in battle and further restrain your opponent.

You'll see the balance tip.

My other bit of advice - protect your base, Ile de France. It might be under siege the entire game - but it forms the central bastion from which to build and maintain the growing Kingdom of France.

And remember, wargames are not necessarily about battles.

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

Dweeb — 2008-11-02T11:57:45+00:00

In the 100 years war scenario, at least, the French have superior leadership. Note that having a +1 to each die roll is almost like having twice as many dice, in that it doubles the chance for each die to hit.

Thread: Re: French strategy - what am I missing?

Dieroll Honker — 2008-11-02T11:44:14+00:00

The French have interior lines. They do better to avoid battle and rely on placement and maneuver. The French then need to make the most of it when they get some superior leaders, upon whom they can rely for battles.

Thread: French strategy - what am I missing?

wilk — 2008-11-02T09:03:58+00:00

So, I have several games of Warriors of God under my belt and, although I like the general concept very much, there is one thing that bugs me about this game. On the basis of these games I am inclined to think that the French are substantially inferior to the English on the battlefield because of the longbowmen.
In all my games the English player had no trouble completely thrashing his opponent in the battle phase which, of course, made his road to final victory a lot easier. (In pretty much the only game which was even remotely close, I avoided open confrontation when playing the French, which may be a valid strategy but makes reconquering territory and gaining any VPs at all a lot more difficult).
One of the things that make things even more hectic for the French is the fact that very many English commanders have the longbowman icon (I am referring mainly to the Hundred Years War scenario), which means that the English are constantly provided with a flow of free longbowmen which are not counted to the limit of 4 longbowmen in the countermix (2 English and 2 Welsh units) and the French player can't do anything about it. (Of course, he may have the opportunity of taking some Welsh neutral leaders, but don't think it's sufficient to even this out).
Hence, my general question is: how do the French win? I am sure there is some feature or a tactics that I overlooked, or maybe I just played the game wrong, for example miscounting the dice - just a quick note: an army of 7 units (including the leader) with 2 longbowmen commanded by a longbow leader with a combat rating of 5 would roll 8 dice (5 for the combat rating and 3 for the longbowmen) as opposed to the army of 10 units (including the leader) with no longbowmen commanded by a leader with a combat rating of 4 will only roll 4 dice, is this correct?

As always, thanks for your suggestions and clarifications.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Sturmkraehe — 2008-10-29T23:35:11+00:00

games with lots of die rolling always seem to end up at one end of the bell curve or the other when I play, and the more dice involved the wider that bell curve

Funny how it seems that some gamers buck statistical probability like that. I never fail to roll 11's and 12's for morale checks in ASL.

Rather than a bell curve we seem to follow the bell indentation.

Thread: Re: Phase 4, control : not clear at all

newuser — 2008-10-29T19:12:01+00:00

I agree with Simon and Michael. If there is more than one leader in an area, then all of those leaders must belong to the same side.

(All combat/sieges/retreats must be completed before checking for control of areas.)

Thread: Re: Aggression: very unclear situation....

simonluca — 2008-10-29T18:41:48+00:00

Ups..the problem was the set up of the lion scenario in england. I have found the thread. Sorrry.

The key of all problems is: All combat MUST occur in area with opposite leaders.

TKS

Thread: Re: Aggression: very unclear situation....

Chanfan — 2008-10-29T18:18:15+00:00

If an area has both an enemy and a friendly commander present, there should already be an aggressor marker.

One time I can see this being somewhat confusing is during leader placement. Remember that if you place a leader into an area with the enemy, you are the aggressor.

Once one side or the other is the aggressor, additional leaders moving in don't affect it.

Thread: Re: Phase 4, control : not clear at all

Chanfan — 2008-10-29T18:15:26+00:00

I am assuming of the same side, yes.

Thread: Re: Aggression: very unclear situation....

newuser — 2008-10-29T17:36:18+00:00

simonluca wrote:
About aggression: what happens in a combat whitout an official "aggressor" ? I means no aggressor marker is present.....
(This happen if I enter an area whit a enemy and a friend commander, isnit?)

??

How can an area have an enemy and friendly commander present, and not already have an aggressor marker? This situation should never be possible.

Rule of thumb: any time that both sides are present, you should have an aggressor marker present.

Thread: Phase 4, control : not clear at all

simonluca — 2008-10-29T17:28:54+00:00

Hello still me....(we need living rules....)

Where I read (pag.10)...... "You need only check contested areas that contain one or more leaders".....

I add: ....OF THE SAME SIDE !!! (I hope....)

If not.....I am playing another game.....

Just in case is not.....who goes first in the control attempt ? the initiave-player ?

many tks

ciao

simon

Thread: Aggression: very unclear situation....

simonluca — 2008-10-29T17:22:03+00:00

Hello the game is great but nnnnneeeeeeds living rules !!!!

About aggression: what happens in a combat whitout an official "aggressor" ? I means no aggressor marker is present.....
(This happen if I enter an area whit a enemy and a friend commander, isnit?)

We must skip phase "g" (pag.9 in the rules) and to do a mortal combat until the complete destruction of one side ? I means no retreat....

Tks

Simon

Thread: Re: scenario: 100 yrs War or Lion in Winter?

cmdr layman — 2008-10-24T18:12:43+00:00

I can definitely see that lion in winter would be more chaotic than 100 yrs war scenario, and would likely punish a newbie player that doesnt know how to play the system.. I'll take your advice and start out w/ 100 yrs war. Thanks!

Thread: Re: scenario: 100 yrs War or Lion in Winter?

citizen k — 2008-10-24T13:47:28+00:00

I recommend 100 yrs for newbies but prefer The Lion in Winter myself.

The latter can be lost in the opening turns through the sorts of mistakes that newcomers to the system are likely to make.

Start with one, and enjoy both

And remember, there's plenty of great Aussies who play

Thread: Re: scenario: 100 yrs War or Lion in Winter?

wifwendell — 2008-10-24T11:24:20+00:00

MerricB wrote:
They feel different.

100 Years War sees more defined borders and attacks; there's definitely a "your side" and "their side".

Lion in Winter is much more chaotic: nobles join your side from everywhere, and rebellious forces attack you when you least expect it.

Cheers!

Agree. As for balance, I haven't noticed any real difference. Seems the English or French can win either scenario.

Thread: Re: scenario: 100 yrs War or Lion in Winter?

MerricB — 2008-10-24T02:39:17+00:00

They feel different.

100 Years War sees more defined borders and attacks; there's definitely a "your side" and "their side".

Lion in Winter is much more chaotic: nobles join your side from everywhere, and rebellious forces attack you when you least expect it.

Cheers!

Thread: scenario: 100 yrs War or Lion in Winter?

cmdr layman — 2008-10-24T01:20:19+00:00

I just setup the 100 yrs war scenario and am going to solo through a few game turns to get the hang of it. I'm scheduling a ftf game of this soon, but was wondering from all you WofG experts out there, which scenario do you prefer? Is 1 more balanced than the other?

Thread: Re: Rules clearing on special units..

deltarn — 2008-10-15T13:12:16+00:00

Polydor wrote:
Rule 14.0

Non-aligned[black stripe] leaders can never command gunners or knights or chevaliers.

Agreed 100% following rules 14.0.

But sound strange historically for the following leaders:

scenario 1:
- Henry of Anjou (England / turn 2)
- Richard I (aquitaine 3)

scenario 2:
- Phlippe I (turn 5)
- Phlippe II (turn 9)
- Jean (Burgundy 7)
- and specially for Charles (burgundy 11).

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Websteria — 2008-10-09T14:39:10+00:00

As the guy who got the lucky deal of buying the game from Eric, I can see where his beefs with it are. To that end, I am thrilled with getting an out of print area control/war type game. One man's dislike... :-) So far my experiences have been it's almost half euro/half dice. It's not truly a war game or truly a euro, it's in between, and I think that's why I personally like it (so far in my solo play).

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

mcdeans — 2008-10-08T20:34:42+00:00

Basilius wrote:
Sagrilarus wrote:

Eric, what did your opponent think of the game?
You can read his account here: http://twosidestothecoin.blogspot.com/2008/10/broken-warrior...

I wasn't too fond of the game, although I didn't dislike it as much as I'd expected, perhaps because I'd been previously warned what it was like I knew what to expect. This is probably the first game we've played as part of the TSttC blog that I really wasn't looking forward to. The subject doesn't enthuse me, the mechanisms ;shudder;. (As Doug has already mentioned, games with lots of die rolling always seem to end up at one end of the bell curve or the other when I play, and the more dice involved the wider that bell curve.) It certainly isn't a game I'd purchase, although I could probably be persuaded to try it again, if you worked at it real hard. i.e. a solid '4' rating, according to the BGG rating guidelines.

And, for the record, I wish I'd chosen a better title for my blog entry than 'Broken warriors', as I don't consider the game broken, but was referring to all the armies that were left leaderless after all the die rolls. It was only after I'd posted, and then read Eric's entry, that I realized that my reference could be misinterpreted.

Mike

Thread: Re: Anybody know if MMP's going to reprint this?

kypros — 2008-10-07T14:40:03+00:00

That's correct (unless their website is simply not updated).

Most publishers will stop selling to distributors and retailers when they are down to a few copies of a game. So MMP probably has a handful of them left.

Cheers,
Jason
www.wargamedepot.com

Thread: Re: Anybody know if MMP's going to reprint this?

newuser — 2008-10-07T14:33:57+00:00

Worth noting that (as of posting this message) you can still order Warriors of God directly from MMP:

http://www.multimanpublishing.com/IGS/prodwofg.php

So it's not exactly "out of print", although the options for finding a copy seem to be narrowing.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

wifwendell — 2008-10-07T03:34:16+00:00

Dieroll Honker wrote:
We call it WofG, not WoG.

Yeah, that is an unfortunate acronym...

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Dieroll Honker — 2008-10-05T18:34:31+00:00

We call it WofG, not WoG.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

dcooley — 2008-10-05T17:03:42+00:00

Oh, you meant War! Age of Imperialism. I'd managed to wipe the memory of that game out of my head until this very moment. I've never played, but I did own a copy for a while, getting rid of it because the designer had no discipline over what rules to include or not include. Age of Empires III was one of his *better* designs, W!AoI one of his worst by all accounts, with the possible exception of that ACW game he did just before it.

My apologies for confusing what game you were comparing Warriors of God to. Given that both started as computer games with similar themes (civ-building) and have similar names, I think it was an understandable mistake, although still a mistake on my part. My point about the role of chaos in design still stands, although I don't have the experience with W!AoI to argue whether or not it was given a fair shake compared to Warriors. I'll admit that reading the rules to W!AoI didn't fill me with a lot of confidence in getting others to give it a try.

I have a lot of trouble using the acronym "WoG" for the game, btw, as Wog was a derogatory term used by the colonial British for their non-white subjects - Worthy Oriental Gentlemen. It was never intended in a complimentary fashion. It would be like having a game whose acronym was NiGR or KiK. Again, a personal preference, although one I'm not as consistent with as perhaps I'd wish. I mention this because I suspect some wonder why I don't just use the damned acronym.

For those unwilling to follow Eric's link to his opponent's report, I'll simply say that Mike didn't like the game either, but then I was the guy who told him he wouldn't like it because chaos hates him. Mike has, shall we say, a rather capricious relationship with the dice, hence the Deansian Statistical Distortion Field (tm). By his report, this was an anomaly game in every respect, although he has a *lot* of those. The running joke in our group is that he should just play the Simmons Napoleonic games and 18xx, since they have no dice or other significant luck element in them. There have been games where he has asked other people to roll the dice for him (often with success), although the Field extends on occasion to others, in this specific case to Eric. It is a chaotic and little understood phenomenon, deserving of serious scientific study.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Basilius — 2008-10-05T14:49:52+00:00

Sagrilarus wrote:

Eric, what did your opponent think of the game?

Sag.

You can read his account here: http://twosidestothecoin.blogspot.com/2008/10/broken-warrior...

I'm going to be responding to all the feedback soon, but I'm prepping for a week-long business trip and simply don't have the time until I'm on the plane to the East Coast tomorrow.

Oh, and Doug? I did, in fact, mean Age of Imperialism in my comparison.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Sagrilarus — 2008-10-05T14:46:10+00:00

Eric, what did your opponent think of the game?

Sag.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

dcooley — 2008-10-05T05:04:12+00:00

Reviewing this game after one playing, and one where the Deansian Statistical Distortion Field ran amok, is a bit shortsighted. Some of us clearly see a deeper game here, one where the very point is chaos management (which I even wrote a blog entry on back in August), and some of us also see a luckfest even after repeated play. Huh, the same is said about Combat Commander, another revolutionary design.

Others have listed where the reviewer didn't grok how the game is played, so I won't repeat them again. I'll simply say that I know Eric and Mike, know that they both play a lot of games where most gamers won't "get it" the first time out. I suspect that the production values (and, of course, a particularly skewed set of combat and leader death results that stretch the limits of statistical probability, but that's what happens when Mike is in the room ;-)) led them to believe they were playing a strategy game rather than a historical consim. That's the only way I can explain Eric's comment concerning how knowing what reinforcements are coming ruins replayability. It's sort of like suggesting that because you know when Patton shows up in a Bulge game that there's no tension.

I'm certainly one to talk, as I abhor poor use of chaos in games, and in fact Eric's mention of Age of Imperialism (which I hope has been changed to what I'm sure must be Age of Empires III) is a game that *I* sold after a single play, but because I saw that the discovery mechanism, which at least one player must be *forced* into pursuing or the game cannot progress, has a big effect on the game. I also have seen design problems in other games ranging from the Minor Improvement card deal in Agricola (fortunately, easily solved through a simple drafting mechanism) to the card sequencing issues in Shifting Sands (initially dismissed by the designer, later repaired through rule changes). Then there are games I'm finding I just don't like, mostly (you guessed it) multiplayer strategy games like Twilight Imperium. But I understand that I don't like those games for aesthetic reasons, and so I don't denigrate them just because of what they are. Except Thunder's Edge, of course.;-)

Chaos is just another design element that we have in the toolbox, and while I agree that Warriors of God certainly "appears* to have a huge emphasis on luck, in fact what it does is constrain the players into playing in what I can only assume is a historically authentic manner, in much the same way that the attrition rules in Paths of Glory attempt to force players into keeping a solid front of units. After one short solo play I was seeing how important area control was, and that the only reliable way to get it was through understanding what leaders were coming in what turns and to assume that you would lose a leader if you moved it out of a controlled area with a large army (because even if the leader dies, it's much worse to hand those troops over to the enemy, a mistake that the developer even points out in the rules).

I've had people tell me that my own game blog entries, meant mostly to create discussion and get people thinking about games, have dictated purchasing decisions. Frankly, that horrifies me a bit, as I do understand that people like games for different reasons, and I certainly hope that people use me as a single data point rather than *the* authority. However, if someone was to read this session report and choose not to buy this game as a result, I think that they've been done a disservice. If you don't like the game for legitimate reasons, fine. It behooves* us to understand a consim design before we dismiss it, especially publicly.

Doug

*Just for you, Mike, just for you. ;-)

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

newuser — 2008-10-05T04:24:56+00:00

I *really* like Warriors of God... but wouldn't dream of arguing that everyone will enjoy it as much as I do. The administrative stuff does take time. Turns can sometimes feel like a flowchart while you are learning the game, instead of speeding smoothly along. Luck is a factor in deciding the eventual winner and won't always balance out during the course of the game.

However, I think saying "it's not a good game" is a terrible mischaracterization. The game works exactly the way is was intended to, and gives players lots of strategic and tactical choices. (Ok, tactics are defintely more important than strategy... but there are bits of both that you have to use to be successful.)

Most important to me is the fact that this game always creates a real sense of character for each leader on the board, and a strong narrative for the overall action. The best game I can think of to compare it to is Combat Commander - not because of gameplay, but in how it can divide opinions between those people who "get it" and those who simply don't.*

*For the recond, I don't "get" Combat Commander and find that game to have been a huge waste of my money. At least Warriors of God was considerably less expensive and will go out of print much sooner, boosting resale value.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

Epee — 2008-10-05T03:45:06+00:00

Played this 11 times in little more than a month. There is a lot of luck, and I do believe TLiW scenario is biased against the French. Other than that, it is a good game, and there is more depth to it than you would think after a first playing. I've played it FtF with 5 or 6 different people, and everyone seemed to like it. I should add that most games took less than 2h to complete.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

ToddK — 2008-10-05T00:48:52+00:00

KillerB wrote:
Luckfest? Not.

I'd be willing to bet that anyone who doesn't understand the chaos management aspect of this game and who thinks it is a luckfest will lose 8 of 10 times to someone who understands how to use long term strategies and manage the inevitable chaos.

The reviewer has not gained enough understanding to appreciate this. Maybe if he invested a few more hours he wouldn't want those 2.5 hours back.

Totally agree!

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

stephenhope — 2008-10-04T23:51:32+00:00

I just meant that a lot of the shuttling troops around is nontrivial stuff and needs to have thought devoted to it, but it's not particularly interesting work. And that the part of the turn which is largely adminstrative (troop deployment, leader placement and death, control rolls) takes >50% of the turn most of the time.

And the first part is to say that I didn't feel as though I needed to be able to shuttle my guys through occupied-but-unowned spaces so I could have contiguity of my army or anything. But I totally agree that it gets repetitive, is too long for what it delivers, and loses steam from the constant breaks from the action to see who died, where the new troops are, etc.

EDIT: Words left out.

Thread: Re: But it looks so good on the table...

wifwendell — 2008-10-04T21:52:36+00:00

stephenhope wrote:
I've played the game several times, and think it's not a very good game. My reasons are more aligned with Sky Knight X's than with the OP's. I don't think there need to be better rules for control or redeployment. I think:

1. The administrative parts of the game take a long time and often require more thought to be put into them than you can get back in fun.

To this all I can say is, huh?

Image

squash — 2008-09-25T20:24:02+00:00

Labelled Baggies - An OCD geek's solution for storing counters

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-09-05T10:07:49+00:00

tiles

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-09-05T10:06:48+00:00

tiles

Image

Rainforhar — 2008-09-05T10:06:06+00:00

tiles

Image

rafial — 2008-07-24T22:16:53+00:00

Pondering a move

Image

rafial — 2008-07-24T22:15:39+00:00

Lion in Winter scenario

Image

vonDorffy — 2008-07-20T15:06:23+00:00

Lion in Winter Leaders